Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I have received a letter from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) asking for permission for an issue to be given precedence as a matter of privilege. It concerns a legal case that could potentially have the effect of preventing the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—also known as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman—from laying a report before Parliament under section 10(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. Standing Order No. 146 gives the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee the task of examining such reports.
The free flow of information to Parliament is essential to its work and, in the past, attempts to prevent communication to the House or its Committees have been treated as contempts. Accordingly, I have decided that this is indeed a matter for which I should allow the precedence accorded to issues of privilege. The hon. Member can therefore table a motion to be debated on Thursday. The motion will be taken after any urgent questions or statements and before Government business. It will be available to Members once it has been tabled, which I expect will be before the rise of the House today.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
Welcome back after the recess, Mr Speaker. We remain committed to international development, but we must modernise our approach. In a changing world, we are not just donors; we are partners, investors and reformers. We must ensure that every pound delivers for the UK taxpayer, as well as the people we support. Sharpening our priorities on humanitarian health, climate and nature, and ensuring that they are underpinned by economic development; prioritising our work with multilaterals; and shifting how we work will help us maximise our impact.
Edward Morello
Natural disasters like the earthquake in Jalalabad, recent wildfires and floods are becoming more and more frequent as a result of climate change. Support for Ukraine and for Gaza have survived the disastrous cuts to ODA, but what assessments has the Department made of the impact of ODA reductions on countries facing humanitarian and natural disasters, and can the UK still provide the amount of aid needed to prevent displacement and migration as a result of those crises?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member raises important issues. We have seen horrific scenes in Afghanistan, and he will know that we gave £1 million yesterday. We have also seen terrible scenes in Sudan this morning. He will know that tackling the climate and nature emergency around the world is a priority for us, and we continue to support humanitarian work around the world. Of course, responding to disasters remains a key part of that, and we have demonstrated that repeatedly in a number of contexts, through the support that we have given.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
Could the Minister update the House on the reduction in assistance to places including Myanmar, and on democracy there, and the imprisonment of Daw Suu?
Stephen Doughty
We have to make very difficult choices as a result of the decision we made. We remain absolutely committed to international development. The detailed allocations will be set out in due course, and they will of course be informed by impact assessments before we publish multi-year allocations.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
At a time when we face global development spending reductions across critical areas such as global health, women, peace and security, girls’ education, water, sanitation and hygiene, and nutrition, Ministers have chosen to increase energy and climate spending by £244 million—an increase of 59%. Could the Minister explain the rationale for that significant increase and outline how those funds will be allocated, particularly as, unlike in 2024-25, no breakdown of political priorities is available for scrutiny?
Stephen Doughty
As I have just said, we will set out the detailed allocations in due course; they will be informed by impact assessments. The right hon. Member rightly raises the issue of women and girls. Of course, less money does not mean less action, and we see our work on women and girls as essential for development and our UK missions overseas. We have appointed Baroness Harman as a UK special envoy for women and girls. We are amplifying the voices of women’s organisations and movements, including in climate-affected contexts, and embedding gender equality across our international action. That is absolutely a priority for us, and we will set out the details of individual programmes, informed by those impact assessments, in due course.
Mr Speaker
With congratulations on her marriage over the summer recess, I call Louise Sandher-Jones.
Louise Sandher-Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
May I begin by acknowledging the terrible loss of life in Tarseen in Darfur over the weekend? Sudan is facing its worst humanitarian crisis on record. Over 30 million people need aid, 12 million have been displaced, and famine and cholera are spreading. As the UN Security Council penholder, we are leading efforts to secure humanitarian access and the protection of civilians.
Louise Sandher-Jones
El Fasher has been under siege for over 500 days, and famine and cholera—all man-made problems—are rife. It has been described as the “epicentre of child suffering”. What is the UK doing to protect civilians and ensure that humanitarian aid can reach those who need it?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the leadership that she has shown on this issue. I spoke to the UN emergency relief co-ordinator just yesterday and raised this issue. Of course, we are supporting the call of the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs for a pause in fighting, so that aid can get in and the suffering can be alleviated. I will of course be leading on this issue as we head towards the UN General Assembly in New York.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Do the Government actually have an Africa strategy—not just for north Africa, but for sub-Saharan Africa—and does the Foreign Secretary share my concern about the apparent lack of focus on the importance of sub-Saharan Africa to the security of the United States, let alone to our security and that of Africa itself? I encourage the Foreign Secretary to reach out to the US Secretary of State, and to join European partners in having a joined-up Africa strategy to deal with climate change, famine and terrorism in the Sahel and all across Africa—issues that are impacting on communities there, and on legal migration to this country. Will he work with his American partners?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising Africa. The first thing that we did on coming into office was establish an Africa approach and a widespread consultation across the continent—that is absolutely right. We must be careful that authoritarian powers do not move in where the west exits. I reassure him that I have raised and discussed those issues with Secretary of State Rubio.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Given the devastation of the United States Agency for International Development, the temporary cuts in official development assistance and the growing desperate situation in areas of Africa, is the Foreign Secretary willing to meet me and colleagues who have worked in and care about the region, to understand our long-term strategy, particularly against China and Russia, which are moving in to fill that void?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful for the leadership that my hon. Friend showed on these issues before coming to this place; she continues to champion them now. On the Africa approach, and changes to development aid across the continent, whether they are made by us or by partners, either I or my colleague who leads on development will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Rapid Support Forces have trapped 260,000 civilians in El Fasher, half of whom are children, and many of whom are surviving on animal fodder. How are the Government working with allies to alleviate the effects on civilians of the terrible war in Sudan?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman will have seen that I led the Sudan conference, at which I brought third-party countries together to discuss those issues, co-ordinate across them, and ensure that nothing is done to exacerbate the conflict on that continent. As I indicated earlier, I expect to do more as we head towards UNGA, and to gather those third parties so that we get a pause and can get aid in.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
In response to the deepening crisis, the Foreign Secretary yesterday announced a further £15 million of aid and medical care for Gaza and the region, taking our total funding to £75 million this year. We are working to get children with the most acute needs out of Gaza and into the UK for specialist NHS treatment. The Foreign Secretary and I continue to urge the Israeli authorities to address the famine and the catastrophic humanitarian situation immediately.
Dr Savage
More than 20,000 Palestinian children have been hospitalised for acute malnutrition this year alone. Amnesty International has condemned Israel’s use of starvation as a “weapon of war”, and the UN deputy relief chief has called the aid blockade a “human-made crisis”. Will the Minister move beyond words of condemnation and commit to concrete action, including stopping all arms exports to Israel, and immediately and unconditionally recognising the statehood of Palestine?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Lady raises vital questions. The IPC—integrated food security phase classification—report over the recess was truly horrifying: 500,000 people in Gaza are facing famine. We continue to take the actions that we discussed in the House yesterday afternoon, in relation to recognition and the suspension of arms that could be used in Gaza.
Alistair Strathern
I share many of my constituents’ despair and anger about the intolerable suffering in Gaza. Last year, I had the privilege of meeting one of my constituents, Becky, to hear about her heartbreaking experience of delivering medical aid in Palestine. Devastatingly, a year on, the situation is much worse, with Gaza now the child amputee capital of the world and thousands more families pushed to starvation. There have been some welcome moves from the Government in recent months, but clearly not enough has yet been done—nothing can be until the suffering has stopped. What further urgent action can we take to finally secure access to the aid that Gaza desperately needs, and end this intolerable suffering?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend and his constituent, Becky. Over the recess, I met doctors who have served in Gaza. Hearing their first-hand accounts of the injuries that children are suffering there was truly horrifying. We continue to press the Israeli Government. They must act urgently to lift restrictions, open up aid flows and enable the UN and international non-governmental organisations to carry out their lifesaving work without obstruction. The Foreign Secretary delivered that message to Foreign Minister Sa’ar just last week, and over the past month we have delivered strong, co-ordinated messages with partners through joint statements.
Sarah Green
The Minister will know that Médecins Sans Frontières has referred to the locations used by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation as sites of “orchestrated killing”. What pressure are the Government bringing to bear on both the Israeli and US Governments to stop using the foundation and reinstate the United Nations-led system of aid delivery?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The Foreign Secretary set out our very clear views yesterday afternoon. The GHF is not working and has led to thousands upon thousands of injuries and many, many deaths at its sites. I have heard of the considerable looting that is associated with the lack of UN machinery—machinery that was functioning effectively. I am glad to tell the House that there does appear to be more aid getting into Gaza in total, and the cost of flour has slightly reduced, but there is still considerable looting. The aid operation is not working as it should. The UK supports the UN and its agencies. The GHF is not working.
Helen Maguire
The UN has now confirmed famine in Gaza City. More than half a million people face catastrophic conditions of starvation, destitution and death. This is a man-made disaster, described by the UN Secretary-General as “a failure of humanity”. At least 600 daily truckloads are needed to avert further famine-related deaths, yet Israel continues to block aid. Will the Government commit today to concrete actions to pressure the Israeli Government to lift the obstruction, including sanctioning all members of the Cabinet, including Netanyahu, who are complicit in the illegal aid blockade?
Mr Falconer
I have been clear already about our views on the vital urgency of lifting aid restrictions. I have gone myself to the border to see our aid in al-Arish. I have spoken to our partners. UK-Med, for example, has been chasing consignments since March. We make these points with force to the Israeli Government, and we have already taken far-reaching sanction action, as discussed by the Foreign Secretary yesterday afternoon.
Sarah Owen
In famine conditions, new mothers often eat last and eat the least. This time next year, around 55,000 pregnant and breastfeeding women in Gaza could be at risk of death by starvation that is man-made. Following Belgium’s announcement today of new sanctions and a review of contracts with Israeli companies, can the Minister say what consequences Israel will face if it continues to starve the population of Gaza?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend has a long track record of raising such issues, and she is absolutely right to highlight the fate of pregnant women and those who have recently given birth in Gaza. I am pleased to tell the House that we are still able to get some supplies relevant to those challenges into Gaza, but clearly in a famine of this nature, pregnant women and recently born children suffer the worst. We have allocated a further £3 million via the UNFPA—the UN Population Fund—to try to provide the services needed. We will continue to do all we can with the Israeli Government to ensure that they provide the access required.
Mary Glindon
President Trump and envoy Steve Witkoff played an important role in securing the previous ceasefire agreement. At crucial moments, Netanyahu has been receptive to Trump’s wishes; we saw that earlier this year, when Israel and Iran stepped back from the brink. As the White House has a defining role to play here, will the Foreign Secretary, with our allies, urge the US to apply its full weight to its leverage?
Mr Falconer
I agree very much with my hon. Friend. The US of course has a key role to play in securing a lasting peace in the region. As the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, he has raised the issues directly with his American counterparts, as have the rest of the ministerial team. I confirm the Government’s full support for the US, Qatar and Egypt in their vital work to secure a sustainable ceasefire.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
One hundred and sixty-eight days ago, the Foreign Secretary described the Netanyahu Government’s aid blockade of Gaza as a “breach of international law”, before correcting himself to describe it as only risking a breach. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary told the House that Gaza faces a “man-made famine” and that he was “outraged” by the Israeli Government’s block on aid, so do the Government now accept that Israel has breached international law?
Mr Falconer
Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary set out the long-standing position of Ministers on such determinations. Under the previous Government, the threshold that this House set Governments was whether there was a real risk. We have applied ourselves to that test, and we have found that there is a real risk. Our actions from September onwards have flowed from that determination.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The Diego Garcia military base is essential to the security of the United Kingdom and our key allies, and to keeping the British people safe. The treaty was tested at the highest level of the United States’ security establishment, which supported the deal. The agreement has been backed by our key allies and international partners, including the US and all our Five Eyes partners. India, Japan and South Korea have made clear their support for the deal.
Dr Evans
By not even trying to go to court or argue the case, the Government have cost the taxpayer £30 billion. Does the Minister agree with the Defence Minister who said that the deal represents “good value” for UK taxpayers?
Stephen Doughty
As I have explained many times in the House, those figures are completely misleading. The net present value of payments under the treaty is £3.4 billion. The average cost of the deal in today’s money is £101 million per year. That is just a fraction of our Defence budget, and represents a few hours of spending on our NHS. This Government will not scrimp when it comes to the national security of the United Kingdom and our allies.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Given that the Foreign Office has not agreed with Mauritius a defined financial allocation for the Chagos marine protected area; given that no additional money has been secured or ringfenced for environmental protection; given that no one who would be involved in the administration of the marine protected area has so much as visited the archipelago; given the very little communication between the Mauritius Government and the British scientific community, who currently protect the area; given that the capacity of Mauritius to patrol the archipelago for poachers is unknown; and given that it is not clear whether the dispute mechanism set out in the treaty can even be used if the UK deems that Mauritius is in breach of its marine protection commitments, what are the Minister’s hopes for this absolutely unique and priceless marine protected area? Can that all be fixed by the memorandum of understanding?
Mr Speaker
Order. Sorry, but I have a lot of Members to get in. I have given the Chair of the Select Committee a lot of leeway. It might be worth her putting in for an Adjournment debate, if there is so much to say on the subject; I would be more than happy with that.
Stephen Doughty
I thank my right hon. Friend for her interest in this important issue, which she and members of the Foreign Affairs Committee have raised with me previously. The Government have secured a deal that will help to protect the unique environment of the Chagos archipelago, supported by an enhanced partnership between the UK and Mauritius, under which we will support Mauritius’s ambition to establish a marine protected area to protect the globally significant ecosystems to which she refers. The agreement of the terms of the technical support and assistance is a priority within the ongoing implementation process with Mauritius. I have listened very carefully to what she says and she can be assured that I have already been asking questions about many of those issues.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Government have now been forced to admit the real cost of the catastrophic Chagos surrender deal: it is not £3.4 billion—oh no, Mr Speaker—it is a mind blowing £34.7 billion, which is 10 times more that we were told. No wonder Mauritius is planning tax cuts of its own, and it is British businesses and families who will pay the price. This deal leaves our country poorer, our defence capabilities damaged and our standing in the world weakened. Will the Minister now apologise to the British people for this epic failure in diplomacy, withdraw his Chagos surrender Bill and keep the islands British?
Stephen Doughty
How ever many times the hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) or the Conservative party in its emails to supporters make this claim about the cost, it does not mean that it is true—it is not. The £30 billion figure is inaccurate and misleading. It is wrong to ignore the cost of inflation and the change in the value of money, over the real cost of a deal that lasts 99 years. The figures are verified by the Government Actuary’s Department, drawing on long-established methodology. I have set out the costs. We will not scrimp on national security. Quite frankly, the brass neck from Conservative Members, after they disinvested in our armed forces and our defence over the entire time they were in office, is quite extraordinary.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
We are deeply concerned about the situation in Georgia, as I have discussed with my hon. Friend on a number of occasions. We are working closely with European allies to protect democracy in Georgia. In June, I convened a meeting of European partners to discuss and address the democratic backsliding in Georgia, and on 11 July the Foreign Secretary condemned the detention of opposition leaders in a statement with European Foreign Ministers. We remain committed to Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic path and democratic norms.
Blair McDougall
May I join you, Mr Speaker, in congratulating the Minister on his nuptials? I thank him for the lead he has taken on Georgia. He will know, because he has recently been in Georgia, that over the summer the situation has dramatically worsened: opposition leaders have been jailed, young democracy activists have been given life-changing prison sentences, and the civil society organisations that are trying to protect democracy have been threatened with prosecution. The complaint of the democracy activists I used to work with is that all of this brutality is happening while the regime’s money is washed through business associates in London. Will the Minister target the people who are responsible for this brutality and hold them accountable?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend raises important and serious issues. He knows that the Foreign Secretary and I prioritise tackling illicit finance more broadly. I will not comment on future potential measures, but he will know that we have imposed a number of sanctions on Georgian Dream Ministers, on police chiefs and on Georgian judges under the global anti-corruption sanctions regime. Indeed, in April we also sanctioned the general prosecutor, the head of the special investigatory service and other officials. I cannot comment on future steps, but he can be assured that I am following this issue daily.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I join others in congratulating the Minister on his nuptials—that is happy news for everybody. The Minister will be aware of the fantastic work that UK-based non-governmental organisations have done about civil society stability, which is crucial in these darker times. With the cuts to the international development budget, will the Minister assure me that work in that space in Georgia and elsewhere will not be undermined as a result of those cuts?
Stephen Doughty
I set out the position on the changes to our aid budget earlier. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we recognise the important work that civil society does in Georgia, and indeed more broadly, in ensuring a free society. He will appreciate that the situation there is very difficult. We have suspended all our programme support for the Georgian Government, restricted our defence co-operation, limited our engagement with Georgian Dream representatives and frozen the annual strategic dialogue in response to the very disturbing direction of travel that we have seen in Georgia. I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
It is indeed time for a step change in the UK’s response to the sinister crackdown on freedom and political opposition in Georgia. It is welcome that the Minister is assessing asset bans and freezes on those responsible for this wholly unacceptable situation. May I ask that he steps up efforts for the Georgian civil society counter-destabilisation hybrid activities, especially in the information space and the actors that might be involved in that? What discussions has he had with the US Administration in the light of the MEGOBARI Bill going through Congress?
Stephen Doughty
We engage regularly with international counterparts on Georgia and on wider stability in the south Caucasus. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of media freedom. He will know that we condemned the disproportionate and politically motivated sentencing of Mzia Amaglobeli in August; she has been sentenced to two years in prison, and we call for her immediate release. I also discussed the wider situation with Georgia’s fifth president, President Zourabichvili, on her recent visit to the UK, and I expressed my support for her work supporting democracy in Georgia. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I will not comment on further measures, but he can be absolutely assured that I am closely following matters, as are other colleagues across Government.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
I have been working closely with the Home Secretary to ensure that students from Gaza, including Chevening scholars, can secure their UK visas. We are expecting nine Chevening students to start their courses soon. I am pleased to say that we are extending this support to students in Gaza with full scholarships.
Abtisam Mohamed
Yara is a 24-year-old student from Gaza City. Her ambition is to study international law and global justice, and earlier this year she won a scholarship at the University of Sheffield to do just that. Yara is one of more than 80 scholarship students trapped in Gaza today, displaced again and again, with all her belongings packed into a small bag and ready to move at a moment’s notice. This scholarship offers her a chance to escape Israel’s genocide, famine and bombardment, which has flattened more than 1,000 buildings in Yara’s neighbourhood in just one week. Can the Foreign Secretary guarantee that Yara and other students like her will not be left stranded and will be immediately evacuated by the Government in time for their courses to start this month?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing Yara to the attention of the House. Of course we want to see bright students like her able to achieve their ambitions. We are reliant on Israeli permissions and on students having a full scholarship, but what I can do is ensure that the Minister for the Middle East meets my hon. Friend to discuss this case in detail.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Along with thousands of other children, my youngest son is today going back for his first day at school. Unfortunately, more than 660,000 Gazan children—those who have not been butchered or maimed irreversibly by the Israel Defence Forces—are being denied schooling for the third consecutive year. That is not surprising, given that 97% of schools have already been virtually destroyed. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the next generation of Palestinians can access education, alongside launching a bespoke visa system that enables students to come to study here in the UK? If not, why not?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise with the House the plight of children in Gaza. Yesterday I mentioned my concerns about malnourished children and what that does for their educational outcomes. Yesterday he will have heard the Home Secretary and myself undertake to do more to support students with full scholarships to come to our country. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, I press the Israeli Foreign Minister on these very same issues.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
The situation on the ground in Gaza is horrendous, and we urgently want to see a deal done to end the suffering on all sides. An immediate ceasefire is our overwhelming priority, alongside the unconditional release of all hostages and a large-scale delivery of aid. The ceasefire must be sustainable and lead to a wider peace plan, which we are developing with our international partners.
Matt Turmaine
My constituency of Watford is a richly ethnically diverse community. When I speak to residents there about the conflict in Gaza, the overwhelming desire is for the killing to stop, for the hostages to be released and for the people of Gaza to be able to live in peace. Will the Secretary of State further outline what steps the Government are taking to aid international efforts to broker the ceasefire and what is frustrating it?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Diplomacy, not bloodshed, is how we get security for both Israelis and Palestinians, and getting to a ceasefire is the immediate priority. I will be in the region again in the coming days, discussing with them the Prime Minister’s framework for peace, which is the only plan, and how we govern Gaza and move forward once we get to that ceasefire, building a consensus around a sustainable end to the conflict.
Torcuil Crichton
I reiterate the concerns raised last night by my fellow journalist and hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) in highlighting Gaza as the deadliest war for journalists. Over 189 have been killed since October 2023, despite reporters being categorised as protected civilians under international law. Israel seems set on a deadly campaign to silence journalists in Gaza while refusing entry to other international journalists. Can the Secretary of State join me in condemning that strategy and in paying tribute to those who are risking their lives to get news out of Gaza, and also commend our own domestic broadcasters—including the much-maligned BBC—for keeping us informed on what is going on there?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the House’s attention. I strongly condemn all violence directed against journalists, and call on the Israeli authorities to make every effort to ensure that media workers across the region can conduct their work freely and safely. Deliberate targeting of journalists is entirely unacceptable. International humanitarian law offers protection to civilian journalists during any armed conflicts, and those laws should be abided by. I call for all attacks to be investigated and for those responsible to be prosecuted.
Dr Allin-Khan
Last week’s Nasser hospital bombings murdered many innocent people, including five journalists, and the double-tap method used was particularly barbaric. Article 79 of the Geneva convention states that journalists are civilians during war, and article 8 of the Rome statute makes it clear that attacking civilians in a hospital is a war crime. I agreed with The Guardian’s editorial yesterday when it stated that
“Israel wants to stop the world from seeing what it’s doing”.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the Nasser hospital bombings are a war crime, and what action will he be taking against Israel?
Mr Lammy
On 21 August the UK joined a Media Freedom Coalition statement calling on and urging Israel to allow immediate independent foreign media access and afford protection to journalists operating in Gaza. There must now be a full, independent investigation into what happened at the Nasser hospital, and my hon. Friend is right to call to mind the importance of abiding by international humanitarian law.
Josh Newbury
The world has watched in horror as humanitarian aid has been blocked from reaching Gaza, leading to a famine that is claiming the lives of those who survived the bombs. Meanwhile, in the west bank, the Israeli Government turn a blind eye to rampant settler violence and openly approve new settlements that could end the very possibility of a two-state solution. Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that he is doing everything he can, not only to end the mass killing but to secure a lasting peace between two equal states in Israel and Palestine?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. The confirmation of famine is utterly horrifying. I am appalled by the shocking levels of settler violence, and I have been clear that Israel must clamp down on that violence. The Government have introduced three rounds of sanctions related to settler violence, including the July sanctions on Ben-Gvir and Smotrich for the incitement of violence against Palestinian communities. The only way to deliver long-term peace and security for Palestinians and Israelis alike is through a viable two-state solution.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The remaining hostages in Gaza—those who are still alive—are being starved, persecuted and prevented from getting any form of medical aid. When the Foreign Secretary visits the region, will he force the International Red Cross to seek the hostages and ensure that they are given the medical attention they need?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman has always brought the issues of hostages to mind in this House, and I applaud him for that work. I met with hostage families just before the summer recess, and I will again in the coming weeks. The recent photos showing hostages malnourished and starved were obscene, and I will do all I can to ensure that they get the aid and support that they need, underground in those tunnels.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
It is clear that the stated war goals of many elements of the Israeli Government are not a ceasefire and a lasting peace between two communities living side by side in peace, but ethnically cleansing Gaza and preventing a viable state in the west bank. Will the Secretary of State therefore commit to sanctioning the head of the Israeli Government, Benjamin Netanyahu?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman should look closely at the three packages of sanctions that we have had since coming to office. He will see that there is no other country in the world with the range of sanctions against those who incite in particular settler violence and expansion.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Israel has breached two ceasefires to date. Its bombing, its killing and now its starvation have continued for months. It is not just the hostages who are not getting food; it is also babies, children, women and men. The impunity that Israel has to continue to perpetrate war crime after war crime, atrocity after atrocity—when will the UK and the international community say enough is enough and take real action to put an end to the killing and to help the hostages be freed?
Mr Lammy
It is not enough to assert it or say it. That is why we restored funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. That is why we have had three packages of sanctions. That is why yesterday I announced an extra £15 million of aid. That is why I have spoken to my Israeli counterpart nearly every week—certainly every month—that I have been in office. It is why we have corralled the international community with the statements we have made. It is not about words; it is about action to bring this to an end.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Secretary of State was very clear yesterday that if we want peace, we must ensure that the hostages are released. If we want peace, we must ensure that Hamas are ousted from Gaza. If that happens, we will have a peace that will last. I know that he is committed to that, for he said so yesterday, but will he reiterate that for the Chamber and those who are here?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman knows a lot about standing up to terrorists. Hamas are a proscribed organisation. There can be no role for Hamas. We need the total demilitarisation of Gaza. Those leaders who are there must leave and exit the country so that the Palestinian people can be freed from the plight of what Hamas are raining down on them.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
We have been clear that we will recognise a Palestinian state by the United Nations General Assembly in September to protect the viability of the two-state solution, unless the Israeli Government take substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza and commit to a long-term sustainable peace.
Chris Law
The United Kingdom Government should never have placed conditions on the recognition of the state of Palestine—there is no place for it in international law. However, given that it is clear that Israel has failed to comply with these conditions, can the Secretary of State confirm that the UK will unconditionally and immediately recognise the state of Palestine at the UN General Assembly next week?
Mr Lammy
High-level week is not actually next week; it is in three weeks’ time. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is most bizarre to say to a responsible Government that they should not attempt to change the situation on the ground to encourage Israel to commit to a ceasefire and to a process? Of course we should use all diplomatic efforts to do that, notwithstanding what we said about the assessment we will make on recognition at the appropriate time.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
We all want to see an end to the suffering and progress towards a two-state solution, but what assurance can the Foreign Secretary provide that in the recognition of Palestine there can be no role for Hamas in the governance of a Palestinian state?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Let me be crystal clear. Hamas must never be rewarded, and we will not reward it by the UK’s recognition of Palestine if we reach that point. Our demands of Hamas are absolute and unchanged: it must immediately release all the hostages who were cruelly taken on 7 October 2023 and held in the most atrocious conditions, which we have already discussed in the Chamber this morning.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
Until Putin stops his barbaric assault, we will keep tightening the screws on his war machine with even more sanctions. Since coming to office we have sanctioned more than 680 individual entities and ships, more than double the number of designations made in 2023.
Cameron Thomas
Vladimir Putin is in Beijing this week, where he has hailed the unprecedented levels of ties between China and Russia. For once I hope that the Government will actually take him at his word before China builds the super-embassy in our capital.
China has ceased exports of drone components to Ukraine, and both Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un are propping up Putin economically. I commend the Prime Minister for uniting a coalition of the willing, but what tangible action is it taking to ensure that Ukraine wins against three adversaries?
Mr Lammy
I thought that one of our proudest moments was watching President Zelensky walk up the steps of No 10, and reflecting on the role that the Prime Minister has played in corralling the global community around the coalition of the willing. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the Prime Minister with President Zelensky again in Washington DC just a few weeks ago. In all that we are doing—on the oil price cap, in raising the issue of Russian sovereign assets with our G7 and European partners to try to resolve that issue, and through sanctions—we are leading the world.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
May I join colleagues in sending my warmest congratulations to the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), on his recent nuptials?
Over the summer recess, reports emerged that the Russians had launched an online “catalogue” of the children whom they have stolen from Ukraine. This grotesque database allows Russian families to search for Ukrainian children by hair and eye colour. The Russians are advertising their war crimes in real time. What further action are the Government taking on this issue, and can the Foreign Secretary assure me that it will be the highest priority in discussions with the President of the United States during his visit later this month?
Mr Lammy
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue once again. It is absolutely a standing item on the agenda with our friends in the United States, and of course we discuss these issues with our friends in Ukraine. Very shortly, my hon. Friend will see a further announcement in relation to this terrible atrocity.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
As Ukraine passes the grim milestone of its fourth independence day since Putin began his barbaric invasion, we have seen nothing but sustained aerial assaults and brutality from Putin. May I ask the Foreign Secretary directly what he will do to redouble his efforts in relation to sanctions—specific sanctions on those who are profiteering and making money from Russian oil? That is effectively what is fuelling Putin’s war machine and his barbaric assault on democracy.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful for the cross-party support in the Chamber on the issue of Ukraine. We have done a lot to lower the oil price cap, which I think has been essential. We, alongside the last Government, have the largest package of sanctions anywhere in the world against Putin’s war machine. I cannot comment from the Dispatch Box on further sanctions, but the right hon. Lady will see an announcement very shortly.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
Yesterday I updated the House on the unimaginably bleak situation in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I shared the latest on Iran’s dangerous nuclear programme, and my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary set out Britain’s unwavering support for Ukraine. May I also mention the tragic earthquake in Kunar province in Afghanistan? We have announced a package of support for those who have been killed.
Sir Ashley Fox
The Foreign Secretary wants to pay a huge amount of taxpayers’ money to Mauritius to lease back a military base that we already own. Why is he afraid of holding a vote on this policy?
Mr Lammy
I know that the hon. Gentleman has not been in Parliament very long, but he will see that there is a Second Reading next week, and of course there will be a vote.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Ind)
Mr Lammy
I say to my hon. Friend that we have been clear right throughout this crisis that Palestinian territory must not be reduced in the conduct of this war, and we do not support the forced displacement of people. Palestinian civilians must be permitted to return to their communities and rebuild their lives.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Joint Committee on Human Rights’ recent report into transnational repression recommended that China be placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, alongside Iran and Russia. Clearly, this follows concerns following the China audit and the national security strategy, so I have a very specific question for the Foreign Secretary: when will he recognise that China is a threat to our national security and put it on the enhanced tier of FIRS?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Lady and I exchanged debate when we published the China audit. There was discussion at the national security strategy, and the Defence Secretary also set out his concerns about Chinese activity in the South China sea in the defence strategy. There have been a lot of debates and discussion in relation to China, and I have been very clear that there are areas where we will co-operate, but we will always challenge where we must.
Priti Patel
On 7 August, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary about the deadly sectarian violence that we have witnessed in Syria, which threatens further destabilisation and fallout that we all know could come soon. While I have not received a response, I did specifically ask in that letter whether he would call for justice and accountability for those responsible for the recent killings—the reports are very shocking. Does he agree that there could be a role for the Commission for International Justice and Accountability, which I understand the Minister for the Middle East met and praised in Damascus just last week?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising this issue. It was important for me to look into the eyes of al-Sharaa when I was in Syria, and the Minister for the Middle East was also in Syria very recently. I have been concerned about the increase in terrorist activity and about the position of minorities, and of course we continue to discuss this with the Syrians. We are also worried about those in the neighbourhood, like Israel, as some of the activity is destabilising what is going on, and of course I will look at the issue that she raises.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
First, I express my deep condolences over Holly’s death. I know this is a very distressing time for Mr and Mrs Woodcock and the whole family. My hon. Friend will know about the consular support that is being provided, as we have spoken about that. I would, of course, be very happy to meet him and the Woodcock family to discuss the matter further, although he will understand that I cannot get directly involved in overseas investigations by authorities in France.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Business Secretary is due to travel to China next week to restart trade talks. His trip will fall 50 days after Beijing announced its latest round of extraterritorial bounties, targeting 19 pro-democracy Hongkongers, including several more UK-based activists. In an earlier answer, the Minister laid out the many steps to sanction the Georgian Government for their assault on democracy. Will the Foreign Secretary implore the Business Secretary to cancel his trip and press for a block on all UK ministerial visits to China until Beijing rescinds those bounties?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
In June, the Minister for Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), and I met the UK activists targeted by the Hong Kong arrest warrants and bounties. We have raised concerns regarding the arrest warrants and bounties directly with the Chinese ambassador here in London, reaffirming that the safety and security of Hongkongers in the UK is of the utmost importance to the Government. The matter is being raised at all levels—by Ministers and by the Foreign Secretary, and will indeed be raised, if there is such an occasion in the future, leader to leader.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I thank my hon. Friend for her sustained engagement in these issues. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we talk regularly to hostage families in Israel and to participants in Israeli politics right across the spectrum, and we will continue to do so. We make our disagreements with the Israeli Government clear, both in private and in public, and we will continue to do that, too.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Mr Falconer
The Foreign Office seeks in its consular assistance to always provide timely support to British nationals overseas. I will investigate the case and report back to the hon. Lady.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her work on these matters. We have seen those reports; the Foreign Secretary referred to them in the House yesterday afternoon. As I said earlier, the threshold that the Government must test against is the one we outlined in September, which is about the real risk. We have found that there is a real risk, and our actions have flowed from that determination.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Mr Lammy
I assure the hon. Gentleman that our National Security Adviser and I are in direct touch with the Ukrainians on these issues, and the Chief of the Defence Staff was in Washington last week following up on these matters. I think we are all grateful to Tony Radakin, who leaves today after 35 years of service to our country, for the work he is doing. Of course, the Defence Secretary is also co-ordinating via the coalition of the willing.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend has long advocated these questions. I pay tribute to the work of Save the Children and other UK non-governmental organisations that have continued to do dangerous and lifesaving work in Gaza. I met many of them over the recess. There are a number of restrictions in place in relation not simply to the passage of aid into Gaza, which we have discussed in this House a number of times, but to the function of the NGOs themselves. We keep a very close interest in this and have raised it with the Israeli Government.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important matter on behalf of her constituents. I can reassure her that the UK Government have called on Beijing numerous times to repeal the national security law, which provides for the autocratic treatment of people abroad, such as her constituents. We continue to work closely with the Minister for Border Security and Asylum to ensure that anyone here in the UK is safe and that their families in Hong Kong are also safe.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Mr Falconer
Mr Speaker, as there has been a number of different reports on this, let me clarify that we believe that it is the Houthi Prime Minister, rather than the Yemeni Prime Minister, who has recently been struck. The Houthis, as the House knows, are a threat not just to the people of Yemen and to the region, but to international shipping. I have engaged closely with the Yemeni Government, including with both the previous Yemeni Prime Minister and the current Yemeni Prime Minister, who I am happy to report is still alive.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one of the worst aspects of the actions of the Israeli authorities is the continual stripping away of the dignity of the Palestinian people in Jerusalem and the west bank? Only last week, the Greek Orthodox patriarch learned that, for the first time in history, Israeli authorities launched a property tax on Greek Orthodox churches. There was international outrage at the freezing of bank accounts. That has made a difference. Can this House and this Government stick up for the rights of the Palestinian people? Not even the Ottomans tried to impose a church tax.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the Father of the House for bringing to mind the situation in the west bank. Of course it is important that Israel has its full security, but the violence, the expansion, the denial of funds and the chilling effect on civil society are all of huge concern, which is why we fund and support organisations on the ground and work with civil society.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
We are at a pivotal point in our defence procurement. Is the Minister engaging with allies like Morocco to use defence exports as a way to bolster trade relations?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend has extensive experience in defence and I am grateful to him for his question. During the UK-Morocco strategic dialogue in June, both sides agreed to deepen our defence industrial co-operation. I am glad that two memorandums of understanding between the UK and Morocco have since been signed thanks to the work of the Foreign Secretary.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
It has now been some weeks since President Trump invited the leader of the Russian Federation to the United States of America. Since then, Putin has increased his assault on the civilian population of Ukraine and shown no sign whatsoever of reaching the ceasefire that was desired, so Trump’s initiative has failed. Will the Foreign Secretary use his visit to the United Nations next week to call again for real United States sanctions on Russia?
Mr Lammy
We applaud President Trump’s efforts to bring about a sustained and sustainable peace, and there are detailed discussions going on about security guarantees and what role the United States may play as a result of the summit, but our assessment is that Putin is not up to seriously negotiating. We condemn the killing and the loss of life that has continued, and the injuring of a security guard at the British Council.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
We need to recognise that, due to climate change, conflict and population growth, forced and economic migration is only going to increase. My Committee will shortly publish a report on displaced people, covering both the drivers and possible solutions. I note with concern that Jordan—a country that houses many refugees—is receiving a 35% cut this year. Will the Foreign Secretary outline his strategy to keep people safe and economically viable in their own or host countries, and how that can be achieved with a dramatically reduced ODA budget?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful for the work that my hon. Friend continues to do on her Select Committee to champion the cause of people across the world who are suffering. She will be pleased that climate remains a priority, notwithstanding the changes that we have had to make in our development spend. We recognise that climate often drives migration routes, so our very important upstream work has to continue.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Given communist China’s predictable support for the killer in the Kremlin’s campaign of murder and mayhem in Ukraine, why are the Government rewarding China with a super-embassy in London?
Mr Lammy
There is no reward. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is a quasi-judicial process that must be approached properly. Under the Geneva convention, all countries are entitled to an embassy.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
First, I pay tribute to my constituent Anne Strike for her constant campaigning for the eradication of polio. Sadly, we have seen cases of polio in warzones like Gaza. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to ensure that we eradicate this disease once and for all?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question; polio is an issue not just in Gaza but in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Eradication is vital, and we are committed to an eradication campaign. We have helped 600,000 children and we will continue to work on this vital question, including in my region.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Secretary of State reiterated the issue of the conditional recognition of the state of Palestine. If the Government want to do that, would it not be better equally to make it a condition that any future state of Palestine does not threaten the right of the state of Israel to exist, and that if anyone carries out terrorist actions from any future state, they will be handed over to the international authorities?
Mr Falconer
There have been important commitments about the future nature of any Palestinian state, including from President Abbas, who said that any such state would be demilitarised. There was absolute clarity in New York—where we made the announcement about the recognition decision—that Hamas can have no future role in Gaza and that a future Palestinian state must pose no threat to an Israeli state. Two states requires two states living in safety and security and posing no threat to each other.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I welcome the sanctions that the Government have put in place on the Israeli Government, as in their current form they are not a reliable or trusted partner. Has the Foreign Secretary ordered a review of the UK’s relationship with the Israeli Government over the last 13 months? If not, why not?
Mr Falconer
I set out the detail of the sanctions to which my hon. Friend refers, and the Foreign Secretary has announced a review of some of the elements of our bilateral co-operation with Israel, including a number of steps in relation to free trade agreements and so on.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I am grateful for the leadership that the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Middle East showed over the summer in their visit to Syria and in engaging with the Syrian Government, especially on the violence that took place in Suwayda. As UK special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, I was particularly worried to see that the violence especially affected the Druze and Christian minorities in that country. What more can we do to work with the Syrian Government to ensure that they protect all their citizens, regardless of their religion?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend asks a vital question, which I raised directly with the Syrian Minister of Justice and the Syrian Foreign Minister last week. The violence—in coastal regions, targeting Alawites, and in Suwayda in the south, targeting Druze and others—was deeply concerning. The Syrians have conducted an investigation relatively independently in relation to the violence at the coast. I called on them, as the Foreign Secretary has done before, to do everything they can to ensure that minorities in the new Syria feel safe and protected by the Syrian Government.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Despite the strategic dialogue referred to by the Foreign Secretary, the Government have decided to veto the UK-Morocco power project, so what are they doing in practical terms to maintain the momentum in our relationship created by the association agreement signed with Morocco in 2019?
Mr Lammy
There was no veto. It is right that the Government look at all projects through a value-for-money lens. I was very pleased to be in Morocco, I remain engaged with its Foreign Minister, and I will build on that strategic visit. There is much to do over the coming months.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I was pleased to read that the Government are finally taking steps to rejoin the Erasmus+ programme—something for which the Liberal Democrats have been calling for some time. Will the Minister now set out a timetable mandate and expected terms for UK reassociation with that programme?
Stephen Doughty
I do not want to go into the details. We are involved in many different discussions with the European Union following our historic summit on 19 May. I attended the Gymnich with Foreign Ministers in Denmark last weekend. We are progressing this alongside the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, and we will provide details in due course.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Save the Children reports that 61% of pregnant women and new mothers in Gaza were malnourished in early August: a sharp rise linked to the blockade and health system collapse. Will the Government consider enabling the medical transfer of pregnant women needing specialist care to the UK and outline their strategy for supporting Gaza’s long-term recovery, stability and maternity health? These children are the future of the two-state solution.
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is right, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), to raise the fate of pregnant women in Gaza, and indeed of those who have recently given birth. I am happy to meet her to discuss these issues in greater detail.
Speciality Steel UK: Insolvency
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
I would like to make a statement regarding the insolvency of Speciality Steel UK Ltd, which is part of the Liberty Steel Group. Hon. Members will have seen that the High Court granted a compulsory winding-up order against Liberty Speciality Steels on 21 August, and the company has now entered liquidation.
First and foremost, let me say this: the Government stand with the affected steelworkers in Rotherham, in Sheffield and in Wednesbury. We stand with their families and the communities, who will undoubtedly be worried at this difficult time. I would like to reassure them and all those employed by Liberty Speciality Steels that we are standing by with our rapid response teams to give immediate support on the ground if required, that we are working with the trade unions and the South Yorkshire Mayor, and that we are working with the councils and hon. Members from affected constituencies to offer all the help we can.
I also want to stress that there will be no immediate changes to the current operation of the business, including to employees’ jobs. Following the appointment of special managers, the company’s sites have been secured and employee payroll processed within 24 hours. Other Liberty Steel companies outside Speciality Steel, such as Liberty Dalzell and Liberty Hartlepool, are not affected by this action.
Following the company’s liquidation, the official receiver has been appointed as liquidator by the court. Hon. Members will know that the official receiver operates independently of Government, with a statutory duty to act in the best interests of creditors.
Yesterday, I laid a departmental minute notifying the House of the contingent liabilities associated with this intervention. I regret that, due to the liquidation taking place during recess, we have not been able to follow the usual notice period of 14 parliamentary sitting days. However, a copy of the departmental minute will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. In addition, the Government have agreed to funding for the official receiver, who will now stabilise operations. The official receiver will gather company information and report to us on the likely next steps, including options for the company’s business and sites. The total costs will depend on market conditions and the strategy adopted by the official receiver. However, that will be subject to close scrutiny by my Department and the Insolvency Service.
As the House will be aware, the company has faced severe financial and operational difficulties since 2021. Liberty Speciality Steels had failed to file accounts for over six years—a failure that has led to a separate prosecution by Companies House of its parent company. I am sure that the official receiver will want to gain a better understanding of the company’s business and the conduct of its directors leading up to the liquidation. I also inform the House that the director of the company is currently under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office for suspected fraud, fraudulent trading and money laundering. Given that, I am sure hon. Members will agree that it would have been wholly inappropriate for the Government to enter into commercial arrangements with the company.
This Government will always take difficult decisions when they are in the national interest. That is why, in April, we acted to prevent the pre-emptive closure of the blast furnaces at British Steel in Scunthorpe. In the case of Liberty Steel, the lack of transparency, the legal and financial risks and the complete absence of reliable corporate information meant we had no credible route to act before insolvency. It is worth noting that Liberty Speciality Steels uses electric arc furnace technology that can be powered up or down as needed—although it should be noted that those furnaces have not been operating since July of last year. That was the situation this Government inherited.
The circumstances in Scunthorpe were fundamentally different. British Steel operates the UK’s last remaining blast furnaces—assets that, once shut down, cannot simply be restarted. Allowing those blast furnaces to be closed pre-emptively would have removed our ability to make strategic choices about the future of steelmaking in Scunthorpe, and that was not a position this Government were prepared to accept. Scunthorpe was therefore a truly exceptional situation and that is why we took the unprecedented step of implementing the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 to maintain the safe operation of the blast furnaces.
The situation with Liberty Speciality Steels is not comparable. The company was issued with a winding-up order by the High Court due to longstanding financial issues. Spending taxpayers’ money on a company operating in such a way would have exposed taxpayers to hundreds of millions—potentially billions—of pounds in hidden costs.
With all that said, I very much believe that the steelmaking sites in Rotherham, Stocksbridge, Brinsworth and Wednesbury have a future. I am keen to see them return to production, but that has to be achieved through private investment by an owner who can invest in the workforce and in the future of the business so that they put it on a long-term, sustainable footing. We know that the business environment has not been good enough for the UK’s steel industry, which is why we have already made substantial changes to secure a stronger future for it. I will say more about the steps that we have taken shortly.
In the case of Liberty Speciality Steels, it goes without saying that the company’s hardworking employees are key to turning the sites around. Their skills and expertise will be essential in delivering that brighter future. However, in its current state, producing only minimal volumes of steel and with many employees still on furlough, we know that some tough choices lie ahead. It is now for the official receiver to determine the next steps in the insolvency process. But let me be clear: this Government will stand by this workforce and do all we can to support them through this period of uncertainty.
Despite the challenges facing the steel sector today after years of neglect under the previous Government, we believe that this industry will bounce back and grow stronger tomorrow. This Government are doing everything we can to make that happen. We are pressing ahead with a bold steel strategy for the UK, set to be published later this year. That strategy will set out our vision for a competitive, decarbonised and resilient domestic steel industry. Our approach is clear: we want the UK steel sector to thrive, with strong private investment and commercially sustainable operations at its core.
Under our new industrial strategy, we have already announced some major policy changes to increase the future viability of the steel industry. We are reducing electricity costs for steel producers by increasing network charge discounts through the supercharger from 60% to 90%. We are changing Government procurement rules via the publication of a new steel public procurement notice to ensure that UK-made steel is considered for all public projects. We are also strengthening current steel safeguard measures, ensuring that UK steel producers will not be undercut while still ensuring that the UK has a steady and reliable supply.
Hon. Members will know that we have also secured a much-improved deal for the workers of Port Talbot—something the Opposition repeatedly said could never be achieved—and we delivered it alongside a £500 million grant to support the transition to low-carbon electric arc furnace production. I was proud to attend the groundbreaking event for this in July with the chair of Tata Group. We will continue to work hand in hand with this vital British industry to ensure its long-term success.
Let there be no doubt that, for Liberty Speciality Steels, we will pursue every option to keep steelmaking in Rotherham, Sheffield, South Yorkshire and the west midlands. We will offer all possible support to the independent official receiver on the all-important next phase, and we will continue to work with hon. Members across the House to ensure that the UK remains a proud steelmaking country now and for many years to come. I commend this statement to the House.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving me advance sight of her statement today, but here we are again: another day, another Government takeover of a key British manufacturing plant, another 1,500 jobs—1,500 people—facing an incredibly uncertain future, and the prospect of significant job losses alongside the wider economic impact across supply chains and in aerospace, defence and power generation that would result from the collapse of this specialist steelworks.
Despite so many warm words about the steel industry, despite so many Labour promises to the people who have worked their whole lives in that industry, and despite the impression of superiority while in opposition, this Labour Government are failing British industry. They are failing to provide certainty of policy and the economic growth that they said was their central mission, and they are failing to get a grip on the issues that affect thousands of working people’s lives. The Minister says she wants to provide certainty to the steel industry and the people who work in it. She says that we can expect a bold steel strategy for the UK, but where is it? The Government are not new any more; they have been in power for a year now, and there is still no clarity on this supposedly bold strategy.
The British steel industry faces a fierce dual set of pressures: new 25% US tariffs and continued high energy costs. We all know that the energy costs in this country are too high, yet they have been driven only higher by this Government’s ideological obsession with prioritising decarbonisation over economic growth. Back in May, Liberty Steel warned that it faced significant challenges due to soaring energy costs, but instead of focusing on tackling the underlying causes of expensive energy, the Energy Secretary is backing windmills while leaving Britain’s oil and gas industry in the doldrums. He is leaving our amazing British oil and gas—our greatest energy source—trapped under the North sea. This is economic illiteracy aimed at satisfying their own green obsessions. From steel to chemicals to cars, builders and makers across Britain are paying the price of this Government’s socialist green agenda, and it is their workers and investors who will lose out.
On tariffs, despite the economic prosperity deal agreed by the Prime Minister and President Trump, the agreement’s provisions lowering US tariffs on UK-produced steel and steel derivative products have still not come into effect. The Government have repeatedly avoided answering questions in this House on when the agreement will come into effect. We heard no mention whatsoever of it in the statement today or in the note yesterday, so I ask again: when will the provisions lowering US tariffs on UK steel come into effect?
Of course, even if those provisions do eventually come to fruition, steelworkers should beware of this Government, who have overpromised and under-delivered before, with devastating impacts for workers. Just look at Jaguar Land Rover. The Prime Minister looked workers dead in the eyes and promised that he would protect their industry and save their jobs. He then used those workers as a Labour propaganda photo opportunity across television and the front pages when the UK-US deal was announced, but little over two months later, Jaguar Land Rover announced it was cutting 500 jobs. The very same workers who were promised everything by the Prime Minister were left out in the cold by this Labour Government’s inability to secure a better trading relationship with our closest ally.
Let us today try to get some clarity on what exactly this Minister has done and will do for the British workers impacted at Liberty Steel. First, she announced that the Government had agreed to funding the official receiver and that total—
Mr Speaker
Order—[Interruption.] No, it’s no use nodding at me. I have not gone over time; it is the shadow Minister himself. I am sure he is now coming to a conclusion.
Gareth Davies
I am, Mr Speaker. Although I have lots of questions, I will ask just two very quick ones, if that is okay.
Gareth Davies
I will, Mr Speaker.
What is the budget for the official receiver? The Minister has not laid out any costs. She has said that it is related to market conditions but has not set out any estimates. She knows that the Treasury will have approved estimates, so please will she set those out? The Government have made the National Wealth Fund allocate £2.5 billion to British Steel. Can she assure us that they will follow the investment allocation that assures its operational independence—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, it is not acceptable on either side of the House to take advantage of the Back Benchers who want to get in. You have a set amount of time. If the Minister can stick to it, I expect the shadow Minister to do so. If the Minister goes over time, I do then grant time the other way. Please do not do this again.
Let us come to the Chair of the Select Committee.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister needs to respond. It’s been that long that I had forgotten.
Sarah Jones
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall just explain to the shadow Minister how the system works. The Government have not taken over control. That is not the process of the official receiver. The official receiver was appointed following a court case which began in 2024. It has been a very long and arduous case.
The hon. Gentleman will hopefully understand that I cannot set out the cost of the official receiver at this point because the official receiver has only just begun his work. It is very early days and we cannot be specific. We know the numbers will be in the millions, as opposed to anything more substantial, because the company is not operating in and of itself. What we are doing is ensuring that the salaries are paid, which I hope the whole House would agree is the right thing to do. Companies will be coming forward and expressing an interest in buying parts of the company, and it will be for the official receiver to look at that and see what process we should go through, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the actual numbers on that. I hope the whole House will understand why not.
On the shadow Minister’s wider point, if this Government had not intervened, thousands of people would have lost their livelihoods in Scunthorpe; that is a fact. If this Government had not intervened, we would not have had a better deal for the workers in Port Talbot, we would not have been there supporting them in the transition, and we would not be there supporting the building of the electric arc furnace, which began back in July.
The shadow Minister asked what this Government have already done. We have already changed the rules on procurement. I have worked closely with colleagues in the Cabinet Office on that to ensure that where Government are spending money, we are spending on British business where we can—something his Government failed to do. On energy prices, we have committed to lowering prices through the reduction in costs that will come from the expansion of the super-charger—something his Government failed to do. We are working on a bold strategy, which we will publish this year, that will build on that. Whether on trade protections—on which we have already taken measures—our scrap policy, R&D, jobs, apprenticeships or skills, we will have a bold strategy because we believe in steel, unlike the previous Government, who said that manufacturing is a Victorian pursuit best left to the Chinese. We do not agree with that approach.
Liam Byrne
I congratulate the Minister on saving Britain’s real engineering from years of financial engineering which was not in the best interests of this country and was more in the interests of the self-enrichment of the people behind it. The question for us today, though, is what steps the Government will now take to ensure and safeguard a growing, thriving industry. Will the Minister reassure the House that she will use us on the Committee to oversee the liabilities that the Department has taken on? Crucially, will she set out when she expects those lower energy costs to kick in, when she expects the tariff barriers in the United States to come down, and when she will tie together the steel strategy, which I hope she will publish as soon as possible, for the House to debate?
Sarah Jones
I thank my right hon. Friend for those helpful questions. He reminded me that the shadow Minister had asked about the US. Of course, we are in a position where the world has tariffs of 50% on steel and aluminium; we have 25%. We are working with our US counterparts to reach a conclusion to those negotiations. My right hon. Friend will know that the President is due to come to the UK and, of course, we will be doing all we can to get that negotiation concluded at pace.
My right hon. Friend asked about energy costs. We are seeking to ensure that there is a viable steel industry into the future and that those companies currently talking to the official receiver about wanting to take over and invest in Liberty can do so in a way that will make them money. On the charges we are reducing—the 60% to 90% super-charger extension for network charge relief—to give an example, it will mean about £4 to £5 relief per tonne of steel produced. We know that Liberty is not producing what it can at the moment, but two or three years ago it would have been producing about 300 tonnes of steel per year, so it would have saved up to £1.5 million on its energy costs. That is a substantial reduction and something that I am sure he will welcome.
On the liabilities, of course we want to be as honest, open and transparent with the House as we possibly can. A lot of the liabilities are with the creditors at the moment. We want to come to the House as soon as we can to ensure that we are setting out the costs that we incur. My right hon. Friend is right that the steel strategy this year needs to be bold, and we will of course look to the work that his Committee has done to help us in that.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
May I start by associating the Liberal Democrats with the Minister’s remarks in support of the employees, families and communities who are affected by this latest development? We welcome the Minister’s coming to the House today to provide some clarity.
Steel is a sector of huge strategic importance for our country. It provides vital materials for our national infrastructure, from defence to renewable energy, and it creates thousands of jobs across the UK. The neglect of the steel industry in recent years is just another part of the previous Government’s disastrous legacy. With Putin’s barbaric war in Europe and Donald Trump’s damaging tariffs causing economic turmoil, securing the future of steel production in this country is more important than ever. That is why the Liberal Democrats firmly believe that nothing should be off the table in supporting this critical sector.
For too long, our steel industry has been neglected. The Conservative Government oversaw a string of near collapses and last-minute deals. They scrapped the industrial strategy, which is so vital to our manufacturers, and put in place new trade barriers, which constrained our exporters. In the light of this latest insolvency, will the Minister set out what actions the Government are taking to set our steel industry on a truly sustainable footing? What reassurance can the Government provide that job losses can be avoided in the future? What progress has been made in bringing down industrial electricity prices through the measures announced in the industrial strategy? What are the Government doing to press President Trump to finally drop his damaging 25% tariffs on our steel exports? Finally, what steps are the Government taking to treat steel as the nationally strategic asset that it is, ensuring that more British-made steel is used to power our national infrastructure and other major projects here in the UK?
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. She is right to ask about how we ensure that this nationally strategic asset is protected, and we are doing that. I have just set out the reduction in energy prices that the steel industry as a whole will benefit from—extending the super-charger from 60% to 90% to give network charge relief, which will bring significantly lower costs for energy prices for our steel industry. We are prioritising the procurement of British steel where the Government are spending money, because we believe that that is the right thing to do. We have already introduced protections for steel trading, and we are ensuring that we do everything we can, talking to our US counterparts all the time, about reaching a conclusion on the negotiations on the steel tariffs. I am optimistic about those conversations.
Of course, I speak to officials and other Ministers, and to the steel industry, about these issues all the time. We are lucky to have the Steel Council that we put together—trade unions, industry and others who are helping us to develop what we think will be an ambitious steel strategy that will ensure that the steel industry will not decline. The strategy will ensure that we will not be in the position we are currently in, where only 30% of the steel we use in this country is made in this country, and that we will be in a position where we can protect those good, experienced jobs and those good people who we want to support and make sure the industry grows.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that as long as I have been an MP, I have been coming to this Chamber arguing for support for Speciality Steel in my constituency. I politely say to the shadow Minister that the difference in response from this Government is night and day from what I had under the Conservatives. I personally thank the Minister, and the Secretary of State, for having such an open-door policy to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). I know the Minister is doing everything she can to save this speciality business.
One of the first actions of the official receiver was to release approximately 30 apprentices who were due to start their training in the next few weeks. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government will not only commit to the business but acknowledge that it can survive only with its highly skilled, committed, professional staff and that she is as committed to them as she is to the business?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks; they are gratefully received, and we will continue to do all we can to support the steel industry. She is absolutely right that a number of apprentices were due to start this week, but the official receiver took the decision that, given that the 12-month continuation of the apprenticeships could not be guaranteed, it was right to try to find them other placements. I am taking a close personal interest in what happens to those 50 people. I know the local authority and the Department for Education are trying to ensure that we can find other places for them. I want to make sure that we can do so, because one of the things this Government are passionate about is ensuring that our young people have the apprenticeships to give them support for the jobs that we know we need into the future.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
The Minister is obviously incredibly committed to the steel industry, as we all are, but manufacturing will continue to struggle in this country when it pays energy prices that are so much higher than competitors in Germany and France. Can the Minister assure the House that in a year’s time, following the Government strategy, manufacturers—whether ceramics or steel—will be paying the same amount for their industrial energy prices as their German and French competitors?
Sarah Jones
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Of course, our energy prices are too high and it is difficult for companies to compete. We are taking action to address that, in the first instance by expanding the super-charger, which will make a significant difference to industries that use significant amounts of energy. We will also introduce an electricity scheme in 2027—it is a complex process and will take time to bring in—meaning that around 7,000 companies across the country will also have significant reductions in their energy costs. We are taking what we believe to be the right measures in our industrial strategy through those two interventions, to ensure that our energy costs come down and that we can be competitive among our European counterparts.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Liberty’s Speciality Steels UK has failed its highly skilled workers. This ongoing situation has been deeply concerning, so I am delighted that the Minister has offered her solidarity and the Government’s support for the incredible workforce at the site in South Yorkshire. It is hugely positive—and a great contrast with the 14 years of Conservative Government—that this Government have stepped in and appointed an official receiver to protect the 1,400-plus jobs at the two sites, including Stocksbridge Speciality Steels in my constituency. The Secretary of State has acknowledged in this Chamber the strategic significance of those sites to national security, and we must ensure that those businesses are supported in fulfilling their capability and have, as the Minister has recognised, a strong future. Will she take adequate time to find a responsible buyer with the right deal, and during that time will workers be kept in employment with salaries continuing to be paid, while efforts are made by her and the official receiver to resolve the outstanding pension issues?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend and I have spoken many times about this—she is such a champion for the industry, as are many colleagues. She is right to point to the importance to the country of the work at Stocksbridge. Of course, we will do what we need to do through the process of the official receiver to ensure that people get the salaries that they need. For the past couple of years, so many of those people have been on furlough—we want to turn that around. We believe that this viable industry is languishing unnecessarily. The Government will provide the right support through interventions such as our energy reduction measures, and work with the official receiver. I can tell her that multiple companies are interested and coming forward, and we need to establish how viable those offers are and what the best situation is. Of course, the official receiver must think of the best outcome for the creditors, but we take a close interest in that. My hon. Friend is right to point out the pensions issue. I know that there is uncertainty. The official receiver and Teneo are considering these issues now to see exactly what has and has not been paid so that we can unpick the pensions issue.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
This is the second crisis in the steel industry in the past year. It impacts other commercially operated industries that are critical to our national security. In Lancashire, the failure to place an order for 25 Typhoon jets is risking thousands of jobs in the critical defence industry of BAE Systems. There is also a lack of join-up between Departments, which do not realise that the whole life-cycle of nuclear fuel manufacturing is equally critical for our national infrastructure and impacts on hundreds of highly skilled jobs in Lancashire at the Westinghouse Springfields site. Will the Minister update me on her work with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that commercially operated industries that are critical to our national defence capability and security are strategically supported to be sustainable in the future?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the importance of our defence industry and the need for us to support it. Of course, the industrial strategy outlined eight growth-driving sectors that we believe can be turbocharged with Government support—defence was one of them. We have published those sector plans, apart from the defence one, which will come shortly—he should look out for it. We have significantly increased funding for defence, which will lead to thousands of jobs across the UK. I will work closely with my colleagues in defence, particularly the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, to ensure that we procure UK jobs where we can and support our industry to grow.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
First, I thank the Minister for her action—after 14 years of inaction by the Conservative party, it is a welcome change. Sheffield is synonymous with steel, particularly special steels, after Harry Brearley invented stainless steel in the city over 100 years ago. The Minister mentioned public procurement, and consideration being given—I think those were the words she used—to the purchase of British steel. May I ask her to be clearer about what “consideration” means? I hope that it means looking not simply at the narrow issue of costs for a product, but at the wider benefits of purchasing UK steel—benefits to the steel and engineering sectors, as well as to the broader economy. Will she assure us that when public procurement takes place, those wider considerations will come into effect?
Sarah Jones
Yes, within the parameters of what we can do legally, in terms of subsidies. We are ensuring, and the Cabinet Office is keen to ensure, that when we spend public money, we buy British. The value of that, and of British jobs around the country, is recognised in the contracts that we pursue. My hon. Friend talks about the importance of steel in his area. I have talked with colleagues about developing a steel corridor, which I think is important. We are pursuing that through the steel strategy.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The Minister was right to come here today to make a statement on such an important part of the national infrastructure. It is just a shame that no Minister has ever made a statement in this House on Grangemouth. We have now learned that the Chancellor met INEOS chair Jim Ratcliffe just three weeks ago—just three weeks before Petroineos Grangemouth closed—but she did not do so much as raise the refinery with him. In her statement, the Minister said: “the Government stand with the affected steelworkers in Rotherham, in Sheffield and in Wednesbury. We stand with their families”. That is quite right; so do we in the SNP. But why have this Labour Government never stood with the workers of Grangemouth?
Mr Speaker
It is up to the Minister to answer that question if she wants to, but the statement is about steel, rather than petroleum.
Sarah Jones
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will just say that we have very much stood with the workers of Grangemouth. We are investing, through the National Wealth Fund, £200 million to support that development. I have had multiple conversations, and the hon. Gentleman and I have spoken multiple times in this place, about how we will support industry in Grangemouth to transition and grow, and provide significant support to workers where they lose jobs. I fundamentally disagree with the picture that he paints.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her action. Steel remains a key part of the South Yorkshire industrial and economic strategies. Can she reassure the House that workers’ wages and livelihoods will continue to be prioritised throughout the whole process, and will she join me in thanking our hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for their work to champion not just the sites in Stocksbridge and Rotherham, but the South Yorkshire steel corridor?
Sarah Jones
Of course. I share that gratitude for those amazing colleagues who stand up for what they know to be right and sensible. We are protecting not something that is not worth protecting, but something that has a vibrant and viable future; that is what we are working towards. We are working closely with the South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority and the Mayor. In broader advanced manufacturing in the region, including the innovation district and research centre, there is a huge wealth of expertise and talent that we can build on.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for the frankness of her statement. She says that the director of the company is under investigation for suspected fraud, fraudulent trading and money laundering. Can she reassure the House that that will not in any way hold up the Government in taking any remedial steps that they need to take in support of the industry and its workforce? For background knowledge, will she tell the House precisely what sort of specialisms this plant offers, given that it names itself a Speciality Steel enterprise?
Sarah Jones
The right hon. Gentleman should perhaps go for a tour and see what the speciality is, but it is defence, aerospace and industrial engineering on the Stocksbridge site. The Rotherham site has two electric arc furnaces, which feed the Stocksbridge site, and there is huge expertise there. There are a number of other sites that feed various sectors, such as the automotive industry, hydraulics and a whole range of others. There are a range of specialisms.
On the investigation, the official receiver will look at what is true and what is not, because there have not been any accounts published for many years. They will establish what has happened. The Secretary of State has written to the Insolvency Service today to ask it to take special account of the Serious Fraud Office investigation, and to pass over any information it uncovers to the Serious Fraud Office, so that it can do its work.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on the decisions she has made in the last few weeks. We in Sheffield are very proud of our steel industry, and we want to resurrect it. We want people to be proud of the city, and to get into the same work that their grandparents did many years ago. Constituents who have been in contact with me on the issue will be very relieved, following the reassurance that the Minister has given, but if she could clarify the pension issue, that would offer even more reassurance.
I am so proud to hear our Minister speaking about steel, and I am quite disgusted at the way the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), and other Conservative Members have tried to pretend that they did not run down the steel industry. They never even had a steel strategy in all their years in office. They really ought to apologise for the absolute rubbish they were talking.
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out the failings of the Opposition, which we all understand very well. On the pension issue, I recognise the concern that people will have. We have to let the official receiver get under the hood and work out what has been paid and what has not, because that is not clear. Once we know, we will look into that and do what needs to be done, but I do not want to say something on the subject until we know the reality.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I congratulate the Minister and the Government on doing the right thing in supporting our steel industry. I have been expressing concern about Liberty Steel since 2021. This is a critical moment, and it will be interesting to see whether private sector investment can be attracted into electric arc furnaces, with electricity prices where they are. I think there is a better solution, which I have spoken about outside this House: merging Speciality Steel with British Steel to create a cohesive, excellent, strong champion of our steel industry that we all support into the future and invest in. That is the way to ensure economic growth in this country.
Sarah Jones
The official receiver is independent. Of course, we are very interested in this, and are keeping in close touch with the receiver on what comes out of this. The hon. Member’s idea is not necessarily foolish, on this occasion. This is a legal process, and the official receiver legally has to think of the creditors who have suffered throughout—we have to think of them as well, and make sure we do the right thing—but we will continue to do everything we can to make sure that there is a viable future, whatever form that takes.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Like others, I very much appreciate the support being given today and the wider work being done on energy prices, procurement and more. By complete contrast, the Conservative party had no steel strategy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) said, and had a woeful record on steel over 14 years. However, market conditions are particularly tough—a point made to me strongly by trade union representatives at Llanwern steelworks over the summer—so will the Minister ensure that we support the steel industry as a whole, including Llanwern, and that Wales gets its share of the green steel fund?
Sarah Jones
We talked before Parliament returned about how we can support Llanwern and the work done there. My hon. Friend is right that this is a difficult time for the steel industry. There are headwinds that we need to address: we need to conclude the negotiations with our US counterparts and bring in energy price reductions, which will make a big difference, and we need the steel strategy. We are putting all these things in place. We believe that there is a great future for steel in south Wales, and we will continue to support it.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
British warships are made with a mixture of UK and non-UK steel. What impact will this announcement have on that mix, particularly for the Type 26 frigate programme, about which we had some good news earlier this week?
Sarah Jones
Navantia, which is building three ships, has recently entered into a contract to use Liberty’s steel; that relates to the Dalzell plant in Scotland, so it is unaffected by the announcements we have made today. Of course, I work very closely with my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to ensure that we use British Steel where we can, and that we have the right infrastructure across the country, producing the right types of steel. We produce some types of steel for defence and not others, and some types of steel for shipping and not others. We need to do everything we can to protect British jobs and produce what we can here in the UK.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
It would have enhanced the shadow Minister’s response if he had at least acknowledged that this Government are literally picking up the pieces after the chaotic dismemberment of the steel industry on the Conservative party’s watch. I have worked at Stocksbridge and Rotherham, and I pay tribute to the workforce there—but also to the dedicated steel team in the Department, who I know will have been working long hours in supporting the Minister on this.
The Government now own, control or fund three of the UK’s six steel companies. While a full merger of British Steel and Speciality Steel is one option, at the very least a review of all the assets under the Government’s purview would be a good idea, to see whether we can create more sustainable, investable businesses and reintegrate some of the internal supply chains. Would the Minister consider that?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his words, and particularly his thanks to officials in the Department, who are brilliant; I work with them very closely, and they have not had many weekends throughout the whole steel process undertaken by this Government. His expertise is very much welcomed. We will continue to speak about this, as we did yesterday, and to use his expertise. Of course, we need to look at the whole situation. He is right that the Government are now involved in a number of steel companies, although we do not have ownership of any of them, and it is a different kind of involvement in different parts of the country. We are reviewing all that, and we want to see what the best mix is; we will continue to take his advice on that.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
The Government have made direct interventions for steel jobs in Scunthorpe and now in Rotherham. That is no comfort for steelworkers in Wales; no similar measures were taken to protect their jobs. Can the Minister explain why her Government will save jobs in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, but will only help workers in Port Talbot to write CVs and search for new jobs?
Sarah Jones
As the hon. Lady will know, one of the blast furnaces had already closed by the time we came into government. We had long conversations with Tata about a different model that we had hoped it would pursue. We were unsuccessful with that. We have now improved the outcomes and the support for that workforce, and I was very pleased to be at the first stage of the build of the electric arc furnace at Port Talbot in July, which will secure many thousands of jobs there. We will continue to support Port Talbot with the £500 million that we are investing.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement, and for the decisive action this Government have taken to safeguard steel jobs across the country. Liberty Pipes is delivering an important contract for the Government’s landmark carbon capture, usage and storage project in our region. Can the Minister provide assurance not only that those jobs in our region are unaffected, but that this project continues at pace?
Sarah Jones
Liberty Pipes is separate and is not part of this situation at all. Of course, there will be concern in the wider group about the impact—I understand that—but at the moment, there is no crossover. Liberty Pipes will continue to do what it is doing and, I am sure, will continue to support the CCUS industry, which is great news for the workers there, and great news for us.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It is good news that Liberty Steel Dalzell in Scotland is not involved in this immediate crisis, but it is not shroud-waving to suggest that the difficulties in the wider industry may mean that one day it will become involved. When the overdue steel strategy arrives, will it be a 360° look at steel production as a whole, in every corner of this country? Will the Minister help Scottish colleagues get to the bottom of the Scottish Government’s murky deal with this company, which means that they are on the hook for potentially as much as £565 million, a quite incredible sum, which is deeply troubling? The Scottish Government are using the devolution settlement to hide behind. What is going on there? Will she shine a torch of truth on that aspect of the steel industry?
Sarah Jones
As the hon. Gentleman knows, Dalzell is a separate legal entity, so it is not affected, but he is right to worry about the overall situation and its possible impact on the company. I will look into the point he raised about the Scottish Government and Liberty. We are looking at what the steel industry should look like across the whole of the UK; the devolved Governments are involved in the steel strategy, as well as the unions, the industry and others, so we are taking a holistic view of the whole UK to see what we can do with steel.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister is right to state that the business environment has not been good for the UK steel industry. The main cause for that adverse environment, of course, has been high energy prices—twice as high as those of European competitors and three times higher than those of US competitors. Given that the energy sector reminds us daily that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero intends to continue his manic obsession with net zero, which has caused the high energy prices and this environment, how does the Minister hope to attract the private investment that she says is necessary to make the industry bounce back stronger and to grow tomorrow?
Sarah Jones
Industrial energy prices doubled under the previous Government. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the impact of the Ukraine war on our energy prices highlighted how we are reliant on the global oil and gas market. That is why we are pushing for clean energy by 2030, to take us away from that reliance and to stop such a crisis happening again.
I should point out that the crisis at Liberty is nothing to do with energy prices—it operates electric arc furnaces, so it is not anything do with carbon pricing or anything else the right hon. Gentleman might be referring to. He is right that energy prices are too high, which is why we are intervening. We will see a significant reduction in electricity costs when we extend the industry super-charger from 60% to 90%. As I outlined earlier, in a scenario where Speciality Steel is producing what it was producing a couple of years ago, that will give it upwards of £1.5 million off its energy costs. That is a lot more than the previous Government ever did.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
UK manufacturing has been undervalued for far too long. One of the best ways to support industry is to ensure that its cost base is as low as possible. Will the Minister commit to the House that, in 12 months’ time, UK manufacturers will face lower energy costs than today? Will she also rule out further national insurance increases?
Sarah Jones
UK manufacturing suffered under the previous Government, who had no strategy, did not really believe in it and allowed thousands of jobs to be lost across a range of different industries. This Government are taking a fundamentally different approach: we have an industrial strategy under which we intervene directly to grow the industries of the future, including foundational industries such as steel, which are so important to us for many different reasons. We are also introducing energy price reductions that, for companies such as Liberty that use high levels of energy, will mean significant reductions in their costs by next year. We are introducing an additional energy reduction for a wider group of up to 7,000 companies, which by 2027 will also receive a significant reduction. Again, that is something that the previous Government never did.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her statement and for her commitment. On anything that I have ever had to speak to the hon. Lady about, she has always been willing to try to achieve something to give security for jobs, and I thank her for that personally. The fact that some 1,450 jobs are on the line is devastating not only for all the families concerned, but for the subsidiary supply companies and those that rely on high-quality steel for their manufacturing. In Northern Ireland, for example, that includes Harland & Wolff, aerospace and the construction sector. For the future of steel, the sector must continue to win future contracts for our industry. How can she provide certainty in these uncertain days?
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He is right to point to the supply chain and the need for us to support not just the key industries, but the whole network of small and medium-sized companies across the whole UK, not just in Northern Ireland. I was in Belfast a couple of weeks ago, and I was delighted to see at Harland & Wolff the building under way of the three ships that are part of the MOD contract with Navantia. I was also pleased to go to Spirit, given our good conversations with Boeing about the future of that site and what it could look like. I also met lots of other parts of the industry. Advanced manufacturing in Northern Ireland is showing the way in lots of new technologies that we need to support. I will continue to support them.
Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the Minister, I remind hon. Members that they should avoid referring to any active cases that are currently before the courts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
I would like to update the House on the progress being made to deliver Baroness Casey’s recommendations following her national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse, which was published before the summer recess.
The sexual exploitation and abuse of children by grooming gangs are the most horrific and despicable crimes. Girls as young as 10 were exploited, abused and brutally raped by gangs of men, and then disgracefully let down again and again by the authorities that were meant to protect them. These despicable crimes have caused the most unimaginable harm to victims and survivors throughout their lives and are a stain on our society.
Baroness Casey’s report chronicled more than a decade of inaction on these appalling crimes by previous Governments, despite repeated warnings and recommendations. But this Government will not lose any more time in pursuing truth and justice for victims and survivors, who deserved so much better. That is why, on 16 June, the Home Secretary made it abundantly clear that this Government will accept all 12 of Baroness Casey’s recommendations, including the establishment of a new statutory national inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation, and a new national policing operation to get more perpetrators behind bars. Since then, we have made significant strides in laying the foundations for a robust, survivor-centred national inquiry and in establishing a national policing operation, while continuing to drive forward the major workstreams that were already well under way to tackle those abhorrent crimes.
I will first update the House on the progress made to establish a new national policing operation to get perpetrators who exploit, abuse and harm children behind bars, where they belong. Today, I can announce that Operation Beaconport has been established. It will be overseen by the National Crime Agency and delivered in partnership with policing, including the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the CSE taskforce and the tackling organised exploitation programme.
For the very first time, this new national policing operation brings together all the relevant policing partners under one operation, to ensure a swift and specialist law enforcement response to grooming gang offending. This collaborative approach ensures that a long-term investigative capability is built across policing and that best practice is standard, ending an unacceptable postcode lottery for victims and survivors. The new national operation will eliminate inconsistencies on how cases are handled across forces and will ensure that there is no hiding place for perpetrators. Victims and survivors are central to the operation, and trauma-informed practice will be at its core. Over the summer I have been meeting survivors and their support organisations on the issue.
This work is already well under way. In January the Home Secretary asked police forces to identify cases involving grooming and child sexual exploitation that had been closed with no further action, to pursue new lines of inquiry and to reopen investigations where appropriate. As a result of that commission, 1,273 cases have now been identified for formal review, and the new national operation has identified 216 highest priority cases—those that involve an allegation of rape—which are being accelerated as a matter of urgency.
We expect policing to meticulously pore over those cases and work with associated victims to relentlessly pursue perpetrators who should be behind bars. That includes the ongoing investigation relating to South Yorkshire Police’s handling of reports into child sexual abuse and exploitation in Rotherham. Following discussions between the Independent Office for Police Conduct, South Yorkshire Police and the National Crime Agency, I can confirm that it has been formally agreed that the investigation will now be carried out by the NCA, under the direction and control of the IOPC.
Alongside these ongoing reviews, Operation Beaconport will also provide additional support for police forces to conduct complex investigations, and to ensure that specialist best practice is being adopted consistently across the country. I thank the CSE taskforce for the work that it has done in preparing the way forward for these investigations. I can announce to the House today that in the first year that this Government were in office, from July 2024 to July 2025, the taskforce contributed to 827 arrests nationwide, an 11% increase on the previous year.
To bolster this vital work, I can update the House that last month I announced that the Government would be injecting £426,000 of new funding to the tackling organised exploitation programme, in addition to the £8.8 million that we are already investing in the programme this year. The new funding will enable TOEX to extend access to its suite of cutting-edge investigative apps and digital tools, stored within its secure capabilities environment, to all police forces in England and Wales. Following my announcement of a further investment, in addition to the 15 police forces that are already utilising TOEX tools, a further 10 forces are currently onboarding.
The TOEX expansion crucially supports the first phase of Operation Beaconport. Police officers will be able to access the AI-enabled tools to assist with detecting and investigating child sexual abuse and exploitation, including TOEX translate, a tool for bulk translation of foreign language text from seized mobile devices, which has enabled savings of an estimated £25 million so far, and the data analysis and review tool, which analyses large amounts of digital data to identify communications patterns and relationships between suspects. Further announcements on Operation Beaconport will be made by operational partners shortly. A comprehensive update is expected in the coming weeks, setting out the full scope of the operation and the support available to those affected.
We will never shy away from the facts in these cases. Following Baroness Casey’s audit and her conclusions on the disproportionate role of Pakistani-heritage gangs, and building on the work that the Home Secretary had already commissioned to improve ethnicity data in relation to those crimes, we have also committed to making it a requirement to collect ethnicity and nationality data of suspects who commit child sexual exploitation and abuse offences. The Home Secretary has written to chief constables to signal that the current data collection across ethnicity and nationality is unacceptable, and that this data must be improved as a matter of urgency. Work is now under way looking to amend the annual data requirements to support this process, and we are looking at legislative options to drive forward these improvements.
Finally, Baroness Casey recommended the establishment of a new statutory national inquiry that could compel targeted investigations in local areas, to get truth and justice for victims and survivors, and to drive meaningful change in local systems and structures that had failed so many people in the past. I can confirm that the national inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse will place victims and survivors firmly at its heart. Crucially, it will ensure trauma-informed, accessible engagement for victims and survivors that reflects diverse lived experiences and minimises the risk of re-traumatisation.
The inquiry will examine how effectively local and national safeguarding systems protected children from group-based sexual exploitation and abuse, and hold institutions accountable for past failures. As the Home Secretary said in June, its purpose must be to challenge what Baroness Casey’s audit described as continued “denial”, “resistance” and “legal wrangling” among local agencies. The inquiry will consider intersections with ethnicity, race and culture, and assess the safeguarding duties of public services, identifying both failures and examples of good practice.
I know that everyone in the House and beyond wants to see the inquiry begin its work at the earliest opportunity. Colleagues will know that that requires the appointment of a chair and the agreement of terms of reference. Following a recruitment process over the summer, Home Office officials, the Home Secretary and I have met with prospective candidates for the chair of the inquiry and we are now in the final stages of the appointment process. Most importantly, the chair must have the credibility and experience to command the confidence of victims and survivors, as well as the wider public. Meaningful engagement with victims and survivors is paramount. To support that, a dedicated panel of victims and survivors has been established to contribute to the chair selection process. This is a critical milestone, and once an appointment is confirmed, the House will be updated at the earliest opportunity.
Members from across the House will understand that this process must be done properly and thoroughly. We must avoid a repeat of what happened with the efforts to appoint a chair of the original independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, when three chairs were appointed and subsequently withdrew, from July 2014 onwards, prior to the eventual appointment of Professor Alexis Jay in 2016, a full two years after the original chair was named. We are determined to ensure that that does not happen again.
In line with the Inquiries Act 2025, the appointed chair will play a central role in shaping the commission’s terms of reference. These will be published and subject to consultation with stakeholders, including victims and survivors. The inquiry is expected to run for two to three years, enabling it to examine a broad range of issues, while honouring Baroness Casey’s recommendation that it must be time-limited to deliver answers swiftly, a key request not just from victims and survivors, but from Members from across this House.
The inquiry will begin by identifying priority areas for review, conducting targeted local investigations and reporting findings at both local and national levels. These reviews will be tailored to the specific context of each area and may involve a wide range of organisations, including children’s and family services, police, the Crown Prosecution Service, health and education providers, youth services, third-sector organisations and central Government Departments, whose actions and decisions have affected what has happened at a local level. Where appropriate, the inquiry will issue recommendations at both local and national levels. We will continue to keep Members of the House, the victims and the public informed of all appointments and the terms of reference.
The Government remain unwavering in their commitment to ensuring that this inquiry is robust, transparent and capable of delivering truth, accountability and meaningful change. As we have said from the outset, we are determined to ensure that every survivor of grooming gangs gets the support and justice they deserve; that every perpetrator is put behind bars; that every case, historic or current, has been properly investigated; and that every person or institution who looked the other way is held accountable, as that is a stain on our society that should be finally removed for good. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Given that the Minister has just taken 12 minutes, I will be extending the time allowance to the shadow Home Secretary to six minutes and to the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats to three minutes. I call the shadow Home Secretary.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement.
Let us remember that victims are at the heart of this: young girls, some only 10 years old, were groomed and gang raped by men of predominantly Pakistani origin. They were girls like Jane, who was just 12 years old when she was raped by an illegal immigrant, but when she was found by police, instead of arresting the rapist, the police arrested Jane; or like Anna, only 15 years old, who repeatedly told social workers that she had been gang raped, but instead of helping her, they allowed her to marry her main abuser in an Islamic ceremony, and the social worker even attended the ceremony. The ring leader of the Rochdale rape gang, Shabir Ahmed, was actually employed as a welfare rights officer by Oldham council.
In another case, a man tried to rescue his young daughter from being raped, but instead of protecting her, the police arrested her dad. I spoke to a mother whose daughter was raped by taxi drivers of Pakistani origin. When she complained to social services, they said that if she dared to raise the matter again, she would lose her daughter.
I spoke to a retired police officer who was told by a senior officer at the time to stop investigating abuse by Pakistani-origin taxi drivers in Bradford because the police locally did not want to offend Bradford’s Muslim community. A former Labour MP, Simon Danczuk, was even told by senior Labour party figures to stop asking questions in his constituency to avoid antagonising the Muslim community. These crimes were deliberately covered up by people in authority because so-called community relations were seen as more important than protecting young girls. That is a disgrace.
The Minister claimed in her statement a moment ago that nothing had been done about this issue previously. I do not want to dwell on this, but I gently remind her that it was the last Government who set up the original Rotherham inquiry in 2014 and set up the long-running independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which was much broader but did touch on this issue. We started to collect data on the ethnicity of suspects and set up Operation Soteria to combat sex crimes; I attended many meetings on that. We set up the grooming gangs taskforce, which led to 550 arrests in its first year, and I am glad that that is continuing. We introduced legislation to require mandatory reporting, and I am again glad that the Government are continuing that work.
It is clear that much more is needed. However, this Government have had to be dragged kicking and screaming every step of the way. When the Government’s rejection of Oldham’s call for a national inquiry became public on 6 January, the Prime Minister disgracefully smeared as “far-right” those supporting calls for that proper inquiry. That kind of language is how these crimes got covered up in the first place. Some 10 days later, the Government partially U-turned and announced local inquiries. On 16 June, faced with a parliamentary vote two days later, the Government finally announced a statutory national inquiry not because they chose to or wanted to, but because they were forced to. What the Prime Minister claimed was a “far-right bandwagon” in January had become Government policy by June. Here we are, three months later, and almost no progress has been made.
My office has been in contact with survivors in Oldham today, and they have heard nothing. We now discover that no chair has been appointed and there are no terms of reference. There is no news on towns such as Oldham or Bradford, and nothing of substance at all. That is just not good enough. Will the Minister tell the House a precise date when a chair will be appointed and when we will have terms of reference? Will this inquiry have full statutory powers under the 2005 Act? Will she confirm that all 50 towns affected will be covered?
Will the Minister confirm that no police force or council will be able to investigate themselves? Perhaps most importantly, will she confirm that this inquiry will look at those in authority—the police, the CPS and local councils—who deliberately covered this up? Those people were more interested in appeasing certain minority communities than in protecting young girls. Finally, does she agree that those individuals responsible for deliberately covering up this issue should be prosecuted for misconduct in public office and, if they are convicted, sent to jail?
Jess Phillips
I partially thank the shadow Home Secretary for his tone, but I will correct the record. I did not say that he had done nothing: I said that Baroness Casey said that there had been
“a decade of inaction on these appalling crimes by previous Governments”.
That is exactly what I said.
I answered in my statement many of the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked. His office may have spoken to some of the Oldham victims today; I spoke to some of them personally last night, so I keep in touch with lots of victims. What I will not do—what I will never do—is make it so that they are not involved. It takes time to ensure that this process is completely victim centred. Frankly, I am sure that is what he and other Members on the Opposition Benches who have written to me with that request want to see, and that is the process we are undertaking.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, no local authority area can turn the inquiry down. The Home Secretary and I have said a number of times that it is a full, powerful statutory inquiry. I have seen some scaremongering, and victims have written to me to say, “This will not cover Government officials or people who covered things up.” That is absolute nonsense. Let me be very clear, and let it be taken away by everybody who I am sure has the best interests of victims at heart, that it will cover what it needs to cover to uncover the truth, and no stone will be left unturned. That will make for difficult conversations for people.
If people are found by our court system to have undermined and disgraced public office, they should of course be sent to prison. However, that has never happened to date in these cases. I very much hope that we uncover the kind of social workers that the right hon. Gentleman refers to, and I hope that they face the full force of everything that they deserve to face, but there is absolutely nothing that says that anybody can avoid this inquiry. It will be up to the inquiry, which is independent and statutory, to look at and work with areas about where this will be.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her statement. No one doubts her, and her team’s, absolute commitment to addressing the root causes of the abuse and exploitation that so many women and some boys have experienced. In my contact with women this morning—I speak on their behalf—I heard that they are absolutely committed and understand and reflect the commitment of my hon. Friend, but they are keen to know a bit more detail about when the chair can be appointed and about the relationship that the national inquiry will have with the local inquiries.
My hon. Friend quite rightly said that victims and survivors should be engaged and involved in the appointment of the chair, and that is so important. Will she say more about how we will ensure that there is locality-specific representation as well? There are slight differences according to locality.
Jess Phillips
There absolutely are. My hon. Friend is exactly right that there are differences, so it will be for the chair, a panel and a commission to do that work in localities and ensure that victim engagement is really location specific.
With regard to the specific issue in Oldham, we have been engaging very closely with Oldham for some time, including with victims and survivors. As I said, I spoke to some of them last night about wanting them to be part of the terms of reference for the national inquiry. Our offer for a full and local independent inquiry in Oldham remains in place, and we are in discussion with them about how they want to proceed in the context of the national inquiry. We do not want to have victims having to do a repetitive exercise, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are speaking to officials in Oldham very regularly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am grateful as always to the Minister for advance sight of her statement. In every single conversation about this issue in this House, our first thought must always be with the victims and the survivors. No child should ever suffer the devastating trauma of sexual exploitation or abuse. These crimes are abhorrent and an assault on the very values of our society. We carry a responsibility to act, to secure justice for victims, to ensure that offenders answer for their crimes and to build a future in which such suffering is not repeated.
In 2022, Professor Alexis Jay published her independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. In June, Baroness Casey released her report on group-based exploitation. I am really grateful to the Minister for her update on the progress being made, but when does she expect to have implemented the crucial recommendations from both reports?
Baroness Casey was clear about one of her key recommendations: the Government must end the practice of out-of-area taxis by introducing stronger national standards for taxi licensing and driver regulation. Across Greater Manchester, we know that problem all too well; for years, drivers have exploited the fragmented system by securing the easiest licences to obtain from councils in one area and then operating elsewhere. As a result, many taxis working in Greater Manchester are licensed 100 miles away in Wolverhampton. What work is the Minister doing to address that specific issue? It feels like there is an opportunity to do so this afternoon through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, but that opportunity has not yet been taken. If an amendment to the Bill is the way to achieve that aim, will the Minister work with colleagues across the House to ensure that this important recommendation from Baroness Casey can be delivered?
Finally, I turn to an issue that I and others have raised repeatedly, and on which some progress was hinted at in recent press reports. Could the Minister confirm when Parliament will see legislation for a Hillsborough law, as promised many times by the Government, to guarantee that public officials and authorities co-operate fully with a duty of candour in cases such as this one, including in the upcoming national inquiry?
Jess Phillips
I met the Department for Transport on the issue of taxi licensing last week—this is about looking for a legislative vehicle. The Government have said that we will undo some of the harm caused by the deregulation legislation of the past, including the dangers that have come about related to safeguarding and taxi licensing. The hon. Lady invited Members to work across the House. In every interaction—there have been many—that I have had with victims of this crime since the last time I or the Home Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box making a statement, they have asked if we could just work together and stop throwing mud at each other. I will happily work with anyone on this issue. We are currently looking for legislative vehicles, but we do seek to legislate.
We expect the Hillsborough law shortly; I am sorry that that is not a very prescriptive answer, but that law is very much expected.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The last Government failed to implement a single recommendation from the IICSA report, and Professor Alexis Jay herself spoke of the huge anger and disappointment at their response. Baroness Casey’s work rightly focuses on the future and I am grateful for today’s statement, but can the Minister please reassure me that the extraordinary work of Professor Jay and all the brave victims and survivors who contributed to her inquiry will not be forgotten and that the Government will implement the IICSA recommendations in full, including its recommendations on the criminal injuries compensation scheme? Currently, that scheme excludes far too many victims of group-based child sexual exploitation and leaves them without adequate support to rebuild their lives.
Jess Phillips
I praise my hon. Friend for her long-term commitment in this space. The Government have given a number of updates on IICSA. I expect to come back to this House soon—one way or another—with further updates on progress in that area. Much of the progress we are seeking to make is through Bills that are currently passing through Parliament and are over in the other place, but my hon. Friend makes the very important point that we must not undermine the two-year piece of work that has already been done by Professor Jay. We will make sure that all those findings and recommendations, which Casey included as well, and any intelligence that is sent to us feeds into the new national independent inquiry.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Over the summer, Lord Cryer said that there was a deliberate attempt to silence his mother, Ann Cryer, when she first bravely raised the issue of grooming gangs in Keighley more than 20 years ago. Ann Cryer was, of course, one of my predecessors as Member of Parliament for Keighley.
Lord Cryer said that he was
“absolutely certain there has been a cover up on a local level”,
and that Bradford needs to be examined as part of the inquiry. Unfortunately, Bradford council and others in this House are still saying that they will only support a focus on Bradford if that is deemed necessary by the inquiry chair. That is not the same thing as saying that they will actively lobby for that outcome, so does the Minister share my concern that Bradford council’s reluctance for an inquiry to take place in our area has not changed, despite the voices of so many victims and others demanding one?
Jess Phillips
I pay tribute to Ann Cryer, a woman I am incredibly fond of—personally as well as professionally—for her immense bravery. I have no doubt that none of us would be sitting in the Chamber today talking about any of this had it not been for her; she deserves absolute credit.
I do not recognise the characterisation that the hon. Gentleman has given. I have not had any particular pushback, or heard anywhere suggesting that the inquiry should not be looking into certain areas or giving any sense that they will resist it, but I would say to all local areas: resistance is futile.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome today’s update on the national inquiry into grooming gangs, particularly the way in which the Minister has made sure that victims and survivors are definitely going to be at the heart of whatever happens. During the trial of seven members of a Rochdale grooming gang earlier this year, it emerged in court that the social workers involved had referred to one of the victims—who was 13 at the time—as a prostitute. Other victims, who were 10 at the time, were also called prostitutes. I know the Minister will agree that the criminalisation of young girls as prostitutes causes them further trauma later in life. These girls were victims and the state should recognise them as such, so what steps will the Minister take to ensure that such convictions for prostitution are disregarded as swiftly as possible?
Jess Phillips
Often in this debate, we discuss how people felt nervous or anxious about ethnicity, when what is also evident in every single case—regardless of the ethnicity of the perpetrators—is the ability of agencies to look at women and think of them as something else, and to treat young girls poorly. That is exactly what my hon. Friend is talking about. The Crime and Policing Bill, which is going through Parliament, is going to disregard any child prostitution convictions. We are working with the Ministry of Justice to find the wider cohort of victims, and with bodies in the criminal justice system to identify and review cases and to support victims. It will not always have been prostitution charges; I have met many victims who have been criminalised for a variety of things that they probably should not have been. That will be a much more complicated process, but it is one that we have set in train.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I am glad that the Minister wants to put victims and survivors first, and I hope the whole House will join her in that. It is absolutely right that we all do so. She will be aware of the Tom Crowther inquiry, which highlighted 1,000 victims over 30 years in Telford and in some parts of my constituency. Earlier, the Minister said to the House that we do not want victims to have to undergo “a repetitive exercise”. I understand why she said that, but would she support the national inquiry going back to Telford to ensure that things that should have been done, but that still have not been done, will be done? Will she also ensure that the Labour council—forgive me—in Telford and Wrekin will not stand in the way of that progress?
Jess Phillips
On the contrary: very few people have written to me more throughout this process than the leader of Telford council, who has talked about how they want to continue to make progress. I am very familiar with what happened in Telford. Quite a lot of the evidence shows that people in Telford were groomed where I live, in Birmingham, yet the Telford inquiry—while brilliant—did not lead to any changes in neighbouring areas. That is exactly what we hope the national inquiry will do, so although I cannot direct where it must go, I absolutely want it to look at prior work that has been done and some of the gaps that have been identified, exactly as the right hon. Gentleman says.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. This is yet another example of the state turning its back on working-class people—in this case, young girls. I also welcome the fact that cold cases are going to be investigated and that those cases will be reopened if there is any evidence of criminal activity, but in the past when an inquiry has been announced, we have seen police suspend until the outcome of that inquiry investigations that they have been undertaking. Can the Minister assure us that that will not happen in this case?
Jess Phillips
Yes. My hon. Friend makes an important point that we have to make sure that the inquiry is not used for further state inactivity. There have been cases where that has happened before. As we are undertaking a new national policing operation in Operation Beaconport at the same time as the national inquiry, I give him my absolute assurance that I will ensure that the two work closely together so that such a situation cannot happen, unless it would cause such judicial issues that it would have to happen.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I truly thank the Minister for putting vulnerable girls first and central in her statement. As we all know, victims of sexual abuse are too often disbelieved by the authorities, whatever the circumstances. Speaking out takes immense courage, and people pay an immense cost only too often. I welcome her announcements regarding the national inquiry, but can she assure me that the Government’s delayed violence against women and girls strategy will clarify how victims will be supported to rebuild their lives, and can she please say when it will be published?
Jess Phillips
There has been some reporting that the violence against women and girls strategy will not include child abuse victims and grooming gang victims. I can stand here and say that is utter rubbish; it absolutely will, and it will be published very shortly. Any delay is only out of my own perfectionism—I think that is what I will call it. This is a 10-year strategy that will last until at least the next Parliament, and it has to be right. Huge parts of it will absolutely be about support for victims.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend not only for her statement, but for the care and determination she has brought to this role to centre the discussion and action around victims and young girls, and to work in collaboration with others—not just in this House, but those who are directly affected. May I just add to the points that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) raised about loopholes in taxi licensing? One of the biggest issues that comes up in my constituency, both from taxi users and women’s groups, as well as from the vast majority of decent, hard-working taxi drivers, is that these loopholes, and ineffective and outdated taxi licensing, give a bad name to the system as a whole. I urge the Minister to work with her colleagues and to ensure that as we proceed with the national inquiry, we also proceed with the updating of legislation to give protection to all.
Jess Phillips
Absolutely. Long before Baroness Casey was pointing out the safeguarding issues, I was being lobbied by decent, hard-working people about the failures of the taxi licensing system as it stands. We will consider all options. As I have said, we have committed to legislating specifically on this point, but we are also looking at including out-of-area working, as well as national standards and enforcement, and at consulting on making local transport authorities responsible for licensing.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
What a disappointment. I came to the House today to listen to the Minister’s statement in the hope that we would get some detailed information about the Government’s statutory inquiry. What have we had today? A long statement and little information. In fact, I would go so far as to say that what this Government are doing with the rape gang inquiry is a masterclass in procrastination. What did we hear from the Prime Minister? That it was a right-wing bandwagon. What did we hear from senior Ministers? That it was a dog whistle issue. We want to know what the terms of reference are and when they will be put on the Government’s website so that we can all inspect them. When will this conclude—or does the Minister hope that it will go on and on past the next general election?
Jess Phillips
I am not sure the right hon. Lady wants to hear my hopes about the next general election. As I said earlier, the victims of this crime have sat in front of me with tears in their eyes and said that they hate it when we shout at each other about these things and that they wish we would work together. Just to tell her the details again, I outlined that 1,273 cases have now been identified by the new policing investigation, which was recommendation 1 of Baroness Casey. Of those, we are expediting 216 cases. The terms of reference will be published and consulted on, and I would very much welcome the right hon. Lady’s opinion. She has never asked for a meeting with me, and I would love to have one. If she would like to be involved in how we build those terms of reference up, please get in touch with my office. I have to say, however, that hers is not the voice I am most concerned about hearing—those people I am speaking to.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
One of the most shocking indictments in Baroness Casey’s evidence to the Home Affairs Committee was the long list of inquiries and speeches, and the shocking lack of action that had followed, so I welcome the announcement that the Minister has made about action to tackle these issues. Can she update us on the establishment of the child protection agency, how it will be set up as this inquiry goes on, and how it will adjust and evolve as learnings from the inquiry come out?
Jess Phillips
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, because Baroness Casey pointed out how many of her recommendations hinge on there being a good child protection authority, and that work is being done by Department for Education colleagues. I have been involved, along with Alexis Jay, and I have ensured that she has been in meetings with them. The authority will evolve, because what we do not want to do, contrary to the views of some in the House, is to wait forever to set it up or to try to get it exactly right first time when it is a complicated thing. It will evolve along the way, but all those involved in the inquiry, across both local and national bodies, will have the opportunity to feed in their views about what it needs to look like.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I am wholly supportive of this Government-commissioned report into group-based child sexual exploitation, but the Government must not be distracted from the places where child sexual abuse occurs most frequently. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children reports that 90% of young people who have been sexually abused said that the perpetrator was someone they knew. Around a third of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by young people under the age of 18, and the NSPCC says that in relation to sibling sexual abuse:
“The number of children affected by this hidden harm is far greater than is acknowledged by…policymakers”.
Is the Minister certain that the Government will not be distracted from abuse within schools and within families?
Jess Phillips
I praise the hon. Gentleman for saying that, because familial abuse and child exploitation not by groups but by families or peer groups are, I am afraid to say, not uncommon. I know that from my years of experience. Those victims feel as if their voices are being marginalised. This piece of work that we have announced today is part of a much broader child abuse body that sits within the Home Office and works on all those things. The recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse keep us on that track, but we must not lose sight of all the abuse, especially that happening among young people against other young people and online.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement today and for the recognition that a process that is supported by those people who should be at the heart of it is always difficult. We must take time to ensure that any inquiry has the faith of the people at the centre of it, because it will never be possible to do that again, as they have been failed too often.
We have discussed before how child abuse and exploitation does not stop at Gretna. Will the Minister outline what engagement there has been with the devolved Administrations on how we can make this a truly national inquiry?
Jess Phillips
My hon. Friend is right. As I said earlier, there is likely to be border-crossing between Birmingham and Telford, which was mentioned in the earlier inquiry. We continue to discuss this with the devolved Administrations. The Scottish Government can set up a specific national inquiry under the Inquiries Act, as we have, but any cross-border findings will of course be shared, action will be sought, and, potentially, recommendations will be made.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
At the start of the summer, there were some horrendous reports about rapes and assaults committed by South Yorkshire police. I welcome the decision to involve the National Crime Agency and strip responsibility for those investigations from the force, but can the Minister confirm that the national inquiry will examine the role of the police not only in cover-ups but in the crimes themselves?
Jess Phillips
South Yorkshire police should never have been left to investigate themselves in this matter, and moving those investigations to the NCA is absolutely the right thing to do. I would be lying if I said that over the years I had not met girls who talked to me about how police were part of not just the cover-up but the perpetration. We must ensure that victims can come and give that testimony. It is harder to give than other testimony because it brings fear and a lack of trust, but if that is where the inquiry takes us because that is what victims say, that is what will happen.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
The crime of group-based child sexual exploitation is probably the most heinous imaginable. It is so brave of victims to speak out, seek justice and drive change so that other young lives are protected from such crimes. Can the Minister tell us more about how the national inquiry will engage with victims and survivors and ensure that their voices—and the voices of those who previously bravely contributed to investigations and inquiries—are central to the recommendations? Unlike the criminal law, the criminal injuries compensation scheme does not recognise that children cannot legally consent, and excludes those who have been deemed to consent from compensation. Will the Minister work with the Victims Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones)—to right that injustice?
Jess Phillips
I absolutely commit myself to working with the Victims Minister. The issue of consent, and the age of consent, was a huge part of Baroness Casey’s review, and a number of Members have mentioned making this a victim-centred process. These are words that we say, but it is much harder in reality. We are talking about people who have been very badly wronged and whose level of trust has been badly affected. This is not something that happens easily. It is not a process in which every one of the victims will get on with the others. We will ensure that in both the national policing inquiry and the national statutory inquiry there are systems to enable as many voices as possible to be heard as comfortably as possible, but I do not think we should lie to the public about how easy those procedures are. I speak as someone who has worked in this field for a very long time. We are talking about very traumatised and distressed young people, and this will take considerably more effort and patience than I think they have been shown in the past.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Grooming gangs are entirely abhorrent, as are all forms of grooming leading to sexual exploitation. This summer I met a Torbay resident whose 15-year-old adopted son had been groomed online and then prostituted online. Can the Minister please tell us how she intends to tackle all forms of grooming that lead to sexual exploitation?
Jess Phillips
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) mentioned the importance of drawing attention to the fact that, especially in the context of the online crime of sexploitation, boys are at greater risk. That is the only area of exploitation in which most of the victims are teenage boys, and it is a new and growing phenomenon. I say to the hon. Gentleman that in both the national inquiry and Operation Beaconport, the Home Secretary and I have been pushing at every stage for recognition of the fact that this process cannot just rake over historic coals. It must be grounded in recognition of the way in which abuse is happening now and improving police forces’ responses to it, and undoubtedly it is now happening online. The most frightening statistic that keeps me awake at night is that last year 53% of child sexual abuse was perpetrated by children aged between 10 and 17.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for what has been a lifetime of work protecting women and girls. I welcome what she has said about updating the ethnicity data, which will enable the public debate to take place on the basis of data and fact rather than the prejudice and scaremongering of which she has spoken, but does she think it might also help to engender trust in the debate if she were to take this opportunity to acknowledge that there was a completely unacceptable woke reluctance to offend certain communities, and that this culture of deference, where it persists, must be stamped out?
Jess Phillips
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words, and I will certainly take that opportunity, because I have seen this with my own eyes in cases in which I have been involved. People have said, “Oh, it might cause trouble.” That was not stopping them doing it, but they would not have even mentioned it to me in other circumstances.
What we have to do, and what we all owe to the victims of these crimes, is to call it what it is, but also not to use our own political agendas in relation to their very delicate and harmed lives, whatever form that takes. We do not want a backlash causing the police to go on thinking, “Oh gosh, this is going to open a can of worms.” We must all act responsibly in respect of these issues. However, I have definitely seen this, and it should never have been allowed to happen.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I recently met Dr Joanna Kerr, an extremely brave survivor of child sexual exploitation and abuse in Scotland. As it stands, the national inquiry will not cover Scotland, and the Scottish National party Government will not launch their own. I ask the Minister again: will she commit herself to extending the national inquiry to cover all parts of the United Kingdom including Scotland, or do victims like Joanna not deserve justice?
Jess Phillips
It is not that victims like Joanna do not deserve justice; they absolutely do deserve justice. I do not know about Joanna’s case, but I should be more than happy to meet her and talk to her about it. The body that must hold a national inquiry into events in Scotland is a body in the devolved Government, because both policing and child protection are devolved issues. However, as I said to one of my hon. Friends earlier, I am more than happy to look into this. People who are Scottish, or who live in Scotland now, and have been abused in an area covered by the inquiry will absolutely be able to take part.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
One of the questions that haunt Baroness Casey’s audit is, “Why?” Why was this type of offending allowed to grow seemingly unchecked for so long? Will the Minister, whom it is good to see in her place, give an assurance that serious and credible research on all the factors that drove and enabled the horrendous crime of gang-based child sexual exploitation will be commissioned and will operate without fear or favour?
Jess Phillips
Absolutely. One of Baroness Casey’s recommendations was for a piece of research on exactly that: the “why” about things that were covered up and the “why” about communities but also institutions. The Home Office is currently working with various academics to commission such research, and it is fundamental.
While a huge amount of discussion—and, as I have said, I agree with it—has concerned the “why” issue on ethnicity, with the nervousness, the wokeness or whatever we want to call it, another “why” is about class and the way in which the systems treat these young women when they come forward, and, indeed, the way in which they treat plenty of other women when they come forward in relation to any of these issues.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
It is a pity that the Government have had to be dragged screaming into granting this inquiry into Pakistani rape and grooming gangs, but the inquiry is welcome. However, given the fact that nobody has been appointed yet, the terms of reference have not be determined and we do not even know how long the inquiry is going to take, I am sure the Minister will understand why victims will be looking for what can be done immediately to address their concerns. For those cases where police officers, social workers and council officials have been identified as covering up, can we be assured that their cases will be dealt with ahead of any inquiry? For those who have been put in jail, can we ensure that they serve out their sentences, unlike the Oxford Six, who were released early despite the recommendations?
Jess Phillips
I did actually say in my statement that, as outlined in Baroness Casey’s review, the inquiry should take around two to three years and be time-sensitive. All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that in order to make sure that we are doing this right, we will shortly be providing an update on the chair of the inquiry. I gently remind him of the two years it took to find a chair for the child sex abuse inquiry—two years and three failed attempts. I do not want to do that to people this time, so that is why we are taking the time.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
We all want to see an end to grooming gangs, and justice for victims and survivors, because exploiting the most vulnerable is about as despicable and heinous as it gets. We all know that perpetrators come from different backgrounds and communities, but certain politically motivated individuals are trying to blame particular communities, which is why they try to gloss over that fact in their effort to sow division and discord. We certainly cannot be politically correct about this either, because no one, regardless of race or religion, is above the law. We cannot allow such an important issue to be treated like a sectarian political football by those who seek to sow division. Can my hon. Friend the Minister outline what the Government will do to root out this evil with this second national inquiry? How will it remain focused on victims and survivors, and how will she ensure that this debate is conducted in a sensible, sensitive manner?
Jess Phillips
I stand here as a vessel of the victims who have spoken to me. They have not necessarily used the word “sectarian”, but they hate this issue being used as a political football. Baroness Casey, in the media that she did post releasing her report, said the same: she felt that politics was not meeting the moment in some of the responses. We have got to do better, and the very first thing that I would say is that I welcome the involvement and look forward to the engagement on the terms of reference, which will be published for consultation with every single Member of this House, regardless of what they might have said before or whether we might have fallen out on other occasions. I welcome the inquiry, and I want to make sure that we show the very best of this place, because that is the least that victims deserve.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister will be well aware that many of the victims of this disgraceful, despicable type of activity were originally taken from broken homes and put into the care of a local authority, and then groomed ruthlessly. Social workers turned a blind eye. Managers told social workers to turn a blind eye. The police, in many ways, were complicit. One of the problems is that the whistleblowers who came forward to tell the stories were all sacked. What action will the Minister take to ensure not only that the victims are protected, but that the whistleblowers who come forward and tell the truth of what was going on are similarly protected as part of this inquiry?
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman—he is not a man I have fallen out with before. I heard from some whistleblowers this week that some of their testimony was not published by IICSA. When dealing with the terms of reference, we have to ensure that there are robust safeguards for whistleblowers. I have worked with one of the whistleblowers, Sara Rowbotham, who lost her job in Rochdale. I have met her and her Member of Parliament to talk about exactly some of that and how we need to get this right—not just in the inquiry or in Operation Beacon Port, but in the future.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
On 6 August, the Minister described certain councils that do not believe that they have a problem with grooming gangs as “idiots”. Can she explain if that also applies to the Government, given the enormous pressure it took for them to implement this inquiry and the disparaging comments previously made by the Prime Minister?
Jess Phillips
It would be playing a very long game to say that I have been taken kicking or screaming into this issue. Sarah Rowbotham was one of the whistleblowers, and I wrote a book about her and this particular issue about nine years ago. I have also set up many, many support services for victims of these crimes. I will always do what I think is best in these cases, and I took the advice of Baroness Casey. Trying to see bad faith, or to score political points, is not what we should do.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I pay tribute to the Minister for her work and thank her for her statement.
This crime is absolutely abhorrent. Every single victim and survivor of this crime must get justice, no matter the perpetrator—Pakistani, Indian, English or anyone—so can we please dial down the politicisation and the inflammatory rhetoric in this place, and show total compassion and empathy when we work together to tackle this scourge in our country for every single victim? May I ask the Minister for a meeting with me and my colleagues so that we can learn how we can support the work of the Government in this space?
Jess Phillips
Of course I will meet the hon. Gentleman and, like I say, any colleagues who wish to take part in this work. As somebody who represents a large and diverse community, I have to say that the Pakistani part of my community has been most fervent in wanting the truth to come out, because harm has been done to them by the alleged wokeness that has been talked about.
As I finish my statement, let me take this opportunity to say that we have to make sure that we have the facts and do not feel squeamish about the perpetrators. At 6 am on Monday morning, I met victims of this crime who are black, white and Asian. We must not silence those victims by only ever talking about one type of victim. The victimhood in group-based abuse is not just one type, apart from one thing: they are all girls.
Bills Presented
Sentencing Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Shabana Mahmood, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Angela Rayner, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary Peter Kyle, presented a Bill to make provision about the sentencing, release and management after sentencing of offenders; to make provision about bail; to make provision about the removal from the United Kingdom of foreign criminals and the processing of information about foreign criminals for immigration purposes; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 299) with explanatory notes (Bill 299-EN).
Vehicle Registration Marks (Misuse and Offences) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dr Al Pinkerton presented a Bill to make provision about offences relating to the misuse and illegal copying of vehicle registration marks; to require the Secretary of State to introduce measures to reduce incidences of such misuse and illegal copying; to make provision about support for victims of any such offences; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September, and to be printed (Bill 298).
Babies and Infants (Allergy Guidance)
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a review of allergy guidance relating to the feeding and weaning of babies and infants; and for connected purposes.
Having a child, I am told, is one of the most amazing and fulfilling times of a new parent’s life. I hope to be able to report back to the House on the validity of that claim later in the year. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] However, it can also be a period of huge anxiety. Parents are reliant on our brilliant NHS through pregnancy and those important first few months of a child’s life. They will be inundated with information via medical professionals, peers, support groups or the internet and will, of course, make the best decisions they can based on the information they have.
This matter is personal to me. As a long-time allergy sufferer expecting my first child, I have been actively seeking out information on how I can best militate against my child growing up with some of the food allergies that I have, and I am not alone.
Rates of allergic disease such as asthma, hay fever and food allergies have been increasing. The UK has some of the highest rates of allergic conditions in the world, affecting more than one quarter of the population. Allergic conditions are one of the most common chronic diseases in childhood. Around 6% of all visits to the GP are due to allergies, and medicines to treat allergic diseases account for 10% of the total GP prescribing budget. The direct cost to the NHS of managing allergic diseases is more than £1 billion per annum, but the cost in reality is likely to be much higher. The cost to individual allergy sufferers and their families is greater still, with huge impacts on their lives, as many of us know all too well—increased anxiety, social isolation and limited opportunities for travel and other experiences, because the health risks are far too high and allergy awareness is far too low. On average, two children in every classroom are affected by food allergies, and food allergy doubled in the UK between 2008 and 2018. The scale of the problem is huge, with allergies impacting every classroom and every GP surgery in the UK.
Having spoken to some of the most noted allergy specialists in the country ahead of today, it is clear to me that the current food allergy guidance for the feeding and weaning of babies and infants should be reviewed, with a particular focus on children who are showing early signs of allergic disease. Better addressing allergies at primary care level is a relatively simple but hugely effective way of moving the allergy conversation towards prevention.
The Government’s new 10-year plan for the NHS rightly demands that focus on prevention. Prevention in allergy is about recognising the key principle that preventing severe conditions from developing, rather than purely focusing on the treatment of those severe conditions, is better for both patients and the financial sustainability of our NHS. Rather than long waits to see allergy specialists and the hope of medical trials once a child has already developed an allergy, which have huge waiting lists and are, sadly, not effective for everyone, improving our approach to allergy in our public health advice and primary care can be the key to preventing children from developing allergies in the first place.
The guidance should be reviewed for a number of reasons: to improve the clarity and consistency of message; to increase awareness; to help to empower healthcare professionals; and to ensure that ethnic minorities are not being put at a disadvantage. However, before I go into detail as to why the evidence suggests we need this review, I want to be clear about what this Bill is not.
Current NHS guidance recommends exclusive breastfeeding for about the first six months of the baby’s life, and that continuing breastfeeding into the baby’s second year or beyond, alongside other foods, is best for their development. The Bill does not contradict that advice. It is not about changing the advice given to the majority of parents; it is only for children who are beginning to show signs of allergy development, such as those with severe eczema and those already showing signs of food allergy. Additionally, any suggestion of early weaning for this cohort of children is to be done alongside breastfeeding. There are no suggestions in the studies that I cite to support the Bill that breastfeeding rates are impacted by altering public health advice to better prevent allergy.
NHS guidance on introducing foods that could trigger allergies shows that delaying the introduction of peanut and eggs beyond six to 12 months may increase the risk of developing an allergy to these foods. The report that this advice is based on is almost 10 years old. Other countries around the world have taken a more aggressive approach to allergy prevention over the past decade, and we in the UK need to learn and adapt based on the outcomes of those different approaches. The medical guidance and evidence from other parts of the world, including the US and some areas of Europe, actually goes further and encourages the early introduction of those allergens, which is particularly the case for children who display allergies early on.
The Learning Early About Peanut allergy study, or LEAP, looked at the introduction of peanut into the diet of infants aged between four and 11 months who were at high risk of peanut allergy, with high-risk infants defined as those with the presence of significant eczema and/or a pre-existing egg allergy. Published 10 years ago now, the study demonstrated that the consumption of snacks containing peanuts by infants who are at high risk of developing a peanut allergy prevents the subsequent development of the allergy. Of the children who avoided peanuts, 17% had developed a peanut allergy by the age of five, while only 3% of the children who were randomised to eating the peanut snack had developed the allergy by the age of five.
In the US, the guidance recommends that parents of children who are believed to be most likely to develop a peanut allergy—infants with severe eczema, an egg allergy or both—introduce these children to peanut-containing food at four to six months, or get a referral to an allergist who will give the child a skin prick test or blood test to check if the child is allergic to peanuts. European guidelines make similar recommendations on the early introduction of peanut and egg between four and six months.
While NHS guidance suggests that delaying the introduction of peanut and eggs may increase the risk of developing the allergy, I believe that more information should be given to parents when their child is showing early signs of allergy. The feedback I have had from speaking to young parents and parents-to-be is too often that the information for these children is too difficult to find, or that the medical professional the parents are engaging with is more likely to take a safety first approach and not encourage the early introduction of allergens.
I believe that a review of the guidance will help to empower our NHS to give the best, most medically appropriate information to parents at a time when they can be at their most anxious. It must be supported by education and awareness campaigns, together with training for the different healthcare professionals who support these new parents so that the advice they give is consistent and reflects best practice.
Finally, as I touched on at the start, I have concerns that the current lack of guidance is most likely to impact young children from ethnic minority families. The evidence suggests that these children are both more likely to develop an allergy and more predisposed to have multiple allergies. As a result, they are more likely to be disadvantaged without clear, unambiguous guidance on how their parents can navigate those first few months.
I ask hon. Members across the House for their support with the Bill so that we can get parents the best allergy advice for their children and so that we can mitigate the effects of, and in many cases ultimately prevent, allergic disease.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Becky Gittins, Jim Shannon, Chris Bloore, Alex McIntyre, Sarah Coombes, Kirith Entwistle, Jodie Gosling, Maya Ellis, Pam Cox, Claire Hughes, Satvir Kaur and Catherine Fookes present the Bill.
Becky Gittins accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September, and to be printed (Bill 297).
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 167 / Noes: 367 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 365 / Noes: 164 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The reasoned amendment in the name of the official Opposition has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Government were elected on a manifesto to deliver change—real change for working people; change that people can see and feel around them. That means more money in their pockets, decent jobs, new homes, good transport links, thriving high streets and opportunities for young people. But after 14 years of a Tory Government unwilling to take the tough choices to make life better for working people, it is no wonder that people have lost hope that real change is possible. And we have a plan to change that—a plan to give people with skin in the game real control over their lives and the power to have a real stake in their place and share in our country’s success.
Our landmark English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will deliver this and more. It will help us to build a modern state based on a fairer, stronger partnership between Government and local people, with the aim of renewing people’s faith that the state can work for them. That faith has been sorely tested in recent years. After more than a decade of broken promises from those on the Conservative Benches, people associate Whitehall with failure and decline. The communities that once built Britain have seen good jobs disappearing, secure homes crumbling and once-strong communities divided. Things that our parents and grandparents once relied on—that I relied on as a young mum—have fallen by the wayside. It is my mission to rebuild those foundations of a good life for all communities in all parts of our country.
I worked on the frontline of local government and I saw how it changes people’s lives. I know that I will not achieve our goals unless we fundamentally change the way that our country is run. That means handing power back to where it belongs—to local people with skin in the game—so that they can make decisions on what really matters to their communities. This Bill will drive the biggest transfer of power in a generation out of Whitehall to our regions and communities and end the begging bowl, micro-managing culture. It will make devolution the default setting by: giving mayors new powers over planning, housing and regeneration to get Britain building as part of our plan for change; rebuilding local government, so that it can once again deliver good local services that people can rely on; and empowering local communities to have a bigger say in shaping their local area.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
In the right hon. Lady’s attempts to drive forward this carthorse of devolution, will she tell us where the accountability and scrutiny will come from and where the voice of local people will really be heard?
Angela Rayner
I am really disappointed, because I thought that the previous Government were the ones to turbocharge devolution, and we are moving on that agenda. We actually do believe that devolution is a good thing and that these measures will enable mayors and local areas to be empowered more to drive that growth that we desperately need in all parts of the country.
This Bill is long overdue. England is one of the most centralised developed countries in the world. Too often, the system works against rather than with local people. Too many decisions affecting too many are made by too few. That, combined with short-term, sticking-plaster politics, has left the country in a doom loop of worsening regional divides.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you many wonder why a Scot would make an intervention at this point in the debate. May I advise the right hon. Lady to look north, to Scotland, to see how this should not be done? The Scottish Government have centralised powers, taking them right away from communities such as mine. That is how we should not do it. This is a cautionary tale.
Angela Rayner
I thank the hon. Member for his guidance. I always look north—contrary to what other people believe. I am very proud of the north. I gently say to him that the challenge at the moment lies with the Government of Scotland. Hopefully, we can reverse things and have a Government who truly believe in putting the power in local people’s hands.
We only have to look at the difference being made by our mayors to see that there is a better way. From building tens of thousands of new social homes with Mayor Rotheram in Liverpool, to fighting child poverty with Mayor McGuinness in the north-east, to making people’s commutes quicker and cheaper with Mayor Burnham in my own Greater Manchester, and to creating London’s summer of al fresco dining and world-leading culture with Mayor Khan—
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
Mr Frith
We are very proud of the work of our Greater Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham. On the issue of driving change, I would like to raise a point about drivers. Half of private hire taxis in Greater Manchester are licensed outside the area. That undermines local enforcement and accountability as well as local drivers who do the right thing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill is a chance to fix that, protect passengers, raise and maintain standards, and back the best in trade?
Angela Rayner
As another Greater Manchester MP, my hon. Friend will know that Mayor Burnham has been trying to address taxi licensing for some years. I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, you were here for the previous statement, which I listened to intently, in which the Minister made it clear that there is a commitment to introduce that legislation as quickly as possible. We need to make sure that that vehicle is there, and sitting next to me is the Leader of the House, whose job it is to make sure that happens.
We have also increased opportunities and given young people a voice in decisions in the east midlands with Mayor Ward. We are driving forward a new mass transit network for West Yorkshire with Mayor Brabin, supporting women and girls into activity and sport with Mayor Skaith in North Yorkshire, and, not to forget, working to secure the future of Doncaster Sheffield airport with Mayor Coppard in South Yorkshire. We are also securing the extension of the Birmingham tramline with Mayor Parker.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
For many years under the Tories, the west midlands was at the bottom of the league table for regional transport investment, but Mayor Richard Parker has secured £2.4 billion of investment to extend the metro. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the powers in the Bill will make it easier for combined authorities to deliver these kinds of projects in the future, including, I hope, further extensions of the metro to south Birmingham?
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and again give full credit to Mayor Richard Parker, who has been working tirelessly with the Labour Government to invest in the future of Birmingham. I also thank my hon. Friend for his campaigning, pressing the case that his constituents are better off for such an investment, which will bring new jobs and better transport links. This Bill is just the start of that.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
On jobs, in Sadiq Khan’s first two terms as London Mayor, he has seen the creation of more than 330,000 jobs by the Greater London Authority. These are high-quality, well-paid jobs that bring huge opportunity to Londoners from all walks of life. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is the testament to growth that devolution can deliver, which will be further boosted by this Bill?
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This is about unlocking growth in all parts of the country. I hope that most hon. Members can see that people with skin in the game are working across the board to make sure that that potential is reached. I am talking not just about London—although London is incredibly important to that—but about all regions across our country.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
First, I thank Mayor Tracy Brabin for her investment in mass transit across West Yorkshire, including a new bus station in my town of Dewsbury. I am grateful for those investments, but how will this Bill stop a council from making the decision to distribute funding unequally across its borough? How would it stop a council from, for instance, making a decision to shut down a sports centre that is used by people of all ages on the pretence of there being reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete and then not taking steps to investigate or having a plan to reopen?
Angela Rayner
I welcome the hon. Member’s comments on the mass transit network for West Yorkshire, which I am sure will bring added benefits to his constituents. To his other point, obviously elected officials in local councils make decisions, and I would gently say to him that councils have faced significant pressures since the austerity measures of 2010, which I am sure he is aware of. I was in local government at the time, and I remember being a union rep and seeing the devastation.
We are trying to restore and empower local government, instead of this situation where they have to make incredibly difficult decisions that are harmful to their constituents. It is about being able to grow our economy and have a bigger slice of the cake. We are already investing more into local government so that we can deliver the services that people want. Within this Bill is the community assets element, which may be able to help communities in relation to high streets and to sports facilities, which can be utilised as an asset that they value in their local area.
We are also improving local transport for people in the west of England with Mayor Godwin. Our brilliant, ambitious mayors are making a difference every day for their regions. Working with them, we have already achieved so much after just a year in office. We are on track to achieve devolution across almost 80% of the country, covering 44 million people. We have created integrated funding settlements for Greater Manchester and the west midlands, giving their mayors the tools and freedoms to make decisions to get growth going, with Liverpool city region, London, the north-east, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire set to benefit from the same freedoms next year.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
We are in London, the greatest city in the world—some would say anyway—and we have all just come back from holiday, have we not? Our Mayor Sadiq Khan has ambitious plans for an overnight accommodation levy that would put us on a par with Paris and New York and would harness our growth. Those funds could help regenerate the tourism sector and improve the visitor experience. I wonder whether the Secretary of State would be open to using this devolution Bill to give mayors everywhere the power to make decisions about those kind of things.
Angela Rayner
I can hear much provocation from the Conservative Benches, but any new tax is, of course, a matter for the Chancellor at the Budget, and it must balance the potential revenue and benefits against the impact on taxpayers and the economy.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I really welcome the Bill’s efforts to strengthen communities and local democracy. However, I am worried that not enough is being done to protect private renters. In Lambeth, nearly a third of residents are renters. Rents are rising faster than wages, and the average renter is paying 72% more than the national average, which is leaving many families struggling and in poverty. The Renters’ Rights Bill was definitely a step in the right direction, but it fell short on rent hikes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Bill is an opportunity to give metro mayors the power to bring in rent controls and protect renters in their cities?
Angela Rayner
The Renters’ Rights Bill does contain measures that mean that renters can challenge unfair rent hikes. The previous Government said many times that they would do something about section 21 no-fault evictions but they did not. Our Renters’ Rights Bill will ensure that we end those evictions, which are causing so much harm to my hon. Friend’s constituents and many around the country.
Our devolution revolution is well under way, with others queueing up to join it. This what we committed to in our manifesto, and we are delivering it through this Bill. Crucially, the Bill will make devolution the default for how the Government do business, with new strategic authorities having powers to pilot and request new functions and Government having a duty to respond to certain requests. It will mean that we can deliver devolution further and faster.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
On devolving the ability to run pilots, and following up on the point made by the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), Bristol city council—including Labour councillors—voted cross-party to have the power to pilot rent controls. Recent figures show that typical private renters in my constituency spend 45% of their income on rent. That is not sustainable. This Bill could offer the opportunity for that pilot—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Interventions have become far too long. There are many Members in the Chamber who wish to contribute, which the Secretary of State might think about before she takes more interventions.
Angela Rayner
I will pay attention to that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Lady is right that there is a challenge in housing at the moment, which is also contributing to the rental situation for people. That is why we have a big ambition to build more houses. The Bill gives us more powers for strategic planning so that we can get on with building the homes that people need. The Renters’ Rights Bill does start to make progress toward making housing fairer for renters—something that the previous Government promised but failed to deliver.
I will now make progress, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Before the Secretary of State makes progress, will she give way? [Laughter.]
Angela Rayner
The strategic authorities will be created as a new category of authority in law. They will make it easier for local leaders to work together over larger areas to drive through big pro-growth projects such as integrated transport networks and housing. These will operate at three levels—foundation, mayoral and established mayoral—and the particular powers and responsibilities that each of them will have are to be defined by the Bill.
Working alongside parliamentarians and local councillors, mayors drive forward the delivery of people’s priorities—driving growth, unlocking infrastructure and powering a national renewal from the ground up. That is why the Bill will give mayors wide-ranging new powers in areas such as transport, planning and economic development.
Angela Rayner
I will make progress.
We will create new planning powers to raise the mayoral community infrastructure levy, which has generated over £1 billion since 2012 in London and, alongside investment and leadership from Mayor Khan, has helped to fund the Elizabeth line. With the expansion of their remit, the Bill will allow mayors who choose to raise a precept to spend it on the full range of functions, ensuring that local taxes are spent on local priorities.
I am sure that the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), will welcome this change given that it was the Conservatives who first introduced the mayoral precept nearly a decade ago and that Mayor Boris Johnson used a business rates supplement to help pay for Crossrail. I hope the shadow Secretary of State will wholeheartedly support the new powers in the Bill, which will mean that mayors can intervene in major strategic planning applications to unlock housing—as long as that housing is nowhere near his constituency, of course.
We will also introduce powers to license shared cycle schemes so that they work for everyone and so that bikes are not lying across pavements. The Bill will see more mayors take on police and crime commissioner functions and become responsible for fire and rescue functions, allowing them to take a joined-up approach to improving public safety.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Alaba
In Southend East and Rochford we are a proud coastal community, but we have been left behind when it comes to connectivity, educational outcomes and investment in skills. Does the Secretary of State agree that through this Bill we have a chance to deliver the long-term meaningful change that my constituents deserve?
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This is about all areas being able to join up and create inclusive growth for their areas, and that is broader than at local authority level. By combining those efforts we can unlock the potential, and his constituents will feel the benefit of that as we take this forward.
The new powers also mean new duties, including to produce a local growth plan demonstrating how mayors plan to unlock growth through planning and house building. There will also be a duty to co-operate with local government pension scheme managers so that mayors can attract investment into their local areas, unlocking jobs and opportunities. Mayors across the country will also be able to appoint commissioners to support them as their responsibilities grow, just like in London. The Bill also strengthens the ability of mayors to work with the public sector, convening local partners so that they can lead with a helicopter view of public services across their region.
We are backing the ambition and untapped potential of local areas with a more ambitious role for the mayors representing them. That must be underpinned by elections that command public confidence. Because of changes made by the last Government, mayors can be elected on just a fraction of the vote, despite serving millions of people and managing multimillion-pound budgets. We can do better than that. The Bill will therefore revert to a supplementary vote system for electing mayors and police and crime commissioners after the May 2026 elections to provide greater accountability and a strong, personal mandate for mayors. In addition, the Bill will bar mayors from also sitting as MPs, ensuring that local places benefit fully from having dedicated local champions.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
If the Deputy Prime Minister feels that elections for mayoral authorities should have a supplementary vote as that gives them sufficient authority, why does she not feel the same for Members of this House?
Angela Rayner
Millions of people are represented by mayors, who have huge powers over big regions. We want mayors to have strong personal mandates for the communities they serve rather than being elected on a fraction of the vote. It is right that first-past-the-post remains in place for general elections to maintain the constituency link.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Angela Rayner
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who has been very patient.
Sir Julian Lewis
I am truly grateful. This is, I hope, a non-party political point. The White Paper in advance of the Bill mentioned rightly that there had been consultations on strengthening the standards and conduct framework for local authorities, which relates to a campaign many of us have been involved in to try to protect local council clerks against bullying. We were pleased to be called into that consultation. There is, however, nothing about that in the Bill. Does the right hon. Lady plan to bring it forward in separate legislation?
Angela Rayner
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that important issue. We intend to bring forward legislation. Our response to the local government standards consultation sets out our plans for whole-system reform, including empowering local authorities to suspend councillors who are guilty of serious misconduct for up to six months, with the option to withhold allowances and institute premises and facilities bans. We are committed to ensuring that misconduct is dealt with swiftly and fairly across the country at local and regional mayoral levels. We do want to take action on the issue.
Let me be clear that stronger mayors and strategic authorities will not replace councils, nor the crucial work of the House. MPs on both sides of the House will continue to be vocal champions for their areas, and we expect mayors to engage in regular and constructive dialogue with MPs, working together in the best interests of their constituents. Alongside the freedom for mayors to focus on local priorities, my Department is continuing to explore a local Public Accounts Committee-style model to improve the system of accountability and scrutiny of local spending.
The Government expect mayors to use their new powers to deliver real change, not retain the status quo. This is not about grandstanding or making a political point; it is about using the levers of growth to unlock infrastructure and drive investment. The role of local authorities in delivering vital local services and improving local neighbourhoods is essential, and it will continue. We also expect to see strategic authorities working hand in glove with their constituent councils to deliver for their residents.
The Bill will help rebuild local government for the communities who depend on it day in, day out. As a fit, legal and decent foundation of devolution, the Bill will establish the Local Audit Office to help fix the broken, fragmented local audit system. We will also reform local authority governance, requiring councils with a committee system to move to a leader and cabinet model and putting a stop to new local authority mayor roles being created. That change will streamline decision making across all councils and make it easier for people to understand how their council is run. It will also give the Government the tools to deliver local government reorganisation, resulting in better outcomes for residents and significant savings that can be reinvested in public services and improving accountability.
At all levels, we are backing local people to drive growth and greater opportunities for all, because, from top to bottom, the best decisions for communities are made by those who know their area best. That is why the Bill will also give local communities across the country much-needed new powers, like a bigger say in shaping their place through effective neighbourhood governance, with councils required to make sure that this is happening, as well as the tools to transform their high streets and neighbourhoods through a new community right to buy—to save much-loved community assets, like pubs and shops, from being lost and to protect sports grounds, which are at the heart of so many communities and a source of great local pride. The Bill will also support our high streets by banning the unfair practice of upwards-only rent reviews, preventing the blight of vacant shop fronts, because it is only when every community succeeds that our country succeeds.
The Bill and our reforms herald a new era for Britain: a new way of governing that puts politics back in the service of working people. Where previous Governments promised and failed the British people, this Government are keeping faith.
I note the Conservatives’ reasoned amendment. I must say that after they left the country with the worst housing crisis in a generation, I am dismayed that they would oppose a Bill that will unlock housing and planning on a vast scale. This Bill will empower local communities to take back control of their high streets by ending the Tory policy of upward-only rent reviews, and it will end the begging-bowl culture of the last Government.
While the Tories made empty promises to level up the country, this Labour Government are getting on with the job. Within days of taking office, Secretaries of State were passing down newly-won powers for the sake of our towns, cities and villages, with the Prime Minister leading the way. It has not always been easy, but real change takes hard work. We are rewiring Britain and, with it, growth and opportunity. This is how the British people will take back control, and how we will unite our country in times when we have never needed it more. I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, because the Bill does nothing to empower local communities, but instead contains measures reducing the democratically elected representation of communities and enables the Government to impose local government restructuring on communities, irrespective of local opinion, disregarding local geography and identity; because bureaucratic restructuring of local government will cost money and reduce focus on housing delivery with no evidence that it will deliver better services; because the Bill will lead to greater costs for residents by creating new mayoral precepts, increasing borrowing powers, and raising parking charges on motorists, and adding more local bureaucrats as mayoral-appointed commissioners; and because the Bill will result in higher council tax bills for hardworking families, at a time when local government is facing increased costs pressures due to unfunded rises in employers’ National Insurance contributions.”
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill—it is a title straight out of the Ministry of Truth. The Bill is not about devolution; it is clearly a blatant power grab by the Deputy Prime Minister—a right hon. Lady for whom I have a huge amount of respect—and her Department. It is not about community empowerment at all; it is about stripping power from local authorities and concentrating it in Whitehall and the hands of the people in Whitehall.
Big Brother would be proud. Centralisation is devolution. Whitehall diktat is community empowerment. The fact that the Bill does the opposite of what it claims is, as we set out in our reasoned amendment, why we cannot give it a free pass. This Bill sidelines communities. This Bill forces restructuring without consent. This Bill wastes money while families are facing higher bills because of Labour’s mismanagement. This Bill disrupts and distracts councils from building the homes that local people need. Those are our objections. That is what we have set out in our reasoned amendment.
If the Government want to win the confidence of this House rather than just shoehorning their Back Benchers through the Division Lobby, they need to justify the demands embedded in the Bill. During the debate and when summing up, I sincerely hope that they answer our questions. Why centralise control? Why raise taxes? Why deny residents their voice? Those are the questions that those on the Treasury Bench need to answer before this Bill can make credible progress through the House.
The case has been set out, but before Members on the Labour Benches get too excited, let me put to bed a few spectres that have been raised. The Conservative party believes in devolution, not just in theory but in practice: we created many of the existing mayoral roles; we created police and crime commissioners; we empowered parish councils and neighbourhood planning; and we gave families the power to block excessive council tax rises. We devolved by consent—by agreement with local leaders—and not by Whitehall diktat.
The simple truth of the matter is that Labour does not and has never believed in devolution, and it does not deliver meaningful devolution. It is a centralising party and it centralises. This Government are abolishing councils without consent and forcing them to sign up to their model of restructuring. They forced the postponement of elections in nine county councils. That was unprecedented. Elections are the foundation of democracy, and denying them undermines public trust and confidence. In truth, denying residents their democratic voice was done for a very specific reason. It was done because Labour feared what people would say to it at the ballot box.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman has just listed a load of things that the Tories did with devolution. He cannot deny that the reason we need devolution and local government reorganisation is because his Government significantly underfunded local government, which is now on its knees. We therefore have to take action to get local government back in a good place, and devolution and local government reform is one of those actions.
Sir James Cleverly
I think the hon. Member said the quiet bit out loud: this is about putting up taxes on local people. That is what this legislation is fundamentally about; we know that to be true. I promise the House that I did not tee up that intervention—it was the next bit in my speech. Labour, by imposing this restructuring from the centre, is leaving local people without a voice. This legislation is about creating what this Government want, which is a cohort of subservient Labour mayors.
Let us look at what Labour mayors actually deliver—as I say, this speech was written before the previous intervention. Labour mayors put up taxes. Labour mayors increase the tax burden on local people. The Liverpool city region—up by 26%; Greater Manchester—up by 8%; West Yorkshire—up by 6%; and London, since Sadiq Khan took office in 2016—up by over 70%. Labour Members are quiet now, aren’t they? The truth hurts.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me, then, why Labour keeps getting re-elected to mayoralties?
Sir James Cleverly
I will mention Paul Bristow later in my speech.
The difference is that under Conservative mayors, we keep costs down. Ben Houchen, for example, is delivering a zero precept. If more places get mayors under this Labour proposal, how much more will local people pay? Will Ministers—whether that be the Secretary of State or whoever responds to the debate—guarantee that costs will not go up under this model and that council tax will not rise under this model, or is this another set of taxes on hard-working families by stealth? The truth is that the record of Labour mayors is that they increase taxes by well above the rate of inflation. Also, will the pressure on parish council precepts also hit hard-working local people in the pocket? The Conservatives are in no doubt that, once again, it will be hard-working families and local people who will pay the price for Labour’s ineptitude.
It is not only families that will be hit. This Bill forces councils to merge, and prudent councils—those that have been careful with their money—will be forced to inherit the debt of others. How on earth is penalising good financial management at local government level fair? What protections will be in place to protect people from higher bills? Looking through the Bill, there are none that I can see.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
How does my right hon. Friend think my constituents on the Isle of Wight feel about being fused under a combined mayoral authority with Hampshire without having a single say?
Sir James Cleverly
My hon. Friend’s point goes to the heart of these proposals. For all Labour’s warm words about community engagement, community voice and communities actually having a say, that is a classic example. I have visited the Isle of Wight, not only in a personal capacity but as a guest of my hon. Friend, so I know full well that even though the county of Hampshire has many, many excellent things, the people of the Isle of Wight want to maintain their autonomy—and they should have the right to do so if that is what they want.
It is not just that local councils will lose control of their finances; they will also lose control of their powers, which are being stripped from them in this Bill. Mayors are gaining sweeping planning and transport powers without council consent or representation. Let me give an example: what if communities oppose punitive anti-driver proposals from a mayor in their local neighbourhoods? How can they make their voices heard? Who will win? Will it be the mayor who has been imposed upon them, or will it be the local communities? What will the accountability model be for those mayors? We can see nothing in the Bill about people holding their mayors accountable. There is no provision for meaningful scrutiny during the tenure of the mayoralty.
The Secretary of State made reference to the upwards-only rent reviews. I completely get that that is a superficially attractive set of proposals, but what assessment has been made of the effective valuation of commercial property, including properties that are owned by the local authorities themselves? If she is confident that this is such a good idea, why was there no scrutiny? Why was there no consultation on these proposals? Do Ministers really think that that is best practice when it comes to creating a stable investment environment and confidence for people spending money in the high street commercial properties that keep our communities alive?
The silence on those questions about the Bill is frankly deafening, because the Government have no answer. This Bill is not about empowering local communities, and it is definitely not about empowering local councils. It is about creating a cohort of puppet mayors controlled by the right hon. Lady’s Department. I respect her enormously, but her ability to strip power not just from local councils but from the Prime Minister is something well worth watching. I think we should at least be impressed by that. I put this to Labour Members: if this is about community empowerment, why does it reduce local representation? If it is about fiscal responsibility, why will it burden ratepayers—council tax payers—with debts that their local authorities did not create? If it is about more homes, why does it hamper and suffocate councils with increased bureaucracy?
Devolution can work, and indeed does work, when it is done properly. We know that it works because Conservative mayors have delivered. Ben Houchen saved Teesside airport, delivered the UK’s largest freeport with 18,000 quality jobs and secured Treasury North in Darlington with 1,400 high-skilled roles, all with a zero mayoral precept. Paul Bristow in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough is ending Labour’s ideological attack on drivers. Boris Johnson, while Mayor of London, delivered the 2012 games and secured Crossrail. In the west midlands, Andy Street was a genuine champion for his region and a household name. Who has he been replaced by? A person who is not even a household name in his own household. That says it all. We Conservatives deliver. We delivered devolved government that delivers infrastructure, jobs and economic growth. What has Labour delivered? Higher costs and broken promises—[Interruption.] More tax, less delivery. That is the Labour way.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way—sorry for treading on his punchline. I was very pleased to hear his new-found enthusiasm for Teesside. That is something we all share, but it seems to stand at odds with the comments he made to my predecessor about the town of Stockton. Does he stand by those terrible comments that he made, or would he like to take this opportunity to apologise to my constituents?
Sir James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman really does need to keep up. I addressed those comments at the time. I have been to Stockton. I have campaigned with my good friend and colleague the Conservative mayor of the town. I have knocked on doors in Stockton, and I have a huge amount of respect for the town. The point I was making was about the then Labour representative, who I was not terribly impressed with, and the hon. Gentleman knows that that is the case.
We were always deeply sceptical about whether the content of the Bill would match its aspirational title, so we set five tests, framed in the form of five simple questions. First, is this a genuine choice for councils? Secondly, do all the affected tiers agree with the changes? Thirdly, is there genuine public support for the changes? Fourthly, will the changes keep bills down? Fifthly, will the changes protect social care? Having looked through the Bill, it is clear that the answer to every single one of those questions is no. Five questions, five failures.
As I have said, Conservatives are in favour of devolution when done properly, but only if that devolution is meaningful and only if local communities and their immediate representatives have the power to deliver. We are its champions because we delivered it. We have proven that it works, but it must be by consent; it cannot be by compulsion. It should be by partnership, not imposition, and by empowering councils and councillors, not by erasing them. This Bill is not devolution; it is central control. This Bill is higher taxes and weaker local democracy. This Bill is a power grab by the Secretary of State. It fails to deliver on its promise, and that is why the House must decline to give it a Second Reading and demand that the Government rethink these proposals.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With the exception of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, there will be an immediate five-minute time limit.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
I rise to support the Second Reading of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is a vital step towards modernising local government and delivering fairer investment and greater accountability across England. I do so with 17 years’ experience as a local councillor, for five of which I was leader of South Ribble borough council in Lancashire, which forms part of my constituency. Although the scope of the Bill covers many distinct subject matters, I intend to focus my brief comments—listening to what you said, Madam Deputy Speaker—on part 3, chapter 1 on local government reorganisation.
Let us be clear: Lancashire is now an outlier. While 74% of England’s population live under unitary authorities delivering all local services through a single accountable body, Lancashire remains part of the shrinking 26% operating under a two-tier system. Frankly, no one would design the two-tier system today—it is inefficient, confusing and expensive. Residents do not understand why one council is responsible for potholes and roads and another for pavements and parks, why education sits at county level while planning sits with district, or why one council collects their waste and another disposes of it. They do not understand why they are paying for two different sets of local councillors for the same geographical area, and for 15 chief executives and senior management teams when they only actually require three or four, or why our neighbours in Greater Manchester and the Liverpool city region are all unitaries, but Lancashire is left with two tiers of bureaucracy. The result? Duplicated services, inefficient staffing and confused accountability.
We know that change works. In South Ribble, through shared services with our district council neighbour, Chorley, we have saved over £1 million for local taxpayers—real money back into local budgets. Imagine what could be achieved with a fully unitary structure across Lancashire. In my time as leader of South Ribble borough council, I froze council tax for three consecutive years while still delivering effective and efficient frontline services. Yet our residents’ council tax bills kept rising as Lancashire county council increased their taxes annually due to its inefficiencies. My community were confused by these council tax bills, not understanding that the local district council only accounted for around 11% of their overall bill and, in fact, that they were paying more to the police and crime commissioner than to their district council.
Beyond efficiency, this is about fully unlocking devolution. Lancashire has been left behind. We will end up being one of the largest counties in the north of England without a metro mayor. We have missed out already on hundreds of millions of pounds of investment seen in Greater Manchester, the west midlands, West Yorkshire and the Liverpool city region. That is why I welcome the powers in the Bill that allow the Secretary of State to mandate reorganisation where appropriate from a two-tier system to a unitary model. It is a necessary tool to drive reform, and I commend the Secretary of State and the Local Government Minister for their bold vision.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
May I start by welcoming the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), to his place on the Front Bench. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a councillor at Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Transferring powers closer to communities through devolution is critical to getting service delivery right and developing trust. The public consistently say that they have more faith in local government than in national Government, and the Bill was meant to deliver on that promise. As the Secretary of State noted, the Prime Minister said in his first weeks in office that he wanted to give power to those with skin in the game and pledged to help citizens to take back control. The Liberal Democrats absolutely agree with that desire.
However, what we see here is a Bill that centralises decision making, limits community influence and, because it leaves areas unsure of their future, risks deepening inequalities between regions. The White Paper promised mayors for all regions and community-led reorganisation, but the Bill provides powers to merge councils from Westminster and fails to strengthen the councils closest to people—our towns and parishes. It even allows councils that have directly rejected a combined authority to be forced into one with their neighbours.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives have some nerve talking about top-down reorganisation when, against people’s wishes—as expressed in a poll—they imposed an unwanted and unpopular unitary council on the whole of Somerset? Does she also agree that the Bill should introduce fair votes, in this place and in councils across the country, to restore faith in democracy and politics?
Vikki Slade
A similar thing happened in Dorset. In fact, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) voted against a merger in our area but failed, even under his own Government. I will come to the issue of proportional representation.
Strategic mayors have the potential to be our regional champions. The Liberal Democrats recognise the benefits that they have brought to many cities, including London and Manchester. However, the Bill fails to standardise their role or to put all regions on an equal footing. Some areas have been selected for early adoption and funding, while others—Kent, Medway and my own area of Wessex—are left behind with no timeline or support.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is unclear for some areas, including Shropshire, where they will end up being made to form a combined authority. Shropshire shares borders with Wales and Cheshire, which is in a different region, so there is no clear partner for it. I am concerned that Shropshire will end up being forced into a combined authority with an area that does not look like Shropshire or give any benefit to its residents. Does my hon. Friend agree that this needs to be better thought through?
Vikki Slade
I share my hon. Friend’s concern that some areas risk being left behind by this muddled approach. I ask the Secretary of State for assurances on how she will ensure that such areas do not fall further behind neighbours that are further along in the programme.
We Liberal Democrats are pleased that the Government are reversing the Conservatives’ disastrous decision to use first past the post for mayoral and police commissioner elections—it is ridiculous that one of the mayors elected this May won on just 25% of the vote—but the Government must go further in making votes fair. We believe that the Government should bring in the alternative vote system so that voters’ voices are properly heard. We maintain that if the Government believe in majority support for elected officials, they should extend that mandate to MPs and councillors, too.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Sussex mayoral elections that are due to take place in May next year will use the current first-past-the-post system rather than the proposed system that the Government say they favour. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is totally unfair on Sussex residents that everybody who is a year behind in the programme will get to vote using a better system?
Vikki Slade
I will come to that later in my speech, when I will share the concerns of electoral officials about whether the legislation can deliver in time for any of the changes scheduled for next year. Although I recognise that there is an anomaly for next year, even electoral officials are worried about the Bill’s timeline and the ability to make any changes for 2026 and for those who have already had elections delayed.
Across the sector, there are serious concerns about the power of the commissioners that will be appointed by mayors—people with significant influence but little scrutiny. There is concern that they will hold more sway than elected leaders of local authorities but without any democratic accountability. In the very centre, the Secretary of State will retain sweeping powers to merge authorities and extend functions without parliamentary oversight or local consent. I am seeking an explanation of how and when those powers would be used, so that we can assure our local leaders that they will not be overridden.
There is widespread concern about the loss of highly skilled, experienced councillors through the removal of district councils. I noted the Secretary of State’s concerns about putting power into the hands of too few people. How will she ensure that there is not a democratic and skills deficit and that people are properly represented across these larger regions?
For the last decade, the Conservative Government have cut funding to councils but forced them to do more. Their economic mismanagement and failure to fix social care has left many councils on the brink of collapse. This Bill was an opportunity for real local government reform, but it is an opportunity missed.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
A particular concern of my constituents in Tiverton and Minehead, where we have one local authority in Devon and one in Somerset, is the real difficulties around special educational needs and disabilities. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill could create difficulties for local authorities that are struggling to deliver good SEND education for so many of our children?
Vikki Slade
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Special educational needs are a huge passion of mine—I am sure Members have heard me talk about them many times—and this issue will take so many councils to a very dark place. I trust that the Minister hears that on a regular basis and that we will see in the fair funding review something really serious about special educational needs provision.
Local authorities have unique access to every household and business, which gives them a huge opportunity to improve people’s health and wellbeing. The Bill requires strategic authorities to improve the health of their communities, but I am concerned that it does not provide substantial funding to do that, and without that funding, I cannot see how it can be achieved. While the Bill makes substantial improvements to the workings of audit, it misses the opportunity to shine a light on all the places that taxpayers’ money is spent through the introduction of local public accounts committees. I was reassured to hear the Secretary of State refer to that being in her thinking, but rolling them out alongside strategic authorities would really aid transparency, improve value for money and enable organisations to share resources for the good of the community. I urge the Government to reflect on that as we go towards the Report stage.
The Bill also proposes that strategic authorities take on the functions of police and crime commissioners and fire authorities. However, because of the disparity in boundaries, there is a real risk that community priorities will not be maintained, and the control of such things by appointed rather than elected commissioners further reduces democratic accountability. How will the Government ensure fair funding and effective policing and fire services where strategic authorities cover vastly different communities?
Councils have expressed similar concerns about a mismatch between places within those authorities—for example, the different needs of urban and rural areas, or the inclusion of a single authority among a cluster of places with very different levels of deprivation or demographics. Some communities feel that where decisions are made by simple majority vote, their voice will not be heard. Weighted voting and the meaningful inclusion of town and parish councils can ensure that local insight is retained, particularly around issues such as planning and transport.
Representation must not end there. This Bill was an opportunity to ensure that local services draw on and are informed by the full range of lived experiences in an area.
Freddie van Mierlo
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Bill could make it more difficult for residents to access services, because where authorities that currently deliver services on a county-wide basis are split into multiple authorities, it will create borders within counties?
Vikki Slade
My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
There is the opportunity to use more effectively our town and parish council system to drive community empowerment. Instead, the creation of neighbourhood committees feels like a top-down solution. Without statutory powers or budgets, they risk becoming symbolic rather than effective. While it is welcome that existing town and parish councils can participate, the Bill does not provide a framework for communities wanting to establish new councils or the funding to do so.
District councils have long underpinned the civic identity of towns and driven the activities that reflect their origins. With their loss in ancient towns and cities such as Colchester and Winchester, and without the funding to support smaller community-led councils, there is a real risk that our distinct history, culture and civic pride in our communities could be eroded. We cannot allow that to happen.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the replacement of the community right to bid with a right to buy with first refusal. I have seen some fantastic examples of the right to bid working, such as the Anchor Inn in Shapwick in my constituency, but these successes are few and far between.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Communities such as Teddington in my constituency will very much welcome the new community right to buy. At Udney Park, playing fields have lain derelict for more than a decade. However, although the Bill makes provision for what happens when there is a disagreement over price, it is silent on what happens when a community bid is refused by a buyer even at market valuation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must look to go further on that point?
Vikki Slade
I agree that there is opportunity to do much more as the Bill moves into Committee. Communities’ long struggles to save such assets is not because of a lack of passion or volunteers, but because the system feels stacked against them. “The Museum of Broken Dreams”, a display on the parliamentary estate, shows some good examples of where community groups have lost out to commercial developers who have demolished buildings and walked away, or where the groups cannot get support.
We are pleased to see sporting assets included in the right to buy and we welcome their indefinite inclusion on the register, but we want environmental assets to be included as well, so that we can protect our land for restoration and nature management. We also want restoration of the funding for neighbourhood plans, so that smaller authorities, which will now struggle to make such plans for their tiny communities, can do so without onerous costs to their residents.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
To pick up on my hon. Friend’s point about environmental concern, at the moment local authorities have a weak duty on biodiversity—to consider from time to time what they might do to conserve or enhance biodiversity—so does she agree that the Bill offers a real opportunity to strengthen such environmental protections, to get this country back on track?
Vikki Slade
I believe that the community right to buy has huge opportunities for councils. In Committee, I hope that we will be able to improve and enhance the Bill for everyone.
As a former retail business owner, I welcome the removal of upward-only rent reviews. Businesses should not be locked into rising costs when market conditions shift. This is a long-overdue reform that will help small businesses to adapt and survive. The Bill makes interesting and welcome changes on things such as pension schemes and transport devolution, but misses the opportunity to improve council standards and attendance, and it fails to establish in statute the promised council of regions and nations or the local authority leaders council, both of which would be important in giving local government a stronger voice in Whitehall.
In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats support the principle of devolution. We recognise the crisis in local government funding and we welcome the fair funding review promised later this autumn. The Bill, however, does not deliver the ambitious shift in power that our communities need. It risks disenfranchising places left at the back of the queue with no funding or timeline to work toward. We cannot support a Bill that centralises control, weakens local accountability and misses the chance truly to empower communities, as we laid out in our reasoned amendment. We urge the Government to think again, and to revise and recommit to genuine devolution and community empowerment so that we can support the Bill.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes the fact that I remain a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. My contribution is to assist the Secretary of State and the Government in ensuring that this important Bill will truly deliver on my right hon. Friend’s ambition for a transformative change in our communities—a vision that we share. Others in the House will want to articulate the advantages of devolving power and increasing strategic focus for the English regions, but I have expertise in commercial leases, so the House will forgive me for focusing on that one point.
The Bill represents a crucial step in the vital work of promoting economic growth and opportunity for our communities. Our constituents will all have witnessed at first hand how the previous Government’s failure to promote growth and support economic activity has contributed to the decline in the wellbeing of our communities.
I have spent 30 years in the commercial property industry and, as a result, numerous organisations and businesses have contacted me directly about the proposals to ban upwards-only rent reviews. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors is already working to make lease terms, including about rent reviews, more transparent. Since 2020, the “Code for leasing business premises, England and Wales, 1st edition”, which includes advice on rent reviews, has been in place for chartered surveyors to adhere to when advising both landlords and tenants. The proposal to implement by legislation a universal ban on clauses within commercial leases for the provision of upwards-only rent reviews creates uncertainty for the funding of property development. My concern is that this legislation would apply to all commercial properties, not just high street retail or small business properties. As currently drafted, the Government’s proposals would impact high street retail, as well as all other commercial sectors.
The ambition to protect high street retail and small businesses, particularly in tough economic conditions, is certainly not to be underestimated, and nor is it unwelcome. There is a surplus of vacant, unsuitable, poorly configured and energy-hungry retail units crying out for regeneration in most towns across the United Kingdom, including in the towns of Paisley, Renfrew and Erskine in my constituency, but I do not believe that it is just upwards-only rent reviews that are preventing the regeneration of our towns and cities.
With my professional background, I can help to improve this technical aspect of the Bill in order to prevent unintended consequences for the Government’s growth agenda. I understand the desire to support small businesses on our high streets and I understand the pressures faced by those businesses because of difficult trading conditions. Property development can be the foundation stone of economic growth in our regional economies. My experience is that new sustainable development, in the right place, can be transformative, a source of jobs and training in construction, and a source of employment and opportunity in operation. New transformative sustainable development adds vitality to an area, acting as a spur to further development and wider investment.
I know that all Members will intuitively feel that upwards-only rent reviews are unfair, but that is a simplistic view. Among the earliest pioneers of upwards-only reviews were the Church of England’s Church Commissioners, who implemented them to ensure certainty of income for the Church and remain among the largest landowners in the country. My concern is that the well-intended focus on the genuine problems of small business and the high street could have unintended consequences for the broader property development sector.
In closing, I encourage my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider an amendment to the clause to ensure that it is focused where it is needed most, without impacting on all property sectors. I stand ready to help with that endeavour.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
This Bill is supposed to be the Government’s flagship piece of legislation to empower England’s cities, regions and communities, but there is disappointingly little in it about strengthening accountability in existing devolved bodies, especially the Greater London Authority.
It is right that power is returned to cities, regions and communities, but those who hold devolved power must also be held accountable for their decisions, actions and delivery. Nowhere in England enjoys more devolved powers than London. That is in part why it is the only area with a directly elected Assembly, devoted to scrutiny. However, as the Mayor of London’s responsibilities, powers and budget have grown, the Assembly has become weaker and weaker in comparison. A notable issue is the two-thirds majority required to amend the mayor’s budget and strategies, but that is impossible to achieve in the London Assembly, which is why no budget or strategy has been amended in 25 years.
Unlike other combined authorities, the Assembly cannot call in mayoral decisions and London’s 32 boroughs are excluded from decision making. That means the mayor does not have to seek consensus, negotiate or even listen to opposing views. In a city the size of London, it effectively alienates and disenfranchises millions of people. That political fracture was made clear when Mayor Khan imposed the ultra low emission zone expansion on outer London, despite overwhelming opposition.
There is a glaring democratic and accountability deficit in London, which is why so many of my constituents—and, I know, the constituents of other Members—are now questioning the place of the London borough of Bromley in the Greater London Authority. They have never paid more to City Hall, yet people feel that they are ignored on every issue. Mayor Khan has increased council tax by 77% in nine years, meaning that Londoners pay nearly £500 a year on average to fund his policies. Let us not forget the huge sums that Londoners now pay City Hall thanks to his road charges. In the first three months of this year, motorists forked out nearly £220 million thanks to his ULEZ charge, the Blackwall tunnel toll and his hiked congestion charge. What do they receive in return for all that money? ULEZ cameras, too few police officers and green-belt protections being ripped up.
Anyone who wants to see devolution in London succeed must support measures to make the Mayor of London more accountable. First, this Bill introduces simple majority voting in combined authorities as the default decision-making process, but it stops short of doing that in the London Assembly. That is a mistake. It should abolish the two-thirds majority requirement to amend budgets and strategies, allowing a simple majority of Assembly members to force changes. That alone would transform London’s politics and force mayors to the table. Secondly, this Government should consult on a new model to give the 32 boroughs a voice and a vote in London, so that Bromley can no longer be ignored. Finally, this Bill should give the London Assembly the power to call in mayoral decisions.
My constituents in Bromley and Biggin Hill have had enough of being ignored by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. If the Government want to maintain the support of Londoners for devolution, the London Mayor must be made accountable.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
Devolution and local government reorganisation must not simply be a sticking plaster over the problems of today; instead, we must determine what we want the coming decade to look like for our local communities. We must ensure that people in places such as Ipswich and Suffolk have the resources, powers and trust to determine our own futures. We can end the fragmentation of services and decision making that has at times hampered progress and instead usher in a new era of energy, ambition and delivery.
It has been really encouraging to see all Suffolk’s district and borough councils, led by different political parties, working collaboratively and with compromise to form a forward-facing submission. However, there is a stark and disappointing contrast with Suffolk county council. It has been really concerning to see that more time is being spent on aiming to discredit alternative ideas and proposals, rather than promoting why the plans are right for our county. Tactics have at times been bizarre, but there is a serious point here. Residents are entitled to proper information, not a spin-heavy PR campaign.
I fully accept that turkeys do not vote for Christmas, but I expect local authorities to hold themselves to a higher standard. While running such a misleading campaign betrays a lack of confidence in their own proposals, it does them a disservice and, more crucially, treats local residents with a lack of respect and no little disdain. Residents will question why the Conservatives at Suffolk county council are spending so much money and resources on such an overwhelmingly negative campaign at a time when our potholes go unfilled and our children with special educational needs are so badly failed, all the while raising council tax by its maximum level every single year. Suffolk county council looks not like an authority that is ready to grasp the future, but like one that looks to keep power and status for itself.
Alongside the investment in our communities by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, this Bill and the wider efforts of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister offer Ipswich, Suffolk and East Anglia a once-in-a-generation chance to turbocharge investment, growth and opportunity, giving us the chance to determine our own future. While I am supportive of the Bill for the transformative effect it will have on our country, on a local level, a Greater Ipswich council could do far more than just regenerate our town and the surrounding area. It could become a nationally leading economic powerhouse, and our friends and neighbours in east and west Suffolk would also greatly benefit from being able to set the direction of their local communities. This is not just my personal view; it is a view shared by every district and borough council in Suffolk, as well as by political parties of all stripes across Ipswich. From my discussions with local residents, including at my recent town hall event, it seems to be the option that they favour, too.
A Greater Ipswich will renew our area’s economic foundations and deliver the infrastructure we need after years of neglect. Lowestoft and the energy coast will be able to power new jobs and investment for their area, and Bury St Edmunds will be better able to align itself with the opportunities offered by the growth around Cambridge and Peterborough. People want their councils to deliver public services effectively, responsibly and accessibly, which is why I believe our devolution settlement needs to produce unitary authorities of sufficient scale to achieve that. However, people rightly also want their councillors and councils to be rooted in their local community so that they can listen, understand, and act in their best interests. I believe that three unitary authorities in Suffolk, working alongside a Mayor for East Anglia, would achieve that balance.
This is not about loosening the fabric that holds our county together—it is about strengthening it. I moved to Suffolk when I was 10 years old, a quarter of a century ago. It is my home, and I care deeply about what happens next. For a long time, we have been ill served as a town and a county by short-termism and a do-nothing approach. Every day I have entered this job, I have thought about all the ways in which we can leverage the change we need to set us on a new path. The Bill we are debating today will be the driving force behind how we do that. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has set out time and again, the goal of devolution must not be to tinker around the edges of our current system, sticking with a system that is not working for anyone. Instead, we should look to the future and take this opportunity to transform local government, our public services and our communities for the better. I proudly support this Bill, and in doing so, I will continue to work for an ambitious devolution settlement that meets the needs of people in Ipswich, Suffolk and East Anglia.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as someone who is still a sitting councillor. In fact, when I came into this place, I sat on three different councils, so I speak from a good history of local council knowledge.
This Bill focuses on mayors, yet we hear about putting power in the hands of local people. Having a Mayor of Greater Manchester, which has a single identity, is quite different from having mayors in Devon, which is a vast area containing different sorts of places—let alone, perhaps, a mayor of Devon and Cornwall. That is not power in local hands, and the idea that reorganising councils will save money is a fallacy. We will see a few senior executives go, but the numbers of people on the bins, doing the work in the streets that needs to be done across Devon, will not be reduced. Reorganising councils will not save money; in fact, it will cost a huge amount of money, which is not being funded.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The Government have claimed that the measures in this Bill, including merging councils, will save significant amounts of money. However, the County Councils Network has revealed that reorganisation could make no savings and cost money. Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures in this Bill are based on out-of-date reports that risk further bankrupting local authorities?
Martin Wrigley
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. However, in my remaining minutes, I will focus on two or three other areas that were not covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). In all the powers and broad strategic aims of this Bill, the key roles played by town and parish councils are forgotten; in fact, the Bill barely mentions them. It also omits the role played by our national park authorities.
Parish and town councils are the first port of call for residents. They are closest to the ground and most responsive to the day-to-day needs of their communities—these are the truly local hands. As district councils disappear, their local assets of less significant value to the new unitary authority will likely suffer, or be overlooked or sold off without considering local input from the town or parish council, despite any changes to the community right to buy, whose successes—as we have heard—are few and far between. This Bill must contain a statutory obligation to work with the most local and community-rooted bodies, which are our parish and town councils. A duty to co-operate must be put into the Bill. Neighbourhood committees or areas, as vaguely set out as they are in the Bill, may play a part in keeping planning and other functions local within the wider unitary geography, but they must also consider and work with the town and parish councils that they cover. This must be a statutory requirement. The Bill allows mayors to convene partners and request collaboration, but those are discretionary powers. They may be used, or they may be ignored. There is no enforceable duty and no statutory requirement to co-operate, and that is a profound weakness.
National park authorities are mentioned not once in the Bill, yet they carry the legal responsibility for some of our most precious landscapes. National park authorities, such as Dartmoor, have a majority of members from a mix of local authorities—five, in Dartmoor’s case—and a minority of Government-appointed members. Without changes, if Dartmoor ended up completely within the boundaries of a new unitary, it would effectively be managed as part of that unitary and lose its unique identity. Its planning authority will be overridden and its strategic vision may be subsumed. We must protect Dartmoor and the other parks for people to freely access and enjoy, and not let greed rip things apart for mere profit. The Bill must address how these authorities will maintain independence and protect the identities of the areas they serve.
Another missed opportunity is the need to make the provision of public toilets a statutory responsibility. Too often, councils in financial difficulties cut these vital facilities, and in Devon we know that there will be no money left over once the special educational needs and disabilities overspend has been paid for by the carefully managed districts and their reserves. It will still be a case of there being no money left.
Finally, I welcome the return of the alternative vote for mayors, but urge the Government to go further and introduce full proportional representation for all the new unitary councils, making every vote count.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on bringing forward this Bill, which embeds our ambition and champions the promise of devolution. It will mark the biggest transfer of power from Whitehall to our regions in a generation. It means that the protection of our public spaces will result in the improvement of our infrastructure and the strengthening of our local economy. Devolution should promote local accountability and bring decision makers closer to the people who feel the impact, and I wholeheartedly welcome the parts of the Bill that will ensure that. The creation of a community right to buy, offering more oversight on local policing and placing a duty on authorities to improve health and reduce health inequalities are also welcome steps in the right direction. The spirit of the Bill is one we should all support.
I bring clause 57 to the Government’s attention. It effectively abolishes the committee structure and introduces a measure that will impact on Sheffield, one of 38 councils running under the committee governance system. More than 80,000 people in a democratic referendum in Sheffield voted decisively in favour of a modern committee structure over the leader and cabinet model that clause 57 imposes. Through the referendum, Sheffield citizens chose collaboration through their committees, instead of decision-making powers being concentrated in fewer hands. Six years on from that referendum, the committee system works for Sheffield. It has delivered meaningful scrutiny where it was lacking before, and it has proven its worth in those moments where public trust has been under threat.
However, we are not here to discuss the merits and disadvantages of these two models of local governance. What matters is that residents have made a democratic decision at a local level, and it is important for that mandate to be respected and upheld. If the Bill passes in its current form, Sheffield is one of several councils that will be forced to undo those years of democratic engagement. I have received countless emails from constituents and campaigners, such as It’s Our City!, who have stressed just how important this democratic engagement has been for Sheffield, and they are right. One size does not fit all, and the LGA echoes that view.
Iqbal Mohamed
The hon. Member is making an extremely informed and important point in her speech. Does she agree that for Sheffield and her council the committee system has been better, more inclusive and more democratic for her residents than the original cabinet system? Does she endorse the view that any council that wants to go down a committee route, or any community that has already decided to do so should retain that right?
Abtisam Mohamed
The point that I am going to make is about existing committee structures retaining their models, rather than about new committees.
The Local Government Association has also called for councils to be able to retain their structures until local communities choose otherwise, and for my constituents, similarly, this is a matter of principle. Until the people of Sheffield choose another structure in another referendum, as promised, their decision should be allowed to stand, with the same flexibility that is being offered to those who chose to directly elect council mayors. There is still time to reflect that flexibility in the Bill, so I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) and me, as well as our local council leaders, to discuss the impact that these proposals will have on our communities and their trust in local governance and, more importantly, to ensure that devolution works for Sheffield.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which states that I am a sitting member of East Cambridgeshire district council.
We can surely all agree that power should be devolved as close to communities as possible, because they know what is best for their areas far better than anyone else. Strong and empowered parish, city and principal councils that are accountable to residents help our democracy and make better decisions for the communities that they serve. Sadly, the Bill does not deliver that. Although the Government’s intention of devolution by default is commendable, the Bill represents centralisation by choice. Instead of providing for genuine decentralisation of power to communities, it empowers regional mayors at the expense of local councils, and the Secretary of State.
Local councillors have expressed concerns, including about the uncertainty that these proposals have caused at a time when councils are trying to set their budgets amid the wider crisis in local government funding, and fears that bigger authorities, particularly in rural communities, will lead to weaker connections with the areas they serve. The Bill has caused considerable uncertainty locally because it comes at a time when integrated care boards are being changed, which means that relationships with key health partners are being doubly unsettled.
Councillors in my constituency fear that because the Bill has been drafted hastily, it will not fix some obvious anomalies in our existing boundaries, such as what some people have called the “Newmarket bite”. The town of Newmarket is almost completely surrounded by my constituency. Many of my residents look to Newmarket for some of their services, and many in Newmarket look to Cambridgeshire for some of theirs. Newmarket and the surrounding villages should have had the opportunity to choose between a Cambridgeshire-based and a Suffolk-based unitary.
I am particularly concerned about the Bill’s provision to enable mayors of strategic authorities to appoint seven unelected commissioners to deliver specific areas of policy. We already have an established system for that very purpose. In most councils, we have an administration consisting of elected councillors, from which the leader of the council chooses a small group to form their cabinet. In other councils, we have committees that are responsible for oversight of policy areas. Like an earlier speaker, I am also worried about the Government’s plans to impose a leader and cabinet model on these authorities. East Cambridgeshire district council has kept the committee system because that is what our residents tell us they want. We cannot have a Minister telling us that we cannot run ourselves in the way our local community wants.
Appointing commissioners rides roughshod over the current system of democratically elected councils by allowing mayors to nominate unelected commissioners to lead on policies. How can the public hold these commissioners to account, if not at the ballot box? Who will scrutinise their judgment calls? How can we improve the transparency of their decision making at a political level?
The Bill is a missed opportunity to meaningfully decentralise power to our communities and make a fundamental shift in where power lies in this country. Where the Government are claiming to make devolution the default, they have introduced centralisation. These proposals weaken existing systems of accountability, and even in parts of the Bill where progress is made, such as on electoral reform, it tinkers at the edges. We urgently need a system where every vote counts, so we need proportional representation.
True devolution comes as a result of grassroots consultation rooted in communities. Top-down attempts at devolution, such as this Bill, sadly end in being well wide of the mark. People in my constituency do not want to be forced into a unitary authority that is, on the one hand, too big to understand local needs and, on the other hand, too small to cover the areas where they work, spend leisure time and receive healthcare. They do not want decisions to be taken by appointed commissioners rather than elected councillors. They would value real devolution and a proper say in the changes they want. I urge the Government to reconsider this Bill so that it delivers the devolution in England that people want.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
I enormously welcome this Bill. It is a thoroughly rare thing for a Government to seek to actively give up power, but this Government understand that we are going to deliver an economy that works for everyone, with a new way of governing that shifts powers away from Westminster once and for all. At its heart, this Bill is about putting power back in the hands of communities, recognising that decisions should be made by those who know their communities best and who are fully accountable for the consequences of those decisions.
For somewhere like Lancashire, this Bill is a great opportunity to address the fundamental issues that have held us back for so long. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) explained the dysfunctional nature of Lancashire eloquently, but I will recap: we have 12 district councils, two unitaries, a county council, and a police and crime commissioner. This confusing two-tier structure—hollowed out by austerity, with little accountability and remote, fragmented decision making—sits in stark contrast with the clarity of leadership and devolved resources of our neighbouring city regions. We have had to watch Manchester, Liverpool and West Yorkshire forge ahead while we have been stuck in the slow lane.
This lived reality is the status quo that the Conservatives—including the shadow Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place—have sought to defend and maintain, but this Bill gives us a chance to change all that. It is a chance to take back control and empower our communities, and a chance to rebuild local government—to make it more effective and to save money that can be reinvested in local services. It is a chance to bring in resources that can turbocharge growth and deliver on our potential. I urge Lancashire leaders to work together with a sense of urgency in order to grasp this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
But there is an additional challenge. Even with clear determination from local leaders, it will be at least two years until Lancashire has a mayor and a restructured combined authority. It is likely to take much longer before we have the sort of capacity and capability that is already in place in the likes of Liverpool and Manchester. In that time, those city regions will move further ahead. The risk is that Lancashire will fall further behind, yet as the new Lancashire growth plan shows, there is a bright future for the county if we have the tools to create it. The plan identifies 12 transformational projects that will be game changers for us, ranging from transport infrastructure to world-class innovation zones. Overall, the proposed project pipeline has the potential to attract over £20 billion of additional investment to our county, but as things stand these are just bold ideas and possibilities. Taking them to the stage where they are fully worked-up, investable proposals requires the sort of capacity and capability that Lancashire no longer has.
That is in contrast with our neighbouring city regions, which have been able to use devolved resources to have full business cases and shovel-ready projects ready and waiting for the green light. We can see the result, with the vast majority of infrastructure pipeline projects located within strategic mayoral authorities. The stark contrast between the investment in established mayoral authorities and in areas like Lancashire, which is just starting the devolution process, risks embedding inequality in our regions. Places like Lancashire cannot wait until the devolved authorities are in place. To stop inequality taking root, we need support now to ensure that we can progress our transformational projects and deliver on our growth potential.
The recent Green Book review rather fortunately recognises this issue and helpfully identifies some ways of addressing it, including expanding the Treasury’s better business case programme, progressing the National Wealth Fund’s strategic partnership programme and, crucially, secondments from central Government to the regions. That is exactly what we need in Lancashire so that we can start to deliver on our growth plan, with our projects taking their place in the infrastructure pipeline.
Although I strongly welcome the Bill and call again on councils to come together to seize the opportunities it offers, I ask the Government to work with Lancashire MPs and local leaders to ensure that Lancashire receives the up-front support we need to start to catch up with our neighbours and to play our full and rightful role in delivering growth and prosperity for all our communities.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Democracy matters; accountability matters. I am afraid that this Bill strips away both. At the heart of this Government’s attempted reforms lies a democratic deficit where planning committees lose their powers; councillors may scrutinise but cannot decide; and local councils are diminished, while in their place a mayor is handed sweeping powers over planning, housing, infrastructure and even development orders. This is not devolution downwards to communities; it is centralisation.
Let us be absolutely clear. In the west midlands, the Labour Mayor has shown time and again that his focus is on Birmingham, not communities such as mine in Aldridge-Brownhills. This Bill will entrench that imbalance. It gives a licence to concrete over the green belt and drive a coach and horses through local democracy, leaving the elected Member of Parliament with no formal way of holding the mayor to account or even to question his decisions.
The Government say that this Bill empowers local communities, but they have cut the very funding that made neighbourhood planning possible. The neighbourhood planning programme, supported by the National Association of Local Councils, helped more than 2,000 communities to write neighbourhood plans, yet Ministers have scrapped it—at a time when they seek to railroad development across communities. The NALC is right that this move by the Government weakens the very tier of democracy that should be strengthened. It is not empowerment; it is a contradiction. My constituents know exactly what that means. Aldridge-Brownhills is all too often treated as the dumping ground for housing numbers decided elsewhere.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s devolution proposal is an urban-based model that cannot be applied to rural areas without fundamentally distorting the character of that area?
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. His communities, not dissimilar to mine, are on the edge of a large urban area—the west midlands; Birmingham—and yet we are not deeply rural. We are at real risk of being subsumed into the suburbs of Walsall or Birmingham with no say in the matter.
My constituents know what this all means, with communities feeling “done to”, not “worked with”. We have seen what happens when contradictory housing targets are imposed from above. Take the Black Country plan, which was meant to be a model of strategic planning, but it collapsed. It fell apart because residents across the Black Country lost confidence, and rightly so—it was plain wrong.
The Bill repeats the same mistakes, introducing powers to push development through, riding roughshod over local objections and concreting over our communities’ green spaces. Look at the imbalance: Birmingham’s housing targets are falling while Walsall’s are rising by 27%. My constituency is told to take the strain as our second city offloads its numbers. It is not devolution, but displacement, and it will only deepen distrust. Take Stonnall Road, Longwood Road, Longwood Lane and Bosty Lane; the list of speculative planning applications across my constituency goes on and on—and all this before the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and even this piece of legislation have been enacted.
If this Government were serious about empowerment, they would have put a brownfield-first duty into their reforms, but they chose not to. The west midlands has hundreds of hectares of derelict land that could be brought back into use, and there is funding for this already: the brownfield housing fund, the national competitive fund and the brownfield, infrastructure and land fund. However, there is no requirement for the mayor to use those funds first before launching into our precious green belt and green wedges.
Without a statutory brownfield-first duty, we know that developers will always go for the easy option first. Take the Birch Lane proposal in Aldridge—hundreds of homes on green-belt land now rebranded as grey belt. It is precisely the kind of inappropriate development this Bill will make it harder to resist, with local consultees weakened and mayoral powers strengthened. This Government are not building communities; they are dividing them.
What about infrastructure? My constituents were promised Aldridge train station—as many Members know, I talk a lot about that. Funding was secured and the business case made, yet the Labour mayor diverted the money elsewhere. If he cannot deliver on those commitments, why should this House be handing him more?
There are serious questions to answer about what exactly is grey belt. Regulations suggest that it can be used to redefine a green-belt site with building on three sides. That should alarm all of us in this place. We in Aldridge-Brownhills are now at serious risk of being subsumed within a Greater Birmingham and a Greater Walsall. Do not get me wrong, we do need houses, but let us give it some thought. Let us put them in the right place and let us not lose our identity or our communities because of Government diktat—because that is exactly what it is.
This Government are making a complete mockery of what we call green belt and green wedges, which were there to protect communities from urban sprawl. And all this at a time when Birmingham city council cannot even empty its bins. The mayor has washed his hands of it and the Deputy Prime Minister does not seem interested. This Bill is not devolution or empowerment. Quite simply, it is a developer’s dream and a neighbourhood nightmare, and I shall be voting against it tonight.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
Having served as a town councillor and deputy mayor before my election to this House, I have witnessed at first hand the critically overdue need for reform of our local and very local council systems. Town, parish and very local councils have been plagued by inefficiencies and toothless standards for too long, which is why I particularly support the reform of our local audit system outlined in the Bill. My experiences, and those regaled to me by others over the years, have underscored the urgent need for an overhaul to ensure transparency, efficiency and accountability within our local governance structures. The Government’s commitment to reforming the local audit system is both timely and essential. The Bill prioritises the establishment of a more coherent and reliable audit framework, which will undoubtedly build trust within our communities and foster a more robust democratic process.
By addressing these systemic challenges, we are sending a clear message that councils must be accountable and that the integrity of their operations is paramount. Furthermore, these reforms represent a significant step towards greater devolution, empowering town and parish councils, such as those in North Somerset, to take decisive action tailored to the unique needs of their locals.
However, we must go further. It is crucial to introduce greater accountability through a compliance scoring system that clearly indicates to the public whether their elected representatives are undertaking best practice and demonstrating financial competence with their money. Internal audit parameters should be set nationally to ensure consistency and transparency, and we should focus on establishing effective minimum standards for councillors, ensuring that there are proper consequences when acceptable behaviour is breached. That would not just improve outcomes for local communities, but restore confidence in our local democracy.
It would also help to alleviate the ongoing issue with recruitment and retention of town and parish clerks nationally, who are the impartial and objective legal advisers to the very local councils and are tasked with ensuring that those councils operate lawfully. I am sure that many colleagues will have been made aware of the totally unacceptable behaviours that some town and parish clerks are subjected to, which are enabled by a lack of effective recourse against the perpetrators.
The ongoing loss of highly trained and experienced experts is a great loss to the sector. This recruitment crisis also hits the number willing to stand for very local councils, as potential councillors face the same unacceptable behaviours. We need professional regulation for councillors as an important first step. Monitoring officers must be properly funded through professional regulation fees paid by councils based on the number of councillors. This would enable monitoring officers to perform their vital oversight function effectively.
We cannot continue the current slide towards empty council chambers across our towns and villages, declining community involvement, and, in some areas, poor standards of behaviour and conduct. The Localism Act 2011 that came into force during the coalition Government dismantled essential structures of accountability by abolishing the Standards Board for England.
Since then, powers to suspend councillors who breach standards have been repealed, leaving councils with no substantive recourse against poor conduct. There is now no recourse against poor standards of behaviour. This legislative deficiency has allowed pockets of inadequate behaviour to persist unchallenged, undermining the very essence of local government. We must take this opportunity to effect new systems and processes and to foster a new model of accountable politics at the local and very local level.
I have seen myself how unacceptable behaviours in local councils can go entirely unchecked, eroding trust. The Bill represents a chance to establish a higher standard and ensure that we have appropriate people serving our communities, cutting out the rot in some of our councils. If town and parish councils are to play a larger role in the devolution of local services, which undoubtedly brings the benefits of greater ownership and influence to local communities, it is essential that all councils are effectively held to the same high standards.
I wish to point out that there are very many local councils across the country that do a fabulous job, and there are some great ones in my constituency. They are governed extremely well and enrich their communities, but the minority of councils risk tarnishing the wider reputation of the sector and creating a disparity in community benefit. This Bill represents the foundation that we should build on to do better in order to establish proper standards at the local level of democracy and ensure that we have appropriate people serving our community.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
As I am sure all Members in this place do, I support the principle of devolution and empowerment—two of the words on the face of the Bill—but this Bill is about centralisation and disempowerment. For the Isle of Wight, it is about fusing our island with Hampshire under a combined mayoral authority, where 93% of the population live in Hampshire on the mainland and just 7% live on the island.
There is no empowerment, because island people will not have a say. This plan was last crystalised under the previous Labour Government, who gave islanders a say through a local referendum. Islanders voted no, and the previous Labour Government respected that vote. This Government do not respect my constituents enough to ask them whether they are happy to be fused with a much, much larger county that sits across the water. It is centralising because my local authority, the Isle of Wight council, will lose some of its powers. It will lose powers over strategic planning, so a mayor who represents largely Hampshire voters will be able to allocate more housing on the island, and any mayor who is interested in getting re-elected will, of course, be responsive to the much larger voter cohort in Hampshire.
There are three particularly offensive things about the Bill that the Government are imposing on my constituents. Our police authority is called Hampshire and Isle of Wight. Our health commissioning body is called Hampshire and Isle of Wight. Our fire and rescue service is called Hampshire and Isle of Wight. The vast majority of organisations that operate across our two counties are named after our two counties—Hampshire and Isle of Wight. This Government are going to call our mayoral combined authority Hampshire and Solent, potentially removing our name from all the organisations that the mayor will end up having power over—from our police, our fire and rescue service, our health commissioning body, and who knows what in the future. That will be done without anyone on the Isle of Wight having a say.
The second offensive thing about this proposal for my constituency is the powers that it gives the mayor over local transport. The authority will have Solent in the title, yet the mayor will get no contingent powers over the biggest transport issue facing my residents: crossing the Solent on ferries. Solent is in the name of the combined authority, but the mayor will get no powers over ferries. Our ferries are the only unregulated, entirely privatised, foreign-owned, debt-laden key transport provider in the UK.
The Government are prepared to nationalise railways, extend the arm of Government in buses and put more money into roads, but they are not prepared to do anything about my constituents being left at the mercy of foreign-owned, debt-laden companies. I will acknowledge that they have used some warm words, and the Minister has visited the island, but this is the opportunity to deliver on those words and put powers in the hands of the mayor to regulate cross-Solent transport.
To make a really important point on ringfenced funding, because the Isle of Wight will be fused with Hampshire, the mayor will be able to spend money as they wish across a homogeneous single zone. There is no special provision in the Bill to ensure there is ringfenced funding for the Isle of Wight that cannot be raided for Hampshire. The local integrated care board is already raiding money from our hospice to spend on Hampshire hospices. In the mayoral deal, we need powers to stop that from happening.
Finally, in the consultation of my constituents on the key issue of transport, the F-word—ferries—was not mentioned even once.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 5 March this year, the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said these words:
“We do recognise Cornish national minority status—not just the proud language, history and culture of Cornwall, but its bright future.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 278.]
Since arriving in this place on the back of a pledge to ensure Cornwall is given the devolved powers and funding that we have been craving for centuries, and in line with our manifesto commitment to deliver on the greatest ever devolution powers out of Westminster, today is a significant milestone. With the Prime Minister’s commitment to Cornish national minority status clearly reaffirmed, I support a Bill that delivers tangible devolution to Cornwall. However, I would like to explore clarifications on the implications of the Bill for the people of Cornwall.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the land that you call Cornwall we know as Kernow, a term believed to have been in use for over 2,000 years that means “people of the promontory”. However, the English word Cornwall has a different meaning: it means “peninsula of foreigners”. For centuries, the English have recognised the people of the land at the end of the peninsula as different from them. Right up to modern times, the UK Government have continued to honour the distinct territorial integrity of Cornwall, treating us in unique and exceptional ways.
Our constitutional status was perhaps most clearly outlined in a newspaper article in 2013 by the House of Lords researcher Kevin Cahill, who stated that
“the whole territorial interest and dominion of the Crown in and over the entire county of Cornwall is vested in the Duke of Cornwall…So Cornwall is a separate kingdom.”
He continued:
“I know the Cornish have been shouting about this for a long time, but they turn out to be right.”
The creation of the Duchy of Cornwall in 1337 recognised the distinct history, identity and territory of Cornwall, a unique and exceptional constitutional settlement that we enjoy to the present day. In recent times, Cornwall has been the first rural area outside Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to gain a devolution settlement over aspects of transport, education and renewable energy. More recently it has done so over adult education, Cornish distinctiveness and the Cornish language. Indeed, Cornwall already enjoys some of the benefits offered by the Bill for mayoral combined authorities.
I am often asked—even by colleagues in this place—whether as a Cornishman I consider myself English. Along with hundreds of thousands of Cornishmen and women, I am often sadly mocked for my reply. Let me be absolutely clear today: I am Cornish, not English, although I freely admit that some of my very best friends are English. To those at home, particularly young people, who have been equally ridiculed, I say, “Be loud and proud. It is okay to consider yourself Cornish and British.”
Let me deal with the issue of identity versus status. Cornish national minority status and Cornish identity are sometimes conflated, but when discussing the former, references to identity can sometimes be considered belittling. It is not about identity; it is about a legally binding national minority status. Our status, formally agreed by the Council of Europe 10 years ago, must be respected, upheld and celebrated.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Meur ras—I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. He will be aware that in previous Parliaments I led campaigns to secure the recognition of the Cornish language and the Cornish people. Does he agree that this is not an issue of isolationism? It is not about cutting ourselves off, but about cutting ourselves into the celebration of diversity and having the identity of a place properly recognised and respected so that it can grow rather than be supressed. Surely devolution is about enabling places rather than controlling them, which is what I fear this Bill will do.
Perran Moon
As a result of our geographical location, for centuries we have been a safe harbour—a port in the storm—for peoples from all over the world. We are an inclusive society.
Let me get straight to the nub of the issue. The Council of Europe framework convention for the protection of national minorities makes it very clear. Article 16 says:
“The Parties shall refrain from measures which alter the proportions of the population in areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities and are aimed at restricting the rights and freedoms flowing from the principles enshrined in the present framework Convention.”
In 2016, when passing comment on the then Government’s plans for redrawing boundaries, the Council of Europe advisory committee on the framework convention highlighted
“that Article 16 prohibits restricting the enjoyment of the rights of the Framework Convention in connection with the redrawing of borders.”
In the Bill as drafted, Cornwall is prevented from accessing the highest level of devolution, because to do so would require us to compromise our national minority status. During the passage of the Bill, I will work with the Government to ensure that the Bill as passed respects Cornish national minority status and delivers an historic devolution arrangement that fulfils our manifesto commitment; provides for the economic development support that we need to unleash the Cornish Celtic tiger; gives us the funding and resources to deal with our crippling housing crisis; and celebrates Cornish national minority status.
This responsibility weighs not just on the mind. For us, this is not just about functional local government; it goes way deeper into our souls, to a centuries-old desire for increased autonomy and self-governance in our place on this multinational island. I urge Ministers: together, let us grasp this once-in-a-generation opportunity.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
When the Government get something right, it is important to acknowledge that. The community right-to-buy provisions in the Bill represent the genuine empowerment that constituents need. I therefore acknowledge that.
In my constituency, I have a village community that is desperate to buy the local pub—an asset of community value that has been up for sale for some time. They have raised the funds for the asking price and they have community support, but the owner simply refuses to sell to them. Under the current system, they have no right of purchase and no right of refusal, and although they have raised the money, more time to organise the complex legal and financial arrangement required for community ownership would have been appreciated. The new community right-to-buy provisions in the Bill are therefore welcome.
Just as the Bill gets community empowerment right in one policy area, it misses the opportunity to do so in many others. I draw a contrast with one in particular: the skills architecture. The Bill creates new skills responsibilities for strategic authorities without clarifying how they will co-ordinate with the national role of Skills England—another new body—or the existing employer-led local skills improvement plans, or LSIPs. We have a system in which Skills England sets national priorities, LSIPs identify local employer needs and strategic authorities deliver adult education funding, but the Bill has no clear mechanisms for ensuring that those layers align or avoid costly duplication.
This fragmentation is compounded by the separation of adult skills from the broader skills and education ecosystem. The Bill devolves responsibility for adult education to strategic authorities but leaves 16-to-19 education with central Government and provides no clear role at all for universities in local economic development. This is despite the Education Secretary herself calling for universities to make a stronger contribution to economic growth through closer alignment to skills needs and economic growth plans. How can we develop coherent local skills strategies when we artificially separate the pipeline that feeds skilled employment?
The funding arrangements are also concerning. Strategic authorities will hold the adult skills budgets but have only joint ownership of the LSIPs that should guide their spending priorities. It is difficult to see how democratically accountable bodies can be responsible for outcomes when they lack control over the full planning process. Furthermore, current LSIP boundaries do not align with the proposed strategic authority boundaries, and the Government’s solution appears to be to hope that it all works out in the end. The Bill provides no mechanism for resolving conflicts and no timeline for achieving the geographical coherence that effective planning requires.
Possibly most troubling is the absence of any performance framework linking those different institutional layers. Strategic authorities must produce local growth plans, but there is no requirement for them to align with LSIPs or with Skills England workforce forecasting. We risk having three different bodies in each area producing conflicting skills priorities with no clear co-ordination mechanism. That is a recipe for confusion, waste and ultimately a failure to address the skills shortages that our economy desperately needs to resolve.
I wanted to draw a contrast, so here it is. On community assets, the Bill trusts local people and provides clear, enforceable rights. However, on skills—one of the most critical challenges facing our economy—it creates institutional complexity and lacks accountability and clear lines of responsibility. I hope the Government will go away and think again, and come back with a more coherent approach that actually delivers the local responsiveness on skills that communities and our economy so desperately need.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
The UK is one of the most centrally run countries in the world. For decades, Whitehall has made every major decision on growth and investment, while the communities impacted were too often an afterthought. This has left communities poorer and trapped, playing a game that they can never win. For regions such as mine, physically the furthest away in England, it has meant that we have felt removed from decisions and decision making. This Bill is a chance to change that failure.
In the north-east, during her first year, our Mayor Kim McGuinness has launched important local projects including tackling child poverty and bringing buses back into public control, but she is unable to tackle some of the big economic challenges that we face because she does not have the powers to change them. This Bill makes it easier for the Mayor to decide how local money is spent by putting the pen in local hands, so that our own priorities come first, rather than an agreed list made years ago with Whitehall. This will allow the Mayor to create a growth plan showing where investment is needed most, so that Westminster can follow that lead.
The north-east growth plan sets our priorities so that we can then work with this Government to deliver the projects identified. By creating these local growth plans, the Government can see the shared priorities in areas such as advanced manufacturing, clean energy and digital innovation. Regions are able to create a list of projects ready for investment; we know where the blockages are in our area because we live with them every single day.
Of course, one such priority that politicians, businesses and communities have identified for our region is the case of Moor Farm roundabout in my constituency—something I have spoken about many times in this place. It has already been identified as a priority, because upgrading it would not only address the misery that it causes for local people every day, but unlock investment in manufacturing, clean energy and housing and support business growth.
Alongside changes in the Green Book to a local place-based business case, we can ensure that we approach these priorities with a cross-departmental, mission-led approach. For too long, departmental silos have prevented a cross-Government approach, but now we can ensure that the likes of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Transport, the Department for Business and Trade and the Treasury work together with regional leaders to deliver local priorities.
It is not just new mayoral powers that we benefit from. I am absolutely thrilled to see in the Bill steps to protect communities and community sport for the future. The Bill takes heavily from one that I introduced in May, creating a change to safeguard sporting assets of community value. It would automatically protect football clubs, leisure centres and other sports facilities by giving local communities the first chance to buy them if they go up for sale.
Dr Opher
Just briefly, as my hon. Friend explains about the sporting, economic and social interests, does she believe that environmental interests should also be taken into account? That would allow communities to claim other different types of funds and also to protect the environment.
Emma Foody
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We should look at what communities prioritise and make considerations as to what they value.
Going back to sporting assets in particular, there are over 6,000 sports grounds in England alone. Protecting them under the current system is complex, buried in red tape and made far too difficult. It has meant that fewer than 100 sports facilities are protected community assets across the country, meaning that almost 99% of sports facilities across the country cannot be preserved if developers try to buy up land.
We want to give people the authority to make decisions about their own areas. This summer I was absolutely delighted to visit so many facilities in my constituency: Cramlington Rockets, Burradon Juniors and Backworth Hall cricket club, as well as working with the likes of Hazlerigg Victory, Wideopen football club and many more. These clubs and facilities are at the heart of our communities, providing not just sport but community activities, running holiday clubs and being a welcoming community space. They are the lifeblood of many of the villages and towns across the Cramlington and Killingworth constituency. I am delighted that this Government are protecting these vital pillars in the community that are so important to local people.
For too long, Whitehall has left communities and regions like mine trapped and poorer because decisions were not taken with them in mind. This Government are changing that with the biggest shift of power out of Westminster to the north-east and my communities. It will boost growth, raise living standards and deliver services for local people. It is about giving power to those who know our communities best. I am delighted that this Labour Government are putting our regions, our communities and our neighbourhoods first.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I rise to make the case for Kernow, or Cornwall, and its unique status in this United Kingdom. My constituents have been crystal clear with me: Cornwall must never be forcibly joined with Devon or merged into any wider regional authority. But that is not to say that Cornwall wants to go it alone. It is not about separatism at all; this is about respecting our distinct status and history. Cornwall has proudly partnered with other UK regions for decades. It has a proud and unique language, culture, history and—crucially—national minority status, which was granted over a decade ago. We were afforded the same status as our Celtic brothers and sisters in Scotland, Ireland and Wales, and so the people of Cornwall deserve a devolution deal that recognises that.
This status is not just symbolic. It creates a duty on public authorities to promote equality for the Cornish people, to support our culture, language and identity and, specifically, to avoid any assimilationist policies. Under the UK’s Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty, Ministers and local authorities alike must consider the impact of their decisions, including in this Bill, on the Cornish people. If they fail to do so, their actions can be challenged in the courts using an array of legal claims, including judicial reviews, an Equality Act claim and a Human Rights Act 1998 article 14 differential treatment claim. Therefore, these rights carry real legal and political weight. To disregard or dilute Cornwall’s status in this Bill would be insulting, unlawful and dangerous. I am alarmed that the Bill would grant the Secretary of State power to force combined authorities without local people’s consent. Devolution, in essence, should give power to the communities, regions and counties that it aims to empower, not to a mayor, a Secretary of State or an unelected commissioner.
At Prime Minister’s questions last October, the Prime Minister told me that he believes that
“Those with skin in the game know what is best for their communities.”—[Official Report, 16 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 834.]
The Secretary of State has repeated that today. I agree with them both: decisions should be made for Cornwall and in Cornwall by a fully elected Cornish assembly—and not in Plymouth, Bristol or Westminster. They should be made by those from within the duchy who understand our unique way of life and our unique economic and social challenges—the immense challenges of funding rural transport; the unfair and unequal investment in our schools over decades; the plight of our farmers and fishers, who seem to be left out in the cold by Government after Government; and the enormous proliferation of second homes and holiday lets, which lock local people out of our housing market, generation after generation.
In my office, I proudly display a famous painting of the Cornish rebellion of 1497. It illustrates the Cornish spirit of fairness, justice and persistence, of proud Cornish men and women who had taxes imposed upon them by the Government in London. That spirit lives on. Given Cornwall’s history and that strength of feeling, if the Secretary of State imposed a mayor of Devon and Cornwall —completely disregarding Cornwall’s national minority status, as well as legal battles—she might have a full uprising on her hands.
The Bill would likely limit Cornwall to a foundation strategic authority with limited powers, funding and control. That is why we are fighting for a bespoke devolution deal. The Bill should have mechanisms in place to allow such a bespoke deal to take place. Cornwall’s MPs look forward to working together for the good of Cornwall, onen hag oll—one and all—to make that happen. I call on the Government to fully respect Cornwall’s national minority status; to create a Minister for Cornwall, who could sit in the Wales Office; to consider the feasibility of an elected Cornish assembly instead of a mayor; and to commit to a devolution deal that respects Cornwall’s historic identity by excluding it from combined strategic authorities with other regions. Kernow bys vyken!
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Few matters have occupied as much of my first year in this House as the question of Cornish devolution. For decades, if not centuries, the people of Cornwall have spoken of their desire to have a greater say in the decisions that shape their lives. That desire is founded in our distinct needs and our more than 1,000-year-old national identity. That is why the arrival of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill has been watched in Cornwall with keen anticipation and, in some quarters, with understandable apprehension.
Having pored over the text of the legislation, my conclusion is this: far from being the bulldozer that many feared, the Bill leaves Cornwall’s position intact. It formalises our single foundation status and—once and for all I hope—a single geography. Crucially, it does not strip away the strategic powers that Cornwall already exercises. Recognition of our national minority status is now firmly acknowledged in this place, and, as one of the largest unitary authorities in England by geographic footprint, we retain the ability to deliver many of the functions that are only just being handed to combined or mayoral bodies elsewhere.
Perran Moon
Does my hon. Friend agree that the historic Cornish constitutional status must be considered as part of the devolution discussion?
Noah Law
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. On top of the many examples he has given of Cornwall’s constitutional status, and aside from our devolution arrangements with Westminster, the leader of Cornwall council was in 2023 given permission to attend ministerial meetings of the British-Irish Council, much like the other Celtic nations and the Channel Islands. In the same year, Cornwall council and the Welsh Government signed a historic collaboration agreement, reflecting the shared culture of these two Celtic nations.
Perhaps more weightily in this place, the Crowther and Kilbrandon report of the royal commission on the constitution in 1973 acknowledged that the creation of the Duchy of Cornwall in 1337
“established a special and enduring relationship between Cornwall and the Crown. Use of the designation on all appropriate occasions would serve to recognise both this special relationship and the territorial integrity of Cornwall”.
It went on to say that what the Cornish want is
“recognition of the fact that Cornwall has a separate identity and that its traditional boundaries shall be respected.”
Let me be clear: while the letter of the Bill does not necessarily offer the content of devolution that so many in Cornwall have long called for, I have no doubt that it will be very welcome in cities and other regions across England. But Cornwall is different: a remote coastal community, an existing administrative unit, a functional economic geography and a very good brand, if nothing else, as many Members will know from their summer holidays. Above all, Cornwall is a proud part of the United Kingdom with a distinct national identity, a resurgent language and a desire to be heard after centuries of dismissal. With the right powers, we stand ready to not only shape our own future but help lead the way in a United Kingdom that values local voices and unlocks prosperity across all nations and regions.
I greatly welcome the inclusion of new powers such as the community right to buy. That is exactly the sort of measure that can put power back into local hands, giving people in my constituency the chance to ensure that public assets like the Dolphin Inn in Grampound or the sites of the former General Wolfe in St Austell and the Fowey community hospital remain in public hands and continue to serve local needs.
Andrew George
The hon. Member makes a very strong case for Cornwall. He should urge his colleagues in government to welcome amendments to the Bill that strengthen Cornwall’s ability to achieve its unique and very special status, which we believe needs to be enshrined in this legislation as well as the historic record.
Noah Law
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is incredibly important that Cornwall’s national minority status is respected by the Bill, and that the powers and investment required to meet Cornwall’s distinctive needs—if not enshrined in the text—are considered as part of the devolution process in the months ahead.
Finally, we should acknowledge that while the Bill streamlines England’s devolution architecture, the mayoral model will not suit every part of our country. Cornwall has shown for over 15 years as a unitary authority that there are other effective ways to deliver devolved functions. What we need now is a plan for Cornwall—one that equips us with the powers we require over housing, transport, skills and industrial growth to meet the challenges we face. The truth is that the statutory framework set out in the Bill is not the central issue at stake. What really matters is that we secure a settlement for Cornwall that recognises our unique circumstances, protects our ability to make strategic decisions for ourselves and gives our communities the tools to thrive.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I want to raise a few issues, all of which I know are very much on my constituents’ minds.
First, I want to emphasise the importance of ensuring that boroughs such as Reigate and Banstead, which have been managed well and are not loaded with debt, are not left footing the bill for the failures of other councils that have been less prudent with their finances. Reigate and Banstead borough council has a commendably strong record of financial prudence, so please will the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that protection will be put in place to safeguard our community assets, such as the Harlequin theatre, and our community and leisure centres?
On the Harlequin theatre specifically, I emphasise how important the asset is to the people of Redhill and beyond. It has now been closed for more than two years, following the discovery of RAAC, and residents and community groups—notably, the Harlequin Support Group—have been resolutely campaigning for its repair and reopening. I am delighted that, under the leadership of Councillor Shelly Newton, who is one of the most tenacious local councillors I have ever come across, it has now been confirmed that the £4.5 million needed for repair has been allocated. All being well, the theatre is expected to reopen by Christmas 2026. I mention that because my constituents would appreciate hearing directly from the Secretary of State and Ministers that the local government reorganisation will not hamper such projects, which have been agreed but will take some time to complete.
I also make the point that the reorganisation is not the only challenge faced by Reigate and Banstead borough council, which has just had its housing target more than doubled by this Government, at a time of great uncertainty and transition—a recipe for disaster.
I want to focus mainly, however, on the future of the civic mayoralty in Reigate and Banstead. Reigate has had a mayor since 1863. Great history and tradition is associated with the role, and the importance placed on it can be seen physically in the mayoral robes, the chain of office and the mace, which are still very much in use. The Government have been clear that their intention with the Bill is to provide a consistent model for how local government will be structured across England. What is rather less clear—I hope that the Minister or Secretary of State will be able to provide clarity—is what that means for boroughs such as mine, where a borough council is intermeshed with a long-standing tradition of civic leadership in the form of a borough mayor.
Unlike metro mayors, the mayor of the borough of Reigate and Banstead is no kind of political executive. The role is that of a civic figurehead, non-partisan, ceremonial and community focused. We have a truly outstanding mayor, Councillor Rich Michalowski, and, before him, Councillor Eddie Hughes was another dedicated and hard-working public servant. In the past civic year alone, the mayor responded to more than 350 engagement requests, hosted 25 town hall tours for schools and community groups, and oversaw 32 civic and charity events attended by nearly 1,500 people, not including the thousands more who attended Remembrance Sunday. The position of borough mayor does real, practical good. Their attendance at an event brings that extra sparkle, which residents so appreciate.
Through the mayor’s trust fund, 38 families in my constituency have already been supported with grants this year. A single funding workshop led by the mayor’s team unlocked more than £50,000 for local charities. Through sustained community engagement, the mayor helps connect employers with jobseekers, donors with good causes, and schools with mentors. They promote local artists, support care homes, champion the armed forces covenant, and offer practical help to residents in crisis. I hope that Ministers will agree with my constituents in recognising the great value of a borough mayor, and that they will provide clarity on whether such roles will be preserved under the Bill and, if so, how in practical terms that will be achieved.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak on what may prove to be one of the most impactful and transformative pieces of legislation of this Parliament. The Bill represents one of the most significant shifts in local government in more than half a century. It sets out a clear ambition to move power out of Westminster and into the hands of local leaders who know their communities best. For areas such as Cheshire and Warrington, that has the potential finally to give us the tools we need to unlock our full potential and to deliver real, tangible benefits for our communities.
On transport alone, the opportunity is to talk no longer about the decline in bus services but about how we are providing new routes; and to hear, instead of that we have been campaigning for a bridge or railway link for 40 years, “We have a plan to deliver.” On skills, instead of the 92% drop in adult education starters that has occurred in my area between 2015 and 2020, we can talk about how we will fix that.
It is important to recognise, however, that the approach set out in the Bill is not without risks for Cheshire and Warrington with respect to police services. The Bill gives power to the Home Secretary to redraw the policing boundaries to match the mayoral combined authority. There is no consensus in Cheshire that Cheshire police should be reorganised to exclude Halton, which is currently part of the Liverpool city region. Indeed, quite the reverse: it is felt that such a move would be explicitly bad for Halton and would damage the viability of the remainder of Cheshire police. When the Minister sums up, I hope he will provide reassurance that there will be a full consultation before Cheshire police is reorganised, and that it will not be reorganised against the wishes of its communities?
Let me turn to the Bill’s provisions on adult education. The new duty placed on strategic authorities to secure appropriate facilities for the education and training of adults aged 19 and over is a welcome step. In the focus groups that I have run with technology businesses across Cheshire and the wider north-west, there has been a clear divide between mayoral areas and non-mayoral areas, where—with some exceptions—businesses did not feel that there was a good understanding of their needs, nor a plan to deliver on them. The mayoral combined authority presents an opportunity not only to fix that, but to think strategically about taking advantage of projects like HyNet, which will require miles of new hydrogen pipeline and people with the right skills to build it.
An important gap that the Bill does not address is post-16 education. Local authorities currently have a duty to secure enough suitable education and training provision to meet the reasonable needs of all young people in their area who are over compulsory school age, but they lack any powers to deliver this and neither can they meaningfully affect how further education is organised. That is a real challenge, particularly in my constituency, which has been left with big gaps in provision following the 2016 review into post-16 education in Cheshire and Warrington, contributing to NEET levels in Winsford being five percentage points higher than the borough-wide average.
There is an opportunity for the mayoral combined authority to deliver better outcomes for young people in my constituency, but it needs the powers to do so. I urge Ministers to work with colleagues in the Department for Education so that we can use mayors to tackle entrenched inequalities and ensure that every young person, regardless of background, has access to high-quality education and training that prepares them for the future.
This Bill is not just a handover of power, but a partnership between central Government and local communities—between elected leaders and the people they serve. For Cheshire and Warrington, it is a chance to lead by example, and to show what empowered communities can achieve when given the freedom to flourish.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I also used to be a councillor, like many Members across the Chamber. I was deputy leader of Chelmsford city council for five years and an opposition member at Essex county council. I have seen at first hand the work of local councils and I know that they do it in very difficult circumstances—circumstances that have got harder and harder, with dwindling funds and increased demands on council services.
Despite the very best efforts of council leaders across the country and council officers, who are often the unsung heroes local government, there are crises in housing, in special educational needs and in adult social care. We do not seem to have a plan to fix any of them, yet we seem to be rushing ahead with local government reorganisation and devolution, which to me seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse. Is the best way to fix the crisis in special educational needs or in adult social care, or to truly deliver all the housing we need a different form of local government? Why are these really important issues not part of the mix? Why do we not have a plan to fix them first—before we reorganise local government and trap ourselves in a corner?
I am in favour of devolution: it is right to have power closer to the people it affects. I want local communities to be empowered, but this Bill does not deliver that. In fact, although it devolves powers relating to transport and skills—and other things in the Bill are good, too—the local government reorganisation that goes with those measures means that this legislation does the exact opposite of delivering devolution.
Let us take Essex as an example. I choose Essex because I represent the constituency of Chelmsford in the very heart of Essex, because I used to be an Essex county councillor and because Essex is in the first wave of reorganisation. Essex will not benefit from the scrapping of first past the post, so my constituents will not benefit from their votes truly being represented. There is a proposal to replace Essex county council plus the district councils with either three, four or five unitaries. If we include the other existing unitaries plus Essex county council, we are talking about 15 councils in total. Replacing them with possibly three unitaries would be the exact opposite of devolution; it would take power away from the people and make the councillors elected to represent the people further away from them.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I am delighted to hear the hon. Lady’s speech. She and I are both Essex MPs, and I agree that we should not create these huge unitary authorities, because local councils are truly in touch with local communities and local needs. However, does she agree that as Havering is also part of Essex, we should be part of that discussion as well? If my borough wants to be part of an Essex unitary authority—such as Central Essex, which would include Chelmsford—does she agree that my constituents should have the right to make that decision in a democracy?
Marie Goldman
Absolutely. My problem with this Bill is that it feels rushed. More people want to contribute to the discussion. Constituents want to be represented and to have local government reorganised in a way that they have been able to contribute to. That would truly be democracy. What we are seeing right now is rushed and is not a proper representation of democracy.
The three-unitary model is not the only proposed model. That is being proposed by the county council, but the model that has the most support from the local district councils—nine of them—is the five-unitary model. I certainly support that, because if we have to go ahead with local government reorganisation, surely it should be with the model that keeps power closest to people.
Andrew Rosindell
Will the hon. Lady clarify if she would support the people of Havering if they chose to be part of an Essex unitary authority—if that was their democratically chosen wish?
Marie Goldman
I think we are in danger of getting into the weeds on exactly how local government would be reorganised.
We talk about the size of the unitary authorities that would be created. The three-unitary model in Essex would instantly create three of the top five biggest unitary authorities in the country; after growth, they would be three of the top four biggest unitary authorities. It would create enormous councils with considerably less connection with the local communities they served. That is the opposite of devolution, and I worry a lot about the loss of identity that it could lead to.
A lot of the talk is about savings. The Deputy Prime Minister talked a bit about savings from reorganisation, but there is very little evidence to support that using real-world data. Past models produced by consultancies have not used real-world data. However, according to real-world data, if the five-unitary model is chosen, local government reorganisation is expected to save only £105 million across the whole of Essex after five years. If the three-unitary model is chosen, we will end up with £49 million less than that. This is a huge undertaking, with a lot of resources going in for very little, and we still do not have a plan for special educational needs, adult social care and all the things I mentioned earlier.
The really important point is that Greater Essex contains Thurrock, which has a very, very big debt problem: about £800 million of unsecured debt. There is no model of local government reorganisation or devolution in Greater Essex—even keeping the existing structure, frankly—that would be financially sustainable without central Government stepping in and providing funds to cover Thurrock’s debt. The maths simply do not work. I am looking directly at the Minister, because we need a solution. There will be much more unity in Essex on how to move forward if we can work out how to deal with Thurrock’s debt. It cannot be that other local residents, such as my constituents in Chelmsford, are asked to shoulder the blame for something that they did not bring about in the first place.
I turn to Essex county council elections, which were cancelled last May. We have absolutely no idea whether they will go ahead next May; it would seem a bit strange if they did, but equally we want democracy. Can the Government provide some clarity?
Finally, why is first past the post being scrapped for mayoral elections, but not for local government or general elections? That seems rather inconsistent.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I cannot say that devolution is a topic that comes up very often on the doorstep, but the issues that this Bill is designed to address—too much power exercised by people far away, too little say in shaping the places where we live, and too much confusion over where to go when we have a problem or an issue that needs resolving—certainly do. My constituents have raised those issues with me time and again, and devolution and the measures set out in this Bill will tackle those challenges. They will return power to local people, empower communities and power growth in areas of the country like mine in Norfolk.
In Norfolk, devolution means opportunity. It means innovation and investment, helping create new jobs in emerging industries such as clean aviation, and bolstering our existing strengths, including financial services, life sciences and clean energy. Devolution means connectivity, unlocking better and sustainable transport, which is essential in rural counties like ours. It means enhancing Norfolk and Norwich’s reputation and reach, amplifying our voices, our contribution and our impact nationally. As such, I welcome the Bill and the fact that Norfolk is part of the devolution priority programme. Current proposals will see an elected Mayor for Norfolk and Suffolk alongside the establishment of a combined authority, but we must get the structures below that level right in order to take full advantage of this opportunity. That is why local government reorganisation, and the tools set out in the Bill to deliver it, are so vital. It is a once-in-a-generation chance to provide more efficient public services, to end the overlap of councils and to deliver better value for money.
I am pleased to back the proposals, supported by six out of seven of Norfolk’s district councils, to create three unitary authorities. In Norfolk, there would be a Greater Norwich unitary with extended boundaries and two unitary authorities broadly covering the eastern and western parts of Norfolk. I grew up in Norfolk; we moved there when I was three. I know how essential it is that what is delivered is rooted in place and identity, and I believe this proposal will reflect Norfolk and what is needed there. Of course, the specific boundaries still need to be shaped with the support of community engagement, but it is the shape I believe our county needs. With it, we can unlock the full potential of Norwich. It is already a key city for the region and our country, with its economy having grown by 64% since 2010, but we can do so much more to unlock our full potential as a city of great innovation, culture and prosperity, driving growth across East Anglia and beyond. As the need for affordable and sustainable housing continues to grow—I see that the Housing Minister is on the Front Bench—the establishment of a Greater Norwich unitary authority will also offer a more effective mechanism for addressing housing demand, which is such a pressure in our city.
Devolution and effective reorganisation will be a game changer for Norwich and Norfolk, but only if we get it right. I fear that some of the other options on the table will simply not work. The proposal backed by the Conservative-controlled Norfolk county council calls for the creation of a single county unitary in Norfolk. I believe that would be just too big; its footprint would cover thousands of square miles, stretching ties between local councillors and the people they are elected to serve. Similarly, a model involving two unitary authorities fails to recognise the unique growth opportunities in Norwich, which I have set out.
Although we may disagree on the model, it is important that there is healthy debate on this subject. I thank all the councillors at all levels, who do so much for our communities every single day and who have contributed to the discussions so far. As these proposals are developed, it is vital that we work collaboratively across parties, listening to our residents to get the very best for our communities. On that point, I ask the Minister to underline that this Bill will not affect town and parish councils, and indeed will recognise the vital role they play. We have many in Norwich North—Sprowston, Drayton, Old Catton, Hellesdon and Thorpe St Andrew—and they all play important parts in our neighbourhoods.
I have one minute left—so, as a Labour and Co-operative MP, I take this opportunity to thank the Co-op party and all its members for all the campaigning they have done to deliver so many measures in this Bill, including the community right to buy. I recognise that this process may not be easy, but if we get it right, the benefits will be huge for the constituents we serve and the places we represent.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
As colleagues can see from looking around the Chamber, there are far too many speakers to be accommodated by 7 pm, when this debate has to end. As such, after the next speaker, the speaking limit will be three minutes, and you can calculate the numbers—not everybody will get in, even on that time limit. I call Bradley Thomas.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
While the current devolution plans in this Bill put politics before people, the Government are pressing ahead with the Bill before the independent adult social care review is published in 2028. I believe that to reorganise local government without first confronting the fundamental crisis in care is to put the cart before the horse. Effective reform cannot be done in isolation. The Local Government Association has been clear in its view that devolution must be aligned with health, police, fire and integrated care board structures, with councils kept central to delivery, accountability and collaboration at every level.
Local consent should be a priority throughout the devolution process. Any change in governance must be made with the full consent of the people affected, yet this Bill allows the Secretary of State to impose new governance structures, including strategic authorities and regional mayors, without local agreement. That strips local people of their voice and runs counter to the very principle of devolution.
Local democracy is already being eroded by the unprecedented housing targets being forced on communities, with local objections routinely brushed aside. Residents feel powerless in shaping the future of their towns and villages, and trust in government is draining away rapidly. This Bill will only deepen that resentment, because Ministers promise devolution, but communities will actually receive less say while being treated as little more than an extension of nearby major cities. Birmingham, a city with 140 hectares of brownfield land and established infrastructure, is seeing its housing targets cut by over 30%. Meanwhile, in my constituency, where 89% of the land is green belt, targets have soared by a staggering 85%. That is not sensible planning; it is an attempt to urbanise rural areas against the will of local residents.
In her opening remarks, the Deputy Prime Minister said that at the minute, too much power is in the hands of the few when it should be in the hands of the many. The Government should therefore let local people have more of a say in what the housing target should be. If our current councils in Worcestershire are to be sidelined, it should be for a singular Worcestershire council to come into existence that can deliver value for money to the taxpayer, provide the best possible services and keep decision making local. We cannot accept Worcestershire involuntarily becoming an extension of Birmingham in the name of devolution.
The Bill’s proposals are modelled on city experiences. Worcestershire is not the same as Birmingham, Manchester or any other big city. We have different needs, different challenges and different priorities. Forcing a city template on to rural areas sidelines communities, strips away their voice and sacrifices the fabric of rural life. Once again, rural and semi-rural residents are treated as an afterthought. Counties shaped by their rural character, such as Worcestershire, are rightly proud of their identities and traditions. If this Bill is to touch our communities, it must first recognise their distinct needs and be rethought to respect them.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The fight to rebuild trust in politics must begin in our communities. In Leigh and Atherton, people want to feel proud of the place that they call home. They want visible investment and the power to shape their future, and that is why I welcome the Second Reading of this Bill.
This ambitious Bill is an important step in our devolution revolution, representing one of the greatest transfers of power from Westminster in a generation. It is the first UK Bill in history to include the word “empowerment” in its title. For too long, devolution has meant power being shifted between Whitehall, mayors and councils without making meaningful contact with local people. This Bill offers a meaningful step forward, giving our communities the tools to take ownership of the spaces that matter most.
As a Labour and Co-operative MP, I welcome the introduction of the community right to buy. In practice, this means that when assets of community value come to the market, communities get first dibs. Where we have lost such local assets, it has meant not just a loss of service to the community, but a further erosion of trust in local democracy. I am therefore in no doubt that giving communities a stronger voice in local decision making helps to restore trust in politics from the bottom up.
In my constituency of Leigh and Atherton, Leigh Spinners Mill and Leigh Works stand as shining examples of what happens when local people take the reins. Once derelict but now community-owned, they have become an anchor for regeneration. The mill and Leigh Works support jobs, culture and wellbeing. Across the country, people have seen beloved community spaces forced to close their doors. Thousands of community centres, youth clubs, libraries, pubs and leisure centres have closed over the past decade. With this Bill, Labour is rebuilding the fabric of our communities. Giving local people the power to buy community spaces means more assets owned and shaped by the people who use and love them. We are helping communities to unleash the energy, passion and creativity that exist in every community.
Many Members have pointed to Greater Manchester as a blueprint, and it does show what is possible when devolution is done right. Since 2015, we have built 85,000 homes, launched the Bee Network and helped more than 100,000 residents into work. I have been a strong advocate for devolution for many years. My work as a local councillor at Wigan council and then at Spinners Mill reinforced my belief in giving power to local authorities and the communities that they represent. We must seize this opportunity to put power back where it belongs, and to build a future where Leigh and Atherton and communities across the country feel empowered and proud of the places that they call home.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
We have all been told repeatedly that the Government’s plan for local government will improve local services and save the taxpayer money, but it is increasingly clear that the Bill fails to deliver on those points. This is a forced, top-down change from Westminster that will abolish effective local councils and strip local people of their ability to have a say on local issues.
In my constituency I have two district councils, East Herts and Broxbourne, as well as Hertfordshire county council. Under this “devolution” plan, they will be abolished and replaced by new unitary councils. I strongly opposed Hertfordshire county council forming a single new unitary council covering 1.2 million people, and I am pleased to learn that that has been ruled out, but the new unitary councils will still be far larger than the district councils that we currently have. I am sure that many other Members on both sides of the House will share my experience that large local authorities are often less efficient and deliver worse services than smaller, more agile ones. The biggest council in the country is Birmingham, with a population of more than 1 million, and I doubt that anyone here would call it efficient. While no council is perfect, I believe that councils work best when they are close to the people they serve.
On top of that, I have serious doubts that these plans will actually save any money. There is no way in which efficiencies will cover the extra cost of spending by these bloated new unitary authorities. The process of reorganisation is expensive and disruptive, and I have yet to see it notably improve the finances of councils that have gone through it. Indeed, many areas will be worse off as a result of it. Responsible Conservative councils such as Broxbourne which have consistently kept within budget and kept council tax low will be forced to merge with debt-ridden neighbouring councils and raise their council tax levels. I know that where unitarisation has happened, councils have gone on to set up delivery of services based on the old district boundaries anyway. The efficiencies expected by the Government have not emerged.
I believe that the Government are going down this path of creating big new super-unitary councils, because of their failure to make progress on their target of building 1.5 million new homes. The Government are getting desperate. Rather than building houses where they are needed in London, and rather than building houses where there is appropriate infrastructure or making developers deal with infrastructure first, they are abolishing local councils in order to force through huge arbitrary housing targets in all the wrong places—on precious green belt throughout the United Kingdom.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Delivering a more representative system locally, as well as one that empowers local government, is necessary now, given the palpable long-term frustration with decision making that is perceived by communities to be exclusively dictated by those confined to Planet Westminster or—especially in Falkirk—Planet Holyrood. We know from experience that devolution works best when it is rooted in economic regeneration, with a real impact on ordinary people’s lives. I agreed with the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who is no longer in the Chamber, when he said that Scotland is a cautionary tale. The cautionary tale for local government from 19 years of SNP government is about what happens when we do nothing, which is what the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats will vote for tonight.
Local leaders can more effectively deploy policy levers in the collective national interest. For instance, the transport procurement policies of Manchester and Liverpool’s mayors have delivered hundreds of orders from Falkirk’s bus manufacturer. That was essential, especially while our own devolved Scottish Government had their eye off the ball and on shiny new Chinese buses. When local leaders with popular mandates have been able to take charge of industrial strategy and regeneration, we see confidence return to communities that for decades have felt left behind. Reflecting on the centralising tendencies of my absent SNP colleagues, I observe that they have persistently ignored, constrained and harmed local authorities in Scotland. I am still waiting for the council tax abolition that I heard about in primary 3.
If we are asking our constituents to invest trust in their local leaders, and to engage in local decision making with the hope that it can change something, we must also take a microscope to the health of our democratic structures nationally. Turnout has been going down, and we know why: we keep hearing from folk on the doorstep that they do not think their vote changes anything.
Dr Opher
With the removal of first past the post for mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections, is it not time that we gave local government the option of dropping first past the post, as Wales has done? Is it not also time for a national commission on electoral reform?
Euan Stainbank
That is the point I was just about to get to. In 2022, I was elected as a local authority councillor in third place under the multi-member system, and it did work. Many people would not have gone to a different political party, or would not necessarily have come to speak to the Labour representative, but it helped that they had diverse representation. I do think it is worth looking at that system, as I was about to touch on as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections. That is why the provisions in the Bill concerning voting systems are welcome and why, to echo my hon. Friend, we should consider a national commission on electoral reform—a commitment to foster a national conversation about how we should be elected in modern Britain, and to build consensus and a way forward.
Different voting systems are already used across the country—for example, for the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, for our councils and for mayoral elections here in England. Disillusionment did not start yesterday, and any change to a voting system will not solve the degree of disengagement that we have seen in communities, but it could allow people to see their views always reflected in the institutions that represent them, as we saw with Falkirk council under the multi-member ward system. Continuing to rely on a voting system nationally, when nearly two thirds of people want change, risks crystallising the disillusionment.
By formalising and extending devolution, the Government are today moving to strengthen trust at a local level. By engaging in a serious exercise about how we are sent to this place, we can go a long way towards renewing it at a national level too.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak on this important piece of legislation, and I declare my interest as a vice president of the Local Government Association. This Bill’s intention is to support further devolution—something that the Liberal Democrats are in favour of. However, the Bill fails to properly do so, and instead only reinforces the overly centralised approach taken by the last Government.
Alongside contiguous neighbours, Somerset was ready to move forward with further devolution over six months ago, when it was part of the joint “heart of Wessex” bid. Disappointingly, the Government chose not to include it in the devolution priority programme, despite the proposal matching the growth and economic objectives set out in the Government’s White Paper and encompassing nearly 2 million people. The deal would have provided greater powers for communities struggling under national policies and given rural communities confidence that their voices are being heard.
This Bill fails to adequately deal with the ongoing and ever increasing financial crisis faced by councils across the country. Despite the challenges, Liberal Democrats in Somerset have been getting on with the job of fixing council finances following the wild mismanagement of the previous Conservative administration. Just yesterday the council published a new 20-year economic prosperity strategy, which aims to build a thriving, fair and green Somerset economy. It is leading the way on low-carbon energy, aerospace and defence.
The Bill makes no reference to the unique nature of rural communities. For example, Somerset’s population is both older and ageing faster than the national average, which will increase the amount of care needed in the county. As chair of the APPG on rural services, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the additional financial challenges that rural authorities such as Somerset face. Over half of Somerset’s budget goes towards adults’ and children’s care. There is a shortage of social care providers, which will be impacted by the rise in employer national insurance contributions, and as with so many local authorities, the pressure on the delivery of SEND provision is only increasing. The Bill does nothing to stabilise the financial footing of rural councils; in fact, it fails to even mention rural communities.
We must also acknowledge that rural communities are often at the forefront of environmental issues, such as flooding. Last month, riparian ratepayers in Somerset were informed that the Environment Agency will cease main river maintenance work within the next six months. I am deeply concerned that this will put Somerset at increasing and unacceptable risk of flooding and environmental harm. How do the Government intend to implement all of this through devolution, given that the existing authorities are responsible for reinforcement, enforcement and regulation?
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill and commend the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), for her leadership in bringing it forward.
For too long, decisions about our communities have been made far from the people they affect. This Bill signals a profound shift, putting trust back into local leaders, strengthening councils and ensuring that communities have a real say in shaping their future. It provides the foundation for a new settlement for England that values local knowledge and unlocks local energy. The return of the supplementary vote system for mayoral elections—a key feature of this important Bill—is welcome, and I associate myself with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) on the wider issues of proportional representation.
The Bill places particular emphasis on neighbourhood working by recognising the importance of neighbourhoods and the grassroots organisations that sustain them. Equally important are the measures to strengthen community right to buy, which empowers residents to take ownership of the places that matter to them most, ensuring they can be preserved and improved for future generations. I pay tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister for her clarity in purpose in driving these changes. She understands that local government is not an obstacle to progress, but the engine of it.
Although the Bill is about empowerment, we must ensure that it does not undermine the principle of local choice, however inadvertently. Since the announcement of the Bill, I have had tens of emails and more than 100 letters on this subject. In May 2021, the people of Sheffield went to the polls in a city-wide referendum. They voted decisively—by 65%—to move to a modern committee system of government, replacing the old leader and cabinet model. That was a clear democratic decision. It was also guaranteed in law for at least 10 years, with the principle that any further change could be made only by referendum.
The provisions currently in the Bill would overturn that choice, forcing Sheffield back into a governance model that its citizens have explicitly rejected. That cannot be right. It would break faith with local voters, undermine the spirit of empowerment that runs through the Bill and send the wrong message about how seriously we take democratic decisions. If this legislation is to achieve its full potential, councils that have already chosen to have a committee system via referendum should be allowed to retain that system, just as with mayoral models. I know that local leaders agree with me on this, and I appreciate that Ministers have been meeting local leaders.
This is a bold Bill; it is one that we should be proud of and that I am proud to support. It rightly enshrines the central role of councils in shaping and delivering devolution. I just hope that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater on the issue of allowing local councils to maintain their chosen model.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Government talk about devolution, but that is not what is going on with the Bill, or with local government reform. Power is not being handed down by central Government, but being sucked up from district councils to unitaries and from councils to mayoralties, governing enormous and very diverse territories from distant towns and cities.
In West Suffolk, we face a Suffolk and Norfolk mayoralty —probably run from Norwich—and a new unitary council structure, with either one council run from Ipswich or three different councils. Given our place on the map, Cambridge is more important to us than Norwich or Ipswich, yet there is little in these proposals to help us to exploit the economic opportunities presented by better transport connections and business opportunities coming out of one of the most dynamic cities in the country.
Of course, questions about the tax burden and distribution of revenues are fundamental. Given the state of the public finances, any savings made through local government reform might be snaffled by the Treasury. Services provided by district councils might be cut to subsidise services funded by the county council, such as adult social care.
Council debt across Suffolk stands at £1.1 billion, but there is huge variation between the councils; in Ipswich, debt per person is nearly £1,800, while in West Suffolk, it is less than £50. There is a similar story with tax. Ipswich charges the highest council tax of any shire district in the country. To equalise tax across a single Suffolk unitary council would mean massive tax rises for people living in West Suffolk, tax cuts for people in Ipswich, which would retain services unavailable to my constituents, or a worst-of-both-worlds combination.
Suffolk’s councils have their different proposals, but ultimately it will be Whitehall that decides. I am pressing Ministers and those advocating a particular model for us locally for the clear answers that we in West Suffolk need and deserve. First, will all the money saved stay in Suffolk? Secondly, will people in West Suffolk pay more in council tax as a result of this change? Will we end up funding services for Ipswich that we do not get? Thirdly, will town and parish councils be given a greater say in the planning process? Fourthly, will town and parish councils have greater powers over things such as road safety and speed limits? Fifthly, will we get an absolute guarantee that there will be no merger between Suffolk and Norfolk police forces?
This whole process is too rushed and completely unsatisfactory. It was wrong to postpone our local elections this year. The proposed reforms have not been thought through and the consequences are not clear. There may be some upsides to reform and there may even be some upsides in principle to unitary councils, but unless we get convincing answers, I will oppose not just this Bill, but the changes to local government in Suffolk.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
This devolution debate today is a continuation of the conversation that has been doing the rounds in Sussex since the announcement that we will be in the first wave of new regions to begin the devolution process. The Bill will allow us to unlock resources at a regional level and to use them to best serve the needs of our communities. It provides the framework for cohesive, strategic planning across Sussex for the housing and services that we need, generating good employment and the freedom to travel easily. Done right, it is an opportunity for greater democratic engagement and participation.
Let me turn to a couple of the issues that have been doing the rounds in this conversation in Sussex. The first is planning and transport. Businesses in Worthing West and across Sussex are currently gridlocked by failing east-to-west travel routes and by public transport that is too often unaffordable, unreliable or absent outside of our town centres. A regional transport authority with legal responsibility for buses, trains and active travel will be able to leverage investment and design services that actually meet the needs of our communities. We want travel planning that connects people and businesses, enables eco-tourism to flourish in our beautiful South Downs and lets residents move across Sussex without relying on a crumbling 20th-century system that is built around cars and that no longer serves us.
On housing and infrastructure, with this Bill we can align housing, planning and infrastructure finally to deliver the right homes in the right places across the region. In my constituency, almost one in four residents are now aged 65 or above, yet much of our housing stock is not fit for older age. The shortage of suitable homes limits our ability to attract working-age people to the area. Along with so many other areas, we face a dire lack of rented and affordable social housing. Only at a regional level can we plan housing that meets our needs now and into the future: homes that are accessible for our older population, affordable for young families, and supported by infrastructure to create thriving, mixed communities, networked and easily accessible across Sussex.
Finally, I will focus on the new duty on health inequalities. I welcome the Bill’s introduction of this duty, which is crucial for the rural and coastal communities in my constituency and across Sussex. The chief medical officer’s 2021 report was clear: coastal areas suffer a persistent “coastal excess” of ill health even after accounting for age and deprivation. Rural areas also face hidden deprivation that regional averages fail to capture: limited services, high fuel poverty, isolation and inadequate access to care. These are lives cut short and opportunities denied. The Bill will compel leaders in Sussex to consider health in every policy—transport, housing and skills—embedding public health in all decisions, and that is something that we can learn from at a national level too.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Bill brands itself as “devolution by default”, but in practice it could be seen as centralisation by stealth. Real devolution shifts power out of Westminster and Whitehall to the people in local communities, but the Bill risks doing the opposite. For instance, clause 4 lets Ministers draw and redraw local maps in order for areas to have a mayor. Clause 50 lets them bolt on new functions by regulation with minimal scrutiny, and clause 9 creates seven unelected commissioners answerable only to a mayor. It also fails to explain how it will all be paid for. Let us be clear, local government is in serious financial difficulty. East Sussex county council is on course to exhaust its reserves by 2029. Councils across East Sussex carry £500 million-worth of debt. Our inboxes are full of cases that should be handled by councils that no longer have the staff or the funding. Reshuffling deck chairs on a sinking ship will not save it. Without a sustainable settlement for social care and children’s services, structural changes will fail.
Some powers are welcome, if they are funded. Bus franchising can reconnect towns and villages but not on an empty budget. Requiring key route networks and local growth plans adds duties but at the moment without giving resources. A new local audit office could help clear the audit backlog, but it cannot be both regulator and auditor—no one should mark their own homework.
I was particularly alarmed to read clause 55; this issue has affected my community particularly heavily. The clause enables forced mergers into new unitary councils. In my area, Brighton and Hove city council has launched a surprise consultation to push its boundary east to absorb Newhaven, Kingston and nearby villages in my constituency. Newhaven is a distinct port town 10 miles from Brighton. Kingston, Iford, Rodmell and Southease are rural communities in the South Downs national park. I have already written to a Minister on this subject. They are not Brighton neighbourhoods, and residents do not want decisions made for them at Hove town hall.
The Government say that they want pace. The East Sussex proposal, supported by the county council and all five districts and boroughs, keeps the county boundary intact and lets East Sussex move forward together. Brighton’s farcical counter-proposal risks delay and confusion, not least by proposing to cut across the boundaries of two county divisions and a parliamentary constituency. Its consultation does not even consider a westward expansion where the urban area of Brighton and Hove naturally continues; it goes straight into cutting up East Sussex.
Here is the test for the Bill overall: does it move power and resources to people and places, or does it pull more strings into the Secretary of State’s hands? Does it strengthen scrutiny or sidestep it? Does it fix the finances or dodge them? At the moment, it falls short on all these counts. I hope the Minister can explain the answers to those challenges. Devolution should feel like power in people’s hands, not something being done to them.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
Our politics is not working. Too many people feel that what we do here has little relevance to their lives. They feel that their vote is less a source of power and a decision about our common future, and more an expression—the only way they have to demonstrate how bad the status quo has become. Often my constituents ask me, “Who is in charge of this? Who do I hold responsible for fixing it?”, and so often it is shockingly hard to know or even find out.
Our state and our political system have become so confused and centralised, with so many competing boundaries of responsibility, that power slips through the cracks and evades the grasp of elected politicians. To fix that, we must go back to first principles. This Bill is motivated by a fundamental principle: that in our democracy sovereignty flows up from the people to Parliament, not down from Parliament to the people. The people are sovereign, so the way we govern ourselves—our constitution—is not the unique property of Members in this Chamber. It is something that all of us own as citizens; we are represented as well as representatives.
That matters, because it changes how we should think about the Bill. The control that the Bill aims to give people is not new, and it is not something that this place has the unique authority to give or withhold. The Bill aims to restore a kind of local control that has for too long been gradually eroded, and its motivating principle is that, through voting, people should be able to change our political system. The right-to-request powers enshrine this principle in law, enabling strategic authorities to be ambitious in requesting the powers that the people who live in those areas need to thrive.
I know that Andy Burnham, mayor of the towns I represent in Wigan, will be ambitious in using that power for technical education, tourist taxes and employment support. As the Bill develops, I hope that consideration will be given to the responsibility to treat the requests with the seriousness that they deserve. Greater Manchester is a shining example of how this works, and it is the fastest-growing local economy in the UK, at double the UK rate. In taxi licensing, we also have an example of how power can drain from elected officials, as local people cannot hold to account the authorities and police forces responsible for their safety.
The Bill is part of a broader agenda that I strongly support: restoring power to people chosen by the public, instead of independent agencies, experts or bodies of rights and treaties. To my mind, when our politics is not working, we politicians have a responsibility to think boldly about how to make it work better. What we need is nothing less than a moment of constitutional change and fresh and creative thinking about how to reform our system. That is what I hope the Bill begins to do.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Bringing decision making closer to local people and making it more accountable and more reflective of local needs is a laudable aim, but that is not what the Bill will do. Rather than bringing decision making closer to hard-working local people, it will cement the damaging present system of oversized unitary authorities and dubiously useful mayoralties. If we want our communities to have responsive local government with easily accessible political leaders who deliver on the desires of residents and are accountable at the ballot box, we should not be pushing for larger local government boundaries. If anything, we should be reducing their size.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
In Scotland, we have so-called devolution, but the reality on the ground is that the Scottish Government are centralising more and more power. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Bill creates the potential risk of that?
Robbie Moore
I absolutely share that concern, and I will give my hon. Friend an example of what we face across the Bradford district; the people across Keighley and Ilkley have long known the dangers to smaller communities when such amalgamations occur. In 1974, their well liked and well remembered councils were abolished and absorbed into a larger Bradford council unitary authority, which is one of the largest in the country with a population of 565,000; the average size of a unitary authority is about 250,000 people. Since then, Bradford council has consistently prioritised its namesake, extracting ever higher council tax and costs from outlying areas such as my constituency and neighbouring Shipley and funnelling them into city centre projects of no benefit to the people who have paid for them.
Andrew Rosindell
My friend is making some excellent points. The best example, which is from when this started, is the creation of Greater London in 1965. Ever since then, areas like Romford have been paying money into central London and losing our local control, local identity and local democracy, and it has been costing us an absolute fortune. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is a lot of red tape and bureaucracy and the wrong direction to go in?
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree. The Bill is not about local democracy; it is about taking the power for decision making away from local people on where their council tax should be spent. That is why I am advocating that the Government should stop the Bill from progressing.
Bradford council is made up of 90 councillors, with Bradford having a greater number of councillors on the council than Keighley and Ilkley combined. That may be reflective of their rural population, but it is completely airbrushing out the distinctly different needs, desires and priorities of areas such as mine. That is why I will advocate continuously for us in Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and the Worth valley—and indeed the Shipley constituency—to have our own unitary authority outside that of Bradford.
Mayoralties have been arguably a greater challenge. When a constituent has an issue, Madam Deputy Speaker, you and other Members of the House know that they should not have any difficulty in contacting their parliamentarians as our constituency offices are on the high streets and our emails are always open. We have personal and deep connections to the local communities we represent and are familiar with the businesses and the people that make up those communities. But mayoralties operate over regions with hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of residents within them. If a constituent tries to contact their mayor, it is highly likely that the correspondence will never cross the mayor’s desk. Mayoral regions are simply too large for one person to seriously represent the community level.
Aggregating decision making at the strategic authority level makes exactly the same mistake. If a community wants to make an objection, it will have to do so no longer to its local council but to a strategic authority: a body not tied by history, sentiment or even geographical area to those communities, but instead under direction sent by the Government.
If we were serious about devolution, we would follow the lessons experienced by Keighley and Ilkley and make local government work at a community level. We would empower not administrative monstrosities but parish, town and smaller, more regional councils. That is why I will continue to advocate for my area to be taken out of the Bradford unitary authority and to create our own unitary authority. I advocate reversing the local government amalgamations made in the 1970s, not doubling down on them. The Bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and should not be supported.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have always been, and I remain, a vocal advocate for devolution and reorganisation. I got to witness the type of joy and hope I want every community to feel when I worked in Greater Manchester during the establishment of the first devolved mayoralty. I have had robust debates with councils and residents of all political persuasions on how local government reorganisation should best work in Lancashire, particularly when a sense of place and home is so important to most of us. The prospect of what we know to be our place changing somehow can be unsettling, but if we are brought along and engaged throughout, we can usually start to see the opportunities too.
I will focus my comments on the most local level of our democratic structure: the role of town and parish councils, which I believe should be used to even greater effect if we let it. My constituency of Ribble Valley is significantly parished in its rural areas, with parishes such as Broughton and Balderstone, while more suburban areas such as Lostock Hall are not but have active community groups such as the Lostock Hall Village Team. I therefore see the strength of both formal and informal community leadership.
In clause 58, the Bill rightly creates a clearer requirement for local authorities to create neighbourhood governance structures. In a statement to this House in June, it was suggested that those could be called neighbourhood area committees, led by ward councillors. However, I am concerned that the Bill does not fully appreciate the role that town and parish councils currently play and that the accountability of such neighbourhood area committees does not seem to be enshrined.
I will cover a couple of my concerns. First, if the committees are led by ward councillors, such councillors are political in their nature whereas parish councillors are usually apolitical. We therefore need to consider the ramifications of changing the focus of those local committees. Secondly, how do we ensure that every area is advocated for by a committed representative? How do we tangibly protect areas whose ward councillors are not active or who do not create a neighbourhood governance structure? Does that remove the ability for involved residents to form groups outside that? We all know of councillors—rare as they are, I hope—who stand for political reasons or otherwise and then do not drive things locally.
Even though parish and town councils only cover 36% of the population in England, they cover some 90% of its geographical area. Some may feel that such a distinction means that parish councils are not so influential and significant in our country’s governance, but that view does a disservice to the land that we live in and on and are sustained by. As politicians, and as residents in a democracy, we are responsible for the land around us and its resources. Indeed, some of the biggest roles for parish and town councils are around planning, the environment, flooding and ensuring that local areas—the buildings, the fields, the roads and not just the people—are managed well.
Although to some this section of the Bill may feel small and fairly niche, if we do not pay attention to the conversations happening in the pub or the community centre and to the people there who understand their local area better than anyone, we will struggle to understand what people want and need. Let me be clear: this Bill is monumental. But let us build on our fantastic existing structures, especially those town and parish councils that cover 90% of our great country, as has always been—
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
There are ideas in this Bill that devolve powers that we Greens can support. A layer of strategic government with funding and fundraising powers could empower areas of the country, such as Sussex, to improve daily life for our citizens and could strengthen democracy. However, it is worrying that the process for doing that so far and the ways in which decisions are moving forward on the reorganisation of local government have not listened to people who want to maintain their district and borough councils and have not properly engaged local people in devising new proposals rather than just commenting on them. If this is done without consent or respect for local areas, it will not be democratic or empowering.
Clause 57 is very unfair in grandfathering in existing mayoral arrangements for local councils but not preserving any committee systems—not even those chosen recently by referendum. On fair voting, the Bill is inadequate. For the new elected mayors, the Bill specifies a supplementary voting system that is better than first-past-the-post, but, as other Members have pointed out, that should be used next year in Sussex. Also, for the new authorities where new councillors are being elected, there is a genuine missed chance to have a fairer voting system for councils too.
The Bill is dangerously light on the democratic scrutiny of new mayors and combined authorities, and poor on standards in public life. There should be transparency duties on mayors to disclose their lobbying meetings, as Ministers do and all MPs should. Mayors will also be able to appoint commissioners for different areas of their powers, which will be powerful positions that are likely to be well remunerated. Yet the Bill appears to be silent on any higher standards of accountability, transparency or conduct for such people. Mayors and commissioners should all come under the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, as other people in this place do. There are big missed chances in the Bill in terms of new duties for poverty and inequality, climate, nature, healthy air, land and water pollution and health, particularly in relation to the impacts of transport and housing policy. On health determinants, the Bill mentions prosperity but not poverty or inequality; nor does it mention the huge chance to improve health by cleaning up filthy air pollution. Why not?
Greens will be arguing for all these goals and duties and more to be put in place firmly and clearly in the Bill, and for them to be matched with powers, funding and the ability to raise and use investment for homes, transport, education, justice, social justice, public health and all these other things to close the gaps that have so shamefully grown under successive Governments and continued Labour austerity. This Bill could help to deliver great things, but it will take many big changes, much work and much listening to good ideas from this part of the House for the Government to achieve that.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I also welcome the shadow Secretary of State to his new role. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill presents a great opportunity for Southend East and Rochford and for Greater Essex. The Bill is about giving local people the right to make decisions about the place they call home. At its heart, it is about empowering our communities. Community does not just happen. When I was growing up, we had youth clubs, football teams and thriving heritage buildings. We had a strong sense of community. Over the past 14 years, many of these institutions have been forced to close. Devolution has already brought so many opportunities to areas that have seen more devolved power. Families in Southend East and Rochford and in Essex deserve that same level of opportunity.
Mr Alaba
I will make a bit of progress.
Widening devolution is a chance to finally reverse this trend. It introduces a new community right to buy, giving community groups a formal right of first refusal to purchase assets of community value, and it extends the time period to 12 months for communities to raise funds and negotiate a purchase price for said assets. It protects grassroots sporting facilities as assets of community value, which they are. It ends upward-only rent review clauses in commercial leases. This will allow rent to increase and decrease at the rent review, based on the current market rate. This will prevent vacant shops and help to regenerate high streets. Finally, it provides measures for accountability to ensure that mayors from all parties deliver the houses, transport and infrastructure that communities need.
The Essex economy has been held back by powers stored in Westminster. If Greater Essex had the same levels of productivity as the south-east, our local economies would be 17% bigger. It is time to unlock this economic potential and for Greater Essex to carve out its own industrial strategy and finally become the economic powerhouse I know it can be.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Devolution should mean giving power back to people and communities. Decisions ought to be taken as close as possible to those they affect, but this Bill imposes a top-down model from Whitehall with sweeping new powers for the Secretary of State, mayors and their unelected commissioners, rather than the real empowerment of councils and residents. My own constituency of Stratford-on-Avon is a good example of why this matters. In rural south Warwickshire, our needs are very different from the urban north. We face unique challenges such as unreliable public transport, which leaves local residents with poor access to key services. Our fire and rescue services have been reduced. That is why I support the two-unitary council solution for Warwickshire, reflecting the reality of our place and respecting the local identities.
Further, we must not overlook the vital role that parish and town councils play in communities such as mine across Stratford-on-Avon. From creating neighbourhood development plans to supporting local groups and looking after our village greens and recreation grounds, they do outstanding work, and with the right backing, many stand ready to deliver more for their communities. Councils are already stretched to breaking point, with deficits running into the billions. For those authorities already in the deepest difficulty, devolution without proper funding is little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Unless Ministers face up to the scale of the challenge and provide sustainable resources, no new governance structure will succeed.
Although bringing back the supplementary vote is a move in the right direction, the Government have missed a real opportunity to restore trust in politics through fairer elections. If the Government recognise that first past the post is not fit for mayoral elections, why is it fit for parliamentary and council elections?
I welcome the strengthening of the community right to buy scheme, which will help safeguard valued local assets, particularly in rural areas, where protecting much-loved assets and community hubs, such as our pubs, is so important. The Government must go further on this, especially when assets are kept empty and derelict by landlords.
In conclusion, the Bill could have been the moment to show that national Government are willing to put power in the hands of communities. Instead, by centralising rather than devolving, the Government have let the moment pass.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am in my 18th year as a member of Thetford town council and I serve as a director on the Charles Burrell Centre committee, a community benefit society in my hometown. I have served on the town council, the district council and the county council—all three tiers of local government—so Members will understand why I have a keen interest in the Bill, but it was my background in community that led me to get involved in politics in the first place. The clauses in the Bill specifically around community empowerment are exciting and long overdue.
In my constituency of South West Norfolk, where I was born and raised, I have seen the impact of community power at first hand. When my former school, Charles Burrell high school, closed in 2013, we were devastated. It was partly the emotions that come from losing a school of more than 60 years, but it was also that the physical building had been home to so many community groups and other organisations. For many, it was so much more than just a school. As a community, we set about working to save the building. At some 85,000 square feet of former secondary school with 12 acres of land, it was no easy undertaking.
Few thought it would work, but on Saturday just gone, myself and hundreds of local residents celebrated the Charles Burrell Centre’s 10th birthday. Over those 10 years, we have witnessed local people take responsibility for the site, turning it into a thriving community hub of more than 60 organisations, charities, statutory bodies and small businesses. It now creates jobs, supports families and acts as a vital anchor for the community, with an annual turnover of half a million pounds. None of that would have been possible without trust in local people.
On strategic authorities, I wonder if the Minister could speak to my concerns about opportunities for rural communities. Strategic authorities draw on metropolitan, large urban areas, but I have three market towns and 72 villages in my constituency. Although individually their economic potential would be small by comparison, collectively our rural communities have so much potential and could significantly support the Government’s growth agenda, but they need support. How those rural communities link up and obtain that support as part of devolution, and how they work with the strategic authorities, is key. I hope the Minister can highlight how rural areas will fit in.
I want Narborough in my constituency to have as much focus as Norwich. I want Ickburgh to be on the page when we are talking about Ipswich. I particularly welcome community right to buy, giving local people the strong say they need on community issues. Sadly, for too many community projects, getting good ideas off the drawing board is still far too difficult, and I hope these priorities and others can support projects like the Charles Burrell Centre, which is now under the excellent management of Nicola Welham, supported by a fantastic staff and volunteer team in Thetford.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
This Bill has missed the opportunity to introduce a fair voting system. The outdated first-past-the-post system distorts the will of the people while ignoring millions of voices across the country. It is no wonder that so many people feel disconnected from politics. This Bill could have been an opportunity to restore the disconnect, but it fails. Devolution must go hand in hand with reform that ensures that every vote counts and every community has a voice.
The Bill will not result in that ambitious shift of power from Westminster and Whitehall to communities and individuals. Sadly, it is a missed opportunity for reform. Will the Minister ask the Deputy Prime Minister to commit to considering PR more carefully? You never know, Madam Deputy Speaker, it might help the Labour party to hold on to a few more seats at the next general election.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I cannot understand how anyone could speak against the Bill. It presents a real opportunity to do something different in our local communities. Northampton has been under a unitary system for five years now, after the Conservatives bankrupted our county council, and no one there has ever said to me, “I wish we had more councils and councillors.” People want simplicity, and that is what the Bill delivers.
The Bill also delivers accountability. My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) talked about the personal accountability of councillors. In my area, the former Conservative leader had to stand down because of domestic abuse charges, and a former Conservative cabinet member is in court on abuse charges alongside men who are charged with abusing children, so I would say that more accountability for our local councillors and politicians is very important.
The Bill drives growth. I speak to investors who want to come to the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. They have heard the Chancellor talking about the opportunities in our region and think, “There is no single voice that I can speak to, but I can go to West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire or anywhere else around the country with a big mayoral authority and find someone who is championing growth.”
Mike Reader
They may well come to London. Meanwhile, in the Ox-Cam corridor and the south midlands region, we are struggling for a single voice that is speaking out for our area. That is what devolution will deliver for us.
Devolution also saves costs. I am sure that all Members have read the detailed analysis in the Library briefings, but PwC also estimates that it will save between £500 million and £700 million a year for taxpayers. It would be absolutely bananas to vote against something that would reduce people’s tax bills.
There are some great local benefits for Northampton. I will not talk about devolution, because the Minister knows my strong views on the issues that I face. One that I will not let slip through here is e-scooter licensing. We have had a long-running e-scooter trial in Northampton. Every single month, people complain to me about scooter-litter. It is important that local authorities be able to better control those licensing agreements and hold the scooter companies to account for ensuring that scooters are in the right place.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
We in London also face a proliferation of e-scooters and e-bikes. The last Conservative Government absolutely failed to take any action on that. Does my hon. Friend agree that it will make a huge difference to Londoners that Transport for London will now have the power to hold those companies to account and clear the pavements?
Mike Reader
I could not agree more. I cannot imagine how anyone can deal with the myriad companies working across London. Having just one in Northampton is challenge enough—although it is a good company.
Local ownership is central to the Bill, and community right to buy will be fantastic. People have talked about pubs, but a number of different community organisations that have come to see me in the past year—the Nigerian Community Association, the Albanian Cultural Association and our local Ukrainian school—are looking to take derelict local properties and turn them into great community hubs. The Bill would give them more powers to take on those community assets and create great places in Northampton.
The Bill protects small businesses. For retail businesses on Wellingborough Road, Kettering Road in the town centre or one of the shopping parades, the removal of upward-only rent reviews will mean that shop owners have more security and protection under this Government.
Overall, I am very excited about moving power out of Whitehall and into local communities. Honestly, having listened to the debate for a good three hours, I cannot understand how anyone could possibly vote against the measures.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It might surprise the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader), but in my constituency people want good local councillors —particularly the Liberal Democrat ones, who are working hard.
We Liberal Democrats passionately believe that power belongs in local communities, not concentrated in Whitehall. Although we welcome the drive for further devolution, the Bill sidelines local councils by handing yet more authority to regional mayors. Bath council knows all too well the frustration of having a regional mayor who does not listen to all the local authorities they represent. For years, Bath council wanted to bring buses under local control, but we were stuck with a Labour mayor who refused to listen and spent millions on a birthday bus vanity project, rather than delivering the change my constituents were crying out for.
The Bill will enable mayors of strategic authorities to nominate up to seven unelected commissioners to deliver policy, accountable only to the mayor. These unelected officials add a layer of unaccountable bureaucracy that communities do not want and councils do not need. Real devolution means local communities at the heart of decision making, working collaboratively with the mayor. Clauses 21 and 22 do not even clarify on which “relevant local matters” mayors must convene with local partners—surely that cannot be right.
Also absent from the Bill are visitor levy powers for local authorities. Bath council has long been advocating for the ability to introduce a modest visitor levy. We in Bath are proud of the role we play in supporting the visitor economy, but the system needs to be fairer, recognising the costs as well as the benefits of such high levels of tourism. The Government should give local authorities these powers through the Bill, to safeguard our hugely important and valuable tourism industry.
Also missing from the Bill is the introduction of public accounts committees to oversee and hold mayoral strategic authorities accountable, much like the Public Accounts Committee does with Government expenditure. Robust local scrutiny would reduce the dependence on upward accountability to central Government and represent real progress in the existing local council and mayoral scrutiny arrangements. If the Government do support the principle of local public accounts committees, the Bill should provide a timescale for their implementation.
We Liberal Democrats support the aims of the Bill, but it clearly falls short of real devolution. What we have is a Bill that misunderstands the whole point of devolution—namely, decision making from the bottom up, not the top down.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I really welcome this pivotal Bill. When I was deputy leader of Southampton city council, I saw at first hand how local decisions made by local people were transformative for the community, but I also saw over 14 long years of Conservative government how we were held back by a broken system that turned councils into supplicants, in constant competition with our neighbours, forced to put our begging bowl out for crumbs from Whitehall’s table. That ends with this Bill, and I really welcome the change that it represents and the measures it contains. I also welcome the fact that Southampton, along with other councils in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, is part of the devolution priority programme, allowing us to take advantage of these powers from next May.
The political benefits are clear, and the promise in our manifesto is being delivered, but the process matters, so we have to get this right. What I am interested in is how these powers improve the life chances of my constituents. My message to all council leaders, including in Southampton, is that we must be clear about what we want to do with these powers. I note that the Conservative police and crime commissioner, who is now running to be Mayor of Hampshire, has said that her big priorities are closing hotels for asylum seekers and stopping houses being built to avoid upsetting Tory district councils. That is certainly a vision, but it is disappointingly narrower than what this moment requires.
For me, there are three basic tests that regional devolution must meet to make this worth it: first, it improves employment and skills prospects, particularly for those most marginalised from the labour market; secondly, it progresses investment in and integration of our transport network, specifically low-polluting public transport that is well connected and affordable; and thirdly, it galvanises house building, so that working people can afford to live and work locally—that is especially vital in the south, where housing demand is acute and nimby Tory and Lib Dem-led councils are failing to deliver for local people. As an aside, I also welcome the return to the more representative supplementary vote system.
I appreciate that local government reorganisation is a separate process, but in Hampshire our local leaders are being asked to endorse new council areas alongside a mayoral authority. I support the proposal backed by 12 out of the 15 councils in Hampshire—run by all parties—to establish five unitary authorities across the area and have signed a joint letter to support that. I urge Ministers to not simply take the easy option and stitch together pre-existing organisations.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
As someone who also represents a constituency in Hampshire, I agree with my hon. Friend. In terms of the letter we have sent, would it not make more sense for boundary changes to be part of the process, as opposed to an add-on at the end?
Darren Paffey
I thank my hon. Friend and near neighbour for making that point. Absolutely, boundary changes must be looked at sympathetically by Ministers. I hope to get that reassurance in their comments, because what we stand to gain in the short term from a quick and easy decision, we will lose in the long term if councils find themselves saddled with nonsensical boundaries.
I have two other quick requests, the first of which is on mayoral councils. Giving mayoral councils a statutory footing would provide a powerful forum for central Government to meet devolved government and iron out policy issues. Secondly, will the Minister set out the Government’s ambitions and timescales for local public accounts committees? A lot of colleagues have talked about restoring trust in politics, and I think that openness, in particular on public moneys, can be delivered in that way.
In closing, there is a lot to be excited about in the Bill. I am pleased to see this Labour Government fulfilling another manifesto commitment and bringing real change for our communities.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I have cut my six-minute speech down to three. I am a supporter of devolution and devolved power, community empowerment and local decision making. In my seat, we have a combined authority and, as I mentioned earlier, the benefits brought by the West Yorkshire Mayor in transport, with a new bus station, and in crime and policing. However, my community, even after being part of the combined authority for so long, is still not clear on where exactly the responsibilities of the council stop and those of the mayor start, or how they work together. I therefore stand here with some deep concerns.
Instead of empowering communities, the Bill risks recentralising power and bypassing local ward councillors and local actors who truly represent our diverse communities. In Kirklees, we have a cabinet system: eight councillors, none of whom is from Dewsbury and Batley, make major decisions that have an impact on every single resident and constituent in my constituency. Moving to a mandated cabinet system across the country is short-sighted, undemocratic, biased and discriminatory.
The Bill’s design places sweeping strategic powers in the hands of elected mayors and their appointed commissioners, who are often unelected. That is not genuine devolution; it is deception dressed up as localism.
The second issue is a lack of funding and financial transparency. A core failing of the Bill lies in its fiscal ambiguity. There is little detail on sustainable funding. Strategic authorities may depend heavily on mayoral precepts, levies or council contributions, risking instability and underfunded local services. On transparency, while the creation of a local audit office is welcome, this reactive measure attempts to patch a broken audit system where hundreds of authorities still face unaudited accounts, without addressing underlying systemic weaknesses such as wasteful procurement practices, a lack of transparency and unequal distribution of spend across wards.
Community voices are too often marginalised. The Bill does not prevent councils from letting vital community buildings be deliberately left in disrepair, then deciding to close the buildings because they do not have the funds to repair or run them.
In conclusion, this Bill is not devolution; it is a shift of power from local councils to centrally influenced mayors, with an opaque financial model and tokenistic community tools. The Bill must be updated to restore genuine local leadership; to guarantee long-term, transparent funding; to ensure that procurement and audit practices remain accountable and community-informed; and to embed real neighbourhood-level governance with proper funding and citizen engagement, planning and influence.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
English devolution is a mess. It is a postcode patchwork of opaque systems, varying powers and unclear lines of accountability. That is not just an historical failure, but profoundly dangerous, because when the public cannot navigate their democracy or do not know who holds the pen on planning, transport, housing or skills, they understandably disengage. Accountability is lost, and in that vacuum politicians can get away with anything.
I will give the House one clear example: in Hartlepool, the Tees Valley Mayor has imposed a mayoral development corporation with very little consultation—certainly not with the public. Planning powers were stripped from the council for large areas of the town, supposedly to be exercised by an appointed board. We fought hard to secure some form of democratic representation on that board, yet of its 14 members, only four hold elected office and only one is there because they have elected office. In any event, the mayor quickly outsourced the majority of those powers to a private company in Manchester, so people who have never walked our streets are now making the majority of the decisions shaping them.
Andrew Cooper
Does my hon. Friend agree that mayoral development corporations need to be brought under the remit of the new local audit offices that are proposed in the Bill, placing the power to audit them beyond reasonable doubt?
Mr Brash
I agree that far greater powers are required to hold mayoral development corporations to account, and that may be one way of doing it.
The changes are not just about planning powers: publicly owned assets are being transferred from the council and other public bodies. When Labour councillors demanded that those assets, which include Hartlepool’s civic centre, would be returned to public ownership if they were not developed or if the corporation was wound up, that demand was refused. When we asked whether the council could resist this change, the advice was stark: we could not, there was no veto and it could not be stopped by the council. When the council voted against a mayoral development corporation just down the road in Middlesbrough, it was imposed on the town anyway.
Let me be clear that I am not opposed to the principle of development corporations. I was willing to support the one in Hartlepool in the spirit of cross-party co-operation, but the outcome has become confused, with zero accountability and residents left unclear about who to turn to, especially as more and more houses in multiple occupation pop up across our town centre, put there by an unelected, unaccountable company. This is not power in the hands of the people.
Devolution was supposed to mean decisions made closer to communities, but too often the reality is the opposite: power hoarded and pushed further away from the very neighbourhoods that are supposed to be empowered. That is why I support the We’re Right Here campaign, which asks that power does not stop at the mayor’s office but flows to the people themselves. It is championed by Hartlepool’s own community leader, Sacha Bedding. It is a way forward and I hope that Ministers are listening. We must ensure that there is accountability for mayors. They can be the vehicle for delivering for the public, but the power itself can lie only in one place: with the people.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front-Bench spokespeople. I call David Simmonds.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It has been a wide-ranging debate. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) for their contributions. The range of issues that they and other Members covered starkly highlighted the wholesale inadequacy of the Bill in relation to the scale of the challenges that our country and our communities face.
There are big issues facing local government, which deals with some of the most difficult tasks faced by any of our public services. We know that the cost of social care is rapidly growing and will consume a greater share of the available resources. Since this Government took office, there has been a collapse in the delivery of new housing. It is down 17% in the country as a whole and there has been a 66% drop by large social landlords under Mayor Khan here in London. As we have seen in the news today, the Government’s chums in the unions have voted to extend their strikes until March 2026. The people of our second city are left with their waste uncollected and populations of rats.
Wendy Morton
As an MP for a constituency neighbouring Birmingham, I see all too often the impact of the strikes. Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue is absolutely shocking? The one thing that residents expect from their local council is a regular collection of their household waste, and often garden waste and recycling as well. Birmingham city council is failing the residents.
David Simmonds
I thank my right hon. Friend for highlighting that issue; she has been a champion for the voices of those affected by it. While I understand that Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box time and again and said that they must wash their hands of it, the unions said in their statement today that there was “no point” negotiating with the council, because it lacked the authority to resolve the issue. The Government need to roll up their sleeves and get involved.
While our second city struggles with these challenges, here we have a piece of legislation about tinkering with structures. Not only that, but, as we learned just a week ago, it is an entirely uncosted plan. The Department has not undertaken any assessment of the cost-benefit of the measures contained in this legislation. That comes against the backdrop of the decisions of this Government which, as we know, are making the financial situation of our country more perilous by the day. In the first few months of this financial year alone, the Government borrowed £60 billion more than they raised in taxes. Borrowing costs have hit a 27-year high—a level seen only in the early days of the last Labour Government in 1998.
This Bill opens the door to a host of tax-raising powers. As we go through the pages and pages of new powers for Ministers and the Secretary of State to direct local authorities in one way or another and to instruct communities to accept this or that, we see the prospect of local authorities, which are already left a net £1.5 billion worse off by the Government’s rise in national insurance contributions, facing the maxing out of parking charges, huge increases in borrowing and big rises in business rates and council tax.
The £60 billion black hole that this Government have created just in this financial year will need to be bridged somehow. The Chancellor will be back to tell us how in a few weeks’ or months’ time, but I think we can see a clue already that local communities and local authorities will be the route by which those costs are raised. When we read what this Bill has to say about neighbourhood governance, the threat is very clear even at parish council level. Those parishes—the smallest unit of local government, but one with precepting powers—will be one of the local kitties that the Government expect to raid to finance the consequences of their economic mismanagement.
When we think of Sir Humphrey’s famous advice that it was always best to
“dispose of the difficult bit in the title”
of the Bill, because it did a lot less harm there than in the text, we can see that when this Bill talks about devolution, it devolves to the local level the responsibility for those tax rises and service cuts. Can the Minister tell the House how many libraries will close to pay for this Bill? How many road projects will be set aside? How many more communities, such as those referred to by the Labour leader of Shrewsbury, will lose their regular recycling and bin collections to pay for it? How high will council tax go?
What is the limit that Ministers will set on the tax rises that the Bill will drive? What is the maximum parking charge or fine that Ministers think it is reasonable for councils to have? What level of costs will local businesses have to face? When we debated the Bill on business rates that sits behind many of the financial elements of this Bill, Ministers said that they wanted to tax Amazon, but they ended up taxing our local high street stores and our pubs. On average, local pubs alone have to pay £6,500 extra a year, and that was before the £60 billion that this Government have borrowed in the last few months.
I am going to finish with a direct plea to the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect. He led his party in local government—he was its champion—and for many years, he was a local councillor too, earning a huge degree of respect in this House and in that wider family as a result of the work he did. At the Government’s favoured population level for new unitary authorities, this Bill abolishes 90% of all the councillors in England’s shires at the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen. That is 90% of the voices of those local communities—people such as Chris Whitbread, who stood up for his community against this Government over the Bell Hotel in Epping. These people have been the voices of their communities on migrant hotels, on protecting their green belt and on air quality. They are the people who stood up for their local communities on issues such as the grooming gangs, which we heard so much about earlier from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips).
This Bill could have been transformational—a chance to step up that voice of local communities. I am sorry that the Minister lost his battle to let those communities keep their voices, but he still has time to change course, to support our reasoned amendment, start again, and build a cross-party consensus on the future of local government. Let this not be the funeral oration for local democracy in England.
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
I thank hon. Members from across the House for their contributions to today’s important debate. The sheer number of Members who wanted to speak demonstrates how important these issues are, and the passion and enthusiasm shown by Members of this House makes absolutely clear their care for their communities, as well as their desire to see local economies thrive and for the benefits of growth to be felt by every community across the country.
This Bill represents a generational shift in power that will see community empowerment enshrined in law and local leaders and mayors with skin in the game, trusted to get on and do the job they have been elected to do in a new relationship of equals with central Government—one built on a shared commitment to people and place, mutual respect and co-operation. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill does exactly what its title says. It effects a top-to-bottom redistribution of power in this country, putting decision making in the hands of our regions, towns, cities and communities and delivering real change for working people in the places they call home, bringing growth and opportunity and empowering local leaders and our mayors to make the right decisions alongside their local communities. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said at the start of the debate, this is a landmark Bill that will help us build a modern state based on a fairer, stronger partnership between central and local government.
For too long, power and opportunity has been centralised in Westminster and Whitehall, holding back growth across the country and denying millions of people the opportunity to realise the potential they have within them. Our new approach to devolution and empowerment begins the work of fixing that—powering up our regions through devolution by default and the right to request, as well as new powers, resources and freedoms, and introducing measures to fix local government and its fragile audit regime through sustainable structures and governance. It also gives real power to communities through the community right to buy local assets, rooted in our high streets, neighbourhoods and sporting grounds, and it gives them a greater say in local issues, with frontline ward councillors given the respect, power and tools they need to make a difference in their communities through neighbourhood working arrangements in every council across the country. When we said this was a top-to-bottom transfer of power, we meant it.
Before I turn to the main issues raised in the debate, I will first address the reasoned amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), and also maybe touch on some of the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). Anybody would think that the Conservatives had not been in government for 14 years, absolutely smashing local government to the core. Anybody would believe that councils were not falling over like dominoes, going bust on their watch, and that the fragmented, deal-by-deal, backroom-negotiated devolution we have had so far did not take place on their watch over 14 years. Let us forget the past, though, and look to the future.
The reasoned amendment raises concerns about local government reorganisation, which—as we have heard from Members across the House—is a big and important issue. It also talks about housing delivery and claims that the Bill means higher bills for local residents. I can assure the House that those concerns are misplaced, and frankly, the Opposition know that. First, the Bill will not affect the process for the 21 areas already undergoing reorganisation. Those 21 areas have responded to their invitation to reorganise already.
Jim McMahon
They absolutely had a choice. It was an invitation that 21 counties have responded to, demonstrating without a doubt that the appetite and interest for reorganisation was there within communities, and they responded in that way.
This process will deliver strong, sustainable unitaries, capable of leading their communities, shaping neighbourhoods and convening local public services to deliver better outcomes for local residents. This process is separate from the Bill. In fact, the devolution priority programme areas of local government reorganisation will be submitting their final proposals to Government on 26 September. All other areas will submit their final proposals on 28 November. Before this Bill even gets out of Committee, local government reorganisation will have final proposals for the 21 counties in the two-tier area. The idea that the Bill is bringing an end to the two-tier system is for the birds. By the time it reaches Royal Assent, the work will have been done and the consultations will be taking place and well under way. The Opposition know that, of course, because they used exactly the same process of reorganisation so many times when they were in government to reduce the number of councillors, reduce the number of councils and end the two-tier system in counties across the country.
To the Opposition’s credit, ending the two-tier system is a proven model, because once local government reorganisation has taken place in an area—by the way, I have not heard anybody calling realistically for a return to the old system—savings can be made. There is a world of difference between those and the savings that Government will take, as central Government is making no savings from local councils. That change gives the freedom to move money up and down that two-tier system to where the real pressures are being faced: adult social care and SEND in particular. If we do not take action after 14 years of inaction, the system will fall over, and we will not allow it to fall over on our watch, however bad the inheritance might have been. The Opposition know all that, because they laid the groundwork and were the architects of the current system.
This Bill also gives ambitious planning powers for mayors to unlock housing and infrastructure, working alongside parliamentarians and local councillors, with powers to intervene in major strategic planning applications and to grant mayoral development orders.
Jim McMahon
I am afraid that with the time we have, I need to canter through.
The Bill also allows mayoral development corporations to be established and for a mayoral community infrastructure levy to be charged, so that we can unlock much-needed housing and infrastructure to get Britain building once again.
Thirdly, the Opposition claim that this Bill introduces a new precept and will raise bills for working people. I remind them that the mayoral precept has been in law since 2017. In fact, it was a Conservative Government who brought it into law, giving all mayors the power to introduce a precept, so we will not take lectures from them on those powers. I will say this, because I believe in devolution: pound for pound, local people—through their local councils, their local mayors and their combined authorities—see the benefit of that investment in a real way in their neighbourhoods, their communities and their towns. For large parts of Government spending, for different reasons, they do not get that in a tangible way. The accountability that then comes alongside it is important.
Finally, the reasoned amendment tabled by the Conservatives claims that this Bill fails to empower local people. As the House has heard, that is far from the case. This is a generational change, moving power away from Whitehall, with the tools needed at a local level to get things going through community right to buy, neighbourhood governance and all the things that were being asked for. We urge all colleagues to vote against the reasoned amendment in a few moments.
This Bill sees the system of devolution move away from an ad hoc, inconsistent and deal-by-deal model, replacing it with a model that is clear about what places can access, when they can access it, and under what conditions. Our new system confers functions on classes of strategic authority to allow us to deliver our commitment for devolution by default and to streamline those functions, so that all parts of England can be clear about what powers they can access.
Members have raised the supplementary vote a number of times. The Government have no plans to change the electoral system for the UK Parliament or for local council elections in England. The Government believe that while the first-past-the-post system has its place, the SV system is the right thing to do for those executive positions where an individual holds that executive power, and the mandate from local people is important. That has been raised a number of times, and I hope that puts that to bed.
On local authorities, this Government have been clear that we will fix the foundations of local government and create a system that is fit, legal and decent. Changes to governance arrangements are one way that we are simplifying local government. Alongside our intention to strengthen the role of frontline ward councillors, this will provide the tools that will make it possible to act on the local issues that people believe are important.
By abolishing the committee system, we will simplify local authority governance arrangements and ensure that all councils operate an executive form of governance. I have heard the representations from Sheffield Members and others, and meetings will take place to discuss that further, but abolishing the committee system will provide clarity and accountability for local people, and importantly will strengthen that direct line of democratic accountability. We have accepted the continuation of the 13 legacy directly elected council mayors, while introducing measures to prevent the creation of any new ones.
The subject of neighbourhood governance has also been raised. The Bill sets out a clear ambition for all local authorities to hardwire community engagement and neighbourhood working into their governance. I do, of course, hear the calls on behalf of town and parish councils, and I share Members’ commitment to that local level, but if all we have are town and parish councils operating at a local level and no neighbourhood governance in the principal councils, we will miss the opportunity to hardwire localism in everything that councils do. We believe that we must have that hardwiring so that local people feel genuinely empowered. That is the only difference, however: this is completely compatible with town and parish councils working in partnership. When that is effective, they work in unison for the benefit of the local community, which is what we want to see from now on.
A significant amount of attention has rightly been paid to the subject of assets of community value. As we have all seen, community spaces such as pubs, cultural venues and places of worship are the life of our communities. They bring people together, foster a sense of community pride and support local economies. However, 14 years of the previous Government saw a total dismantling of that social infrastructure. People will be far too familiar with the sight of high streets being boarded up one by one, and with community centres being sold off, libraries being lost and parks being forgotten. Places that once defined a locality have been stripped away by 14 lost years. Too many of those critical assets are being lost, which is leading to soulless high streets and less vibrant local communities.
That is not because of a lack of will in local communities. It is because they do not have the tools and the powers to protect those assets and take them on. With the Bill we are starting the work to build back strong communities, which is due in no small part to the significant campaigning of the co-operative movement and the MPs here in the House who have made the case clearly that, in the end, ownership matters. We will give communities the tools and the real power to take on the assets that they love, because that is the right thing to do.
On all these issues the previous Government could have done far more, but what did we hear over the course of today’s debate? We heard Opposition Members say, “You are going too far—it is a power grab”, and in the same breath, “You are not going far enough, and you could have done more.” The truth is that this is a generational shift in power which will see a break-up of the stranglehold that Westminster and Whitehall have retained for far too long against communities across the country. This will be done with local communities, not to them, and indeed that is what has happened so far. Whether we are talking about our approach to fair funding and repairing the foundations, our approach to local government reorganisation or even our approach to devolution, this has all been done in genuine partnership with local leaders who are working together.
What I find so astonishing—and there is a night-and-day difference here—is the almost soulless response from Opposition Front Benchers who decry all these measures, omitting to say that their own local councillors are leading the charge at a local level. The leadership that has been shown, even by Conservative council leaders, puts those Opposition Front Benchers to shame. I do not know how many visits they make around the country, but I cannot imagine that their local representatives value the interpretation that has been presented from the Conservative Front Bench, whether it is about elections, devolution or reorganisation. We are not asking Conservatives Members to be as good as the Government, but we are asking them to be at least as good as their own councillors, and to stand with them instead of standing against them. I urge all Members to support this landmark Bill.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With the leave of the House, I will put motions 6 to 11 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Regulatory Reform
That the draft Legislative Reform (Disclosure of Adult Social Care Data) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 21 May, be approved.
Housing
That the draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) (Extension to the Social Rented Sector) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 25 June, be approved.
That the draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 25 June, be approved.
Prisons
That the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 25 June, be approved.
Local Government
That the draft Local Audit (Amendment of Definition of Smaller Authority) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 16 June, be approved.
Hovercraft
That the draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 1 July, be approved.—(Keir Mather.)
Question agreed to.
PETITION
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be able to present this petition, which has been organised by Mr and Mrs Mackenzie-Cook of Burton in Christchurch, who, along with thousands of other local residents, have been campaigning for the reopening of Burton’s only GP surgery, which prior to its closure in August last year had served the people of Burton for over 40 years. With local encouragement, another GP practice bought the premises earlier this year and everyone assumed that its application to reopen the branch surgery would be a formality. But in April, Dorset’s integrated care board rejected that application, and we now need the Government to overrule the unelected ICB and show everyone that they were being genuine at the general election when they promised to increase access to GP services rather than to reduce it.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the village of Burton in the constituency of Christchurch
Declares that the petitioners and other residents of the village of Burton in the constituency of Christchurch had the benefit of a local accessible GP practice on Burton Green for over 40 years prior to its closure in August 2024; are delighted that earlier this year South Coast Medical acquired the premises for the purpose of opening a new branch of the Grove Practice following a welcome refusal by the local planning authority to permit a change of use on the grounds of loss of community benefit; and are outraged that the Dorset Integrated Care Board has since refused permission for the re-opening of the surgery.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to overrule the Dorset Integrated Care Board’s decision to refuse permission for the re-opening of a GP surgery in Burton, which ignores, inter alia, the needs and wishes of the people of Burton and the fact that new housing already in receipt of planning permission will generate demand from an additional 2,000 patients for local GP services.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003107]
Solar Development: Newark
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, can I begin by thanking you—and, through you, Mr Speaker—for granting me this Adjournment debate? It is unusual to allocate Adjournment debates to members of the shadow Cabinet, but I want to raise this important matter on behalf of my constituents. I have written to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on a number of occasions asking him to meet me, but he declined to do so.
I want to speak about the three proposed solar farms in my constituency: the One Earth project, the Great North Road solar farm and the Steeple renewables scheme. Taken together, these projects would be of continental scale. Between them, they would cover at least 10,000 acres of land, making them collectively the largest solar installation in Europe. To put that in perspective, my constituency is a large and rural one that stretches nearly 60 miles from north to south, and at least 9% of its entire land mass would be turned into a single industrial complex—an industrial farm of black glass, metal fencing, substations and, inevitably, vast battery storage plants.
This is not just about Newark. Across the Trent valley, in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire, the cumulative impact is immense. In my constituency, the figure is 9%; in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) it is 7%; and in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) it is 5 %. This is not a scattering of panels across this part of the county; it is the concentration of a vast burden on one small corner of England’s countryside.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Jim Shannon to intervene, on large-scale solar development in the Newark constituency.
Jim Shannon
This is not just about Newark; it affects its neighbours as well. It is an issue across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and these large-scale plans will definitely affect us all. I understand the need for renewable energy, but our farmers and their needs, and the food security of this nation, must come first. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, when it comes to ensuring that we have food security, the same rules must apply across the whole of the United Kingdom? On a side note, I see that he has been active in putting flags up. I have some 60 years’ experience of putting flags up and I would be happy to help him.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Member is always welcome to come up a ladder with me in Newark. Perhaps I will pay him a visit as well to fix some Union flags.
The hon. Member is right to say that these projects affect constituencies the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. Many of them—all three projects I am raising today—are treated as nationally significant infrastructure projects. That means the final decision will land not with local communities or district or county councils, but squarely on the desks of Ministers in Whitehall. It is right that debates like this occur and elected Members such as myself have the opportunity to raise the arguments with Ministers before they ultimately make these crucial decisions.
Let me make one point crystal clear at the outset: this is not about nimbyism. When I was Housing Secretary, I heard Members of this House begin speeches with those words time and again, and my heart used to sink because invariably they would go on to make an argument that was at its heart nimbyism. However, I do not recall ever, in my 11 years in Parliament, raising in this House a campaign against a housing development in my constituency—not once. Newark has accepted thousands of new homes and new estates, and I have supported those developments. We have also accepted our share of energy projects. We host small-scale solar farms, which I have not objected to. We host battery storage facilities and have absorbed significant disruption from new and potentially exciting energy projects, such as the West Burton fusion project on the site of a former coal-fired power station. This is not a constituency that resists change. It is not a part of the country that is immune to energy projects. The entire history of north Nottinghamshire has been one of energy generation—it is in the blood of my constituents. My constituents are pragmatic, reasonable and patriotic people who want to share a part of the nation’s burden in meeting its energy needs, as they have done for generations, but what is being proposed now is on an extraordinary scale. It is disproportionate and damaging and it cannot be justified.
This has become a David and Goliath struggle. On one side are small villages, sometimes not even parish councils but parish meetings, and hamlets where neighbours have had to mobilise and join forces to get their views heard. On the other side are international companies with deep pockets, slick PR machines and armies of consultants. I pay tribute here in the House to those parish councils, parish meetings and campaign groups who have fought with such courage and determination. They have had to master planning law, pore over technical surveys and produce community responses, all with minimal resources. Contrast that with the developers: I have found them at times aggressive, loose with the facts and willing to submit surveys that are frankly absurd, so it is a David and Goliath situation.
Why are we opposing this development? First, I have never known an issue to arouse such opposition in my constituency. I surveyed residents, and 90% say no. The community is speaking with one voice, and let me say why. First, these solar panels are presented as clean and green, but as we all know in this House, the reality is murkier. Most panels sold in the UK contain materials sourced in China, often from regions such as Xinjiang where there is compelling evidence of forced labour. Britain should take a lead against exploitation, not collude with it in our supply chains.
Secondly, there are dangers from flooding and fire. These projects inevitably require vast battery storage installations. Around the world, we have seen that those batteries can ignite and that catastrophic fires can occur, sometimes releasing toxic smoke that is challenging to extinguish. Several such fires have already occurred here in Britain, as they have abroad. In the flood-prone Trent valley, the risks are greater. Putting panels, substations and batteries in areas liable to flooding presents a serious danger to life and property.
Thirdly, even if one supports solar, it should be put on rooftops and brownfield land first. Across Britain, there are 600,000 acres of south-facing industrial rooftops— warehouses, supermarkets, car parks—yet they stand largely empty. Why are we sacrificing our finest farmland when those spaces are still unused?
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Communities in Newark are affected like communities on Ynys Môn. Productive land on Ynys Môn creates good agricultural outcomes and means a good rural economy. Productivity on Ynys Môn is £4,000 below the Welsh average, and building new large-scale solar will have an impact on that. Does the right hon. Member agree that the Government should reject projects such as Maen Hir and undertake economic impact assessments on such developments to safeguard rural economies?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady makes an important point. We should think about the impact on rural communities. Larger projects such as those that I am speaking about will have a profound impact on rural communities.
To go back to the point I was making, why are we not using every incentive possible to ensure that such projects are placed on warehouses or factories rather than on beautiful and important countryside? It makes no sense.
Fourthly, let me address the impact on the countryside itself. These are some of the finest landscapes in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire. They will be scarred for generations. Some families will find solar farms just metres from their gardens. Imagine walking the dog not along a hedgerow, but between two 3.5-metre-high metal fences bristling with CCTV cameras. Imagine going for a run, flanked for miles not by rolling British countryside but by 4-metre-high walls of black glass. That is not the rural England that my constituents cherish.
Fifthly, there will be a massive impact on rural life. I believe in house building, but if we encircle villages with solar farms, we will make it nigh-on impossible to have organic housing growth in those villages in the years to come, at a time when our country needs new houses in rural communities.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
I know that there are rules about shadow Ministers speaking in Adjournment debates, but with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make an intervention. My right hon. Friend has made an important point about the impact on the local economy and the options of farming and new housing. If 10% of the land area of Newark is being covered in one thing, that limits lots of other opportunities. Does he feel that the Government have got the right balance in their push for net zero?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The answer is no. If we want to pursue net zero— even with the zealotry of some in the Government—we have to strike a balance. It is not being pursued in a proportionate and sensible way. It is alienating people— thousands of people in my constituency—many of whom feel passionately about this issue but do not want to see their countryside destroyed and their quality of life ruined.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
My constituency has a similar situation to the one the right hon. Gentleman is describing. The village of Scotton, which is home to the house where Guy Fawkes grew up, risks being encircled by a similar sort of development. People on the ground are pragmatic, but the issue comes down to planning rules and laws. It is simply not pragmatic or possible to get emergency vehicles or heavy goods vehicles through those communities. Does he agree that there needs to be a more common-sense approach to tackling these issues in rural communities?
Robert Jenrick
I certainly do. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Imagine the disruption, even just for a couple of years, of constructing 10,000 acres of solar farms in small rural areas with country lanes. It will be absolutely immense.
Sixthly, on food security, the land that I am speaking about is not scrubland, but some of the best and most versatile farmland in England. To take it out of production for 25 years is reckless. A 2023 report for the Welsh Government found that solar farms risk causing soil compaction and permanent damage, reducing yields long after the panels are gone. In Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire, 99.1% of solar installations already sit on our best farmland. Developers’ soil tests conveniently downgrade land quality, but those are surveys they commission themselves. Once farmland is lost, we become dependent on imports, which are often produced to lower standards, with greater carbon cost and from countries where we have no control. That undermines not just food security but national security.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to come in on the side of David versus Goliath. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the 10,000 acres being proposed in his constituency could be replaced by 5,000 acres of floating solar on the reservoirs of this country? In my constituency, I have 2,000 acres of raised reservoirs. They are all closed sites; we cannot see the top of them. They are twice as efficient as land-based systems, and they reduce evaporation by 70%. Would that not be a better way of striking a balance than plastering them all over Newark?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I know he has spoken about this before. Let us do exactly that—let us have floating solar panels, if there is the appetite for them. Let us have solar panels on our factories and warehouses, above our multi-storey car parks and on homes, frankly, but let us not destroy the countryside for a generation or more.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I should note my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a landowner, and I should also acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman is my Member of Parliament. I will make a helpful contribution in a moment, but I wonder what his views are on landowner choice in this. One of the solar applications he is referencing is from a single landowner who has made the choice to put the land forward for this purpose because he lives a long way away. How does that fit into the arguments he is making as, presumably, a free market economist?
Robert Jenrick
I am not clear from the hon. Gentleman’s comments whether he supports or opposes the vast number of solar farms being built in Nottinghamshire. Of course, it is a free market in which landowners can choose to do as they wish. I personally would not do it, because I care more about food security and the countryside and would hope to be more concerned for my neighbours than some of these large landowners are, but what is driving this are the economics of it. The economics are set by Government policy, and the Government have the ability to change the economics and change the planning rules, so that this becomes difficult, if not impossible.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Christopher Chope
One way of dealing with that would be for the Government to prohibit the import of solar panels and insist that, as a condition of such solar farms, panels must be produced within the United Kingdom. Would that not be a sensible policy?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend makes a very good point indeed. The suggestion we have heard over a generation that green jobs will come to the UK has turned out to largely be a mirage, because so much green technology is, in fact, produced overseas. Solar panels are almost exclusively made overseas, often in China, and that is a grave mistake.
Let me close by making two final points. The first is on the cumulative impact. As I said in my opening remarks, this is not about a small solar farm of 100 or 200 acres. This is about almost 10% of the entire land mass of my constituency being covered in solar panels. If these applications are nodded through by the Secretary of State, more will follow. Where does this end? Will we have a situation in five, 10 or 15 years where 20% or a third of the countryside in my constituency is covered in solar panels? That does not seem in any way impossible to me. Enough is enough, and my constituents are sick to death of it. We have to ensure that their concerns are heard and the cumulative effect is taken into account.
This matters not just to my constituents; it matters to the country, because the loss of food security in places like Nottinghamshire or Lincolnshire will affect all of us. Let me give an example. The three Newark projects covering 10,000 acres amount to land that could support more than 73,000 sheep, or produce 20 million loaves of bread or 700 million Weetabix. That is food production on a massive scale that we cannot afford to sacrifice. Every solar farm will beget more: a new substation leads to more applications; then come the battery storage plants; and soon the cumulative effect is devastating.
That is why my constituents oppose the three schemes with such passion. That is why I am in the Chamber this evening, to ask the Minister to give the applications due consideration when they land on her desk, or that of the Secretary of State, in time. I appreciate that she may be limited in what she can say, because of the planning process, but in due course I ask her to put herself in the shoes of my constituents, to think how she would feel if a 3.5-metre solar panel was built next to her house or if the village that she loved was ruined, and how she feels about the future of our country if our food security is to be sacrificed in this way.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Kerry McCarthy)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on securing a debate on this important issue on behalf of his constituents. As he has acknowledged, I am limited in what I can say about specific projects within the planning system, but before I move on to address some of the detail that he has mentioned in his speech, I will explain why solar is so important to our energy security, to lower bills, and for climate action.
More than three years on from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, our energy system remains at the mercy of price fluctuations on the international fossil fuel markets. Wholesale gas prices remain high—75% higher than before Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. The simple fact is that the only way to get energy bills down for good is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. That is why one of the Government’s guiding missions is to achieve clean power by 2030. Solar, as the cheapest and most easily deployable renewable energy source, is right at the heart of that mission.
Our clean power action plan, published last December, set out that 45 GW to 47 GW of solar power are required by 2030, up from about 19 GW at present. Thankfully, our vastly experienced UK solar sector stands ready to deploy at pace and at scale. One of the first things that we did on getting into government last year was to consent to several major solar projects that had been stuck in the in-tray. Solar is overwhelmingly popular with the British public. Our recent public attitudes survey found that solar energy is supported by 86% of the public—that figure has never dropped below 80%.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Newark, however, that if we want to keep support for solar that high, it must be rolled out in a way that provides communities with a say and with a direct benefit if they host clean power projects. First, that means protecting local communities and ensuring that only the right projects get the green light from the planning system. All projects are subject to a rigorous planning process in which the views and interests of local communities are considered. That includes things such as the potential impact on biodiversity, the local economy, visual amenity, protected landscapes and land use.
Secondly, it is essential that communities feel involved in the decision making on projects. Developers of projects larger than 50 MW, which qualify as nationally significant infrastructure, must complete considerable community engagement before any decision is taken. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are about to return control over a greater number of those projects to local authorities by doubling the threshold to 100 MW. That will come into force at the end of this year. For projects of all sizes, however, the level and quality of community engagement by developers is taken into account by decision makers.
The right hon. Member for Newark expressed concern about the use of agricultural land. The planning guidance makes it clear that, whenever possible, developers should utilise brownfield, industrial, contaminated or previously developed land. Where the development of agricultural land is shown to be necessary, lower-quality land should be preferred to higher-quality land, but it is important that we do not overstate the amount of land that is used for solar developments. In the solar road map, which was published in June, we set out our expectation that, even in the most ambitious scenarios, only up to 0.4% of UK land would be devoted to solar—significantly less, as Members may be aware, than is currently covered by golf courses. I will come on to the issue of clustering and concentration in a moment.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned food security. We do not accept that there is a trade-off between solar deployment and food security. In fact, the chief climate adviser to the National Farmers Union stated recently that there is no threat to national food security from solar.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned biodiversity. There is evidence that solar can improve biodiversity when it is installed on agricultural land—he talked about sheep and mentioned sheep grazing under solar panels. Under biodiversity net gain, projects smaller than 50 MW are required to increase biodiversity by 10%, and we are investigating the possibility of extended BNG to nationally significant projects as well. I do not know if he has read the recent study by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the University of Cambridge that found that solar farms in East Anglia have up to three times more birds than surrounding arable farmland.
When local communities do their country a great service, as the right hon. Gentleman said, by hosting solar farms, it is important that they enjoy a share of the benefits. In a recent working paper, we proposed that it should be mandatory for developers to provide community benefit funds. The working paper included a call for evidence seeking views on facilitating shared ownership and on whether the Government should consider expanding shared ownership, and we are currently working to get that framework right.
James Naish
Having worked in the energy industry, I am a strong proponent of local area energy plans that would empower communities to plan their energy needs. One of the big issues for constituents is that energy planning feels very reactive and is based on what landowners choose to do. It would be far more empowering to encourage communities to look at the land within their local authority or a bigger area and to proactively plan, just as we do with housing. Will the Minister consider thinking about how she can work with other Departments to encourage local area energy plans to have a statutory basis?
Kerry McCarthy
I am pretty sure that my hon. Friend has raised that issue at Energy Security and Net Zero questions before. I will remind the Minister for Energy, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), to engage further with him about that.
On clustering, and coming to the nub of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, some communities feel that what they are being asked to host is excessive. I have a few responses to that issue. First, the planning system includes provisions to assess cumulative impacts under such circumstances, so that should be a part of the process. Secondly, we will be changing the way that we allocate energy infrastructure around the country. To date, developers have been incentivised to build projects where there is spare grid capacity and in industrial areas, such as the midlands. That is why there is that attraction and that can lead to clustering.
In the future, we will take a completely different approach to the one that we inherited from the right hon. Gentleman’s Government. We have commissioned the National Energy System Operator to create a strategic spatial energy plan that will set out a strategy for how new infrastructure should be spread across the country. By investing in our electricity networks and our grid, we can ensure that the grid will go where the projects are, rather than the other way around.
I wish I had time to answer all the other points that the right hon. Gentleman raised about storage and safety, but I will be happy to do so in writing. Finally, I want to focus on what we are doing to accelerate solar deployment on rooftops. We will encourage the installation of solar on new-build housing and on commercial buildings through new building standards. The vast majority of new homes built under these standards will have rooftop solar fitted. We have permitted development rights to allow most rooftop projects to proceed without an application for planning permission, and we have just conducted a call for evidence about adding solar canopies in car parks.
Great British Energy is putting solar on 200 schools and on 200 NHS sites to bring down bills and build more local clean power. Next month, we will launch our ambitious warm homes plan, with £13.2 billion available to support people with the upfront costs of installing green technology, including rooftop solar, insulation of homes, heat pumps and so on. We are unleashing a rooftop revolution because we think that rooftop is so important, but the scale of the challenge facing us, to get to clean power by 2030 and to ramp up renewables, means that ground-mounted solar and floating solar, which the Government also support, have to be a part of the plan.
To sum up, we take the concerns raised by the right hon. Gentleman very seriously. We want to take people with us on our clean power mission, which will work only if we do so. We are putting measures in place to get the planning process right, to ensure that communities benefit from hosting clean energy, and to support the strategic spread of projects across the country, including in urban areas, through our rooftop revolution. I am glad that the British people agree with us that solar is a vital part of our future energy mix, but we are never complacent about retaining that support. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to set out—in brief, at least—our position, and he will appreciate why we cannot be too specific about some of the points he raises.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Application and Modification of Company Law) Regulations 2025
Draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Incidental and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025
Draft Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Application and Modification of Company Law) Regulations 2025.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Incidental and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025 and the draft Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Justin Madders
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg.
This set of regulations is part of the Government’s secondary legislation programme implementing the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which I will refer to hereafter as the 2023 Act. The 2023 Act is a crucial tool in supporting the Government’s aim to combat economic crime, improve corporate transparency and increase trust in the UK’s business environment. It delivers the most significant reforms to Companies House in more than 180 years. It was brought in by the previous Government, but we are pleased to carry on implementing its provisions. Companies House has already made significant progress in implementing the reforms since the 2023 Act became law, including by removing false and misleading data. For example, from 4 March 2024 to 31 July 2025, Companies House removed 113,300 registered office addresses, 88,000 officer addresses and 71,000 PSC—persons with significant control—addresses.
April this year saw Companies House launch its identity verification service. Hundreds of thousands of individuals have already successfully verified their identities. Reaching that major milestone has ensured that both customers and Companies House are ready for the introduction of mandatory identity verification in November. Identity verification is the centrepiece of the Companies House reforms. The statutory instruments before the Committee today will support the delivery of identity verification, and include other technical reforms that relate to the PSC framework.
First, the draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Application and Modification of Company Law) Regulations 2025 apply several of the reforms to companies contained in the 2023 Act to limited liability partnerships, or LLPs. In particular, the instrument introduces identity verification for LLP members and PSCs, and prohibits disqualified directors from acting as an LLP member. It removes the requirement for LLPs to keep their own local registers of members and PSCs. Going forward, LLPs will report their member and PSC information directly to Companies House. Extending company reforms to LLPs ensures that the law applies equally across different corporate entities. Not only will that minimise opportunities for LLPs to be misused by criminals; it will ensure that both LLPs and their customers benefit from a more transparent and reliable business environment.
The draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Incidental and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025 are largely technical, and will ensure the smooth implementation of key elements of the 2023 Act. The instrument makes necessary consequential amendments to primary and secondary legislation following the removal of the requirement for companies and other entities to retain their own local registers of directors, secretaries and PSCs. Instead of those local registers, there will be only one central register at Companies House. Searchers will therefore be able to rely on a centralised Companies House register as the definitive version.
The draft regulations will also introduce provisions to support the roll-out of identity verification through the mandation of unique identifiers. These codes are generated for each verified individual, and will be used to prove an individual’s verified identity status. Not proceeding with the instrument would mean that crucial parts of the Companies House reform package would not be able to operate properly. The draft regulations will ensure that the legislative framework is consistent, and prevent references to repealed provisions from persisting in law.
Finally, I move to the draft Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025. This instrument makes technical amendments to the PSC regime, the Companies Act 2006 and the Register of People with Significant Control Regulations 2016. It ensures that certain important information relating to PSCs, including additional matters that were previously recorded in local registers, is now reported to Companies House. These changes will maintain the completeness and accuracy of the PSC information on the register.
I highlight that the explanatory memorandum to this instrument contained a small error when initially published: paragraph 5.3 referred to the Limited Liability Partnerships (Application and Modification of Company Law) Regulations 2025 by the wrong title. I am sure that Members were about to intervene on me on that point. I confirm that it has now been corrected.
I stress that all these regulations are needed to make the UK a safer and more transparent place to do business. Businesses, the regulated sector and other users of the company register will benefit from more accurate and reliable data to inform their transactions. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and to discuss these three measures, which implement reforms from the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. It was interesting to hear from the Minister the latest statistics on the impact that the Act has already had at Companies House. These measures will require limited liability partnerships to have increased reporting requirements and to carry out further checks on their staff by barring disqualified directors from roles within LLPs. The instruments also abolish local registers in favour of a central Companies House database and create criminal offences for non-compliance.
Will the Minister elaborate on what he expects the criminal offences for non-compliance to be? What capacity is there in the criminal justice system to add to its activities? The Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025, which he and I spent so many happy hours discussing before the summer recess, has added further criminal penalties, so I am concerned about the pressure that some perhaps inadvertent breaches of these measures will add to our hard-pressed criminal justice system.
Will the Minister update the Committee on the benefits of these measures in terms of reduction of harm? He acknowledges in the explanatory memorandum that this is a further cost burden on a business sector that is already groaning under the additional tax and red tape added by this Government in their first 14 months. It is not just the unprecedented tax hikes on business from the Halloween Budget and the regulatory burden from the Product Regulation and Metrology Act, but the upcoming £5 billion cost of the Employment—or should I say unemployment—Rights Bill, which is looming like a tsunami on the horizon for businesses, jobs and start-ups.
While these measures may seem noble in their aims, they add an additional cost to businesses, including the most precious of businesses: new businesses, start-ups, innovators and investors—the future of our business sector. These measures are just another example of this Government’s increasing red tape on business. According to the Government’s own figures, just a slice of the measures that we are assessing today will cost businesses another £19.5 million every year. That excludes some of the other measures before us this afternoon, which the Government have not itemised in their impact assessment. While £19.5 million may sound small compared with the £5 billion cost of the Employment Rights Bill, I remind the Minister of the risk of incremental regulatory creep—an impact that is focused on partnerships, which are driving up costs on small businesses such as law firms. Will the Minister commit this afternoon to publishing the outcome of these measures in a year’s time? How will he measure how many LLPs have been put off registering here and have gone to other jurisdictions?
The impact of this creep of red tape is something that the Opposition understand, but clearly the Government are at risk of forgetting. Red tape deadens growth. Red tape costs jobs. We will not actively vote against these specific measures, but let me emphasise that the businesses and entrepreneurs of this country cannot take any more regulatory creep, or any more of the taxes that this Government are inflicting on them. I urge the Government not to come back here with more. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will demand some deregulation measures in future before supporting more incremental burdens like these measures.
Justin Madders
I welcome the shadow Minister back after the summer recess. It is a little disturbing—discombobulating, possibly—to hear the Opposition arguing against legislation that they introduced when they were in government, although it is not the first time, I suppose. I think that there was cross-party agreement in the previous Parliament that it is important to clamp down on economic crime by ensuring the integrity of the Companies House register and that it is accurate and up to date.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
I share my hon. Friend’s discombobulation. I had a career in countering financial crime before entering this place. Shell companies are rampant, and Companies House needs these powers. Ultimately, when it comes to fraudulent claims against the public purse, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and others across the public realm are all dependent on Companies House reform. Director identity verification is necessary and proportionate, and as my hon. Friend said, it is discombobulating that the Opposition oppose it.
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I think that is now three references to “discombobulating”. That is quite a record for this early in September. Members have been pretty clear about the value of this legislation and the draft regulations that we are debating today, and it is disappointing that we have heard them wrapped up in an argument about red tape.
The Companies House data is currently valued by business users—the people who actually invest in business in this country—at between £1 billion and £3 billion a year. It is a hugely important tool for investors and other businesses to understand the business environment, so the reliability of that data is paramount. These reforms will ensure that people know who they are dealing with, that those people’s identities have been verified, and that we do not have the plethora of fake companies that have been set up on the register in recent years. We all know the consequences of that.
The shadow Minister mentioned enforcement, and made reference to the burdens on it. The Insolvency Service is generally responsible for any prosecutions under the legislation, but between September 2024 and August 2025, 99% of the entities that were required to record a PSC did so correctly at incorporation. It is quite often the case that those that have not responded are not doing so because the companies simply are not active any more and have been taken off the register.
Part of the new landscape is that the fees that are charged by the various bodies for registering are meant to be on a cost-recovery basis, and the number of fines issued and prosecutions pursued are part of that overall landscape. It is important that there is proportionate but effective enforcement. The shadow Minister asked what we will be doing in terms of outcomes. We will certainly expect Companies House to do regular reports on the numbers of companies that have incorporated, and where there are issues with people not providing IDV or details of the PSC. I have given some further information about progress to date, but when the full system goes live in November, I fully expect Companies House to provide regular updates to Members about progress on that. On that note, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT ECONOMIC CRIME AND CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT 2023 (CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) REGULATIONS 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Incidental and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025.—(Justin Madders.)
DRAFT REGISTER OF PEOPLE WITH SIGNIFICANT CONTROL (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025. —(Justin Madders.)
Draft Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I warmly welcome everyone back, and hope they had a good break.
This statutory instrument has been laid to amend existing legislation governing poultry meat marketing standards, to enable free-range poultry meat to be marketed as such for the duration of mandatory housing measures introduced during disease outbreaks—such as avian influenza—that restrict access of birds to open-air runs. All other criteria on which the free-range marketing term relies, such as stocking density, age at slaughter, feed formula and poultry house pop-holes, must continue to be met.
Sadly, outbreaks of avian influenza usually occur during the winter months, as was the case in 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2024-25, resulting in the introduction of mandatory housing measures for poultry, which in all cases have lasted longer than the 12-week labelling derogation period. That was for an additional 10 weeks in 2021-22, 11 weeks in 2022-23 and, most recently, eight weeks in 2024-25, so it will be important for the industry that the statutory instrument is in place for the upcoming winter period and beyond, in the event that we experience another avian influenza outbreak.
Currently, when free-range birds are placed under mandatory housing measures due to disease outbreaks such as avian influenza, the poultrymeat marketing standards regulations allow poultry meat to continue to be labelled as free range for a maximum period of 12 weeks, known as the 12-week derogation period. After that, poultry meat from those birds has to be marketed as indoor-reared.
In 2024, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs held a joint consultation on these proposed changes, working together with the Scottish Government. Of the respondents, 79% supported the removal of the derogation. A separate consultation was conducted by the Welsh Government. The European Commission also consulted on plans to remove the 12-week derogation period from its legislation. In line with the Windsor framework, any changes to EU legislation, when introduced, will also apply to Northern Ireland.
The current requirement for poultry meat producers and processors to downgrade free-range poultry meat once the derogation period is exceeded represents a financial burden, primarily related to the need to incur the higher operating costs of maintaining their free-range system, with the additional cost of having to ensure that birds are also temporarily housed indoors, combined with the loss of income from the premium price that free-range products attract.
The statutory instrument will remove the 12-week derogation period, so that free-range poultry meat producers and processors can market poultry meat as free range for the duration of a mandatory housing measure, however long that may last. With the EU introducing a similar change to its legislation, the introduction of the statutory instrument will enable English free-range producers and processors to continue to operate on a level playing field commercially with producers in the EU and Northern Ireland. As broiler chickens are generally slaughtered before reaching 12 weeks of age, the removal of the derogation will apply primarily to higher-value free-range birds with longer production cycles, such as turkeys, ducks and geese.
We are working closely with devolved Governments to align the introduction of the planned changes. A statutory instrument will be laid in the Scottish Parliament in early September 2025 to amend their domestic regulations in relation to the removal of the 12-week derogation period. We anticipate the Welsh Government will make an announcement shortly regarding the removal of the 12-week derogation period within their legislation.
The change to be introduced by this statutory instrument will safeguard our British poultry meat industry by reducing costs, continuing to ensure it is competitive against imports, and by protecting the value of its products without compromising our high welfare and food safety standards, rightly expected by UK consumers and our trading partners.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
We should all be extremely proud of our animal welfare and food quality regulations. As a nation, we have a proud history of ensuring that food is as safe and high in quality as possible, and that it has not come at the unnecessary distress or harm of any animal. It is important too that our labelling laws are accurate and properly reflect the product being purchased. Free-range poultry is a key requirement for many consumers, and they should expect a minimum standard of freedom for poultry sold as such.
We must, however, recognise that the value consumers place on free-range poultry is primarily due to concerns for the welfare of the animal. It is therefore logical that should a bird have to be kept indoors for its own welfare and to prevent the spread of disease, no welfare violation has taken place. Given a choice between a bird being kept indoors and its contracting avian influenza, we in the Opposition are confident that consumers would rather see the bird’s welfare protected, even if the bird is nominally free range and would be so under normal circumstances, as was laid out by the Minister. It is noted that the statutory instrument will also ensure that poultry producers are not left at a competitive disadvantage. We therefore support the Government’s decision to amend the existing regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Qualifying Worldwide Revenue) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before I call the Minister to move the motion, I point out that the regulations before us are fairly narrowly drafted and this is therefore not the place for a more discursive debate on the Online Safety Act 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Qualifying Worldwide Revenue) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I will first give a very brief background to why the Government are laying this statutory instrument. As the Online Safety Act sets out, Ofcom may make regulations setting out how the qualifying worldwide revenue of a provider of a regulated service is to be determined, and the corresponding qualifying periods. The Act requires that Ofcom sends a draft to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology; the Secretary of State’s role is limited to laying the draft before Parliament. As such, the Secretary of State laid these regulations before Parliament on 26 June.
The draft regulations are a critical component of establishing the fee regime whereby providers of regulated services pay a fee to Ofcom to fund the costs of online safety regulation. They are also an integral part of informing a penalties regime that will act as a suitable deterrent to non-compliance.
The qualifying period for calculating the QWR is defined as the calendar year two years prior to the fee-charging year. For example, for the 2026-27 charging year, the qualifying period will be 1 January to 31 December 2024. Under the Act, non-compliant providers may be subject to penalties of up to £18 million or 10% of their QWR, whichever is higher.
The Government are committed to a fee regime that ensures that the burden of paying for online safety regulation falls not on the taxpayer, but on the providers in scope of the Act—a principle that was discussed in great detail and that received cross-party support during the passage of the legislation through Parliament. In a policy statement that was published on 26 June and was informed by a public consultation, Ofcom recommended to the Secretary of State a qualifying revenue threshold of £250 million, saying that this
“strikes the right balance between proportionality and workability, spreads the fee burden across a range of providers and serves the objective of limiting the impact on SMEs.”
The Secretary of State will consider that advice carefully and set the final threshold in a separate SI later this year.
The Secretary of State will also consider any exemptions to the fee paying, as recommended by Ofcom. Ofcom will then set out its final policy decision and a statement of charging principles, and publish final guidance to providers. It intends to begin invoicing providers for fees in 2026-27.
The Act gives Ofcom, as the independent regulator, the responsibility for drafting these regulations. The Government are committed to establishing a fee regime to ensure that the cost of online safety regulation is borne by the companies that receive revenue from the regulated online services. These regulations are fundamental to allowing Ofcom to do that. If approved today, they will come into force later this year. With that, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Thank you for your guidance at the start of the debate. Given the narrow scope of this SI, I will make some very brief introductory remarks about the Online Safety Act before going into the detail of the SI.
Nearly two years ago, under the last Government, the groundbreaking Online Safety Act was enacted with the purpose of protecting people online. Rightly, the strongest protections in the Act were designed for children. Every day, children are subjected to harmful content affecting their views of society, relationships and themselves. The Online Safety Act is an essential tool to address that. It has faced much opposition and still faces challenges today, but it provides the template for the most robust online safety framework in the world. It is a measure that I am very proud of, but we must now work to ensure that the provisions are implemented and enforced effectively.
Realising the essential protections built into the Online Safety Act is dependent on high levels of industry compliance. I hope that we will have future opportunities to debate the wider provisions of the Act, including the effectiveness of age verification and the definition of “harmful content”, but today we rightly focus on fees and enforcement. The draft regulations set the parameters for how we define and calculate companies’ turnover in order then to then calculate both fees and maximum penalties, should they be incurred. The SI is therefore very technical in scope, but important.
The Act requires that Ofcom’s operating costs for the online safety regime are covered by providers of regulated services through a fees regime, and it is vital that that is apportioned fairly. Fines are powerful sanctions available to Ofcom, but they must be proportionate to the company and the scale and breadth of the infringement, so that companies in breach of their duties under the Act can be held to account in a way that will not only penalise non-compliance but encourage a material change in operation.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I know that the purpose of these regulations is to clarify and provide for the definition of revenue in accordance with the original legislation. I simply say to the Minister that this is a helpful further step, building on the progress that my hon. Friend the shadow Minister has described. It is vital that we ensure that these measures are implemented by Ofcom regularly and with enthusiasm where online providers are doing damage; that is their purpose. Parliament as a whole took too long to regulate the internet. The last Government did the right thing in doing so, and now we need to use this instrument to its full effect.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Keeping children and vulnerable people safe online is vital. For far too long, the online world has been a wild west, where children are subject to a torrent of harmful content, from pornography to suicide promotion. The call for this measure has come not only from parents, teachers and experts, but during my safer screens tour in Harpenden and Berkhamsted, young people themselves told me that the algorithms are pushing explicit and harmful content that they do not want to see. The topic is so important that students from Ashlyn’s and Berkhamsted schools have joined forces to lead the work themselves.
Today this Committee looks at qualifying worldwide revenue, which is important as it is linked to the level of fines. With the roll-out of the Act, the Lib Dems call on the Government to ensure a review of Ofcom fines to ensure they are enforceable and act as a true deterrent, especially given the pushback already seen from companies. We also ask Government to ringfence the fines generated by Ofcom under the Online Safety Act, for purposes including funding the provision of stand-alone education on online safety and safer screens for all school children.
Overall, it is important to highlight that the Online Safety Act contains vital safeguards against priority illegal content, requiring online platforms to tackle material depicting offences including child sexual abuse, intimate image abuse and sexual exploitation, but we know that concerns have been raised by many about the implementation of the Act, including about its effectiveness in preventing online harms and its impeding access to educational sites and important informational forums. Concern has also been voiced that age-assurance systems may pose a data protection or privacy threat to users. We therefore believe Parliament should have the opportunity to properly scrutinise Ofcom’s implementation. We use this opportunity to again call on the Government to conduct a full and urgent parliamentary review of the Act, to ensure that it meets its stated aim of keeping children and other vulnerable groups safe online, and to determine whether the Act is fit for purpose.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I have a couple of questions about the SI. Having worked for a regulator that was similarly funded by a charge on those regulated and the ability to levy fees, I question what power we are giving Ofcom to collect the fees charged. Is it explicit in the Act? It does not seem to be explicit in the SI. How is the penalties regime, albeit it relates to a different percentage of global revenue, actually worked out? Is global revenue worked out on the same method as that for the GDPR, under which companies can similarly be charged a proportion of global revenue if they get things wrong?
Feryal Clark
I thank both Opposition spokespeople, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, for their very positive approach and their comments on the SI. I also thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings for his contribution. The Government appreciate the wealth of knowledge that the House brings to debates on online safety. Members made a vital contribution to the Online Safety Act during its passage, and they continue to dedicate their time and expertise to ensure that the Act is implemented to its full potential.
Today, many of Ofcom’s powers are in effect and platforms are now legally required to protect children from harmful content. This includes rolling out highly effective age assurance to tackle pornography and content relating to suicide and self-harm, and eating disorders. The instrument will bring us one step closer to a fully implemented online safety regime by ensuring that companies raising revenue from online services cover the costs of regulation, not the taxpayers, and that those companies take responsibility for keeping children safe online. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot asked about similarities with GDPR. I was not around when the legislation went through, so I shall have look into that and get back to him in writing.
I will take no more of the Committee’s time. I hope the Committee agrees with me on the importance of introducing regulation to implement the fee regime.
Question put and agreed to.
Horspath Outreach Post Office
School visits to Parliament
The humanitarian situation in Bangladesh
Leatside Pharmacy
Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 2nd September 2025
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPension Schemes Bill 2024-26 View all Pension Schemes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 2 September 2025 - (2 Sep 2025)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed to be drunk during sittings. We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session begins. In view of the time available, I hope we can take these matters formally and without debate. Time Witness Until no later than 9.55 am Association of British Insurers; Pensions UK Until no later than 10.25 am The Pensions Regulator; Financial Conduct Authority Until no later than 10.55 am Age UK; TUC Until no later than 11.25 am Legal and General; Aviva Until no later than 2.30 pm Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board; Hymans Robertson Until no later than 3.00 pm Pensions Management Institute; Society of Pension Professionals Until no later than 3.30 pm People’s Partnership; Nest Corporation Until no later than 3.45 pm Phoenix Group Until no later than 4.15 pm Pension Protection Fund; Brightwell Until no later than 4.45 pm Pensions Policy Institute; New Financial Until no later than 5.15 pm Deprived Pensioners Association; Pensions Action Group Until no later than 5.30 pm Border to Coast Pensions Partnership Until no later than 5.50 pm Department for Work and Pensions
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 2 September) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 2 September;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 4 September;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 9 September;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 11 September;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 14 October;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 16 October;
(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 21 October;
(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 23 October;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence on Tuesday 2 September in accordance with the following table:
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 97; the Schedule; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 98 to 102; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 23 October.—(Torsten Bell.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Torsten Bell.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Torsten Bell.)
The Chair
Before we hear from witnesses, does any Member wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
If the Government amendments in relation to the local government pension scheme go through, I have an interest as I am a deferred member of a local government pension scheme in Scotland.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I also wish to declare such an interest.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Rob Yuille, assistant director and head of long-term savings at the Association of British Insurers, and Zoe Alexander, director of policy and advocacy at Pensions UK. We must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For this panel, we have until 9.55 am. Will the witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Rob Yuille: Hello. I am Rob Yuille. I am head of long-term savings policy at the ABI. We represent several of the largest defined-contribution workplace providers across group personal pensions and master trusts, insurers in the pension risk transfer market and retail pension providers. Between them, they serve tens of millions of customers and manage hundreds of billions of pounds in assets.
Zoe Alexander: My name is Zoe Alexander. I am director of policy and advocacy at Pensions UK. We are a not-for-profit organisation run for the benefit of our members. Our members serve 30 million savers, who invest more than £2 trillion in the UK and abroad.
Mark Garnier
Q
I will start with the most controversial point: the mandation of local government pension schemes when it comes to amalgamation and being forced to go into assets. There are two parts to my question. First, is it fundamentally right to entrust trustees with looking after the interests of the members of pension schemes and then, separately, to tell them how they should be investing that money? Secondly, are there any guardrails to protect pension fund members from being forced to invest in unwise investments?
Zoe Alexander: We are concerned about the precedent set by the reserve power in the Bill. We realise that it might not be used, and we hope that that will be the case. We hope that the work the industry has done to create the Mansion House accord and get DC schemes on track to invest more in the UK will fulfil its promise. The presence of the power creates a series of risks, and certainly enacting it would create a series of risks for savers in terms of its impact on investments, on price and, ultimately, on the value that is accrued to savers in the market.
We are looking for more guardrails on the power. We would like it to be constrained to apply specifically to the commitments in the Mansion House accord, and no more than that. We think that is appropriate, because the market and the Government have together set out what “good” looks like. If we agree on that, let us put that in the Bill and make it clear that that is the extent of the power.
We would also like the sunset clause on the power to be brought forward from 2035 to 2032. That would give more than enough time for the industry to deliver on the commitments in the Mansion House accord, and for the Government to assess progress and whether the power is required. We feel that keeping it on the statute book until 2035 would introduce undue political risk.
Mark Garnier
Q
Zoe Alexander: We absolutely support the general direction of the policy. Our members are very committed to investing more in the UK and they are doing a huge amount of work on that. They have already invested heavily in the UK, with huge investments from schemes such as the local government pension scheme. On the DC side, schemes are maturing; they need time to get to the scale of investment of schemes such as the LGPS, but they are on the journey and they are committed to doing that. We do not take this position because we do not agree that schemes should be investing more in the UK; it is to do with trustee discretion to make the decisions about where to invest.
Mark Garnier
Q
Rob Yuille: Yes, there are better ways. The specific point that you mentioned about prudential regulation rules are not for this Bill, but other measures that could be taken, essentially to make the UK an attractive place to invest, are the kind of things that the Government are trying to do. Along with the Mansion House accord, which we were delighted to take forward with Pensions UK and the City of London Corporation, we agree with the Government’s assessment that use of the reserve power should not be necessary and will not be necessary.
Firms are already investing in the UK. The Pensions Policy Institute’s latest statistics show that 23% of DC assets are in the UK, and annuity providers say that it is around two thirds, so we are talking about hundreds of billions of pounds in the UK. There is the appetite to invest in the home market, because they know it best, in the kind of projects that the Government are trying to drive forward and provide policy certainty about. We share the concern about the precedent it sets and the potential impact on scheme members, and we would propose another guardrail.
There is already provision for a review, were this power to be used, of the impact on scheme members, which is right, and the impact on the economy, which is also fair enough, but they should also look at the impact on the pensions market and the market for the assets that would be mandated, because there is a risk that it would bid up prices in those assets, and that it would create a bubble in them. There are guardrails, but more important, there are other measures, including things that the Government are already doing, that make this power unnecessary.
Mark Garnier
Q
Zoe Alexander: That is right, but often those things are consistent, and our members would agree with that. Those things are not inconsistent.
Rob Yuille: I agree.
Sarah Edwards
Q
Rob Yuille: The challenge is aligning it with scheme members’ interests so that they are not put at risk. If a surplus turns to a deficit, which it can do because it is by no means guaranteed, and if an employer then fails, there is actual detriment to those scheme members. As we know, economic conditions can change. It is an opportunity for employers, though—that is the purpose of it—and schemes can and do extract surplus now, often when they enter a buy-out with an insurer.
It does need guardrails, and the Bill includes the provision that it has to be signed off by an actuary and it is the trustees’ decision. That is important, but there is a related challenge about the interaction of the surplus and superfunds. Each of those is okay: you can extract a surplus, for the reasons that we have discussed, and you can go into a superfund if you cannot afford a buy-out. The problem is, if a scheme could afford buy-out, extracts a surplus and then no longer can, and then it enters a superfund, the scheme members are in a weaker position than they would otherwise be. There are a couple of things that could be done about that: either leave the threshold for extracting surplus where it is—which is buy-out level, rather than low dependency—or change the Bill so that the combination of surplus and superfund cannot be gamed to get around that. In any case, as you say, it is important to monitor the market, and for the regulators to be alive to potential conflicts of interest.
Zoe Alexander: Pensions UK is content with the idea of using the low dependency threshold for surplus release. We think the protections are sufficient. Providing that the actuarial certification is in place, the sponsoring employer is in a strong financial position and a strong employer covenant is in place, we think there are real benefits to be had from surplus release. We highlight the fact that some employers and trustees will be looking to move benefits from DB to DC using surplus release, or even to a collective defined-contribution scheme. We are interested in the potential of that to bolster the benefits of those types of scheme, and we would like Government to look at the 25% tax penalty that applies when doing that, because if those funds are kept within the pensions system, that is to the benefit of savers, so perhaps that tax charge need not apply.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Q
Zoe Alexander: There will of course be metrics in the value for money framework that look at the longer term, and looking at longer time horizons is really welcome. One concern at Pensions UK is about the intermediate rankings in the value for money framework meaning that schemes cannot accept new business. That may well result in schemes doing everything they can, at any cost, to ensure they do not drop from the top rating to the intermediate rating. That could cause damaging behaviours in terms of herding. We want to ensure that people in the intermediate ranking, whether that is within a couple of intermediate rankings—perhaps you have a top one and then a bottom one, but somewhere within that intermediate scale—you can continue to take on new business, and the regulator will perhaps put you on a time limit to get back into the green, back into the excellent rating. We think that if it is so binary that as soon as you drop into intermediate, you cannot take on new business, that will heighten the potential downside risks of investment behaviours that you are describing.
Rob Yuille: I agree with that. I strongly support the value for money framework—I think both our organisations do—and the intent to shift the culture away from just focusing on cost and to value for money more generally, but yes, there is that risk. There are multiple trade-offs here: it is about transparency and how much you disclose, versus unintended consequences of that. We want high performers but, for high performance, you need to take risks.
As well as what Zoe says, which we might build on, we do not want a one-year metric. One year is too short a period; pensions are a long-term business. There should be a forward-looking metric, so that firms can say how they expect to perform over the longer term and then regulators and the market can scrutinise it.
On the points that were raised about intermediate ratings, this is another area where there is a potential combination of two bits of the Bill. There is provision for multiple intermediate ratings. It was originally conceived as a traffic light system, so there would be three ratings. If there were four, it would be okay to say to schemes, “You are not performing; you need to close to new employers,” but if there are three, firms will do everything they can to play it safe and make sure they get the green. So the interaction of those is really important.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Q
Zoe Alexander: The small pots reforms are absolutely critical. The problem of small pots was foreseen by the Pensions Commission years ago. We all knew we would face that problem with automatic enrolment, and I think people would agree that it has taken too long to grasp the nettle. We at Pensions UK are really delighted to see the measures in the Bill to deliver the multi-consolidator model. It is really important that the pot size is kept low, as is proposed in the Bill, at least initially, to solve the problem of the smallest pots in the market. Pensions UK has undertaken a feasibility study, working with Government, to look at how that small pots system might be delivered in practice. That work is publicly available. It gets quite technical quite quickly, so I will not go into the details of it, but we believe there is a feasible model of delivering the small pots solution at low cost—one that should not involve Government in a major IT build.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Q
Rob Yuille: We have both mentioned the Mansion House accord already. In addition to the ambition to which providers committed, there were a series of critical enablers. Several of those are in the Bill already—thank you for that—including value for money and the drive to consolidation. But there were other things in there as well, including the need for alignment by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Financial Conduct Authority of their rules and guidance in relation to the charge cap pipeline of infrastructure projects, which I know the Government are proceeding with separately; and the need to ensure that the whole market buys into the value-for-money framework. In the pension investment review, Government did not take forward regulation of intermediaries—employee benefit consultants and so on—and we think that they could keep that under review.
The Government are seeking to take other steps that will evolve over time, such as crowding in investments. There are examples such as the British Growth Partnership and the LIFTS scheme, where the Government are either convening or investing alongside providers, which we would like to see more of. Outside of DC, as has been mentioned already, it is about working with annuity providers on eligibility for certain assets.
Kirsty Blackman
Q
Rob Yuille: The most important thing is that trustees do have the power that is in the Bill—that power should stay there. Conflicts of interest were mentioned earlier; it is interesting what surplus release could do to make occupational schemes more like commercial schemes. With master trusts, commercial schemes and superfunds, if pension schemes could be run for the benefit of the employer by taking surplus, that gives rise to a different relationship and potential conflicts. The Pensions Regulator needs to be alive to that. In any case, TPR is becoming more like the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority as a regulator, and I think that needs to continue.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Q
Zoe Alexander: I would probably lean towards talking about the local government pension scheme in that context. There are some parts of the Bill where we feel powers are being taken that may not be required; one is around requiring funds to choose a particular pool, and one is requiring particular pools to merge. We think that the LGPS is moving in a very positive direction. Obviously two pools have been closed, and funds are merging with other pools already. We are not sure that those powers are actually required. We think that the direction of travel is set and that the LGPS understands that, so we feel that those powers might be overstepping the mark.
Rob Yuille: I have no view on local government. I think what I am about to say should have cross-party support, or at least cross-party interest. It is a macro Bill about how the market and the system work, but it is also about people and the decisions that they need to make. We are glad to see the small pots provision in the Bill, but it is on an opt-out basis, similar to the default pension benefits solutions. People have decisions to make, such as whether to stay in or not, and they need to be supported in the decision making. We are proposing a textbook amendment that would enable schemes to communicate electronically in a way they currently cannot and in a more positive way—even where people did not have a chance to opt in to that kind of communication, which is seen and regulated as direct marketing. We know that there is cross-party interest in the ability to communicate more clearly with customers, specifically in relation to those provisions.
Rachel Blake
Q
Zoe Alexander: If you put yourself in the position of pension scheme trustees, having the presence of the reserve power, which may or may not be exercised, to direct the way that you invest does not necessarily feel like a comfortable position to be in. We understand why the Government are taking that power. We understand the imperative to get more investment in the UK and we support that. Clearly, the longer the power abides on the statute book, the longer there is that risk hanging over those trustees. They may be required to invest in particular ways. We do not know where we will be politically in 2035. We do not know what Government will be in place. It pushes us potentially into another Government, another Parliament—it is the unpredictability. So we did talk with many of our members about this, and had lively debates about whether it should be 2030, 2032 or 2035. There was a really strong consensus around bringing it forward to 2032. We do not want it too early because it might pre-empt a decision that need not be taken. But 2035 felt too far away.
Rachel Blake
Q
Zoe Alexander: I think the trustees we have spoken to, of the schemes in our membership, would disagree. It is a significant point to them, which they have asked us to pass on.
Rachel Blake
Q
Rob Yuille: I am not sure there is, first of all. Canadian and Australian schemes have a big presence here, but I am not sure that they invest more, especially compared with our bigger schemes or in percentage terms. But will the Bill help that? Yes, it will. Driving scale and consolidation, which was happening anyway but which the Bill will accelerate, will open up different types of investment opportunities for those firms. They will be more likely to have in-house asset capability and bargaining power to invest in those kinds of assets. One caveat, however, is that they will be able to invest globally—the same as Canadians and Australians—so it is not a given that they will invest more in the UK. The UK still needs to work hard to be an attractive place to invest.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Q
Zoe Alexander: I am pleased to talk on this point. We are supportive of consolidation and we absolutely see the benefits of scale, but we are concerned that there are a very small number of very high value schemes in the market that are already adversely affected by the presence of the scale provisions in the Bill. EBCs are not sending business their way because they are under £25 billion or cannot necessarily show those that they are on a path to that number. It is really critical that the transition pathway is in place as early as it possibly can be, and also that EBCs are encouraged to understand the way that the market dynamics will work here. What we do not want is for really high-value schemes that are delivering great investment returns, that are really innovative and that may be investing very heavily in the UK to fail simply because of the scale test. We want those schemes to provide and to grow, in the interests of members.
Rob Yuille: I agree with that, but I would like to make a wider, related point about the route to 2030 and the importance of getting the sequencing right for—
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence. I apologise for having had to cut you off.
Examination of Witnesses
Patrick Coyne and Charlotte Clark gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Patrick Coyne, director of policy and public affairs at the Pensions Regulator, and Charlotte Clark, director of cross-cutting policy and strategy at the Financial Conduct Authority. Again, we must stick to the timings in the programme order, which the Committee has already agreed. For this session, we have until 10.25 am. Would the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Patrick Coyne: Hello, everyone. My name is Patrick Coyne. I am the director with responsibility for pensions reform at the workplace Pensions Regulator. I am pleased to be here today to talk about the Bill, which we believe is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make the system work for savers.
Charlotte Clark: I am Charlotte Clark. I am the director of cross-cutting policy and strategy at the FCA, where I have lead responsibility for pensions.
Mark Garnier
Q
Patrick Coyne: I think that question is more relevant to me. The reforms across the Bill could be good for savers, but they could also be good for the UK economy. What you are pointing to is a wider, systemic issue in the marketplace, where we have a patchwork quilt of regulation that has built up because the pension system is idiosyncratic, and in some cases 70 years old. The Bill is trying to give trustees the tools for the job. On surplus release, it is trying to give them a statutory override, to look across the piece and say, “When I am a well-run, well-funded pension scheme, is it right that I can extract surplus if it is safe to do so?” We think that is a really important principle.
Mark Garnier
Q
Patrick Coyne: Another important part of the Bill is making sure that we get implementation right. There will be a period now when we can consult, and all of us—Government, industry and the regulators—have a role to play to make sure that that happens. I would say that the Bill will actually prompt a discussion that might not have been had by many trustee boards over the last few years. If you look at the amount of surplus that has been released in recent years, it is in the tens of millions, not the billions. We now estimate that three quarters of schemes are in surplus on a low-dependency basis, which is an actuarial calculation of self-sufficiency. That means there could be up to £130 billion across the market. We think it is right that well-funded, well-governed schemes can consider releasing that surplus, if it is in the interest of members to do so.
Mark Garnier
Q
Patrick Coyne: I think it is highly unlikely that that scenario would happen. Our engagement with the marketplace tends to show that firms considering a different endgame option, which might include running on and releasing surplus, tend to be doing so on a basis where they have hedged their assets, so that they can manage economic volatility, and they are using growth assets above that limit to consider surplus release.
Mark Garnier
Q
Patrick Coyne: It is important that we have a regulatory framework that can cope with different economic conditions. Over a number of years, Parliament has introduced a number of pensions Acts to ensure that defined benefit schemes, which are mostly mature—mostly closed—are secure.
There is a real opportunity in the Bill to build on the fantastic success that we have had in creating a nation of savers—11 million more people putting something away for retirement—and turn that system into something that can provide an adequate income in older life. That means turning the focus of the DC system on to value for money. That is where I believe the real potential is.
Mark Garnier
Q
Charlotte Clark: It is not in this Bill, but there is a very large work programme going on at the moment around the advice guidance boundary review. As Patrick said, as pensions have changed—there have been big changes in the market over the last 10 years or so—more and more people have come to need support, particularly at the point of retirement, but also in thinking about how you build assets in pensions and more generally. All the targeted support work we are doing is about how you help people more to make these difficult decisions. This Bill is very much about, “How do you get the market right?” but at the same time, we want to make sure that savers have the right support to make the right decisions at the point of retirement or before.
Mark Garnier
Or, indeed, when they first start to work. As somebody once said, compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
Q
Patrick Coyne: Over a number of years, we have worked closely with the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure that when we deliver interventions within the pensions landscape, the outcomes are consistent. One way we have done that is through an update to a joint strategy. We also have almost daily calls with one another to ensure that when we consider interventions and how to enable the system to provide value for money and support people at retirement, we do so in a coherent and comprehensive way. We must really understand the different constituents of our marketplace, whether they be workplace versus non-workplace pensions, or, in the People’s Pension space, pensions analogous to the master trust offer.
Charlotte Clark: To add to Patrick’s point, we meet fairly regularly. There are various different forums and working groups. As you say, Minister, there is that sense that it does not matter where you save. Most people are probably saving in both the contract-based side and the master trust side, given that people have pots in lots of different places. It is important not that people understand where the regulation is, but that the regulation is consistent and there is no arbitrage between the two systems.
Steve Darling
Q
Charlotte Clark: I will talk a little about the value for money framework and then specifically about your concern on risk. The value for money framework, which is an area we are working on very closely, will have three aspects to it. One is costs. One is, as you say, investment performance and investment allocation, and one is service. All of those will be important aspects of getting the value for money assessment right.
On the investment side, I hear the opposite charge, actually, rather than dumbing down. There is a sense that a scheme could take too much risk so that it looked like value for money, but there is a trade-off between risk and return. If you are going to do that, and if you have high-risk assets in a downturn, there is a possibility of volatility. Within all these schemes, you still have trustees, independent governance committees and professional advisers who make sure that the investment allocation is right for the saver. That is almost the first part before you get to the value for money assessment. I do not think there should be a dumbing down of investment.
One of the other challenges, which links to the move into private assets that has been raised a couple of times, is the possibility of pension schemes getting more involved in things such as infrastructure. One thing that the industry has asked us to consider is whether, when you invest in those sorts of assets, there is a J-curve in terms of the returns; there might be a suppression at the beginning as projects get up and running. We have been looking at the Australian examples and we do not really see that happening in their data, but it is something we are considering and we are talking to the industry about how to get it right. We do not want the value for money assessment to stop people being able to invest in those sorts of assets.
Patrick Coyne: Just to add that the competitive pressure on the marketplace at the moment is on cost, and cost is not value. To illustrate that point, for the average saver, a 1% increase annually in investment returns would generate a pot that is 20% bigger at the end of a lifetime of saving. We have to move the competitive dynamic, but implementation, as Charlotte said, is critical.
Steve Darling
Q
Patrick Coyne: I think bringing consistent comparable metrics that matter to the marketplace in a format that people can trust can start to drive competitive pressures on what matters, which is holistic value. Trustees—and across the Bill—want to do the right thing. They want to act in members’ best interests, but they do not have the tools for the job. The starting point is to provide them with quality information to act on that intent.
John Grady
Q
Charlotte Clark: It is important to say that most people who are saving in a pension are probably saving in the default. When you say that they are choosing their investment, most of them are not. Whether it is the trustees of that scheme or whether it is the independent governance committee of that scheme, most people are going into that default, so the importance of the default is really crucial. While it is important to really think about engagement and talk about the advice guidance boundary review and some of the work that is happening there, it is also important that some people will not want to make those decisions. It is only people like us who seem to care about these sorts of things. Getting other people engaged in their investment is quite a challenge.
You are right that we are doing quite a lot of work, largely around the ISA area and the at-retirement area. One of the challenges at the moment is people taking money out of their pension and then putting it in cash. That may seem like a really wise decision if you are 55, but if you do not need that money for 20 years, it may keep track with inflation but you are going to miss out on asset returns, equity returns or other aspects of investment. So, we are really thinking about how we engage with people about those sorts of discussions. How can we make sure they are getting the right support? It comes back to the targeted support programme, which goes live in spring next year. So, working with providers at the moment on how they can support people when they are making these sorts of decisions, and just think about whether, if it is not full financial advice—I understand that can be very, very costly—are there other areas where we can give people help that is not as kind of extreme as that but allows people to think about those decisions in the round?
Patrick Coyne: I would just add that one of the reforms in the Bill around guided retirement is reflective of that default conundrum we face. We have a brilliant system—11 million more savers—but nobody making an active choice. That means that when people approach retirement, only one in five has a plan to access and when they do, as Charlotte said, half are taking it as cash. That cannot be the right outcome. Within the Bill, introducing a guided retirement duty enables those institutional investors to start to guide individuals or cohorts of members into the right kind of products for them, with clear opt-outs for them to choose a different way. As Charlotte said, the type of support and new form of regulated advice could really help inform savers and make good choices at that point.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Q
Charlotte Clark: Following on from Zoe and Rob—I think they have articulated this issue really well—I do not think anybody disagrees with the direction of travel: trying to get more assets into private markets and higher return markets, and making sure there is more diversity within portfolios and that the scale of pension funds in the UK are using that in an effective way on investment. The issue of whether mandation is the right tool to use is ultimately one for you and the Government. There are obviously challenges, which Rob and Zoe have articulated, around how you do that, when you have a trustee in place whose responsibility is to the member, and making sure that is paramount in the system?
Patrick Coyne: I agree with that. I think it is fair to say that there is a degree of consensus in the marketplace, among Government, industry and regulators, that we need to make structural reforms to the marketplace and put value for money at the heart of the system. A big part of that is a move towards fewer, larger pension schemes, because of some of the factors that Charlotte just outlined—the ability to in-house your investments; the ability to consider a broader range of investments, which can sometimes be quite complex; and broader governance standards. Mandation is of course a matter for Parliament, but clearly structural reform is needed within the marketplace.
Rebecca Smith
Q
As a supplementary question, do you think trustees and scheme managers should be provided with a safe harbour if they are required to invest in assets that underperform? I think that is probably what a lot of the public would be interested in as well. You do not want somebody to be mandated to put money into something that is doing worse than it was doing before it was moved.
Charlotte Clark: There is an exemption in the Bill, though, that basically says that if you are a trustee and you do not believe it is the right thing for your members then you should not put that money in. That is just going to be a very tricky assessment for the trustees or the scheme manager, and then for the regulators, at the point of addressing why they did not meet those levels. If they believe that it is not in the interests of the member, the Bill allows for that.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Charlotte Clark: The level of that process would be something that we would put into secondary legislation and rules. We would really have to think through what that process looks like.
Patrick Coyne: Yes, absolutely. Implementation is critical here. This will be something that is done with wide consultation with the industry.
Torsten Bell
Q
Torsten Bell
The question to the witness is to expand a bit more on that point. In reality, this provides a “comply or explain” power. In terms of the point Charlotte was just making there, it is absolutely right about the ability of the trustees to say, “This is not in the interest of our members.” It might be worth talking a bit about how when we move forward the consultation will allow us to set out how that would work in practice.
Charlotte Clark: It is an area that we would need to work through in terms of the road map. At the moment, our focus is very much on getting the value for money framework right. How the mandation would work and the process around it—as the Minister says, first, we would consult on it. We would have to have a look to see what information was given and how we would monitor it in the period from now to 2030 or 2035. We would have to work through all of those aspects of the process. We would do that in conjunction with the industry, making sure that what we were asking for was information that it could readily provide and that we felt confident that we could make a good assessment around.
Patrick Coyne: Our engagement with the marketplace so far already shows that many are considering investment strategies that have significant proportions of diversified investments, so the market is already responding based on some of the Mansion House accord commitments.
John Milne
Q
Patrick Coyne: I think that fiduciary duty is a powerful force for good. Across the Bill, this is about giving those trustees the tools for the job. I think there are a number of areas where that is true. Within the value for money framework, at the moment, it is very difficult for employers or schemes to effectively compare performance. As an anecdote, I was speaking to a provider recently. They were pitching for new business. They came in and pitched their investment data, and the employer said, “You’re the third provider today that has shown us they are the top-performing provider.” That cannot be right.
Then, when you are looking across the Bill towards the DB space, because of the funding reality that many schemes are facing at the moment, there is choice in end game options—so, “How do I enhance member outcomes at the same time as securing benefits?” Actually providing a statutory framework for super-funds as another option is a good first step, as is allowing the release of surplus, if it is in the members’ best interests to do so.
Kirsty Blackman
Q
Charlotte Clark: It is a good question. It is hard to get over the fact that the vast majority of people are very inert in the pension system. Of course, there are some who are not, specifically around ESG—environmental, social, and governance—investments, but most trustees take those things into account, and there has been clarification about how that aligns with things like the fiduciary duty. Obviously, within the contract-based scheme, there frequently are options, if somebody does not like something that is invested in within the default, to have their own investment strategy, if that is what they choose to do. Do I think this Bill changes that? I do not think so. I think what the Bill is essentially trying to do is use the power of scale and collectivism to get better returns and, really, a better service for most savers.
Kirsty Blackman
Q
Charlotte Clark: Almost certainly.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Q
Patrick Coyne: TPR’s responsibility is not for the asset pools, which are FCA-regulated entities, but we do have responsibility for governance across public sector schemes, including LGPS funds. It is really important to recognise the member voice within good decision-making, as Ms Blackman’s question indicated, but there are a number of ways to do that within standardised corporate governance boards and reporting functions, and that is something that we would look to explore over the coming months. With the LGPS boards, like the rest of the Bill, there is the ability, through greater scale, to start hiring better colleagues, introduce better systems and processes, and put in place better governance practices, and we would expect to see that come to pass.
Sarah Edwards
Q
Charlotte Clark: As Rob says, sometimes it is slightly overplayed. There is a lot of investment from UK pension schemes, whether they are DB or DC, within the UK. Why does Canada look like it invests a lot? It is a very mature system. We have two systems—one is in decline and one is in the ascendancy—whereas the Canadian system has been established for 40 years. The auto-enrolment system is essentially 10 years old, so they have a much more mature system. You see within those schemes that they have scale—they are very large and very mature schemes—and, in terms of things such as their investment approach, it is frequently internalised. They have been looking at private assets for longer than we have, particularly in the DC master trusts, auto—
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence and apologise to hon. Members whom I am afraid time did not allow me to call.
Examination of Witnesses
Christopher Brooks and Jack Jones gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now take oral evidence from Christopher Brooks, head of policy at Age UK, and Jack Jones, pensions officer at the TUC. Once again, we must stick rigidly to the timings in the programme motion, as the Committee has previously agreed. For this session, we have until 10.55 am. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Christopher Brooks: I am Christopher Brooks, head of policy at Age UK. We are the national charity for older people.
Jack Jones: I am Jack Jones, pensions policy lead at the Trades Union Congress.
Mark Garnier
Q
Jack Jones: I believe that was aimed specifically at the LGPS requirements, but yes, I would certainly agree with that, and it probably extends to some other areas of the Bill as well. Unison is not alone; all the unions involved in the LGPS scheme would agree that the pooling structures mostly have a clear lack of member representation on their governance boards. There is a real mishmash of governance arrangements and of reporting and transparency arrangements across the different pools at the moment.
We have some examples of quite good practice—there are pools with a meaningful number of member representatives on them, but they are few and far between. Many have no representatives or only have observers that do not have any voting powers. Member representation has an important role in the LGPS, with a long history of ensuring that members’ interests are represented when investment decisions are made. Moving away from that has taken something away from the scheme.
It is particularly important when looking at measures that will make investment decisions more remote from members by pooling into larger geographical areas and larger funds, and by requiring—or expecting—them to invest in more complicated assets with higher up-front fees. That is the point at which it becomes even more important to have oversight, to give reassurance that members’ interests are at the heart of all those decisions.
Mark Garnier
Q
Jack Jones: That is a good question, and it is a wider issue. Member representatives are there to ensure that people with skin in the game are around the table when decisions are made. They are there to reassure members that people like them—those who will be relying on the scheme for their retirement income—are involved in those decisions. Yes, they cannot represent the full range of any large scheme’s membership. A lot of interesting work could be done around how you find out what members think about how their money should be invested and how we then take that into account in decision making.
That is one area where, at the moment, there is potentially a little bit of a gap. The trustees have clear guidance that they can take into account non-financially-material ESG factors, but we hear a lot from unions that there is a very high level of wariness from schemes about actually doing that. They quite often point to their fiduciary duty and say, “Actually, our primary responsibility is towards the financially material factors.” They quite often ignore the guidance that says they can take into account other factors where they know it is in their members’ interest. Work needs to be done on what the best mechanism is to find out what Members think, but there is also a job to make sure that trustees know that they can and potentially should act on that.
Mark Garnier
Q
Jack Jones: Well, it is the members’ money that is being invested. You have to make a balancing decision, but where you have clear evidence that the majority of members have these ethical beliefs that they want to see reflected in how their money is invested, you need to take that into account.
Mark Garnier
Q
Jack Jones: Clearly that risk is there, and it would have to be managed very carefully.
Mark Garnier
Q
Jack Jones: I think it puts a lot of responsibility on trustees to make that assessment. I think it is fair enough to set out the criteria under which trustees might consider surplus release—that is where you have sustained and high surpluses on quite a prudent basis. Whether you actually make that decision to release that surplus and whether you think that is in the members’ best interests relies a lot on trustees making that decision.
One particular weakness at the moment is around potentially allowing sole trustees to make that decision. This is usually where you have a closed DB scheme that, instead of having a fully constituted board with member representation, will have a sole corporate trustee appointed by the sponsor. There, the conflicts seem too great to possibly manage for that corporate trustee to make a decision on behalf of the members and say, “Yes, we think it is appropriate for surplus to be released.”
It would also be really useful for guidance to lay out the ways in which any kind of surplus release must benefit members as well as the sponsor. There is obviously the argument that if the sponsor then goes and invests that money in, for example, either higher pay or better contributions for DC members or investing in the business, that is in the members’ wider interests, but we need to recognise that although employers suffered quite a lot because of the really high deficits that we saw over a sustained periods by having to put in those employer deficit coverage contributions, members also suffered.
You saw schemes being closed and benefits being cut in various ways. We had reductions to accrual, changes to indexation and that kind of thing. Guidance should probably recognise that and say to the trustees, “If you are going to consider releasing surplus, it needs to be done in ways that both benefit the member directly by improving their benefits in some way.” It is a complex question: what is the best way of doing that? I would not want to prescribe that too much. However, the principle that trustees have to consider is how that money is used to actually improve benefits, as well as potentially to—
Mark Garnier
Q
Christopher Brooks: We do not work on final salary pensions, so I do not take a view on it.
Torsten Bell
Q
Christopher Brooks: I think they all work together, so I would say it is a combination of them, but scale seems to be one of the main drivers. I am thinking about NEST in particular, which has been leading the way in terms of investing in private assets. It is able to negotiate a good deal, because of its scale. If you can drive that with similar outcomes across the marketplace, it will be really beneficial to members.
Torsten Bell
Q
Christopher Brooks: NEST has essentially negotiated with the private finance industry, and is not paying the “two and 20” classic fee structure, so it is not paying the performance fees. It has incorporated it all into its existing charges. If the intention is to drive greater investment in private finance, that is the way to go about it. If that scale is replicated across the industry—across the 15 to 20, or however many, schemes remaining at the end of the consolidation process, which I fully support—then hopefully you would be in a position to replicate those types of outcomes for members across the board, in their DC savings.
Jack Jones: I would say something very similar. As a package, on the DC side, it is scale that potentially has the greatest power. It is probably important to look at the factors that would make sure that the scale results in the changes you want. It is interesting to look at NEST; it has scale, but it also has a business model and governance structure that incentivise it to go and build up its experience in investing in those markets, and to have an understanding of what its fiduciary duty is, which very clearly includes looking at the widest range of assets possible and investing in them. So I think it is scale, as long as you have everything else in place there to make sure that schemes are using that scale in ways that benefit members.
Steve Darling
Q
Christopher Brooks: That is a really good question. I think that first, I would flag the decumulation provisions, which are a really excellent idea. They are exactly what should be happening at the moment. Because it is a new regime, there are lots of challenges around designing and implementing it, which probably need quite a bit of thinking through, just to make sure we can get it right for members.
There are some tensions in that process: if you are defaulted into something at, say, 65, there would be some tensions around the point at which you should do certain things. I think the general consensus is that it will result in people purchasing an annuity further down the line—probably around, say, age 75 or 80. We have seen for many years, pre-freedom and choice, big issues with the annuity market, with people shopping around, or failing to shop around, to get a better deal. If you are encouraging people to do that at age 80, that is potentially a recipe for disaster. First, because people will be taking a decision that they are not familiar with, and it is alien to them. Secondly, at age 80, a number of people are experiencing cognitive decline, so it is going to be even more challenging than it would have been at 65. That kind of thing, exactly how it works, needs thinking through in more detail.
On that point, I still think that ultimately, if you are going to force people into the open market, you probably need some kind of clearing house, so that it removes the risk, because there will be scammers out there, listening to this session, I am sure, and rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of lots of people taking those decisions.
The second point is about the contractual overrides, which are clearly crucial to make the whole system work. I think we need to make sure that the best interests test is working for members. When I read the Bill initially, the thing that stood out most for me was that there seemed to be a lack of consumer protection at that point. When the provider undertakes the best interests test, if they are making an external comparison, they only have to compare with one other situation, one other scenario. That is what it says in the Bill. I do not think it is sufficient. I think the Bill should be amended, at least to say, “Make two comparisons,” or possibly to be a bit vaguer and say, “Make a reasonable number of comparisons,” so that it can be left open-ended and give a bit more scope for flexibility. That seems to be one area.
I think the best interests test needs to consider different classes of members as well. At the moment, it just looks at members as a whole, but there are different people in different situations within any scheme. For example, people approaching retirement are in a completely different position from people in their 20s or 30s, so any decisions about transfers need to make sure that all those interests are considered.
Probably the main point is about the independent assessor, who will then look at the best interests test and how it has been conducted and rubber-stamp it according to some FCA regulations yet to be written. We think quite strongly that the independent assessor should have some kind of fiduciary duty applied to them. I do not think there is any reason why this could not work, but at the moment they do not seem to be fully incentivised to act in the members’ interests or prioritise members’ interests above those of the scheme.
That is another really clear addition to the Bill that we think should take place. I think that would make the system so much more robust. There are potentially some really negative outcomes for members if they are transferred into inferior arrangements. I am sure it is not the intention of the Bill to do that, and it is probably not the intention of most providers, but it could still happen. I think putting some kind of fiduciary duty on the independent person would give this a lot more strength and make it fairly watertight for members.
Damien Egan
Q
Christopher Brooks: How the Bill tackles that is probably through the governance structures that will be put in place. When there is a fiduciary duty, the governance is reasonably strong. I believe it is stronger under a fiduciary duty than under the contract-based system. For example, the trustees are better placed than IGCs—independent governance committees. I think we will see IGCs potentially play a greater role in some of the transfers. That is an opportunity to make sure that IGCs can do their job more effectively and have better access to the necessary data, which was flagged previously by the FCA as not always being the case. Clearly they need to be independent, so it will not be appropriate to have employees of the firm sitting on them any longer. I believe a number of them do at the moment, but I do not think getting employees taken off will be an issue.
Once you are in retirement, you have a separate issue. Because the decumulation part of the Bill leaves a lot to the regulators to decide in the future, it has not been clearly specified how the governance will work, so there is an issue about making sure, when those regulations are written, that it does work well for people. There is clearly going to be a gap around information as well. We recently did some research with Aviva, and one of the recommendations was that we need some kind of intervention for people in their mid-70s about how they look after the rest of their lives and how they manage their pension. That kind of support is going to be crucial if people are expected to take a decision in their late 70s or early 80s with regard to annuitisation or how they draw down the rest of their money. There is a big gap there as well.
Mr Bedford
Q
Christopher Brooks: Providing information takes you so far, and it is really important to do that: there are some really big gaps, as we see with Pension Wise UK, which is a really good and well-liked service, but has a really low take-up. That is just an example, but we need to get more people into a position to access the information. However, they will then still need a lot of support, because pension decisions are really challenging for the vast majority of people.
Mr Bedford
Q
Christopher Brooks: It could lie either with Government and the Money and Pensions Service providing a widespread service, for example. It could lie with charities, or providers could be told to help people with these decisions—they could potentially commission charities. We are working with Aviva to look at running a pilot in the retirement space, which will hopefully go ahead soon and give us some insights into what kind of support people need. People think about their lives holistically, and they are not necessarily thinking about a pension as separate from their current accounts, so we need to think about how it works for people. That is the key thing.
Jack Jones: I think we look at this slightly differently. I am not convinced that any more financial education, guidance, or points at which we need to intervene in the system to ensure that people are equipped to make decisions is the way forward. This Bill recognises that, and the introduction of default retirement products is a recognition that everywhere else in the pension system, it works on the principle of default and generally works quite well. We have seen that that principle is really powerful; if people are defaulted into something, they will stay there, whether that is their contribution rate or the investment options. Defaults are really sticky; we rely on that and make use of it through auto-enrolment, to get people into saving schemes.
More and more, as we find ways in which that does not work, we need to go back and look at fixing the system a little bit so that it works better by default, rather than providing people with more education, because that is pushing against the grain of all of our experience of what works and what is effective. I think that Chris is right that it puts a lot on the governance structures and on the consumer protections there, but I think that is where this Bill has to work. It has to put in place something that will be appropriate for the vast majority of members, and that will work with the minimal amount of engagement—we have to have some kind of engagement on retirement, such as, “This is what I am going to retire and this is where my pension should be paid,” but not beyond that.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
Q
Jack Jones: As Zoe said earlier, we should be here already. It has taken us a long time to get to the point where we have an agreed solution. It looks as if the mechanics of it will work. I think we need to let that bed in and prove that it works. The main concern from our perspective is the £1,000 definition of a small pot. Obviously, from a lot of angles, £1,000 is a lot of money—but as a pension pot it really is not. Looking at this once you have proved the concept and you have a system that works and that hoovers up the smallest pots and those most likely to become orphaned is one thing, but I think if you are looking at helping people to avoid accumulating 10 medium-small pots over their career, we need to look at how to increase that over time.
Christopher Brooks: I agree with Jack. I think the Bill is really strong on small pots and the system that is envisaged will really help. I guess my only comment would be that £1,000 is not a huge amount of money, so maybe over time that amount could be raised, and some kind of indication that that is the intention might be helpful.
John Milne
Q
Christopher Brooks: Yes; I think a lot of schemes do not interpret it broadly, so they probably take things literally regarding financial materiality—that is obviously very important, but they could probably do more. I think there is a very strong case for reform in fiduciary duties, just to make it clear in the law what it actually means. It is more of an enabling tool for providers, I think, rather than anything restrictive. When there needs to be some direction for schemes to invest in particular ways, I think there is sometimes a bit of reticence. That is true of investing in the UK, maybe with some private finance and maybe with regards to climate change. The larger schemes no doubt do understand it, but all schemes need to understand that they can invest in these things and that that is possible.
I am no expert on this, but, as I understand it the fiduciary duty is all over the place in the law, and sort of hinges on bits of case law and bits of very old legislation, so clarifying that would be a really good move.
Jack Jones: I would agree with that. I think there could be statutory guidance to make it very clear to trustees what their fiduciary duty actually involves, and that it does go beyond that kind of narrow interpretation. As I say, you should take into account your members’ quality of life more generally—for example, investing in ways that support the UK, when that is where your members are, is something that is in their wider interests, and managing systemic risks such as climate change is obviously very material financially, but also has an impact on the kind of world they will be retiring into.
As I said before, we do hear fiduciary duty occasionally being used as a reason not to do the hard stuff and not to think through that. There is nothing inherently problematic there, but clarifying and making sure that trustees are fully aware of the breadth of fiduciary duty would be helpful.
Rachel Blake
Q
Jack Jones: Like I said, I think the one specific measure is not allowing surplus extraction where you have a sole corporate trustee.
Rachel Blake
Okay, so that is the one specific measure.
Jack Jones: Yes, that is the one specific one. More generally, I think there should be guidance that makes it clear to trustees that they have to weigh up the benefits to members, or to make sure that any kind of surplus extraction benefits members through improved benefits, rather than just through improving the company or returning money to the sponsor in some way, which they may or may not then use to do things that would give the member more security in various ways as an employee. Those are the two areas.
Rachel Blake
Q
Jack Jones: It sounds plausible, but we have not really looked at that yet. However, that is certainly something that we can do, and we will look at including that in our written submission.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted. I thank the witnesses for their evidence, and we will move now to the next panel. Thank you very much indeed.
Examination of Witnesses
Colin Clarke and Dale Critchley gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Please could the witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Colin Clarke: Good morning, everybody. I am Colin Clarke, and I am head of pensions policy at Legal and General.
Dale Critchley: I am Dale Critchley, and I am policy manager for workplace pensions at Aviva.
Mark Garnier
Q
Colin Clarke: It is a very good question. There are risks that an employer could extract surplus so that it puts the scheme in a position where something might happen in the future that caused them to be underfunded. It is quite key that, although the Bill has some very high-level rule-making powers at the moment, the guidance that comes out alongside that makes very clear the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for trustees to be able to do that.
Scheme rules aside, trustees today are able to extract surplus, and they have to follow fiduciary duty, follow a process and get advice from independent advisers to make sure that what they are doing will not jeopardise the security of members’ benefits. The Bill itself is mainly to override any sort of constraints that trustees have within their rules that might prevent them from doing that. However, trustees would still have to follow the same process they would follow today to make sure that they are in a good position from a funding perspective, that they do not take anything out too hastily and that they look a few years ahead. It is not just a case of being able to extract surplus from an affordability point of view today; they need to be looking ahead to the long-term funding position as well.
Mark Garnier
Q
Dale Critchley: It is a trustee decision to take. I do not necessarily think that the trustees need to take into account what the employer is using the surplus for. They are looking at whether it is appropriate to return the surplus to the employer.
If you look at a case from 2023 that went to the ombudsman, Aviva was involved in the buy-out for a company that subsequently returned £12 million of surplus to the employer. The trustees, the ombudsman found, had acted quite rightly by taking into account the fact that the company had made considerable contributions, including considerable deficit contributions, over the years, and that it was right, in the trustees’ opinion, that once all of the benefits promised to the members had been secured, the excess was delivered back to the employer. I am not sure that that company or those trustees took into account what that company was going to use the money for; they just looked at whether or not it was appropriate to return the surplus to the employer.
Mark Garnier
Q
Dale Critchley: I am not a defined benefit pension scheme trustee, but I would expect the trustees to look at the members first of all: are the benefits secured that were promised to the members? Is there room to reasonably augment those benefits? However, to say, “We will only give you this surplus back if you use it for x” is, I think, overstepping the duty of the trustees.
Mark Garnier
Q
Both of you manage annuity funds. For the record, I have had a chance to meet representatives of your organisations and have had long discussions about this. One of the interesting points that has come out of conversations with many people and organisations in your position is that, while the thrust of the opportunity of this Bill is to bring together pensions and make them more efficient, and another is to be able to unlock opportunity to invest into the UK and into various opportunities, yet there are some rules that are not being addressed. As one of your colleagues mentioned to me, Dale, an annuity fund is not allowed to invest into equities, yet investing into something like a wind farm would be an ideal opportunity to get a predictable return. Do you think the Bill is missing out on some of these measures that could be updated?
Dale Critchley: I do not think it necessarily needs any change incorporating into the Bill. It is a matter for the Prudential Regulation Authority to allow us to make the investments that back our annuities. We would be quite happy to take that up afterwards, but I think that could be achieved through a change to PRA rules rather than incorporation into the Bill.
Mark Garnier
Q
The Chair
Can I ask for short answers now, please, because we need to move on to other Members.
Colin Clarke: It is an interesting question. It is not something I am a huge expert on, to be honest, and it needs careful thought, because there could potentially be some unforeseen consequences that I have not considered. If there were going to be any suggestions to change any rules in that regard, there would have to be evidence gathered to understand what the potential implications of that would be.
Torsten Bell
Q
Dale Critchley: Obviously, this is dependent on regulations, but DWP people have been very open in conversations. That has been really welcome, and we have a good picture of where we are headed. We launched a “flex first, fix later” solution called guided retirement. We are now looking at flexing that guided retirement solution to offer different flavours to fit the different cohorts and the amount of risk people can take in terms of fluctuations in their income, dependent upon guaranteed income from elsewhere, or the level of their fund. At one end, you might have a cohort of people who almost need a guarantee. We could go down the route of an annuity, but we are reluctant to do that, because we think that an immediate annuity purchase might put people off. We need to ease people into the idea of an annuity purchase, and that is where we are going. For those people who want more of a guarantee, it might be lower-risk investments and in a drawdown phase for a shorter amount of time. For people who can take more risk, it may be higher-risk investments in the drawdown phase and in drawdown for longer, with an annuity purchase later. That is where our thinking is at the moment.
Torsten Bell
Q
Dale Critchley: It is the ability to take risk.
Torsten Bell
Your metric for that is just other income sources plus size of pot?
Dale Critchley: It is those main two at the moment. We are also working with a guy called Shlomo Benartzi, who is a behavioural science expert, to look at the whole concept of defaults in retirement. It is one thing defaulting people into taking £120 a month from their salary; it is a very different thing to say, “I am now going to take the biggest amount of money you have ever seen in your life and use that to purchase an income.” That is what we want to test, because if the default is strong and if inertia works, we will get people moving away from the poor solutions they are choosing at the moment, but if people still think, “Well, I do not like the look of that,” they will go on to make the same poor decisions they are making now, and we will not achieve the policy aim. So we think we need to deliver what is right for customers and members, but also what is attractive to them—so looking at their wants as well as their needs.
The Chair
Could we have shorter questions and answers? Does Mr Clarke have anything to add?
Colin Clarke: We have been working a lot on the FCA’s targeted support proposals, which are very supportive of the measures proposed in the Bill. We have been doing a lot of research around member segmentation and looking at the different scenarios and outcomes, so potentially going a little bit further than looking just at age and pot value, and also looking at what sort of questions we need to ask people to ensure that they are guided to the solution that is appropriate for them.
I agree with Dale that decumulation defaults and accumulation defaults are completely different things. In accumulation, there is more of a “one size fits all” approach, because it is all about delivering the best returns for members, whereas when you get to decumulation, it is very personalised, and you do not want to put people into something where they cannot change their mind. It needs to be flexible; people have a wide variety of different needs, and we are doing a lot of research on member needs at the moment.
Steve Darling
Q
Colin Clarke: That is a good question. Both our companies have recently been on various trips, to Australia, in particular, and there are various references in the Bill impact assessment to measures that are being or have been done there. One of the key learnings is around improving adequacy. In the round, there are lots of measures in the Bill that will help achieve that—for example, the introduction of the value for money test and the potential for better returns. One of the learnings we took away was around Australia’s “Your Future, Your Super” test, how they define value for money and how appropriate it is to set certain benchmarks. What are the risks if you do set those benchmarks, like the risk of investment herding and things like that? I think the value for money framework, if it is done right, has the potential to improve outcomes for members.
Contributions, obviously, is one big thing—I know that is not in the Bill. The Pensions Commission is going to be looking at that for adequacy in the round. I think that the measures around performance and value, and ensuring that the focus shifts away from cost to value, are among the key things that the Bill will seek to deliver.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Dale Critchley: What we have heard from Australia is that the thing to avoid is regulator-defined targets, which will probably lead to herding, and can lead to schemes avoiding certain investments. For example, in Australia, property includes social housing and commercial property, but there is one benchmark for everything. So pension schemes do not invest in social housing, because they cannot achieve the benchmark through investing in social housing, as the benchmark is common across all property. Those are things to watch out for.
The other piece is that if you have set benchmarks, people will look to achieve the benchmark and not exceed it—they do not want to be the white chicken among all the brown chickens. Those are the things to avoid, in terms of the value for money benchmarks.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Colin Clarke: I think it is right that the Bill, as I understand it, places the responsibility for member education and member communications on the provider, because ultimately the pension provider will be the organisation facilitating these things and making them happen. As was touched on in the previous panel, the availability of Pension Wise and other services like that is valuable, but I think pension providers ourselves have a responsibility to make sure that we deliver the right guidance and support for members.
Dale Critchley: The only thing I would add to that is that, if we start to edge towards guidance, we can come into an issue around marketing. If we sell the benefits of, for example, the default solution, rather than just say, “This is who the default solution is designed for,” and leave it to the customer to join the dots, we may have a better outcome, but it would be marketing, and we cannot do that, because of the privacy and electronic communications regulations. We would need member consent to deliver marketing communications, even though we are trying to help the customer.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Dale Critchley: Yes.
Rebecca Smith
The privacy piece came up earlier this morning as well, so that needs looking at.
Dale Critchley: If we deliver something that looks towards targeted support, where instead of just saying, “This is the solution you will go in if you make no choice,” we say, “This is the solution we think is best for you, and you will go in if you make no choice,” that would edge towards marketing, and we could not say that.
Sarah Edwards
Q
Colin Clarke: I do not think the Bill itself necessarily has the timescales in it, because it will be left to secondary legislation to look at when all these things actually fit together. A very helpful document was published alongside the Bill, with a potential road map. There is a logical order in which certain things have to happen. For example, the value for money test will require movement of members from historical defaults into something that will deliver better value. To achieve that, the contractual override for contract-based schemes would need to be in place in good time before the value for money exercise happens. Otherwise, there will be constraints that might inhibit the ability to do that.
Similarly, with small pots, a lot of the measures will lead to consolidation at scheme level. That will address some, but not all, of the small pots issue. The road map sets out small pots being at the end, and that is a sensible place to put them, because there will be a lot of other activity that happens first that will solve some of the problems. It does not make sense for small pots to be moved before they are moved again—you could see things moving around a couple of times.
On guided retirement, the potential timing of implementation is quite tight if it is going to be 2027 for certain schemes, when we do not have any secondary legislation yet. It is very important that that is consulted on as soon as possible so that we have clarity. Dale mentioned working on various different solutions. We have been doing something similar at L&G, and they may well be the right thing for members, but we know that we will have to fit them around regulations and make some adjustments, so having clarity on those early would be very helpful.
John Milne
Q
Dale Critchley: From a practical perspective, producing all the data. We need clarity in the regulations and clear definitions, so that everyone is producing the same data in the same way so that it can be compared.
Setting practical considerations aside, one of the risks is that there is a disjoint between the market and value for money. Value for money is looking at value. We still see lots of evidence in the market in terms of looking at price—“We want the cheapest thing possible”—not necessarily the best value. There is a potential tension there.
Longer term, there is the risk we pointed out around herding: if you set benchmarks, that creates a behaviour which, instead of optimising outcomes for members, produces an average. An example of that is in the metrics around service that are currently being thought about. They are what I have described as 20th-century metrics. Rather than metrics that are looking to engage members to drive decisions through electronic engagement, they are measuring, “How long does it take to change someone’s address? Have you got their national insurance number?” We think we could stretch things further, but that creates some challenges for some providers.
Colin Clarke: One of the other things that the industry as a whole needs to consider is around capacity. The value for money framework, if it is managed and regulated effectively, is going to result, ultimately, in members being moved into things that have the potential to deliver better value. All those kinds of projects take a lot of work and a lot of resource, so it would need to be managed carefully to make sure that the industry has actually got the capacity to manage the high volume of traffic that is going to be going through as funds consolidate.
Mr Bedford
Q
Colin Clarke: At a high level, the Bill, as it stands, is primarily rule-making powers. A lot of the detail is going to be in the secondary legislation. In terms of rule-making powers, as it stands, I think the Bill has the right provisions in place. The detail is going to be around the actual assessments that you have to follow for determining whether something is delivering value, not delivering, intermediate and so on. For me, getting that detail right in the secondary legislation is going to be quite key, as is having clarity at an early stage on what that is, so that it can go through the proper consultation paper and we can look at the risks and at whether there are any unforeseen consequences. At a high level, we know that the Bill’s rule-making powers set the right framework for that secondary legislation.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank our witnesses for their evidence. That brings us to the end of our morning session. The Committee will meet again at 2 pm in the Boothroyd Room to continue taking oral evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Gerald Jones.)
Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 2nd September 2025
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPension Schemes Bill 2024-26 View all Pension Schemes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 2 September 2025 - (2 Sep 2025)
The Chair
I remind Members that questions are not limited to what is in the brief, but your questions must be within the scope of the Bill. In line with this morning’s session, for each panel of witnesses I propose to call the shadow Minister first, then the Minister and then the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I will then go back and forth between the Government and Opposition Benches; anyone who wants to ask a question should catch my eye.
We must stick to the cut-off times specified in the programme motion, so I will have to interrupt questioners if necessary. I remind Members that they must declare any relevant interest both when speaking in Committee and when tabling amendments to the Bill. If there are no further questions, I will call the next set of witnesses.
We will now hear oral evidence from Councillor Roger Phillips, chair of the Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board, and Robert McInroy, head of LGPS client consulting at Hymans. We have until 2.30 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Councillor Phillips: Good afternoon. I am Councillor Roger Phillips. I chair the Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board and have done so for the last 10 years. Prior to that, I was on the working party that reformed the pension scheme from final salary to career average.
Robert McInroy: Thanks for inviting me. My name is Robert McInroy and I am the head of LGPS consulting at Hymans Robertson. We provide actuarial, investment and governance services to around 75% of LGPS funds, and it is pleasing to say that we have had some of those partnerships for many decades. In fact, Hymans Robertson was created over 100 years ago to provide services to the LGPS and local government.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Q
Councillor Phillips: I think there is general concern within the sector when language like that is used, because we are talking about a considerable sum of money that belongs to 6.7 million pensioners. You therefore have to treat that with utter respect. You have a fiduciary duty to look after that money and ensure that the investment is wisely made. The fiduciary duty of the funds and pools is there—the funds own the pools—so there will be concern if somebody wants to politicise it. That is a very dangerous road to go down.
When it comes to UK investment, the LGPS is already investing in the UK in a very big way. This is not a case where you use a stick and say, “You’ve got to invest in the United Kingdom.” It is about identifying risk, return and sometimes conflicts of interest. Certainly we should be investing where it is sensible to do so for the benefit of our pensioners and for the least obligation to our employers as well. That should be clearly understood by everyone.
Mark Garnier
Q
Councillor Phillips: Local investment is difficult because, again, I go back to this business of it being our duty to invest wisely, prudently and sensibly. That is important. With local investment, first of all, it depends on your definition of “local”, particularly given the current pooling arrangements. You could have a strategic mayoral authority that has three different pools, because the pools come from all over the geography of England and Wales, so that is a difficulty.
Secondly, it is about return and making sure the pipeline of potential projects is there and that those projects are investable. If LGPS is going to invest in them, surely the rest of the investment industry will also want to invest in them, including the Canadian people.
The other thing I would say, which I surely do not have to tell you as Members of Parliament, is that some local matters are controversial. You may think that a particular local investment is what an area needs, but actually a large part of your people do not. You have to show a little bit of discretion. You may invest in offshore wind, which is very popular, but getting the link to the grid, going across open countryside with massive pylons, is not popular. The LGPS will have to bear that in mind, because sometimes the members, the constituent authorities and the council tax payers will not appreciate it.
Mark Garnier
Q
Councillor Phillips: We go back to the importance of fiduciary duty. You are there to invest for the benefit of your pensioners and to make sure that you do that in a sensible and reliable way. As has been proved to date, the most popular element is probably affordable housing. Cornwall, which you mentioned, has invested very wisely in affordable housing. Together with its relationship with local government as the owners of much land, there is huge potential there, but it only comes right when the return is there. If the return is not there, you are not going to enter into it.
Mark Garnier
Q
Councillor Phillips: If you do not do that, I do not know where you are going with your pension investment.
Mark Garnier
Q
Councillor Phillips: We anticipate that the latest round of valuations will show a very good surplus for all the pensions. That is credit to the investments that have been made to date. That does pose some issues as to what you do with those surpluses, but we live in a very volatile situation, and circumstances can change. You have to be careful, because if you reduce contribution rates considerably, that is a great benefit at this moment in time, but if you then turn around and start to increase them again, that can be very difficult for all employers to deal with, including local government.
Mark Garnier
Q
Robert McInroy: Yes, on the last point about surpluses. I am a fund actuary. We are working through the 2025 valuations, and it is pleasing to see improvements in funding levels across the LGPS. We think that that, in turn, can mean lower contribution rates, particularly for councils—something in the region of 3% to 6% of pay, so that is positive. It is important to realise that the success of the current scheme has perhaps not been picked up in some of the language and assumptions built into the reforms that have been put forward.
Mark Garnier
Q
Robert McInroy: That has been discussed on a fund-by-fund basis—whether the funding target should be increased from something like 100% to 120%, for example. That has been actively discussed.
Mark Garnier
Q
Robert McInroy: I support looking at the range of options, which includes reducing employer contributions and flexing investment strategy, including for some of the areas that we have talked about and will be talking about, that could be available to the LGPS in terms of investments.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Q
Councillor Phillips: Like the local government sector, the local government pension scheme operates in a goldfish bowl: constantly, on a weekly basis, an article is written about you or you receive a freedom of information request. So you are very conscious of the scrutiny, and that helps direct you to manage the investment risks as part of your fiduciary duties. What people do not realise is that there will be particular packages that Government and strategic mayors may think a fine investment that they should be in, but there might be some local problems. To go back to the previous question, it might be better for Northumberland to invest in it rather than Cornwall. That sensitivity has to be there.
Luke Murphy
Q
Councillor Phillips: The fiduciary duty would still be your main concern but in managing your risks you would have to take that into consideration as well.
Luke Murphy
Q
Councillor Phillips: That is problematic, but at the same time you know when there are things it is perhaps best to steer clear of—perhaps a bypass, or something hugely controversial. It goes back to the mandatory business. If you are forced to invest in something that does not go well locally, that is not going to sit right or do the reputation of the scheme any good. Ultimately, as my colleague has said, we are talking about a well-run scheme with good integrity. Our businesses supply pensions to some of the lowest paid people in the public sector.
Luke Murphy
Q
Councillor Phillips: Like a lot of judgments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
Q
Councillor Phillips: My understanding is that it is a back foot.
Torsten Bell
Q
Councillor Phillips: Right.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Q
Councillor Phillips: The Government have a responsibility to support the strategic authorities in developing the pipeline and the vehicles for investment. Affordable housing is probably one of the best examples to use. The pensioner receiving a pension or paying into a pension from the local government sector would be quite proud of the fact that some of their pension money is being invested in providing homes for the next generation of key workers. That is probably one of the best examples you can ever get of local investment. There is real potential, but I go back to the fact that it has to provide the necessary returns. Just as you have to be careful about some of those controversial ones, there is one that you can absolutely lap up.
John Milne
Q
Councillor Phillips: There is great potential in all the activities that local government can do, but the fiduciary duty is where we need that clearly spelt out and some guardrails put in for that.
Robert McInroy: Where the LGPS can potentially bring an advantage to bear is by tapping into its local connections and local expertise—when it can see local investment opportunities that others potentially cannot. To come back to affordable housing and the fiduciary duty, if you are the asset owner, you have to be looking at the returns, and that is a difficult challenge for LGPS funds, particularly when it is in their local areas. You are talking about, for example, whether you push up rent and potentially displace a family or basically taking a lower return as a result of that. It is a very difficult thing to stack up. It is new to the LGPS. We need to make sure there are guardrails around it. Within the Bill it would be useful to bring fiduciary responsibility into the elements of local investment and how that overrides any of the local considerations.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
Q
Councillor Phillips: Let us be quite clear. I think the Government’s frustration, which is shared by many of us, is that we are talking about what is generally accepted to be the sixth largest pension scheme in the world, and it does not punch its weight, which is what it needs to do. That is what pooling, which began in 2016, was meant to address, and to date, it has been successful, but it needs to be better. That is where I see a very big positive of coming together.
David Pinto-Duschinsky
Q
Councillor Phillips: From that point of view, it is very helpful. Because we are a very transparent pension fund, pressure will be put on some of the pools to make sure that their workings are done in a transparent manner. They are now, but there will be even more pressure because lobby groups will go straight to them rather than the funds.
Consolidation with regard to administration is not quite so easy. The last consolidation was between Northumberland and Tyne and Wear, and that was with maximum co-operation on both sides. This is a very well administered scheme, but bringing two administration authorities together is quite challenging. It needs to be done with co-operation and collaboration, never with a big stick behind it.
Certainly in London, there is a case for some rationalisation of the number of funds, and there is always going to be an issue about some of the smaller funds as they deal with it, but pooling is not just about consolidating your investments. It also brings the opportunity for the member funds that own the pools to start working more collaboratively, particularly on things like communications and other areas of work. There is great potential there. One of the things that the scheme advisory board is very keen to do is to make sure we develop and grow those chairs of funds to be the competent leaders that they are, and make them even better.
Robert McInroy: I think you were asking about the challenges of implementation. It is easy to see the direction on this and to think that there is not much change for the LGPS. There is a huge magnitude of change in these reforms. The LGPS funds and the pools already have a very full to-do list. They have stretched resources. They are asked to deliver an awful lot in a short period of time. They are transferring all of the remaining assets from the funds to the pools—there is still about 30% of those assets to come across in a short period of time.
Two pools have been asked to change their operating model to be FCA-regulated. Every pool has been asked to build advisory functions—that is all from scratch, apart from one. They have been asked to build local investment capabilities as well, which is of paramount importance to be able to kick-start and contribute to the UK economy, and to implement some of these governance reforms, and now we know that two of the pools are being asked to wind up, so there is £100 billion of assets to transfer, which is implicated across 21 funds.
That is a huge amount to do under any timescale. Some of what is envisaged in the consultation is that this would be completed in a little over six months’ time. That puts risk on some of these reforms, and I think that should be recognised.
David Pinto-Duschinsky
Q
Robert McInroy: At the moment, there are eight pools across the £400 billion-ish of assets. I believe the plan at the moment is to reduce that to six. You would imagine that that gives a big enough scale. Some of those pools will be £100 billion-plus; that should be able to punch its weight internationally, I would imagine. The LGPS itself is of course open to accrual and to new members joining, so that is just going to grow over time. In some ways, I think these reforms set the plan for the future as the scheme continues to grow.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Q
My question is about consolidation and local concerns that people might have. For example, they may not want a wind farm invested in because they are worried about the infrastructure that goes alongside that. If there is consolidation, will that remove the ability to take account of local concerns and to find great local investment opportunities? Will it dilute the input that people have locally, because it is taking it further away from them, or do you think it will be okay?
Councillor Phillips: As we already know, the establishment of the pools does take it away. There is no denying that. The important thing is to have member representation on pools. The scheme advisory board has always been supportive of that, although you need flexibility in how you do it; I certainly would not go for 50:50, because of the governance and regulatory responsibilities that the administration authorities have. I think Border to Coast particularly has employee representatives on there, and that works very well. In particular funds, you will have representatives on the committee and on the pension board. That is always important.
Getting the right engagement is always going to be a struggle, with all the rest of it, but, particularly with some of the ESG issues, that helps to better understand some of the issues. Of course, elected members that sit there are representatives of their community as well. They are aware as well. They are also aware that when they sit at the table on a pension, they have a responsibility first and foremost to that pension.
Kirsty Blackman
Q
Councillor Phillips: Absolutely. We laid recommendations from the board before Government some time ago. They have now been implemented and rolled out, and that is very much a crucial part of all of this. The headline is all about the pooling, but the Government’s changes, and training and developing your members, are absolutely critical because of the important decisions that they make.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
Q
Robert McInroy: It is important to point out that the members are not directly impacted by the scheme returns or cost: their benefits are set in statutes and are guaranteed. However, you can see how that might indirectly implicate them; for example, if there was a higher cost to employers because the scheme was not performing the way we would have liked, that could impact on their business.
Councillor Phillips: We know the deadline has been set for the transfer and it is very much business as usual until that happens. Of course, virtually all the funds have been contributing to their pools anyway, so it is just a case of transferring the rest. There are some sensible discussions going on about where it would cost money to pull out of an investment, and common sense must be the first rule, but the direction of travel is what the Government want to see: that the pool is effectively in charge of delivering that investment strategy, which still remains the responsibility of the fund.
Robert McInroy: Within the 21 impacted funds, there are two pools that are being wound up and they are to find a new home, and they do not know for certain where that will be. There is sometimes a degree of inertia in some of the decisions made: why would you make a new investment when you do not know whether that is going to fit into your new pool? I appreciate that is why there are some short timescales on this; we need to get clarity and move through this quickly, or there will be increased risk, but the short timescales create risk in themselves, so there is a balance to be made and a tension there.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence today. We will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Helen Forrest Hall and Sophia Singleton gave evidence.
The Chair
The Committee will now hear oral evidence from Helen Forrest Hall, chief strategy officer at the Pensions Management Institute, and Sophia Singleton, president of the Society of Pension Professionals. We have until 3 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses briefly introduce themselves?
Helen Forrest Hall: I am Helen Forrest Hall, chief strategy officer at the Pensions Management Institute. We are the leading professional body for those running pension schemes in the UK. We provide qualifications and training to the sector, as well as continued professional development, and have almost 8,000 individual members.
Sophia Singleton: I am Sophia Singleton, president of the Society of Pension Professionals, and in my day job I am a partner at XPS Group. The society represents providers of advice and services to pension schemes and employers. As such, we represent quite a broad range of the industry, from pensions lawyers and actuaries through to professional trustees, pension providers and administrators.
Mark Garnier
Q
Helen Forrest Hall: I would love to say that. I start by saying that the PMI supports the principle that larger pension funds are likely to lead to better outcomes for members. A great and growing weight of evidence, and obviously an awful lot of international experience, shows that they provide greater economies of scale and greater opportunities to invest in a broader range of assets. Unfortunately, we believe that the reserve power sets a dangerous precedent of political interference with a trustee’s fiduciary duty. The considerations of each individual pension scheme are a matter for the trustees, taking into account their members’ experience and what will drive the best outcomes for those members.
Obviously, significant progress has already been made in terms of pension schemes demonstrating their desire to meet the Government’s eagerness for them to invest in a broader range of assets, and the consolidation elements of the Bill should help with that. But I think that the reserve power provision runs a serious risk of cutting across that well-founded fiduciary duty, as well as creating all sorts of disruption to long-term investment planning—another thing that pension schemes are well set up to do—and creating market distortion.
Sophia Singleton: We are very much aligned with the Government’s objective around investing in these assets. We believe that they can deliver and, as Helen has said, the industry has already made quite a strong move towards investing in them. We are going to get there, and it is really about not forcing that to happen too quickly. Schemes need to deploy capital when the opportunities arise and when the right time is, otherwise we risk distorting the market. That is a real concern, because it could deliver poor outcomes for savers. I am sorry we cannot give you a different answer, but we have three concerns about the mandation. Who is legally accountable if there is underperformance? Underperformance is possible. Is it the Government? Is it trustees? How will it affect the markets? How will it affect public trust? At a time when people need to save more into their pensions, they will worry that their pension scheme is no longer investing for returns as a priority.
Mark Garnier
Q
Helen Forrest Hall: That is the problem with a reserve power. It does not have to be used to influence the decisions that trustees are making about their investment strategies, because they have to consider the instances—and there is not an awful lot of clarity in the Bill about what those instances would be—in which this power might be used. They might suddenly find their long-term, well-considered investment strategy outwith Government legislation. That is a dangerous place to be. Pension schemes, quite rightly, are doing their job when they are thinking about their members and their beneficiaries, and making long-term investment decisions. They have the capacity and the joy of being able to do so, but that means that they have to think about those kind of time horizons. That means that a reserve power with a sunset clause with that kind of short-term time horizon will start impacting decisions that people are making at the moment.
Mark Garnier
Q
Helen Forrest Hall: I am not sure that we would draw a direct correlation, but the point is that it will start to influence investment decisions. Those may be good decisions, or not, and they may be decisions that trustees would have made anyway; the challenge is that the reserve power exists, a good trustee and their legal advisers will be taking account of that at the moment.
Sophia Singleton: We believe that the threat—just the threat—of this power is the worst of all worlds, in a sense, because the lack of clarity about what trustees should do and take into account when investing for the long term makes it very difficult for them to carry out their fiduciary duties.
Mark Garnier
Q
Sophia Singleton: What I would say is that we are already moving in that direction. If you look back a few years ago, it was very difficult operationally for defined contribution schemes to invest in those types of assets. If you look at things now, both on the supply side and the demand side we see factors that are really supporting investment in those assets.
On the demand side, the new value for money framework really incentivised investment into private market assets because of the risk-adjusted metrics included within the framework, and the work that the industry and regulators have done to take away the operational barriers that existed. On the supply side, the Government have committed to help to create that pipeline of investments. Publishing the pipeline that is coming up is very helpful, because people can plan how to employ their capital, and having the British Growth Fund and so on to invest in alongside the private sector is also helpful.
We are already seeing it happen: we are seeing funds recruiting investment experts to help to manage those assets, so they are already gearing up and skilling up to do this, and we are seeing fund managers releasing private market funds suitable for DC schemes on a regular basis. We do due diligence on those funds, and there are more and more that we have to look at. So it is happening.
Mark Garnier
Q
That begs the question that, as the Government at any time is trying to attract foreign direct investment into the UK, not least to try to sort out the current account deficit, you as pension fund managers will find yourselves in competition with, hopefully, foreign investors coming into the UK. What is the hierarchy of offer? Do you think UK pension funds should be offered exciting investment opportunities before foreign direct investors?
Sophia Singleton: I do not think we should be interfering with the market; I think it needs to be a free market and, as trustees of pension schemes, we need to be exercising fiduciary duty to choose the right investments for our members and to give the returns.
Mark Garnier
But you would rather see the opportunities first?
Sophia Singleton: Absolutely—we would love to see the opportunities first.
Helen Forrest Hall: The other dynamic there is that international pension funds, for example, are often looking to invest in the UK for reasons different from the reasons UK pension funds might want to invest. For them, it is often a smaller part of their portfolio, and part of their own need to diversify where their assets are, in order to manage their own volatility risks. There has been a history of going after the same investments, and unfortunately that is the market and that is healthy competition. One of the challenges and one of the market distortions we see with things such as the reserve power is that you will have the same group of people fighting over what, for a short period of time, is inevitably going to be a short pipeline. That will have an impact on things such as the value for money that you are getting for those investments.
Torsten Bell
Q
Given that that is your logic, the question is why that has not happened. If you go and ask actual pension providers why that has not happened, they will tell you they have a collective action problem and an industry focused exclusively on cost and not on returns, and that they struggle to deliver against that. If you have a collective action problem, you need to ask how we resolve that.
You then get to the fact that the Mansion House accord is entirely industry led, with numbers set by them—it is not about distortion to the market; you might want to reflect on that, given the comments you have just made. You also spoke about a lack of clarity, but the Mansion House accord provides clarity about the objectives: everyone can see them and they are set by the industry. When it comes to savers’ interests, you know that the Bill includes a carve-out for trustees to say, “This isn’t in my members’ interests, so we won’t be doing it.” Reflect a bit on the consistency of the argument you have made about the real progress you want to see on investment in a wider range of assets—because it is in savers’ interests and should have happened in the past but did not—and the changes in the Bill. I would gently suggest you might want to think about the consistency of that.
Sophia Singleton: We are not a mature industry—the defined contribution industry—and in the past we have not invested in these assets because there have been operational barriers, including the focus on cost.
Torsten Bell
That is not the view of the whole industry, which points to the collective action problem of an exclusive focus on cost, as much as it is a barrier—
Sophia Singleton: The value for money framework in the Bill is extremely helpful—
Torsten Bell
It is.
Sophia Singleton: —and we have said that we need to move the focus from cost to value, and we are seeing that very much come through in the culture within the industry, to be focusing on value. I have given evidence about funds recruiting investment teams to invest in these assets, because they are not simple to invest in for DC schemes. If you look at the experience in Australia through the covid pandemic, there were some real challenges that those schemes had to face relating to stale pricing, intergenerational fairness and cross-subsidies. They are not simple assets for DC schemes to invest in. The market is moving, going, and will get there. What we are saying is the mandation power is not needed to achieve that, because we are, with your help, getting to the right place.
Torsten Bell
Q
Helen Forrest Hall: Just to give my own perspective, there are a number of structural issues with the development of the sector. Defined benefit has been in run-off, which has driven a particular type of investment strategy. DC has not been at scale, and a number of us in the sector have been calling for consolidation for a long time. I think it goes without saying that we are having this conversation in the context of being very supportive of the vast majority of provisions in this Bill.
Torsten Bell
I was encouraging you to say that; you got there.
Helen Forrest Hall: Apologies; we are very, very supportive of the vast majority. This is basically the one substantive issue from our perspective. As Sophia has said, the value for money and consolidation elements in particular are incredibly helpful in removing some of the barriers that have existed, including for trustees. They technically have the ability to operate within their fiduciary duty, but sometimes the legislation and the structure of the industry get in their way. Things such as value for money and scale will really help with that. This Bill is incredibly enabling in the vast majority of its provisions. There are just a small number—mandation being one of them—where we have a bit of concern.
John Milne
Q
Helen Forrest Hall: From a principles basis, yes, and just to address the funding point, they absolutely can. I know there will be a number of us in the room who have either experienced or been subject to the outcomes of what has happened when those significant events have taken place. In the context of where we are with DB now, a significant proportion of schemes are employing investment strategies that really do protect them against the kind of volatile market movements you might see.
The provisions in the Bill strike the right balance between, as I said earlier, giving trustees greater flexibility to exercise their fiduciary duty in discussion with employers, while also ensuring that they are considering the best interests of the members. One of the key considerations for trustees in that conversation is: how confident are we that our investment strategy would withstand significant market movements at the point when we might release a surplus? That is a key consideration.
We have seen that a number of pension schemes did not benefit from September 2022 in the way that others did, and that was because they had decided to protect themselves against that kind of market movement. There are things that schemes can deploy to give themselves that level of confidence.
Sophia Singleton: We were very pleased to see the stringent funding safeguards that are in the Bill in order to allow a surplus to be released. One thing I would say is that, as Helen says, it is giving the trustees the tools to properly exercise their discretionary power and, in a sense, fiduciary duty, but it has created an opportunity for trustees to negotiate and agree a win-win situation, in a sense. The conversations we are having with schemes is that they are now more likely to be able to feel comfortable in paying, and be able to pay out, discretionary benefits than they would have been before the Bill was in place. It gives schemes the opportunity to run on and for the employer to access the service, but also for members to have more access to discretionary benefits and to additional benefits.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Q
I would like to move on to a slightly different topic: small pots. Ms Singleton, the SPP made supportive comments in its submission about small pots. Would you like to elaborate on why you support the small pots element of the Bill, and are there any practical considerations you would like to draw to the Committee’s attention?
Sophia Singleton: Small pots are a challenge for both the industry and for individuals. You have got a much more mobile workforce, and more and more people have small pots and have lost sight of those pots. Obviously, the dashboard will help them to gain sight of them, but actually bringing them together will help them to manage it. We know that it is much easier for people to manage greater-sized pots of money. For the industry, it is a huge cost to manage lots and lots of very small pots of money. I think it benefits savers and it benefits the industry to have this.
This is a pragmatic solution that is within the Bill, as far as we are concerned. The industry has considered a number of different ways of addressing this problem, and we feel that this is actually a very pragmatic solution. It does rely on a technology platform, so we were pleased to see that it is further down in the timeline for the Government’s road map for implementation, because we all know that introducing technology platforms can take some time and there are a lot of other things that we need to be working through, including consolidation and so on.
We did put forward some small technical suggestions within the Bill. Did you want me to talk to them?
John Grady
No.
Sophia Singleton: Good. We are positive that this will help, and we are also positive about the timeline for it.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
Q
Sophia Singleton: I might start on this because I think that the Bill should not set out what the product looks like. The policy should set the rules of the game, providers and pension schemes should be allowed to innovate and to develop solutions that meet the needs of their members, and then policy should obviously monitor and oversee product development to ensure that it is effective. When I say “set the rules of the game”, I mean clear guidance around the things that should be considered when developing these solutions. It should consider whether it should deliver an income and consider whether it should provide longevity protection. It should consider those factors, but an income for life might not be the answer for all schemes. It will probably be the answer for many, but not for all, so that is why there needs to be flexibility for providers and schemes to develop solutions.
Helen Forrest Hall: From a PMI perspective, obviously we recognise that with the shift from DB to DC, the choices that are facing people at retirement are growing ever more complicated, and at the moment, they are largely left to their own devices and that is a far from ideal situation so we very strongly support the proposals in the Bill to provide those default pathways, particularly for those who have not made an active choice. Actually, we support the focus on those default options as generating an income because, after all, that is what a pension is for. We do strongly support that.
We have a question around where this sits in the pensions reform road map. We very much share the desire to provide people at that point of retirement with a bit more support, guidance, help and some form of default pathways as soon as possible. But we are concerned that doing so in advance of trying to bring those small pots together and reaching scale in the market puts a burden on schemes, in terms of the number of DC schemes that might not meet the scale test having to put this in place in the meantime, and potentially confuses members. For example, if you have got 11 pots that all happen to be trust based, and you have got 11 different default solutions, that is potentially going to be confusing.
We do not think that nothing should happen in the meantime. Our proposal would be to extend the point at which the mandation requirement would come in, but use engagement from regulators, particularly for large schemes—those that are going to meet scale or be exempt from the scale test—to really start piloting what good looks like in terms of both the guided retirement requirements and the FCA’s proposals for targeted support. There is a really important piece of work to be done thinking about how all of those align into a better, but not perfect, pension saver member journey at the point of retirement. It is not about moving slowly; it is about thinking about the right time that the mandation kicks in so that schemes can plan effectively and things can be tested in the meantime.
Sophia Singleton: Just to add one other element to that point around timescale, I think master trusts are going to be required to comply by 2027. One of the solutions, which might be the right solution for schemes, is the decumulation CDC. We do not expect that the regulations to facilitate that will be in place by 2027. Ensuring that those align so that that option is available to schemes when they are considering their decumulation solution would be beneficial as well. I agree with everything Helen said, but just add that extra element.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Q
Helen Forrest Hall: I will take this opportunity to reiterate that we strongly support the vast majority of the provisions in the Bill: the consolidation, value for money and retirement provisions; finally legislating for DB superfunds, which we warmly welcome; and striking the balance on DB surplus—there was a better balance to be struck. To a certain extent we have already talked about our key issue where the Bill potentially goes too far, which is around the mandation requirement and the reserve power.
On value for money, I think that the Bill is doing the right thing. Value for money is going to be an everchanging set of circumstances, particularly if we build scale in the market. What might be required on day one for value for money—we probably want a core set of metrics that can be easily comparable across schemes—might really mature as the market consolidates into a small number of fairly significant defined contribution funds. You might quite rightly expect regulators and the regulations to ask an awful lot more of those schemes in terms of what they are doing under value for money.
We think it is only right and proper that they sit in secondary. There have occasionally been issues with putting too much in a pensions Bill, and creating problems with the market being able to adapt as we go. So I think that this is actually the right thing to do, albeit that we would welcome further clarity from regulators around the fact that they would like to start small and grow—at the moment there is very little detail on the value for money measurements. We are talking actively with them, but it is useful to get the reassurance that we will start from a principle small basis and move out, rather than potentially creating additional burdens for schemes during what will be, on a number of fronts, quite a busy pensions reform road map.
Sophia Singleton: We very much support almost all the provisions in the Bill; mandation, as we have already talked about, is the exception. Where would we go further? There are two things that we would ask for.
The first is in relation to DB surplus. We have talked about how we were pleased to see that the safeguards were in place—we feel that they are very robust. We would like some clarity in the Bill, though, that that provision overrides any existing restrictions in scheme rules, because as it is currently drafted there are some schemes that might not be able to utilise that provision. We have provided some more details about making it open to all in our submission—making it clear that the provision overrides any existing restrictions, subject to the safeguards being properly used and so on.
The second one is an addition that we would love to see to the Bill: the removal of the admin levy, which pays towards the Pension Protection Fund admin costs. The DWP did a review in 2022 that concluded that it was no longer needed—it is a cost to schemes and therefore to employers. We have prepared a simple draft for the legislation that we have shared with you and the DWP that would remove it, and it is a very easy way to remove a cost on employers.
Helen Forrest Hall: If I could just add one point on the DB surplus, because Sophia’s points reminded me of it, I think there are a couple of areas where there could be further easements. They are not necessarily for a pensions Bill—some of them are more Finance Bill-related—but in giving trustees full flexibility to consider all the beneficiaries of a scheme, it would be useful if there were further easements that enabled them to make, for example, one-off payments to members without being subject to extraneous tax charges and, similarly, that would allow employers to pay some of that surplus as DC contributions into another trust. At the moment, the legislation does not provide for that, and obviously that would be a way to help trustees, and actually employers, who might be looking to enhance their pension provision overall—not just being able to move money around within one legal structure.
Kirsty Blackman
Q
Helen Forrest Hall: Yes, I think at least one of us has something, but we can certainly provide more details if that would be helpful.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, can I thank the witnesses for their evidence this afternoon? We will move on to the next panel. Thank you very much for your attendance.
Examination of Witnesses
Patrick Heath-Lay and Ian Cornelius gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Patrick Heath-Lay, chief executive officer of People’s Partnership, and Ian Cornelius, CEO of NEST Corporation. We have until 3.30 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Patrick Heath-Lay: Good afternoon. My name is Patrick Heath-Lay. I am the CEO of People’s Partnership, a large DC master trust with £35 billion of assets under management and about 7 million members. Importantly, we are a not-for-profit organisation. Within that, we are an asset owner, not an investment manager, so our asset ownership activities are solely for the benefit of members and not commercially for ourselves.
Ian Cornelius: I am Ian Cornelius. I have been the CEO of NEST since May last year. I will say a few words about NEST. It was set up by the Government at the inception of auto-enrolment to make sure that every individual has access to a good-quality pension. It has been a great success story. It now looks after over 13 million members, which is a third of the working population, and manages over £53 billion of assets on their behalf. We receive about half a billion pounds of assets every month.
The focus of NEST has been, and will continue to be, on low to moderate earners, so the typical NEST member earns just under £25,000. In many ways, NEST is probably one of the best examples of the sort of megafund that the Bill is looking to create. It has been able to invest in private assets, invest in the UK and deliver good outcomes for members.
Mark Garnier
Q
Ian Cornelius: I do not think that the Bill particularly focuses on that problem, but the question is whether it is a problem. The pensions dashboard will help to provide more visibility of where people’s money is and help them to manage that more effectively. I think it is right to focus on small pots, because they are inefficient. It is much harder for consumers to track lots of small pots, and it is driving costs in the industry, so I think that that is the right initial focus.
Mark Garnier
Q
Ian Cornelius: Customers—members—can already do that if they choose to.
Mark Garnier
Q
Ian Cornelius: I think that is right. It probably goes back to dashboards. They are key to helping to increase visibility. That will get people thinking about the choices they can make, how they want to manage their pension and how they can consolidate their pensions. That will drive that type of activity naturally. At NEST, we have always had one pot per member to make it as easy as possible for our members. Ultimately, it is about member choice.
Mark Garnier
Q
Patrick, could I turn to you? We met and had a very interesting chat. One thing we discussed was the scale of the funds. There is a requirement in the Bill that funds such as yours will need to be valued at £25 billion by 2035. One thing we discussed at the time was whether that creates a barrier to entry for new asset managers, and a lack of competition among asset managers in order to provide the best value for those funds. Would you share some of your thoughts about the £25 billion minimum size?
Patrick Heath-Lay: Yes, of course. We have conducted research. Toby Nangle did some research for us in 2025, and WPI Economics has also looked at the issue of whether scale drives better economies. Generally, aside from all the international comparisons from Canada and Australia, it is proven that scale will drive better economies. You can leverage scale to drive a more efficient administration. If you are asset owners like these two organisations, we get to choose where we invest the money, which managers we use, who will come with the best solutions and who has the best routes and access to market to allow us to invest in a way that benefits and shares the benefit of that investment with the end saver, which for us as an organisation is the sole focus.
I believe that scale, utilised in the right way, does deliver those efficiencies, but this is where the package in the Bill, and particularly a key element like value for money, is critical to establishing that as this market evolves. You want to be reassured that the investment activity at that scale is delivering increasing value for members, which is really the sole purpose of driving that scale. From our own experience and the research that we have done, it is a proven model, but that scale needs to be harnessed in the right way.
Mark Garnier
Q
Patrick Heath-Lay: I do not want to be flippant in my response, but our scale already means that we are over that limit, so I have not really put too much thought into how they will do it. I believe that there is enough, within the business plans of entities that might be affected, to be able to make some reasonable assumptions as to what ongoing contributions will be coming through the door and how they will respond to some of the opportunities that may arise in this market over the next few years, from organisations that are choosing to move because of the extent of change that is coming.
I emphasise that I still think that the package of measures and that scale test is the right thing to instil that movement, because I think savers will be better off, provided that it is harnessed in the right way. That is why I come back to this: value for money is the proof point, and we need to make sure that we centre on that as an industry. Being able to evaluate how these changes have created a more competitive market in key areas going forward is really quite important.
Torsten Bell
Q
Ian Cornelius: It is one of the elements of the Bill that we very much welcome. I think guided retirement solutions are overdue. Certainly, our members have been opted into a retirement savings scheme, and they end up with a pot of money rather than an income. I think their expectation is an income. In fact, in the research we have done with our members, they say that the most important things for them are to have a sustainable income, confidence that it will not run out and an element of flexibility, because their circumstances can change very quickly in retirement. I think the guided retirement solution moves us in that direction.
At NEST, we have been working on this for some time, as we recognise that it is a core issue for our members. We therefore want to introduce a guided retirement solution—it is very much a work in progress—that delivers that sustainable income, but also gives them a guarantee that it will not run out. That will be some sort of deferred annuity, purchased probably when they are 75, to kick in when they are 85. We are actively working on that and will be looking to introduce it in 2027, aligning with the expectation in the Bill.
Patrick Heath-Lay: It is very similar from our perspective. We should not underestimate how much onus the shift from final salary to DC has put on individual savers, in terms of the decision that they have to make, in a very complex world that they really do not understand. Even if you surface a lot of information, your constituents will still struggle to navigate those decision points. We also should not underestimate the onus they have taken on, in terms of the risk of their own fund, when you think about the productive finance agenda and other things here. I think it is absolutely the right move. It is a good development for us to bring about guided retirement journeys in a way that is either “Do it for me” or “Do it with me” for policyholders.
Similarly, we are thinking about drawdown and how we can facilitate or help people to understand the implications of the actions they may take with accessing their funds, and then, when they get to later life, some sort of deferred annuity as an approach. The really important aspect is the guidance and how we can help, but have certain obligations on ourselves, as providers, to make sure that we are accountable for the help that we are giving as we go through the process.
Torsten Bell
Q
Ian Cornelius: It is difficult to speak for the industry, but I can speak for NEST. At NEST, we are very committed to investing in private markets: 18% of our assets are invested in private markets, and 20% of our assets are invested in the UK.
Torsten Bell
And that compares to the Mansion House benchmarks of 10% and 5%.
Ian Cornelius: The Mansion House commitment is 10% into private markets, with half of that into the UK, so we are already well ahead.
Torsten Bell
Q
Ian Cornelius: Absolutely. It is providing attractive returns, it diversifies risk and it also invests in the UK.
Torsten Bell
Q
Ian Cornelius: It is hard to speak for others, but scale is an important factor, as we have talked about. You need scale and sophistication to access these investment opportunities. NEST has that scale and is building that sophistication. It often involves quite innovative solutions and partnering. Partners want to partner with someone who has got scale and assets coming in at pace, and we have those things. There are some unique circumstances that have made it attractive for us. I will let Patrick speak for People’s, but it is on that journey as well.
Patrick Heath-Lay: Yes, we are, although we are much nearer the start of that journey. Again, it comes back to the scale point. Why is £25 billion or £30 billion about the right amount? Because it is about the right part that you can economically start investing in those items.
To answer your question, and to pick up a more general point, it is incredibly important that we work collaboratively on the issue, because, as an industry, there is not much point in us all sailing our own little boats around trying to find the right harbour to invest. There is a degree of collaboration that the industry, together with Government, can do to open up the opportunities where that investment needs to go and how it can be executed in the most efficient manner. The biggest risk with investing in private markets is that they are expensive. If the vehicles that are being used on a commercial basis are not sharing the economics of that investment well enough with savers, it will certainly not be an investment that we are interested in pursuing.
The other point is that putting down the foundations for this to be a pipeline of repeatable investment activity is critical. Because of its scale, NEST has got ahead of where we are today, but that is the phase we are in at People’s at the moment. There is over £1 billion a year from our scheme alone that will be invested in those markets on an ongoing basis. Given the scale that we are both experiencing, in terms of how we are scaling up, that will be an ever-increasing number, so it is important that we have reliable and very cost-effective routes by which we can deploy that capital.
Ian Cornelius: Going back to your original question, I think that the industry is moving in the right direction. The Mansion House accord had 17 signatories and we are seeing the right moves.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Q
Ian Cornelius: There is no doubt that there is detail to work through across the whole Bill. One of the really interesting areas will be the interaction of targeted support and default solutions. There is now a consultation on targeted support, being led by the Financial Conduct Authority. That opens up lots of opportunities to provide an enhanced level of support to people who cannot afford to take advice. The fact is that financial advice is only available to about 9% of the population. Nearly all our members cannot afford to take financial advice, so they need that enhanced level of support, either to check that they are making the right choices—“Is the default solution the right one for me?”—or because they might have circumstances that mean that they want to explore something different. Targeted support is very welcome, and we look forward to engaging with the Pensions Regulator and FCA in making that a reality and making it work for low and moderate earners.
Patrick Heath-Lay: I am probably going to sound quite boring, but this is an area in which value for money and making sure the solutions are developed in the right way to support consumers can be really quite effective.
Mr Bedford
Q
Patrick Heath-Lay: The Government have put forward a default consolidator model. We are completely supportive of that; we think it is the right solution to tidy up the 13 million small deferred pots that are out there and those that are being created on a daily basis. That model has been done with extensive consultation with the industry.
To go back to the first question, which was about all the different options that have been considered before, we do think that this is the right approach. A couple of things around it are critical. First, we need to make sure that the technical solutions—the IT capability or infrastructure—should be as efficient as possible. We are contributing to the various pieces of research being done at the moment to evaluate which models are in existence and ready to be utilised. There is no doubt that the dashboard will contain some elements that will be helpful, such as a pension finder, that will be helpful, and I suspect that they will utilise pieces of that technology. But I do think—and I suspect the conclusion will be—that we need something new. Some of the expertise in the industry can be leveraged. I suspect that that is expertise that our organisations can provide. Given that we have already addressed the big pension savings gap for savers, we can help to develop that model.
On whether the solution is doable within the timeframe, 2030 is a big ask, but we should have that target to go after. We should try to be in a position where default consolidators exist in the market, we are developing the solution and we are able to solve the problem, because the number of small pots being created almost daily by the industry is a big problem for savers.
Ian Cornelius: I agree with Patrick. It is a problem that needs fixing. We also support the default consolidator approach. The sequencing is sensible: we want scheme consolidation first and then small pots, because there is no point in going through the complexity of consolidating small pots before consolidating at the scheme level. Dashboards will help, but they will not solve the problem. A solution is required, because this is driving a lot of cost and a lot of complexity. It would be nice if it were sooner than 2030. Given the ambition of the Bill as a whole, I think that that is probably realistic, but it does need to come after scheme consolidation, as I say.
Patrick Heath-Lay: The requirements on those organisations that choose to apply to be default consolidators need to be of a good standard. Our organisations operate a single-pot model. Whenever anyone rejoins from a different employer, their money goes into exactly the same pension pot. That is not a common model across the industry. Things like that should be thought through when defining the requirements for being a consolidator. Those that wish to apply need to hit a good regulatory standard to ensure that value is delivered through those models.
David Pinto-Duschinsky
Q
Patrick Heath-Lay: As a package, the Bill brings forward the concept of value for money in a general sense. We need to move the conversation in our industry, particularly the conversation around workplace pensions, to the subject of value. We are all here to deliver value for members. The bit that always gets a lot of conversation is what value really means, but you cannot walk past the three fundamental drivers of a pension proposition, which are the investment return we give our members, what we charge them for it, and how our service shows up for them, probably in those moments of truth when they need us for guidance. Those are the three core elements to value, which we should not walk past.
We see this as an incredibly important area. I certainly believe that we should try to get this right as an industry, as best we can, from day one, because I think that it will be an important measure that we—regulators, Government, everyone—will lean on to understand how these reforms are playing through.
As an organisation, we have led a pound-for-pound initiative that others have joined. We brought in expertise from Australia, which is about 20 years ahead of us, and brought together a group of providers that are effectively going to dry-run some value for money measures and utilise that concept to provide some findings to regulators and Government that will hopefully help the iteration of our value for money framework. We really do see this framework as an important area, and I would like to see those three elements at its core.
Ian Cornelius: The focus on value has to be the right thing for our members. That is what they care about; that is what we are here for. There is some complexity to work through, such as how you measure value and what timeline you measure it over. Quite lot of engagement is required. We are piloting and trialling it; we almost certainly will not get it right the first time. It will be important to make it as practical and simple as possible. As Patrick said, it has real potential, in combination with the rest of the Bill, to shift the focus from cost to value. In the past, there has undoubtedly been too much focus on cost and not enough on value.
Kirsty Blackman
Q
Ian Cornelius: It is definitely desirable. One of the challenges with auto-enrolment is—it is a positive and a negative—that people are not engaged. Inertia has worked really well, but you have to work to engage them to make sure they are contributing the right amount, thinking about what they will need in retirement and thinking about their circumstances. For example, at NEST, only 40% of our members are registered with us online, so we have a really big job to play to engage more of them, get them to register, and get them accessing the tools and support that are available to deliver the best outcome for them. It is our fiduciary duty to do that. There is a lot more that we can, need and want to do in that space. Guided retirement is a big step forward. Targeted support would be helpful. There is a big challenge for the whole industry there.
Patrick Heath-Lay: I agree. As this unwinds, we should think a little bit more about how engagement will help. It certainly is a big driver. Both the introduction of these propositions and the guidance and targeted support we can provide through those processes will be important, but we also have to accept that even in the most mature economies’ pension systems, people still do not engage very closely on this. Even when they do, they find it incredibly difficult to interpret what they are being told. How many people can do good compound interest calculations, for example? It is sometimes mind-boggling what we expect people to know. There has to be more onus on us through those processes, as an industry, for the guidance that we provide and the obligation on us to enable effective, accountable support to be there. There is much more, and this Bill goes a long way to enable us to do that.
Kirsty Blackman
Q
Ian Cornelius: Having a strong pipeline of investable assets is key. There is no doubt about that. Patrick touched on this earlier: one other inhibitor has been cost. It is actually quite expensive to invest in private assets. One of the things that NEST does successfully is to drive that cost down, but that is a barrier. The focus on cost rather than value in the past made it harder. The Bill shifts the focus towards value, which will be really helpful. There are a number of challenges that the bigger you are, the easier it is to work through. The Bill as a whole will therefore definitely be helpful, but collaboration with Government and across industry should help to unlock more of those attractive private market opportunities.
Patrick Heath-Lay: I have previously discussed this with the Minister. There is a role for Government to play here. It was even acknowledged within the Mansion House accord that this is for the benefit of savers, and there is a role for all of us to play in finding those efficient routes to deploy that investment through. The problem right now is not whether there is investment to come; there is. The Mansion House accord has created that. There is a wall of capital potentially available. The issue is connecting it in the right way with the investable opportunities—not only the planning and whatever is needed to create those investment opportunities in the first place, but the routes of access and the investment vehicles used. There are further conversations to be had about how we can do that as an industry. Efficient deployment is probably the biggest challenge for us as an asset owner in ensuring that we are sharing that benefit back with members.
John Milne
Q
Ian Cornelius: That is where we welcome the Pensions Commission. It has been set up to actively look at adequacy: what is right, and are people saving enough? There is no doubt that many people are not saving enough and there are a lot of people who are still excluded from retirement savings. There is a big issue and challenge with the self-employed. There is a challenge for the industry and the Government to work on, but the Pensions Commission creates the right environment to do that. Auto-enrolment has been a big success, but it is only a job half done. Completing that job through the Pensions Commission is incumbent upon the Government and industry.
John Milne
Q
Patrick Heath-Lay: I completely agree with what Ian just said. The review is the right way, and we need to look at the interaction between saving rates, state pension and the general economic conditions. One thing that we were concerned about with the Bill is this. There is a lot in here that is trying to create better value in the industry as a result of the transformation, but what we have very much seen over the last few years is the rise of retail consolidators, which encourage people to consolidate their lost pensions towards them and effectively put their pensions on their phone. They have taken control of that future. That is a positive thing in terms of people acting and doing something about the number of small pots they have. The issue is that the Bill ignores the rise of that market.
From our own research, we know people are consistently moving their pensions to these types of vehicles, which are much more expensive and, for an average earner, effectively mean that they will retire three or four years later than they could have done, because the value delivered through those models is not going to be anywhere near the level of the competitive workplace market as it operates today. We would like to see the extension of value for money and those types of issues into that market as soon as possible, as there are some bad outcomes where well-meaning people are trying to do the right things and do not understand the consequences of what they are doing. There is not sufficient obligation on providers in that market to make those people aware of the consequences of their actions.
Ian Cornelius: I wholly welcome the Bill. It will increase and improve standards across the workplace pensions market—but only across the workplace pensions market. The pensions landscape is already pretty complicated with contract-based schemes, trust-based schemes and personal pensions. Consumers do not understand the differences between those—and why should they? The fact that the changes only apply to workplace schemes, and that things such as value for money do not apply across personal pensions, is an issue for consumers. They will be confused and will not necessarily make the right decisions. We need to think about how the landscape can be equalised and made as simple and clear as possible for consumers.
The Chair
Thank you very much. That completes the questions from Members. I thank the witnesses for their attendance and evidence this afternoon.
Examination of Witness
Tim Fassam gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Tim Fassam, director of public affairs at Phoenix Group. We have until 3.45 pm for this panel. Will the witness please briefly introduce himself for the record?
Tim Fassam: I am Tim Fassam from Phoenix Group. We are one of the country’s leading pension and long-term savings providers. We look after about £290 billion for our 12 million customers across a range of brands, most famously for Standard Life. We are a major player in the workplace automatic enrolment market as well as the bulk-purchase annuity market for DB schemes. We are also proud of our history as a consolidator of historical private pensions.
We have been passionate about the investment agenda. Our chairman, Sir Nicholas Lyons, took a year out of being chairman of Phoenix to be Lord Mayor, and the Lord Mayor who co-ordinated the Mansion House compact, which we were supportive of. We were also heavily involved in the development of the Mansion House accord. In order to facilitate that, we worked with the leading asset manager Schroders to create a joint venture called Future Growth Capital to deliver private market investments that are specifically designed for the pension market. We have made an initial commitment of £2.5 billion to that and are looking to invest up to £10 billion over the next five years. This is an agenda that we think is incredibly important, and we are very supportive of the focus that Parliament is giving this Bill.
Mark Garnier
Q
Tim Fassam: The short answer is yes, we are big fans of the value for money framework, but it is worth thinking about why that is. When we are looking at why we have not had the investment that we would necessarily expect, and that we see in other similar countries—so, exposure to private markets and exposure to productive assets—we think there are roughly three groups of reasons. Some are cultural and have been helped by things such as the accord and the compact. Some are regulatory, and that will be a major topic of conversation in this Committee. But some are market, and the market challenges are really around who is the buyer of automatic enrolment pensions. That is usually the employer.
Historically, we have seen most employers focus on the charge, and the charge alone. That means we are now seeing charges well below the price charge cap for automatic enrolment, which is a good thing for consumers, but it is at such a low level that it is very hard to offer more enhanced investment solutions, so that means they tend to be invested in more passive investments and trackers. The value for money framework is important because it should have an impact on those purchasers, making it easier for them to see a more holistic view of the value that they are getting from the pension that is being offered to them, in terms of investment, service and a wider range of metrics. We are not sure it is perfect, as currently developed, but it is certainly in the right direction.
Mark Garnier
Q
Where I begin to get slightly confused is that it then switches to member satisfaction surveys. I am curious as to what the member is. You raised the very good point that the customer is the business, but that is not the same as the member. Who is being asked whether they are investing in the right assets? That is quite a technical question by the time you start looking all of this. Can you see that there are anomalies and Gordian knots within this?
Tim Fassam: There is certainly a lot of detail to be worked through. That will include understanding the impact of all these factors. For example, investment return will be an incredibly important part of the value-for-money framework. It is very hard to do forward-looking investment return analysis, but if you do backward-looking, you cement the best of what we have today. The premise of the Bill is that we want to see a different investment pattern going forward. It will be very hard to, say, model a higher allocation to private markets in a forward-looking metric unless we have some creative thinking. Getting those investment metrics right is absolutely critical.
Service does matter to customers in terms of how easy it is to deal with and how much support they are getting to make good investment decisions. That will have a significant impact. When you combine it with things like the potential for targeted support, that could make a very significant difference in terms of the outcomes that the consumers get. We always think of the end customer being the individual. We have a close and important working relationship with the employer, and they are often working with employee benefit consultants to choose their scheme, but the most important stakeholder in all of this is the end user. We want them to get the best possible result to help them prepare for retirement.
Mark Garnier
Q
Tim Fassam: We are certainly concerned about the intermediate rating and the risk that that could cause a cliff edge if it means that, to get an intermediate rating, you are effectively closed for new business and potentially existing new joiners for a new firm. We think an intermediate rating that aligns with delivering value, but with a warning light that gives the firm a couple of years to get back into high value for money, will stop the perverse consequences. What I mean by perverse consequences is that if the cost of underperformance is significantly higher than the benefit of outperformance, you will see everyone herding in the middle. That will mean that you may well get a better outcome than today, but you will not get the competitive pressure to be the best of the best, which I think will see the better outcome in the longer term.
Mark Garnier
Q
Tim Fassam: Your value for money rating will be published.
Mark Garnier
Q
Tim Fassam: If you see very strong market or regulatory consequences for hitting an intermediate rating, the focus will be on not being intermediate rather than on being the best that you can be. We would like to see a focus on delivering the best value for money that you can.
Luke Murphy
Q
Tim Fassam: That is a very good question. One of the things that makes the Bill powerful but more complex is the number of elements that interact. Eventually, we hope, it makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts, but it does mean it is critical that you get the ordering right. For example, we need the value for money framework and transfer without consent as soon as possible, so that we are able to get in good shape for the 2030 scale test—so those deadlines brought forward. Small pots are part of that scale: we are seeing thousands of new small pots generated every year, so the quicker we can get on with managing small pots, the fewer of them there will be for us to manage going forward.
It is critical to think very carefully about the staging and phasing of the various elements of the Bill. That is the point we are trying to make. On the elements that help the market get to where we hope to get to by 2030, we need to get in as swiftly as possible, with enough time after the detail is in place for the industry to implement. I appreciate it looks like we are asking for things to be slowed down and sped up, but it is just making sure the ordering is correct and we have enough time to get into good shape for that 2030 deadline.
We think the scope should be extended partly because of how supportive we are of the measures. Being a historical consolidator of private pensions, we have millions of customers who are not workplace customers but who could benefit from being transferred into a more modern, larger scale scheme and from going into a consolidator of small pots, for example. We see that value in our own book. We look at the opportunity and think, “We wish we could do that for this group of customers. They would really benefit.”
The pensions market is quite complex, as others have pointed out. It is contract-based and trust-based. You also have workplace and private pensions. The more consistent we can be across all the different types of customer, who often do not think of themselves as being any different from each other, the more coherent a scheme we are likely to get at the end result.
Luke Murphy
Q
Tim Fassam: We see it predominantly as opportunity. We are not saying that the rules necessarily need to change. We are just saying these new opportunities should be extended to a wider group of available schemes, but the infrastructure we are putting in place regarding workplace auto-enrolment savers can be utilised across the piece.
Steve Darling
Q
Tim Fassam: I think eating an elephant is a very good way of putting it. I think £1,000 is certainly a good place to start. This will be an incredibly valuable part of the pensions ecosystem, but it will be complex and getting it right will require a lot of thought and a lot of close working between Government regulators and industry. Having that narrow and focused scope allows us to get it in place and get it working; then it would be perfectly reasonable to look at the level at a later date. For the time being, I think that is a very clear cohort of individuals who are likely to benefit from consolidation, because at the moment they are in uneconomic pools.
Kirsty Blackman
Q
Tim Fassam: That is another very good question. As the previous witnesses said, it is important to ensure that there is a pipeline of assets coming to us. A lot of what the Government are doing with the national wealth fund and the British Business Bank is helping with that. We would like to see—we would say this, wouldn’t we?—a little more focus on insurance versus banks. Banks are a vital form of capital—I am absolutely not suggesting they are not—but there is a skew towards banks. A few more insurance experts in the national wealth fund, and ensuring we have that pipeline of investable assets, could be valuable.
We are very lucky in the UK that we have fantastic start-ups, and amazing universities that are generating brilliant ideas. What we really need is scale-up capital. At the moment, about 70% of firms that need major scale-up capital go overseas for it, and then their head office moves. We need to make sure that we have an attractive environment for those firms to stay in the UK, and that is where scale comes in. A number of witnesses have talked about the benefits of economies of scale and professional asset management capability. That is absolutely right; they are critical benefits. One of the less discussed benefits is if you want to—
The Chair
Order. I apologise for the interruption, but that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions of this witness. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witness for their evidence this afternoon.
Examination of Witnesses
Michelle Ostermann and Morten Nilsson gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Michelle Ostermann, chief executive officer of the Pension Protection Fund, and Morten Nilsson, executive director and CEO of Brightwell. We have until 4.15 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Morten Nilsson: I am the CEO of Brightwell. We administer 380,000 members and about £35 billion of assets. Our largest client is the BT pension scheme, which we manage end to end.
Michelle Ostermann: I am the chief executive of the Pension Protection Fund. We were created by legislation in 2004; we have been in existence for 20 years. We manage a little less than Brightwell does, £30 billion. We are effectively a monitor of the entire DB system. We protect and backstop £1 trillion in it, pay compensation to almost half a million members, and enable the industry in general.
Mark Garnier
Q
Morten Nilsson: I see it as a good thing. I think it will change the pension industry quite a bit as a positive innovation. Closed DB schemes, which we focus on, might be seen more as an asset for sponsors, rather than a liability that they would like to get rid of as quickly as possible. I think that it will create quite a lot of innovation, and a lot of good things will come out of that.
Mark Garnier
Q
Morten Nilsson: I see it pretty much as you described. The main duty of the sponsors and the trustees is to ensure that there is enough money in the scheme to pay the benefits that were promised to members. If there are excess funds, it is reasonable that they can be invested back into the economy. In May, we surveyed 100 finance directors who are responsible for schemes with over £500 million of assets: 93% of them said that they would want to access the surplus, 49% said they would reinvest it in their local business, in the UK, to create jobs and do other good things, 44% said they would consider sharing it with members, 42% said they would invest it in their global operations, 40% said they would pay it back to shareholders, and 33% would invest it in DC. That is quite a wide range of uses. I think some of it will be paid back to shareholders, which may be local or abroad, but I expect a lot of it would be invested back into the UK economy in one way or another.
Mark Garnier
Q
Michelle Ostermann: Obviously, just as you describe, because we backstop the entire industry, what we are watching most closely is the fundedness of schemes, combined with the credit quality or the covenant, and the financial stability of the organisation itself. Those two combined are what help us to assess industry-wide risk and determine how much reserve we need to set aside for future claims on the PPF.
There is a spectrum of schemes out there, clearly—some that are very well funded, which you have been speaking of, and several that are not as well funded. On that spectrum, our focus is on the left side tail—the ones that are most underfunded, or nearing the potential to be underfunded. Given the measures that are being discussed for the release of surplus, we at the PPF feel comfortable with it not imposing a material amount of risk to us, as it is currently defined. It seems to find a nice prudent balance between allowing some flexibility for sponsors to use that money in hopefully a productive way, combined with the test to make sure they do not fall below a certain level, which would bring risk upon the industry and the PPF. We have been a constant participant in that conversation, and we would like to suggest that we will continue to play that role as a surveyor of the net residual impact to the industry.
Mark Garnier
Q
Michelle Ostermann: Yes—it is very similar.
Mark Garnier
And you war game it?
Michelle Ostermann: Yes. The biggest variable that we have a hard time predicting in those scenarios is the likelihood of this being used and the manner in which it is used, but we test deep into the tail. We try several scenarios that give us a high probability of it being abused or overused, and the opposite, and we have come out with pretty strong confidence. As it is defined today, we feel comfortable.
Mark Garnier
Q
Michelle Ostermann: Not here in the UK, but as you can tell by my accent, I am not a local. I worked in Canada for most of my career, at two of the largest Canadian “Maple Eight” pension plans, and those are things that we would assess quite regularly. In fact, the open DB schemes here in the UK function very similarly to those in Canada. I joined the PPF in large part because it is a mini-version of the Canadian model. It is exceptionally similar, to me. You will notice that during the liquidity crisis that occurred it was the liability-driven investment strategies, with the degree of leverage, that were most at risk, and it was interest rate-sensitive. Those open DB schemes that were using a more balanced degree of risk, including some equity risk, were unencumbered. It was Railpen, which I worked for when I was here previously. I was phoning back to my peers both there and at the universities superannuation scheme and PPF, and they all withstood that very well.
Mark Garnier
Q
Michelle Ostermann: It is definitely something that was on our radar. When we build the investment strategy for an open DB scheme, such as those I described, it is quite different and less susceptible to that type of risk.
Steve Darling
Q
Michelle Ostermann: I assume you are speaking of our levy?
Steve Darling
Yes.
Michelle Ostermann: We have several types of levies that support our organisation. If I may, I will just take a step back to help everyone to understand what role they play.
The PPF is not terribly well understood because we are a bit unique in this industry and there are only half a dozen bodies like us in the world. The UK is one of the few countries that have a protection fund such as this. In some ways we back as an insurer in that we collect premiums or levies from the industry from the 5,000 corporate DB schemes and backstop 9 million potential future members that still sit in those schemes. We collect the levies and hold them in reserve much like an insurance company. We are not an insurance company, but we do so much like they would mathematically and with similar models.
At the same time, if a corporation fails, we take its pension scheme, which is usually underfunded, and its orphan members and put them into a pension scheme. We are both a pension manager and an insurer of sorts. When there is a failure and a scheme comes to us with insufficient assets to make good on its pension liabilities, we take some of our reserves almost as a claim, and move them over to the pension fund so that it is fully funded at all times using a largely liability-driven investment-type strategy. The levies that we collect are twofold: first we collect a levy related to the risk of the industry. You may be familiar with our purple book and the industry-wide assessment we do. We monitor the risk of that entire complicated £1 trillion industry to decide how much to set aside as reserves.
Our reserves are often referred to as a surplus, but they are not a surplus; they are reserves sitting there for potential claims in 50, 80 or 100 years. We will be the last man standing in this industry. We are here as an enduring and perpetual solution. As long as there is DB in the industry, we will have to backstop it. We set aside those reserves for the 9 million members and current £1 trillion in case of future market environments that we cannot predict today. Those levies have been collected over 20 years from the constituents of that industry. We have collected just over £10 billion from that levy system and have paid out £9.5 billion of it as claims to the pension fund.
As those levies were coming in over that 20-year period we were investing them in an open DB growth-type strategy. As such, we have built up £14 billion of reserves and so now consider ourselves largely self-funding. We no longer need to collect that levy from the industry now that those reserves are sitting there—in so far as we can best tell with our models today. We prefer to reserve the right to turn it back on should we need it in the case of a market correction event, some unforeseen circumstance or an evolution in the industry. However, right now, those fees are no longer required by us; it is a risk assessment that is suggesting that.
Mr Bedford
Q
Michelle Ostermann: We have thought a fair bit about that. We do not see very many scenarios in which we would need to turn it on, although it is always difficult to predict. As you know, the industry evolves in many ways and over the 20 years we have seen quite an evolution, including the creation of new alternative covenant schemes and commercial consolidators. We will backstop those as well, and we will need to charge a levy for them. There could be an unforeseen market event, similar to that just described, so we need the ability to turn the levy back on—simply to keep it as a lever. Today, the legislation reads that if we were to lower it to 0%, we can only increase it year on year by 25%. However, 25% of zero is zero, so we are a bit cornered. We have asked for a measure that would allow us to increase it by as much as a few hundred million a year. The most we have ever charged in one year was just over £500 million.
As I said, we have collected £10 billion gradually over many years. The new measure allows us to increase it by no more than 25% of the ceiling number every year, which is currently £1.4 billion. That means we could go up as much as £350 million in a single year, if needs be. However, we are a very patient long-term investor. Even though we are taking on closed corporate DB schemes, we run it as if we were an open scheme, because we are open to new members all the time. As such, our investment strategy does most of the heavy lifting for our organisation now.
On our £14 billion reserves, we make over £1 billion a year in gains from that investment strategy, which funds the £1 billion we pay out in the pension scheme to members. We are now a mature organisation that should be able to maintain a steady state. The most we would be able to increase the levy by in one year is £350 million, but we would expect to be patient, wait a few years, and try to ride out the situation not needing it, only turning it back on should we need it. We consult before we turn it on and we take a lot of feedback on this. We are quite thoughtful, as we have always been, and I hope people agree.
Mr Bedford
Q
Michelle Ostermann: The biggest example is a macroeconomic shock that would affect the solvency of corporations. The failure of the corporation itself is more likely to have an impact than just a change in interest rates or equity markets. The change in interest rates can affect the fundedness of a scheme, but many of those schemes, over 75% of them now, are actually really well funded. And they have pretty well locked down their interest rate risk because they have put a good chunk of assets against their liabilities in a fairly tight hedge. Although we saw, as a result of the liquidity crisis a few years ago now, that things can change. The degree of risk, specifically leverage risk inside some of those strategies, does make them fallible. I would say the biggest shocks would be massive interest rate movements that are unforeseen, a very significant macroeconomic environment causing failure in many corporations, and technically, even a significant move in equity markets, but we would usually just ride that out. Markets can go down 20% or 30%. We would only go down 10% or 15% and we would be able to recover that in under five years, historically speaking.
John Milne
Q
Michelle Ostermann: We have been progressing on this quite a bit lately. It is one of the most prevalent discussions, both with our board and with our members. We speak very often with the entirety of the industry. Several are very strong advocates for it as well, a few of which are here today, and we have taken quite a bit of humble feedback. We have worked as best we can with the Work and Pensions Committee to estimate a significantly complex set of potential scenarios for making good on historical indexation needs for pre-’97. They range in price, are quite expensive and would require us to incur or crystallise a liability. They are not cheap. It would be difficult for both us and the Government to be able to afford. The taxpayer would have an implication to some of these, depending on how they are formed, and it is beyond our prerogative to make that decision but we have been facilitating and encouraging it to be made. We would welcome progress on that. I understand, in fact, an amendment was tabled earlier today in that regard, so I was warmed by that.
John Milne
Q
Michelle Ostermann: To clarify the word “using”, as I think it is important, the PPF is an arm’s length body and those assets are ringfenced. Our board has independence over those. It was set up that way—arm’s length—20 years ago to make sure that it was a dedicated protection fund for that industry. It so happens that we do fall under some of the fiscal measures, so both our assets and liabilities do show. However, there is a bit of a conflict there in that we manage them in the prudent, almost in a trusteed fashion, on behalf of our members and all of our stakeholders. But the use of them would have to be prescribed by the board, legislated, and then approved by the board for its affordability, so as to not put at risk the rest of the industry that we are backstopping.
The ability for us to be able to afford that and the risk to the organisation is the primary, most sacrosanct thing that our board does. We have very complicated actuarial models to figure out the affordability of all the risks that we take on in the entire industry. That is why we have gone through quite a bit of work to build, just recently, a much more sophisticated model to estimate both the asset and liability implication to us and have even started to form a plan for how we might implement it. So we stand at the ready, but it is beyond our responsibility to be able to legislate the necessary change for it.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Q
Michelle Ostermann: That is fascinating. I came to the UK, and back to the UK, because I have so much enthusiasm for the UK and the pension system. I am very fortunate to be the chair of the global pension industry association, so I study pension systems around the world and am quite familiar with many of them. The UK pension system is the second largest in the world by size if you include underfunded pensions. It is one of the most sophisticated, but it is the second most disaggregated. As I think a few of my peers mentioned before we got up here, it has fallen behind, frankly. I think the motives that are in this Bill are exceptionally important—they are foundational. I love that we are speaking on scale and sophistication. These are absolutely key, in both DB and DC. I want to underscore that; it is really key.
One thing that is not spoken of quite as much is the concept of an asset owner and the importance of governance. In relation to the successful countries that I have seen, which have mastered the art of pensions and the ability to translate pensions into growth, it is not a proven model, but there is a best practice such that countries are able to make growth by leveraging pension systems. I think that right now we are trying to solve a problem of two things: reshaping the pension system and trying to solve the need for a growth initiative. They are one thing in my mind; they really are one thing. It is not a surprise that as we have de-risked the pension system over two decades, it has, I suspect, quite directly, but at least indirectly, affected overall economic growth.
Making members wealthier pensioners in general and less dependent on social services is what many countries are trying to do and use their pension systems for. I see that out of the commission that is being started, so I am most excited about the next phase. I think there is a lot of potential, and we at the PPF are doing quite a bit of research and want to be able to feed some global ideas into that.
Morten Nilsson: I come from Denmark originally and I think, to echo some of what Michelle said, scale just matters in pensions. The Danish pension industry has been fortunate to have few and relatively large schemes. One of the things I saw when I came over to the UK 15 years ago was that the industry here is very fragmented, and that fragmentation means also that there are so many conflicts of interest in the market. That in a way makes it quite hard to get the best outcomes, and that of course leads into the governance models that Michelle talks about. So this Bill is something we very much welcome across what it is covering. I think it is a really good initiative, but I think scale matters, and governance really matters. I would not underestimate how big a change it is, in the defined benefit sector, that we are moving from two decades of worrying about deficit into suddenly worrying about surpluses and having very mature schemes, which is the other thing that is important. Most of the DB schemes are closed.
If I talk about the BT pension scheme, the average age is 71, so they are pretty old members and that means there is a risk level, from an investment perspective, that really matters. We are paying out £2.8 billion a year in member benefits. That means liquidity is really important. It is really important that we have the money to pay the members and that we do not end up being a distressed seller of assets.
So there is quite a lot in that evolution we are on, and when we go into surplus management or excess funds—Michelle was talking about this at macro level; we would be managing at our micro level in each scheme— I think it becomes really critical that we have the right governance to manage what is a new era. I would really recommend that the Pensions Regulator issue guidance as soon as possible on all this, because it will be quite uncomfortable for a lot of trustees. It will be quite difficult also for the advisers in how we manage this new era.
David Pinto-Duschinsky
Q
Conversations that I have had also flag up the importance of culture among trustees. We can give people the tools, the powers and the permission to invest, and we can be clear in the framework we set up, but, culturally, they may still be very risk averse. Of course, some of that is appropriate because they have to safeguard member benefits, but there is a point about whether they are overly cautious and about how one creates the appropriate culture to go with the change. From your perspective, what is needed to create the right culture to go alongside the right governance?
Michelle Ostermann: I have one small observation from when I first came to the UK. I recognise that there is a very strong savings culture, but not necessarily an investment culture, and there is a distinct difference there. I even notice the difference when we talk about productive finance targets. We speak in terms of private assets, but there is a difference between private equity and private debt, and between infrastructure equity and infrastructure lending. All those lending capabilities are here in this country. I feel that the debt sophistication is strong, but where it lacks is the equity.
I am a Canadian. With one of the largest Canadian schemes, we had no problem coming in and buying up assets here in the UK—you may have noticed. We own a lot of it, and with Australia, most of it. The supply was never an issue for us. We brought the scale and sophistication, but what we did not have was a local British anchor. We did not have an anchor investor. We did not have a home-grown Ontario Teachers, a Canada Pension Plan or even an ATP that we could use as the local one. I see that the PPF, NEST and Brightwell can be that. We are still not megafunds. I know that we are referred to as behemoths and megafunds at £30 billion and £60 billion, but the peers with £100 billion, £200 billion and £500 billion are those that are putting in £0.5 billion or £1 billion in one investment. They are not lending, but investing.
That is the biggest difference I notice: the definition of scale and the degree of sophistication. It is even about sophistication in the governance model, and having a board and a management team with that sophistication. It is about having a management team with some power that you are hiring out of investment, and being a not-for-profit and an arm of the Government that is allowed to put in that sophisticated capability, with a board that can properly oversee it so it is not done without proper consideration.
Morten Nilsson: I think it is quite critical that you have trustee boards that are supported well by regulation and guidance, as we talked about before. It would also be helpful to start to focus on the management teams that are supporting the trustees. Cultural change is always very difficult. We must acknowledge that we are coming out of a situation that was really quite difficult for a lot of trustees and sponsors in terms of finding out how to fix the big deficits that schemes had. We must acknowledge that that is where we are coming from and that is the mentality we have had for decades. Regulation and guidance is still all over the place, and we must work through how we move that forward. I really recommend more guidance from TPR and, sooner rather than later, more guidance on surplus extraction. That would help a lot of trustees to take more risk and think in a more balanced way about risks.
Of course, if we are considering allowing excess funding to go back, we need to ensure that we are doing that on a prudent and well-considered basis. It is an educational challenge more than anything, but it is also about the advisers. The market really needs to get comfortable with investing for the longer term. Within that, it is critical that we move away from being obsessed with a mark-to-market, day-to-day obligation. We measure our liabilities on one day of the year and then we might panic if there is a little swing in the market, but we are actually working through quite a long horizon and therefore we can smooth that out in a different way. We need to think about how we look through some of these blips.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will move to the next panel. Thank you very much indeed.
Examination of Witnesses
Chris Curry and William Wright gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Chris Curry, director of the Pensions Policy Institute, and William Wright, managing director of New Financial. We have until 4.45 pm for this panel. Would the witnesses kindly introduce themselves?
Chris Curry: Good afternoon. My name is Chris Curry, and I am director of the Pensions Policy Institute. The PPI is the leading UK research organisation working in pensions and retirement income, with a remit to provide an evidence base, analysis and data across all pensions issues.
William Wright: Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to be with you today. My name is William Wright. I am the founder and managing director of New Financial, a think-tank that makes the case for bigger and—crucially—better capital markets across the UK and Europe.
Mark Garnier
Q
Chris Curry: We heard a little about that from the previous witness, who I think also has first-hand experience of the Canadian investment models, but there are a number of different reasons. First, there is the aggregation in the system that was talked about; the UK has a very fragmented pensions system. There are a number of different large sectors, but each large sector is not large internationally speaking. Scheme maturity, scheme size and scale generally are a factor. Very few individual schemes have the scale and the amount of assets to invest large-scale in some of the UK opportunities in the way that Canadian schemes have invested on a large scale—as has been said. Half a billion pounds to £1 billion in a single investment is very large by UK standards, compared with the size of schemes.
There is also, because of that lack of scale, a lack of development of the expertise required by some of those specialists—sophistication has also been mentioned—across some of the different individual schemes that we have in the UK. If you are larger, you can afford to have those specialist management teams or specialists on the board. It is not such a proportionate cost as it would be to a relatively small scheme.
Cost is another factor. As we heard from previous witnesses, in the UK a lot of focus on schemes has been on the cost of providing a scheme; in the workplace especially, by default a lot of competition is based on cost. With some of the opportunities we are talking about, especially in productive finance, in the UK space, investing in the UK would come at a high cost, so there is less scope for that cost to be absorbed in an overall larger fund. A lot of the things that the Bill is trying to address are probably some of the reasons why we have not seen that UK investment up until this point.
Mark Garnier
Q
William Wright: Certainly on the derisking side, while we are blessed to have the second or third largest pool of pensions assets in the world, the structure of our pensions system—the fact that so many DB schemes have closed or are running off—means that the overall risk appetite simply is not there. There is a danger in this debate of comparing the outcomes that we see in different types of pension fund systems around the world and thinking, “We like the look of that. Can we have a bit of that, please?” I am simplifying here, but we tend not to be too keen on looking at the inputs and the decisions, often taken 20, 30 or 40 years ago in different markets around the world, that have helped to lead to the development of those systems as they are today. The Canadian public sector defined-benefit model did not happen overnight. Michelle knows the history of it better than I do, but it goes well back into the 1980s. That is why so many of the aspects of the Bill should be welcomed. They look at the fundamental drivers of what will help to define pension fund outcomes for members and the structure of our system in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time.
On how other systems think about pension systems in relation to growth and economic wellbeing in their domestic markets, one of the things that we found particularly striking is that when you compare DC pensions in the UK with DC systems in other countries, or public sector DB in the UK with public sector DB in other countries, there tends to be, for DC pensions in other countries, a higher domestic bias. There tends to be more investment, whichever way you look at it, in their domestic equity market than we see from UK DC pensions in the UK equity market. You also see, almost universally, higher levels of investment in private markets. So much of that comes back to scale. Scale is a threshold—it is not enough on its own—and then there is the sophistication, governance and skillset that needs to be built over many years on top of that.
Mark Garnier
Q
William Wright: Yes. As a number of witnesses have mentioned today, because of the structure of the UK pension fund industry, there are many different perspectives, often not entirely aligned, shall we say, with each other. Every participant in the industry has responded perfectly rationally to the incentives in front of them and the regulation behind them in their investment behaviour and risk profile. International accounting standards, rather than just UK standards, have helped to drive that in the private sector. We have seen similar derisking in other corporate DB pension systems around the world. It has been an entirely rational response. It is really interesting to see which elements of which markets around the world seem to have found a more positive response. Canadian public sector DB, the closest comparison to LGPS in this country, is one example. Others are Australian DC or some of the Nordic models—the Swedish and Danish DC models.
Mark Garnier
Q
Chris Curry: First, I agree that we have seen lots of positive response to the value for money framework. Looking across international examples—Australia, in particular—it seems as if it will be very welcome in trying to ensure that, as part of the consolidation and what is potentially coming with the next Pensions Commission, with more investment going into UK pensions, that investment is going into a place that is actually going to work on behalf of the members who are investing their money. That is really important in what we are doing. I would also echo some of the views we heard earlier that it is really important in moving away from just a cost-based analysis of pensions and into value, and in looking at the whole range of different factors that are going to determine whether you get a good outcome rather than just at how much the investment costs.
There are challenges. What we have seen in particular, which Tim mentioned earlier and echoes what we have seen in Australia, is that where you have a very hard measure over a relatively short period of time, that will affect investment behaviour. Because there is such a penalty for falling behind over a short space of time, you do everything you can to avoid falling behind, and there is fairly conclusive evidence that that has led to herding of investments in Australia. That is not to say that a framework, or even an intermediate marker, necessarily has to lead to that; I think that depends on the parameters you set and whether you are looking at the returns over one year, three years or five years, and how that works.
Ideally, recognising that pensions are a long-term investment, you would not want to be looking too much at what happens over a short period of time in investment markets; you would want to be looking over a much longer period and at how the underlying strategy is performing. That is always very difficult, and one of the challenges is trying to get the balance right between what you can measure objectively and what you can measure subjectively. Where you are looking at things like an intermediate report, you tend to be looking at something that is objective, and it is quite difficult to do that over a long period of time. There is always a balance to be struck as part of this, and it would be good to investigate that more as we get further through this process, to work out the best way of doing it in order to achieve the best outcome for members.
Mark Garnier
If I remember rightly, the Bill allows for the detail to come in afterwards, so we will have a bit of work to do when this is all over. Thank you very much.
Torsten Bell
Q
Chris Curry: I listened with interest to some of the earlier witnesses talk about dashboards, and there certainly are some lessons that we can learn from the pensions dashboards programme, as it has been evolving over the past few years, for small pots in particular.
There are two issues that I would pull out. The first is on the technology front. I think someone suggested that the next five years or so could be quite a tight timetable to build a technological solution and get it in place. You have to be very careful—you cannot underestimate just how much complexity there is and how long it takes to do these things—but I would say that the work that we have done on pensions dashboards is giving us a bit of a head start. That is not to say that we necessarily need to build on or use parts of the system that we have already built, but it has helped us understand a lot about, for example, how you can find pensions—the way you can use integrated service providers rather than having to go direct to all the schemes, and use a syndicated model to find where people might have their pensions.
It has helped the industry get a long way down the path to where it needs to be, as well. One of the big challenges for pensions dashboards is the quality of data. Enabling individuals to find their pensions means data quality: it needs not only to exist and be there; it needs to be accurate and it needs to be up to date. When you are thinking about an automatic consolidator or default consolidator for small pots, that is even more important. You are not just transferring information, but transferring money, so it is really important that the data is high quality. The work that is being done on pensions dashboards will get people in the industry a long way to having part of that in place as well.
There are definitely lessons that can be learned from how we progressed on the pensions dashboards programme. It has got us much closer to where we would be if we had had a completely blank page to start from, but there is still a reasonable amount of work to do, because it is working in a slightly different way.
John Milne
Q
William Wright: I think it is a mix of both. It very much depends on what sort of assets we are talking about. For example, if we are thinking about the UK stock market or domestic equity markets, we tend to see that markets such as Canada and the Netherlands have an even lower allocation to domestic equities, whichever way you look at it, than comparable UK pensions have to the UK market.
Ultimately, this comes down to what you might call the accidental design of the UK system. It has evolved over 20, 30 or 40 years, whereas the systems with which we like to compare the UK system, or large parts of them, were actively designed anything from 30 or 40 to 50 or 60 years ago. We are now seeing the benefits of that active design in those systems. Their focus on scale enables them to invest in a far broader range of assets at a lower unit cost.
Going back to the value for money point, UK pensions have ended up in the worst of both worlds. Fee pressure, particularly in terms of winning and transferring new business between providers, is driving down fees, but the average fees on DC pensions today are very middle of the pack: 45 to 50 basis points a year. That is much higher than much larger schemes in Canada, such as the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, the big Canadian reserve fund, and much higher than large UK schemes, such as the universities superannuation scheme, but they are stuck in the middle: they are actually paying higher fees, but because of the fee pressure they have a very vanilla, almost simple asset allocation. As Tim Fassam from Phoenix pointed out, that tends to steer people towards the lowest cost investment option. Active design, focusing on scale and sophistication, enables pension schemes to take a much longer term and much broader view of what they should invest in and where they should invest in it, whereas in the UK we have tended to accidentally move from one system to another.
John Milne
Q
William Wright: Absolutely. One of the huge challenges in the UK pensions debate over the past 25 or 30 years has been that we sort of knew what was not working and where corporate DB pensions were going to go, and then there was a hiatus and no real active design of what was going to replace them. Auto-enrolment did not start to kick in for a couple of decades, and now we are beginning to see the benefits of that, but the opportunity to actively redesign the structure of the defined-contribution pensions system in this country, and the structure of public sector DB, is long overdue.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses very much for their evidence this afternoon. Given that the Committee has been sitting for a couple of hours non-stop, I will suspend the sitting for a brief period.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Roger Sainsbury, founder member and pensions partner of the Deprived Pensioners Association, and Terry Monk, a member of the Pensions Action Group. We have until 5.15 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses kindly briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Roger Sainsbury: As the Chair said, I am a founding member and the lead organiser of the Deprived Pensioners Association, which was set up for the purpose of fighting for what we loosely know as pre-1997 indexation for Pension Protection Fund members.
Terry Monk: My name is Terry Monk. I have worn various hats over my almost 70 years in the industry. I am probably—with respect to Roger—one of the oldest people in the room. I have been a financial adviser, and I ran a financial services company that was part of Lloyd’s broking group. That group did the first compromise deal to try to save the group and therefore left a lot of its employees, including myself, with hardly any pension. My pension went down from 100% expectation when I was 59 or 60 to just 10% afterwards. Through the restructuring of Bradstock, I joined Independent Trustee Services, part of the Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group—the company that probably saved my life in many ways, and gave me a future. Through that, I became involved with companies that became insolvent.
I then began to work very closely with my colleague Alan Marnes—who is sitting behind me—in the Pensions Action Group, trying to fight for some kind of protection to reverse the disasters that ourselves and our families were facing. That included demonstrations. People ask about the history of the financial assistance scheme and how long FAS has been there. Well, I have brought a picture of my granddaughter when she was young—she is now 22—at one of our demonstrations in Whitehall. FAS started the thing. Alan, John Benson, Phil Jones and the like started the campaign—in Downing Street, on College green and at party conferences—to bring about the compensation that was needed to stop this happening to anybody else.
My take from today is that you guys are all doing what you are doing to make the future work. I am concerned for the people I work with and represent, and I want to make sure that their past is not forgotten, that their pension becomes secure—not one of the future, but one of the past—and that they can rely upon the past. I am afraid I will get emotional at this point— I apologise that I am not doing my introduction; I am doing a speech—because 5,343 FAS members have died since Richard Nicholl and myself gave a presentation to the Work and Pensions Committee. I said to someone just now that my tie is loose because I do not wear ties these days, but I have worn a tie twice in two months at the funerals of founder members of the Pensions Action Group. It just has to stop. I am sorry—I will keep quiet now.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed. I will go immediately to the shadow Minister, Mark Garnier.
Mark Garnier
Q
Roger Sainsbury: In the light of Terry’s extended life history, I will just add that I am a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering and a former president of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
Before I come to your important question, I would like to feel sure that everybody in this room really understands the huge seriousness of the issue we are considering. This business of removing indexation from people who had pensionable service prior to 1997 has been going on for 20 years. Many of the people involved have seen the value of their payments eroded by maybe even more than 50% in that time. It is really very serious.
The second thing I would like to mention is that the scale of the problem is actually greater than the Post Office managers scandal. Of course, I am not suggesting for a moment that any of our claimants is suffering in the appalling way the postmasters did, but the numbers of our people are so huge compared with the postmasters that the actual amount of money at stake is greater. We have 140,000 PPF members who are affected by this bizarre clause of limiting the indexation, 60,000 of whom are 80 and have zero indexation, so it is a truly serious thing.
I would also like to mention one other dimension, which is timing. In our written submission to the Committee, we did not even bother to press the basic argument for why indexation should be awarded; we just focused on timing, because time is absolutely not on our side at all. Our claimants are dying, on average, at the rate of 15 a week—it is probably three while we have been holding this meeting this afternoon—or 5,500 a year. We have been told by the Department that the necessary amendment to the Pensions Act 2004 cannot be made by statutory instrument. There would have to be a new Bill and a new Act, and goodness knows how many years that might take or how many more thousands of people would have died. That is why we are pressing to get an amendment to this Bill to give a more timely answer.
Now I come to your question: what are the main arguments for and against using the reserves to benefit the members? Well, the first argument is simple, but really rather powerful: it is the only purpose that, legally, the PPF is allowed to spend its money on. The Act is very clear: unless some legal judgment was made against them, which is not on the horizon at all at the moment, the only way they are allowed to spend money is either on their own overheads or on giving benefits to members, such as the indexation that we are now talking about.
That is reason No. 1; reason No. 2, in my mind, is that expectations have not been met and promises have not been fulfilled. I go back to the Secretary of State who introduced the Second Reading debate on the 2004 Bill. He pledged that pension promises made, by the original schemes that people were in, must be met—that is, met by the PPF, which is the reason why the PPF was to be, by that Act, created. Yet that has not happened because, somehow, into schedule 7 to the Act came these dreadful words that have had the effect of not permitting the PPF to pay any indexation at all to people for time worked prior to 1997.
The third reason—ultimately, this is the important reason—is that the 140,000 people need this money. They desperately do, some of them. I mean, obviously not everybody’s condition is the same, but a lot of people will be suffering real misery and hardship. They need this money. I ask myself: “Were this Government elected on promises of governing with humanity and compassion? Are this Government going to meet that need? Or are they going to walk by on the other side?” I do not myself believe that they are; I believe that they will come up to the mark and find a way through the perceived difficulties that they have.
I think those are probably sufficient reasons to be going on with; as to the reasons against granting this, frankly, I cannot see any.
Mark Garnier
Q
Roger Sainsbury: Well, if—
Terry Monk: Can I have a go? Alan, who is sitting behind me, and all of us say that we did the right thing at the right time to secure our futures. There was no risk—we were guaranteed there was no risk. The minimum funding requirement was seriously flawed post-Maxwell. That changed it. We were told our pensions were safe. They were no longer safe—I found out to my cost, and many others did, that our pensions were not safe.
If I try to use the argument to our members that are still alive, “We can’t give you these increases because of the national accounts,” they will say, “Hang on, I did the right thing. I was told my pension was safe. I did the right thing all the way along in my life, and I saved for my future—for my comfortable retirement. I did not want to depend upon the state. I wanted to do it for myself. That is what I was proud to do.” To use the argument that the national accounts do not allow these people to get their benefits? I could not use that argument, whatever the reasons might be behind it.
Roger Sainsbury: May I try to answer your question more specifically? I think that indexation would have an impact upon Government finances. The impact would be that cash would flow into the Treasury, because if indexation is permitted and starts to be paid, there will be income tax paid on that money. The money will be going out from the private funds of the PPF, but the income tax and subsequently the VAT on expenditures will be coming into the Treasury coffers. I have yet to meet anybody, other than people in government, who can comprehend how it can be that when the PPF, from its private funds, meets an obligation, which has the incidental effect of bringing cash into the Government coffers, that can at the same time lead to a failure to meet the fiscal rules.
The fiscal rules, incidentally, are set up for a period of four years, when the unravelling of the indexation obligation will take many decades. We have been told in ministerial letters that it has been set up this way with a view to improving transparency. Well, I am sure you have all heard of the fog of war, but I think we are now up against the fog of transparency. I do not think it is real money that the Government are talking about. Even in their own letters, they say it is a statistical way of handling the figures.
The recent Government line on this is that it is the fault—I do not want to put blame on anybody—or the responsibility of the Office for National Statistics, because it was the Office for National Statistics that decreed that the assets and liabilities of the Pension Protection Fund should be counted as part of the public sector national financial liabilities, rather than as part of the public sector net debt, but that decision was made in 2019. We are therefore more inclined to hold responsible the present Chancellor, who, in her Budget of last October, made the decision that, for the Government financial rules, the metric should no longer be the public sector net debt, but the public sector net financial liabilities. It was that that brought the PPF, as it were, on to this part of the playing field.
Mark Garnier
That is very helpful, thank you. I am very conscious that other Members will almost certainly have questions, but I must say that I entirely agree with you that a sum of money set aside for compensation should not be brought into the Government’s balance sheet.
Steve Darling
Q
Terry Monk: We have looked at all sorts of scenarios. I do not know whether Michelle is still here, but the problem is that, although the PPF has done all sorts of “what if” calculations about all sorts of “what ifs”—we have had copies, and the Work and Pensions Committee has had copies—we do know what the “what if” is. We know what our members have lost, but we will not know, until such time as we hear from the Government, what they are proposing. We have offered time and again to meet not just the current Pensions Minister, but previous Pensions Ministers—I have to say that a few of them would not even meet us. This Minister has met us, and he knows the issues, but we do not know what is in the mind of the DWP or the Treasury in dealing with this issue. Once we know that, we will know whether we are fighting or we are working together, and what the answer will be. To answer your question, there is a net effect benefit of paying that amount, but we are in the dark—we do not know how long the bit of string is.
Roger Sainsbury: Incidentally, one of the benefits of the cash coming in, supposing we do get indexation, is that it would at least make a contribution if the Government had decided they were also going to pay money to the FAS members. It would be a contribution to help offset the Treasury payments that would have to be made for the FAS.
Terry has referred to the situation, but I think the key thing is that in 2023 the Select Committee asked the PPF to provide financial estimates for what it would cost to do indexation. The PPF then produced some really excellent tables that showed a number of different hypothetical systems for delivering indexation. It was a bit like a restaurant menu. There was a possibility to have a scheme that would not be hugely beneficial, but that would not cost all that much money to administer, right through the range to a Rolls-Royce scheme, which would obviously cost a lot more money.
We have been asking for RIPA. Just to be absolutely clear, we are not asking for the grim reaper; we have had enough of him already, with people dying. This the bountiful RIPA—retrospective indexation plus arrears. We are pressing for that, but we did not invent it. It was not invented by the DPA. It was part of the menu that the PPF produced, and we merely picked it from the menu. RIPA is reasonably high up the menu, but it is not at the very top. There are other things that we are not asking for that we might have asked for, so we are not being greedy.
With respect to Terry, we are not bothering too much about what is in the PPF’s mind or in the Government’s mind. We are much more concerned with what we are trying to put into their mind. When we decided to go for pushing for RIPA, it was because RIPA is the minimum scheme of indexation that would have the effect of doing away with what is presently a two-tier membership within the PPF. There are two classes of membership: those with indexation and those without. There is nothing in the Bill making any provision for that. It is grossly unfair and it needs to be done away with, and it just happens that the RIPA option is the minimum way of getting rid of that deplorable two-tier membership. I think that gives you perhaps a fuller answer about the situation.
Terry Monk: Are we virtually out of time?
The Chair
We are not quite out of time, but I am going to call other Members to ask questions of the panel. I call Kirsty Blackman.
Kirsty Blackman
Q
Roger Sainsbury: I have to say that there is a great range.
Terry Monk: I cannot remember what it is, but the average FAS member’s pension is something in the order of £4,000 or £5,000 a year, and if you look at the steelworkers, because they are our example, it is those sorts of guys. I worked in the City. I had a different job, but the majority of the people in the scheme had good benefits and good salaries but their pensions were important and they reflected the role they had in their life. I am not sure off the top of my head, but I think the average of the FAS pension is £4,500—some more, some less, obviously.
I want to make a point that I think Roger mentioned: at one stage, we were not at the table to talk as part of the pensions Bill. We lobbied hard. I know some of you have definitely put forward amendments to the pensions Bill to ensure that pre-1997 becomes part of the pensions Bill, which is why we are here today, but we had to work hard just to get that.
Sarah Edwards
Q
Terry Monk: FAS stopped when PPF opened its doors in 2005, so most of the people in FAS did not have much opportunity to accrue any increasing benefits post 1997. The majority of them are old—the average age of the FAS member is now 73, which is much younger than I am. It is that age group of people who would really benefit, and their widows and their spouses—let us not forget them—and they would therefore spend money that they currently do not have to spend. They can afford their council tax. They can afford their heating. It would change their lives, in terms of feeling that they have achieved this success on their behalf and on behalf of the members.
Roger Sainsbury: I would like to talk a bit about the concept of an amendment. We have observed that one amendment has already been offered: new clause 18 suggested by Ann Davies MP. Our team and I have had a bit of a look at that in the last couple of days. While we very much appreciate her good intention in putting the amendment forward, it actually does not do the job in a number of respects. I do not know how many of you have ever grappled with the obscure and complex language of schedule 7 to the Act, but it is mighty complicated. Some time ago, I and my team spent several days trying to work out what an amendment should be to deliver what we wanted. I have got some first class people on the team, but in the end we decided we actually could not do it, and would have to leave it to the expert drafters in the Department.
That is yet another reason why—I mentioned it in the written evidence—at a meeting I have already asked the Minister if he would himself table the requisite amendment. When you come up against the sheer complexity that Ann Davies has obviously already come up against, this is another reason why we think that would be a very good idea. It is slightly unusual for a Minister to table an amendment to his own Bill, but it is permitted, as the Minister said when I was talking to him about it. In a complex situation like this, it would absolutely be the best way of getting straight to the desired answer, so I plead with all of you to join me in urging the Minister to take this on.
John Milne
I think you have answered all my questions already. We have tabled an amendment, and I would really appreciate your input on whether we could improve it or argue around it between now and when it is raised in Committee.
Roger Sainsbury: Thank you.
Rachel Blake
Q
Roger Sainsbury: That is a very timely question, because for the past couple of years, we have been working on the basis that the RIPA scheme would cost £5.5 billion. That was the estimate given to us by the PPF. Now—I might almost say hallelujah!—about three days ago, the PPF notified us that they had redone the calculation using a much superior methodology. I think it is a phenomenally difficult calculation to do, but they have redone it, and the answer now is not £5.5 billion, but £3.9 billion, or possibly a bit less. Whereas for two years we have been arguing that £5.5 billion is eminently affordable, £3.5 billion, for example, is obviously even more affordable. We do not get that much good news, but that was definitely a bit of good news we recently received. I am pleased to be able to share it with you, if you did not know it.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Roger Sainsbury: We would not have any ability to do that calculation at all. It all depends on the statistics held by the PPF of the age of all the members, the amount they have all been receiving and so on. It is way beyond us to make that calculation.
Terry Monk: I worked with FAS before FAS even came about—at the conception, rather than the birth, of FAS. The PPF and I have worked closely with them for over 20 years. I have immense trust and faith in what they do, how they do it, and what they deliver. Whenever we ask them for help, they give it to us as far as they are able.
Roger Sainsbury: I would support that. The PPF have been very helpful and I have had a good working relationship with them. I have to say, that was not always so—about three years ago, it looked as if we would be fighting a continual battle against them, but over time we have got to a really good working relationship, and they have been very helpful. In a question of challenging or doubting their ability to do this sort of calculation, when you look at the asset returns that they are getting, boy, they have got some people that know how to handle numbers, haven’t they?
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, can I thank the witnesses for their evidence this afternoon? I will move now to the next panel of witnesses.
Examination of Witnesses
Rachel Elwell gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Rachel Elwell, Chief Executive Officer of the Border to Coast Pensions Partnership. We have until 5.30 pm for this panel. Would you kindly introduce yourself for the record?
Rachel Elwell: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, everyone, for your time today. My name is Rachel Elwell, and I am chief executive of Border to Coast Pensions Partnership, which is responsible for the assets of 11 of the local government pension schemes, although with due care and attention to governance, that may well become 18 LGPS funds and over £100 billion by April next year.
I would like to give a little bit of background to explain to the Committee why I feel so passionately about both the local government pension scheme thriving in the future, and pensions more generally in the UK. I am a pensions actuary by background, and I have worked in the industry now for 30 years. I took this role in Leeds for three reasons. One was because it is Leeds—you probably know that most people from Yorkshire will tell you that within five minutes of meeting them, so there you go: I am from Yorkshire—and Yorkshire has a fantastic financial services region, but we were missing asset management. For me, this was a fantastic opportunity to strengthen that, levelling up, and over the last eight years since I took on the role we have built the largest asset manager outside London and Edinburgh.
I am also passionate about learning and creating new opportunities. Again, this is something that the LGPS has built from scratch since the original policy intent of pooling was introduced about a decade ago. Finally, having worked in many different areas of the financial services industry over the last 30 years, for me the sense of being able to give something back, and doing that for a purpose, is really important. The LGPS, as I am sure you have already heard, has 7 million members—some of the lowest-paid people in the UK. It provides an important policy intent around low-paid earners, as well as potentially having the opportunity to provide real investment drive into the UK. So I am happy to answer any questions and to contribute to your thinking.
Mark Garnier
Q
Rachel Elwell: The LGPS is already investing significantly in the UK, as you have probably already heard. We invest more than 25% of the assets we look after on behalf of pension funds in the UK, and there is a very good reason for that, which I can explore a bit further if you would find it helpful.
To answer the specific question, I am not concerned that the power will instruct the LGPS to invest in specific things. I think there is a real intent; it would be helpful if the Bill were clear that it would not be against fiduciary duty and would not interfere with the FCA regulations that we are also subject to.
I am very thoughtful about how we carefully manage the weight of capital that might come into the market if there is mandation for the wider industry to move quickly into investing in the UK. Work will need to be done on the supply side as well as the capital side, to ensure that the UK can invest well the capital that should be being invested into the UK. So it is important that any use of mandation is very carefully considered, and that the laws of unintended consequences are really thought through.
Mark Garnier
Q
Rachel Elwell: I can understand why the Government would want to have a backstop power to direct pools, because the LGPS is significant—it is one of the top 10 globally by size. It has an impact on council tax, and on the economy more generally. If you have a pool that is not delivering and all the other mechanisms available to their stakeholders have failed, I can understand why that power would exist. But it is important that we clear the scenarios in which it is envisaged that it might be used.
Mark Garnier
Q
Rachel Elwell: History does not necessarily repeat itself, but it is important that we learn from that. The LGPS, and pensions more generally in the UK, have had many, many decades—including through the ’90s, having to manage the fact that there were contribution holidays taken that were using surpluses very quickly. Actuaries have the ability to work with all employers, including those in the LGPS, to smooth out that experience. Where you have a surplus, some of that could absolutely be used to help manage the costs over the long term, and when you have a deficit, you do not try to pay that all off very quickly, so I think there is an opportunity. I am not worried about it because I can see that the LGPS is a very well run, well governed scheme. It has good advice from its actuaries and is well used to making sure that both surpluses and deficits are smoothed over time.
Mark Garnier
Q
Rachel Elwell: I do think there is a fantastic opportunity for us to harness the benefits of scale that come from being one of the top 10 globally by size, but it is important, as we do that, that we maintain the link to local people who are the members of this.
Mark Garnier
Q
Rachel Elwell: Border to Coast, if we do have those 18, will stretch from the Scottish border to the southern coast. Even today, we have partner funds who are right across England, which is brilliant because those are people who have actively chosen to come together, form a partnership and work together.
Time permitting, if it is of interest to the Committee, we could talk a bit more about local investment and the way of getting investment that is truly local for each individual fund but also a way of crowding investment from other people into the slightly larger opportunities that might be in a region. Every investment we make is local—it impacts local people.
You do not need to only have, for example, Durham council investing in Durham. You want all of the LGPS and all asset owners to feel that they can do that. Some of the ways that we are working through doing local investment with our partner funds have really got an eye to the different ways in which you can crowd in versus something very specific that needs to be addressed in the region or locality.
Torsten Bell
Q
Rachel Elwell: Again, for all of us working in the LGPS, that sense of purpose is really important. I know my partner funds do a huge amount to make sure they are engaging directly with members, running events, as well as the importance of member representation on the pensions committees and on the pension boards, whether that is through union representation, pensioner representation or other scheme member representation.
We also have two fantastic scheme member representatives on our joint committee, which is the body that comes together across all of the partner funds to oversee and engage with what we are doing on their behalf. They are really bringing that voice into our considerations as a board and the wider organisation—the wider partnership.
Torsten Bell
Q
Rachel Elwell: This is before I was employed to bring it to life. This is a decision our partner funds made really early, because they recognised the real benefits that can come from being FCA regulated. This is really important. We will hopefully be managing over £100 billion on behalf of the LGPS, and a good proportion of that is managed directly within my team. We are managing that for, hopefully, 18 different customers—effectively, investors and our owners. We need to have those disciplines in place, and we need to make sure that we are following those regulations. We do not need another regulatory set. There are already some very good, strong regulations that exist, so we, as a partnership and as a company, think that is the right thing to do.
Steve Darling
Q
Rachel Elwell: There are some fantastic provisions in the Bill, particularly around implementing the good governance review, and the clarity of roles and responsibilities between the different parties within the LGPS. About five or six years ago, we, along with some of the other pools, commissioned some work looking at good practice internationally, so talking to about 15 others—from Australia, the Canadians, the Dutch, the Norwegians—and looking at the journey they had been on with this. They are about 15 years ahead of us, really, with that policy. We wanted to learn from what they had done.
There were various success factors, some of which Michelle shared with you earlier, but one of those was real clarity about the Government’s policy intent, and I think the Bill really does help with that. That will help us, in turn, engage with our pensions committees and partner funds to make sure that we are providing a holistic joined-up view. There are some areas in the Bill where, particularly for the LGPS, the detail will be in the regulations. I would just make a plea, given the timelines we are working towards, that we see the regulations sooner rather than later, please. I have already said that I think it would be helpful to maybe get a bit more clarity on the circumstances in which we may be directed by the Secretary of State.
Rachel Blake
Q
Rachel Elwell: The primary focus of the Bill is the consolidation of the assets in pools, but there are provisions, particularly when we see some of the wider things that are happening in policy such as local government reorganisation, where that might lead to closer working between funds and potentially merger. I am fortunate enough—I think Roger Phillips mentioned this earlier—that Tyne and Wear and Northumberland are part of the Border to Coast pool, so I was there and living that experience with them personally. They were working very hard together, with very joined-up thinking and close relationships, and it was still fairly hard work.
I suppose from that perspective, like any merger of entities, it comes down to relationships and people. Administration in the LGPS is complex, and many funds have been facing recruitment challenges. What we are seeing already is funds working closely together. For example, again within Border to Coast, Tyne and Wear has recently taken on the administration for Teesside, bringing it in-house. It was previously an outsourced arrangement. There are benefits from that, but it needs to be done very carefully and thoughtfully—it is not something we should rush at.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witness for their evidence, and we will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
Torsten Bell gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Torsten Bell, who is the Minister for Pensions at the Department for Work and Pensions. We know who you are, but for the record and for those in the Public Gallery and watching the broadcast, would you kindly introduce yourself?
Torsten Bell: I am Torsten Bell, and I am the Pensions Minister.
Mark Garnier
Q
Torsten Bell: No, obviously. The change that you are referring to is a 2019 change under the last Government. It was taken not by the last Government but by the Office for National Statistics, and it refers not just to the PPF but to funded public sector pension schemes. The same issues apply to the LGPS in the same way. It is a 2019 change made by the statistics body following international guidance on accounting. The changes you are talking about have affected public sector borrowing since then.
Mark Garnier
Q
Torsten Bell: In stark contrast to lots of my predecessors, I have to say, I have spent a lot of time meeting members of both the PPF and the FAS who have been affected by the issue of pre-1997 accruals. If I am honest, the issue has been a real one since then, but it is a significantly bigger one because of the recent phase of high inflation, which made the pace of inflation eating into the real value of those pensions significantly faster. As I said on Second Reading—this was raised then by a number of colleagues on the Committee—we are considering the issue, but it needs to be considered in the round because of the wider public finance implications. That applies to other issues in this space as well; you will have seen that in other pension schemes where the Government have a role.
Mark Garnier
Q
Torsten Bell: To be clear, that is just wrong—it is not. The 2004 Act is very clear about the purposes for which the board’s assets can be used, and there is no question about that. The Office for National Statistics does not get to countermand Acts of Parliament on the use of resources—the 2004 Act is very clear on that. It is nothing to do with that.
If you look at the public sector finances in the round, there are all kinds of different forms of funds that are classified in different ways. The classification within the public finances is not determining the use to which funds can be put. The same applies to whether things are classified as taxes or not. They do their job, and obviously those classifications exist for an important reason, which is that we need to have clarity about the public finances. We use those for discipline in terms of making sure that Government objectives in fiscal policy have metrics that they can be tied to. It is totally reasonable for different parties to take different positions on what those metrics should be. There have been different choices made on that by lots of different parties in recent years, but I think everybody in this room probably accepts that you need to have those metrics. When you accept that, you will be in a situation where classifications by the Office for National Statistics impact on those.
Mark Garnier
Q
We heard some interesting evidence from Phoenix, who referred to clause 15 and the consequences of an intermediate performance rating. While we are going to have big arguments about mandation—that is something we fundamentally disagree on—one thing I hope we can both agree on, as we progress this, is that certain elements of the Bill could have unintended consequences. It seems that this one, the intermediate rating, could have the effect of maintaining the derisking of pension funds, because you are trying to avoid getting an intermediate rating and therefore you will avoid doing the slightly more progressed growth. Sorry; I am being incredibly inarticulate after rather a long day, but you know the point I am trying to make.
Torsten Bell: I definitely get the point you are making. Let me say one thing about the big picture, and then I will talk about the specifics you raise with the intermediate rating. On the big picture, I absolutely agree that one thing we have done badly in the last 30 years is to think about how changes we make to our pension system, which exists to provide income in retirement for the vast majority of the population, also underpin our capitalism. That is a lesson we have learned painfully.
On the substance of risk reduction, I would put it slightly differently, because you have different things going on in the DB and DC landscapes. In the DC landscape, we have been building up a new system. Understandably, because it was starting from small scale, we did not jump to trying to solve all the problems that came with that system, not least getting it to scale, not least what happens in retirement, and not least small pots and the rest. I see this Bill as doing that—taking the next step forward and saying, “Right, we are building this new system. We made big progress in the last 15 years with that, but now is the time to put the change in place.”
On scale and on value for money, that will support the wider range of investments more broadly, not just in the UK, but with a wider range of assets. That is absolutely the right thing, in savers’ interests, to do. I also completely endorse your point on unintended consequences, and that is exactly why scrutiny of the Bill is important to make sure that we pick those up as we go. The last 40 years, not just in this country but in others, shows that that can be the case, for good and ill.
Specifically on your point about the intermediate rating, we are very much aware of the issue. We are not aiming to replicate a hard metric: “fall one side of this line, and suddenly you are de-authorised from taking auto-enrolment contributions”. That is exactly what we need to avoid, which is what we will be doing. There is a reason behind the provision for more than one level of intermediate ranking, and my view would be that you would not expect people who fall into some of those levels being banned from taking further contributions. It is absolutely right that you do not want an absolute binary—just one metric, one division. The consultations that the FCA and TPR have taken forward are all about making sure that we have worked all those issues through. There are lessons, for example, from what happened in Australia.
Mark Garnier
Q
Torsten Bell: I understand the point you are making. I think you have to step back to the big picture, which is a consensus right across the industry that savers’ interests would be better served by change. It does not make sense that the UK industry is a complete outlier compared with other pensions systems around the world when it comes to exposure to wider ranges of assets. What comes with that exposure to a wider range of assets? The nature of assets, where you are likely to see a larger home bias in that more of them would be in the UK.
There is a wider point: is there a good reason why the UK DC pension landscape has a particularly large exposure to equities rather than to a wider range of assets that we see around the rest of the world? No. That is why you have seen the Mansion House accord coming forward—because it is in savers’ interests to change how we are operating. The scale and value-for-money measures, and a lot of the other approaches that we are taking, will facilitate that, but the industry is saying that that is in savers’ interests, and it is right to do so.
Ultimately, we have to step back and say that we are not in the business of just making individual random decisions about the pensions system. The question is: what is there a consensus on about the world we need to move to that has a better equilibrium? One of the strong elements of that, along with larger scale, is investing in a wider range of assets because that is in savers’ interests. That is why there is a voluntary Mansion House accord, setting that out as the objective, with relatively low levels of target, particularly on domestic investment, compared with what we see in other countries. That is what is going on.
What we are saying is that when you speak to the industry, particularly in private, it is very clear that there is a risk of a collective action problem. Under previous Conservative Chancellors, it signed up to commitments that it has not been delivering. Why has it not been delivering? Because of the collective action problem—the risk of being undercut by somebody else who is not making that change because of the nature of a market that is too focused on cost and not focused enough on returns.
I make only one vaguely political point. It is easy to join people in being anxious, but we have to ask ourselves something. There is a reason why the first Mansion House compact was not delivered. Do we want to be here in 15 years saying, “Actually, we all signed up to it and said it needed to happen, but it hasn’t”? No—I am not prepared to do that. Change is going to come. Everybody says that change needs to come because it is in members’ interests. All the reserve power does is to say that it is going to happen.
Steve Darling
Q
The other area that I want to ask about relates to the information that we heard from Nest: only 40% of its members had signed up online. That demonstrates that the issue is about getting positive engagement from those who are perhaps less financially secure. Are you confident that we are doing all we can through the Bill to help those who are most financially challenged? How are you going to hold yourself to account as we proceed to ensure that that is the case?
Torsten Bell: Those are great questions. On regulations, you are absolutely right. This pensions Bill, like most recent ones—although there have been exceptions that have come with unintended side effects, to go back to what was just mentioned—does rely heavily on secondary legislation. My view is that that is the right thing to do and is almost in the nature of pension schemes. That is partly because the detail should rightly be consulted on and partly because things will change in the context.
You are right that there is a large reliance on secondary legislation. Yes, in some areas, as we go through the detail, clause by clause, we will be able to set out to you where our thinking is up to. In lots of cases you will already see consultations by the FCA and TPR, starting to develop the work that will then feed into the regulations—that is particularly true, for example, on value for money, which we have just been discussing. I also think that it is important for us to provide clarity on when we will bring forward those regulations and when we will consult on the input to them, so that people know that. That was why, when we published the pensions reform road map, and when we published the Bill itself, I set out when we anticipate bringing forward those regulations so that everyone in the industry and in the House can see when that will happen. Page 17 of the road map sets out how we envisage that happening, and it is absolutely right. When we come to the clause-by-clause discussion, there will certainly be things where we will not be able to say, “This is exactly what will happen,” and rightly, because there needs to be further consultation with the industry on those things.
On the broader question of engagement with people, particularly those with smaller pensions—there is a very heavy correlation between the chance of someone being engaged with their pension and the size of that pension pot, partly for obvious reasons, but for wider context reasons, too—the pensions dashboard that Chris Curry mentioned earlier is a large part of facilitating that engagement. Lots of countries have had versions of the dashboard; it does make a material effect. One of the lessons from Australia is that the average size of DC pots, as they start to build rapidly—as that becomes the default system in an auto-enrolment world—does have a material effect.
I was with someone who runs one of the big supers recently; her view was that they hit a tipping point when there was suddenly this huge engagement where people were looking at the app provided by the super every week. There are pros and cons to that, by the way. Remember that there is a reason why we default people into pension savings. There are good and bad ways to engage with your pension. We do not want people on an app, in the face of a short-term stock market downturn, making drastic decisions to do with their investments that have long-lasting consequences. It needs to be done right; that is exactly why, when it comes to the dashboard, we are user testing it extensively.
Kirsty Blackman
Q
Torsten Bell: I am happy to take that away. Obviously, the monitoring will need to be different for different parts of the Bill, which are on different timelines.
Kirsty Blackman
Q
Torsten Bell: Let me address that in two minutes before the Chair cuts us off. I definitely recognise that there is a large number of amendments. It is not unprecedented—the Procurement Act 2023 had 350 Government amendments, and 155 on Report.
Kirsty Blackman
I was on that one as well.
Torsten Bell: We have all made life choices. The thing that I am trying to avoid—and the reason why there are so many at this stage—is what has happened with other Bills, such as the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill in the last Parliament. I do not want to table loads of amendments on Report, after the line by line. That is the alternative. This is a very large Bill. The number of amendments, in part, reflects the fact that everyone has signed up to a Bill that is complicated and very large. My judgment was that it is right to get as many of those amendments down now, so that you have them for line by line. Also, I have gone out of my way over the last 24 hours to spell out to you all where the major changes are. The substance and the purpose of the Bill have not changed. In almost all cases, the amendments are relatively minor and technical.
Luke Murphy
Q
Torsten Bell: I understand why people say that but, as I say, it is for trustees. We are not going to legislate to change the offer made in scheme rules to savers, because that would be to fundamentally change the system. But trustees will want to consider that, and they will be in a very strong position to take a strong view about that when discussing with employers what happens with the surplus release situation.
The Chair
Thank you. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank all our witnesses, including the Minister.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Gerald Jones.)
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
Defibrillators
(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
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered defibrillator access.
I thank everyone for being here. We often hear it said that people are generous with their time when they take interventions, but I think it is extremely generous for everyone to show up at 9.30 am for a debate like this. I will deliberately keep my comments brief so we can get as many people in as possible. I am grateful for this opportunity to talk about the need to build more national resilience by increasing access to defibrillators.
May I begin my remarks by paying tribute to my friend George Smith, who died yesterday from a heart attack? George was chair of the parish council in West Auckland and a former Durham county councillor. To everybody who knew him, he was a great man who always had a twinkle in his eye and an energy and desire to serve others. I do not know whether access to a defibrillator would have saved George, but I do know that the national survival rate of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in the UK is just 8%. Let that sink in: only 8% of people survive. But we also know that the chances of survival increase by 70% where people have rapid access to a defibrillator within three to five minutes, saving the lives of our friends, family and neighbours.
In Bishop Auckland, which I represent, 51% of postcodes are outside the recommended distance for timely access to a defibrillator. We have 17 defibrillators per 10,000 people, which is above the national average, but that still falls far below the recommended 50 to 100 per 100,000 people. I ask the Minister what plans there are to address the stark regional disparities in coverage, particularly in rural areas and disadvantaged communities.
A constituent wrote to me recently to share the experience of her father. He had a cardiac arrest at work and his life was saved by rapid access to a defibrillator. She explained, though, that had he had that cardiac arrest at home—she looked this up—it would have taken her 30 minutes to get to the nearest defibrillator. So we know that there are huge gaps—defibrillator deserts—in national provision.
The Government’s community automated external defibrillator fund has been exhausted and all funds are allocated, with no plans for expansion. That fund delivered 3,000 defibrillators—a small fraction of the 100,000 defibrillators registered on the Circuit. Costs remain a major barrier, with community groups facing a cost of £2,500 per device and not getting VAT relief on that, which is a campaign we have fought previously. Will the Government therefore finally commit—I appreciate the Minister cannot comment on tax affairs, but she can pass this on to her colleagues—to removing VAT on defibrillator purchases, as has been done for other lifesaving equipment?
It is also important to note that registration on the Circuit is not the same as being accessible, because many devices are locked away in offices, schools or businesses and are not available 24/7. That makes survival even less likely for cardiac arrests outside of working hours. What steps are being taken to ensure that the national defibrillator database is accurate, up to date and reflects actual availability? Will the Department work with local authorities and community groups to ensure that placement is in genuinely accessible locations—outside buildings, in community hubs and transport stations?
Last year, I had the opportunity to host Jack Hurley here in Parliament. Jack is an outstanding young man. He had a cardiac arrest while playing football and his friends were able to access a defibrillator and perform CPR on him. It was great to see him standing tall and back doing the things that he loves. Jack has been campaigning for some time, and I want to pay tribute to him and his campaign. His story reminds us that behind every statistic is a family, including a young life that could be cut short or saved depending on access to a defibrillator.
Every Member here will have similar stories and will no doubt have been contacted by constituents asking for help in acquiring defibrillators. Many will have experienced seeing a loved one in a moment of peril. When I was just 11 years old, my mum collapsed with a seizure while we were at church. It was only by the good fortune of there being a paramedic in the congregation that her life was saved. Had that not been the case, I would have grown up without a mother.
This is about not only survival, but recovery. Early defibrillation means better neurological outcomes, shorter hospital stays, lower long-term costs to the NHS and a chance to turn the UK’s poor survival rate into something far more hopeful. We all know what works, so will the Government please act to ensure equitable access across every constituency?
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
We have a good attendance this morning. If hon. Members bob after a speech, whether or not they have put in to speak, that will enable us to do the complicated calculation of how much time we have. Rather than relying on me doing mental arithmetic on the hoof, the Clerk will calculate a reasonable solution.
Right—we will start with a three-minute time limit, which might have to be reduced. The actual calculation comes out at two and a half minutes, so I hope hon. Members will bear that in mind.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for bringing this debate to the House, and I wish him well in his recovery.
A few years ago, not many of us in rural Scotland would have known about the importance of defibrillators, and far less about how to use them in the unlikely event of something going wrong. But thanks to the efforts of one Scottish charity, Lucky2BHere, and the work of one individual, the late Ross Cowie of Portree, an old friend of mine, there are 1,000 public access defibrillators, and 5,000 people have been trained in their use over the past two decades by that one organisation.
Ross Cowie suffered a cardiac arrest in 2006 outside the clubhouse of Skye Camanachd, the island shinty team he led to victory in the 1990 cup final. His life was saved only because the local ambulance with a defibrillator happened to be passing by. His original aim was to install one external defibrillator outside his clubhouse in Portree, but the campaign has grown to deliver more than 1,000 defibs across rural Scotland, from Shetland to Dumfries. There is even one in the Flannan isles, 21 miles west of the Isle of Lewis and uninhabited apart from the ghosts of lighthouse keepers, but it is there should it be needed by passing fishermen or yachtsmen.
Just as important as its work in installing defibs, Lucky2BHere has trained thousands of volunteers to administer devices, to ensure that people know how to use them and the associated first aid emergency kit in the instance of cardiac arrest. We are all sometimes left feeling helpless. My hon. Friend mentioned his friend Jack Hurley, a footballer who collapsed while playing. We all remember the collapse of the Danish footballer Christian Eriksen during the Euro 2020 championship. That case highlighted the important difference between Denmark and the UK, because every Danish player on that field knew what to do in the case of cardiac arrest because they had been trained in school. That is a key difference between the UK, or Scotland, and Denmark. Training on defibs and lifesaving is compulsory in schools in Denmark. In Scotland, every local authority has committed to teach CPR in its secondary schools, yet as far as I know, it is up to individual schools to implement that, rather than its being mandatory.
British Heart Foundation Scotland has launched a new interactive online learning tool to equip thousands of schoolchildren with essential lifesaving skills. Classroom RevivR teaches students aged 11 to 16 how to save lives. It meets Scottish curriculum standards and can be taught in one lesson plan. It should be rolled out across all Scottish schools, because if young people learn the difference between cardiac arrest and a heart attack, and how to respond to an unconscious person, they can save lives, just as Ross Cowie and Lucky2BHere saved lives in his time.
Ross passed away in October 2024 at the age of 64, but his legacy lives on in the hearts and actions of all who support Lucky2BHere. It would be a fitting tribute to him and to the work of Lucky2BHere if training in life support became part of the curriculum across Scotland, and I would venture even further to say that such training should be a requirement to obtain a driving licence in the UK, so that we all knew what to do if we saw someone collapse.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I commend the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this important debate.
I want to focus on a local charity in my constituency, Hearts for Herts. In 2017, my constituent Justin Honey-Jones, an experienced paramedic, began the mission to provide an inclusive education programme of lifesaving skills and to champion the provision of public access lifesaving equipment, all from his garage in Hoddesdon. Since then, he has personally trained more than 1,000 people in lifesaving skills, raising hundreds of thousands of pounds, with every penny used to provide and maintain lifesaving equipment.
In the last 18 months alone, the charity has installed 75 public access defibrillators across Hertfordshire, and it will install another 55 before February next year. I have been proud to attend many of the openings of those vital defibrillators across my constituency, including at Barclay Park, where the first solar-powered defibrillator in Hertfordshire is now in place, and at the Methodist church in Hoddesdon. Incredibly, just 36 hours after the defibrillator was installed at the church, it was used in a medical emergency.
Hearts for Herts rightly focuses its efforts on making defibrillators as accessible as possible and installing them where they are most useful to nearby residents. That aim is justified by stories such as that of the Methodist church defibrillator, and is driven forward by the charity’s unique aim to make all school defibrillators publicly accessible. At no cost to the school, Justin will organise the entire conversion process, ensuring that the crucial equipment can be accessed all year round, at any time of the day. That has saved lives: a converted defibrillator at Broxbourne school was activated on Christmas day, and over this year’s summer holidays the defibrillator at Wormley primary school has been used three times.
Hearts for Herts goes further: alongside the defibrillators, it places bleed control kits in its cabinets. The ability to control heavy bleeding is the difference between life and death following, for example, a road traffic collision. That is why Justin has included 200 bleed control kits alongside his defibrillators and has plans to provide even more. The kits buy injured individuals valuable time until an ambulance can arrive. I hope all hon. Members will join me in commending Justin for his incredible work. I look forward to supporting him and Hearts for Herts for many years to come.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this important debate. I know that the subject matters a great deal to constituents who have contacted me about defibrillators over the years.
I recently met a young woman in my constituency who told me about the cardiac arrest that her father experienced on the Derwent walk in January this year. Her dad was in his early 50s, with no prior major health issues, when he and his wife decided to take a walk in the snow. They were about two miles away from their home when he suffered a cardiac arrest. Although they were on a popular route for people across our region, and part of the famous coast-to-coast cycle path, there was no defibrillator within easy reach of him. Thankfully, nurses and policemen nearby were available to do CPR until the ambulance arrived about 20 minutes later, and he was able to make a recovery.
In April, however, he suffered a further cardiac arrest. He was found by his teenage daughters, who both work as lifeguards at Consett leisure centre in my constituency, and they were able to administer CPR while they waited for the ambulance to arrive. They were just 16 and 18 at the time. Their actions clearly saved their dad’s life. I commend their bravery at what must have been an incredibly frightening moment, but sadly people all too often cannot be revived by CPR after suffering a cardiac arrest. That is why it is so important that we make sure that defibrillators are easily accessible and that people know how to use them in emergencies.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, MPs are regularly contacted by organisations that seek to fundraise and to tell us about incidents in which defibrillators have been used, which is really important. I say a massive thank you to all my constituents in Blaydon and Consett who have organised the installation of defibrillators across our communities, including the councillors, community partnerships and groups of volunteers who have fundraised to provide them. I applaud the efforts of those at Stargate and Crookhill community centre, who are currently doing exactly that to ensure that they can maintain their defibrillators.
Once there is a defibrillator, it is not a done deal. The machines need new batteries and pads or replacements when parts can no longer be replaced owing to the age of the machine or after use. Communities who fundraise to set up defibrillators may be left to cover those costs, which puts areas with fewer resources at a disadvantage. Perhaps that is why research has shown that distance to the nearest 24/7 defibrillator increases with deprivation levels in England.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
As the MP for the South Cotswolds, I know that living in a rural area brings many blessings, but also some challenges. Ambulance wait times are nearly 50% longer in rural areas. When every second counts, that delay can make the difference between life and death. That is why access to defibrillators matters so profoundly.
Let me share the story of one of my constituents, Sonya Harris. In October 2023, Sonya collapsed outside her son’s school in Malmesbury after suffering a sudden cardiac arrest. Only about one in 10 people survive such an event. Sonya was one of those lucky ones: someone nearby knew CPR, a defibrillator was close at hand and she received swift care from the NHS and her family. Without that chain of good luck, she would not be here, and her son would be growing up without a mother. But survival from cardiac arrest should not come down to luck; it should come down to preparation.
I recently visited a newly installed defibrillator in my constituency. With huge thanks to the Lechlade Lions, the South Western ambulance service and Gloucestershire street lighting, Lechlade and Fairford now have some of the best defibrillator coverage in the country. They have pioneered the use of lamp post power to run devices, the first scheme of its kind in the south-west, making installation simpler and cheaper.
We should be broadening that approach across the whole country. Every community, rural or urban, deserves the same safety net. I advocate for defibrillators as a standard requirement in the planning process for all new housing estates and industrial estates. If developers include them from the outset, the cost is very reasonable—far lower than the cost of trying to retrofit them later on. New estates should be designed so that no home is more than 400 metres from a defibrillator, because when cardiac arrest happens, every moment counts.
Each year, thousands of lives are lost because help simply does not arrive quickly enough. By ensuring that defibrillators are widespread, visible and easy to access, we can change that. Let us make defibrillators as commonplace as fire extinguishers and as trusted as seat belts. Let us make sure that help is never more than a few steps away.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this important debate. I will focus on the maintenance of defibrillators, which is intrinsic to access to this lifesaving equipment. In my constituency of Crewe and Nantwich, it represents a very real challenge. I want to share a story about the gravity of the situation.
In September last year, my constituent collapsed in Nantwich town centre, from a suspected cardiac arrest. CPR was administered by the public on site and a 999 call was made. The operator directed the member of the public to a defibrillator in the town centre, only for the member of the public to find, when they opened it, that it did not work. Another call was then made to 999 and they were directed to another defibrillator, which meant another 10-minute delay in finally administering treatment. We all know how vital it is that quick treatment be provided in cases of cardiac arrest. Sadly, the man who had the cardiac arrest did not survive; he passed away later. We do not know whether finding a working defibrillator first might have saved his life, but I am almost certain that it would have helped. I ask the Minister what plans the Government have to better regulate the maintenance of defibrillators.
I have spoken at length about the situation with the British Heart Foundation, which operates the Circuit, and with the British Healthcare Trades Association, and it is clear that there are improvements that we could make. As of August 2024, in Crewe and Nantwich there were roughly seven defibrillators per 10,000 people. The national average is just 10. They recommend that there be between 50 and 100 defibrillators per 10,000 people. What is more, according to the British Heart Foundation, 46.4% of postcodes in Crewe and Nantwich are out of direct reach of a defibrillator. In a context in which we know that, with defib use, the chances of surviving a cardiac arrest increase from just 8% to above 70%, the existence of such defib deserts is clearly not acceptable.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I am experiencing exactly the same problem in Wolverhampton North East: I am sad to announce that almost 70% of postcodes are not within easy reach of a defibrillator. Local community groups are stepping up, but they can be hit with a VAT charge of anything between £200 and £500 per device. Does my hon. Friend agree that an important step forward would be to review VAT on defibrillators, to widen access?
Connor Naismith
My hon. Friend has almost taken the words out of my mouth, because I was about to move on to some of the steps that we could take to address this issue. She is absolutely right. Clearly there is an issue with the VAT; as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, that is something that the Government should look at. It is also about ensuring that defibs are always accessible outside, about education on administering the equipment, about maintenance and about ensuring that defibs are on the Circuit wherever possible, because we know that in many cases they are not.
One thing is certain: inaction is not an option. This equipment saves lives. If we fail to act, we will continue to have avoidable deaths, unfortunately, as in the case of my constituent. The opportunity is there to save lives. I urge the Government to grip it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for setting the scene so very well and for his generosity in allowing time for us all to participate.
My interest in defibrillators goes back to an incident outside a school in my constituency. A parent who was coming to collect a child collapsed outside the school. Due to the good work of those who were there—there was a nurse there—CPR saved him. After that, a defibrillator was installed at the school.
Hon. Members may be aware that in December 2020 I introduced a private Member’s Bill about public access to defibrillators. The Government made movements at the time, although the Bill did not pass. I was proud of the steps that were taken, as the need for action had been made clear by the British Heart Foundation, which has been instrumental in pushing the matter forward.
Some 1,400 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are reported in Northern Ireland every year, with fewer than 10% surviving. Public access defibrillators are now used in fewer than 5% of cardiac arrests that happen away from a hospital. When someone has a cardiac arrest, every minute without CPR or defibrillation reduces their chances of survival by about 10%. That was the rationale behind the Bill. I was pleased when the then UK youth education Minister and Health Minister, Jo Churchill, both reassured me that they would do all they could to ensure that schools and public areas would have ready access to AEDs, and that is what happened.
I have continued to press the Government on the issue. On 17 February, in answer to my question on access to defibrillators, the Minister wrote:
“The Government is committed to improving access to Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) in public spaces, and reducing inequalities in access to these life saving devices. Following the depletion of the existing AED fund, launched in September 2023, the new Government approved a further £500,000 in August 2024 to fulfil existing applications to the fund.”
Who has filled the gap? It has been local charities and community groups. The Orange lodges have provided one in Newtownards in the past month, and another just before that in Craigantlet. The British Heart Foundation has opened a charity shop in the Ards shopping centre; the funds that it raises will save lives. I say a big thank you to all of them.
Clearly, we need effective, accessible defibrillators throughout communities as a standard, not as a bonus. Will the Minister give us some indication of discussions with the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly to ascertain whether there is a policy to move these things forward in a positive way? I fully support those calls. I was pleased that the Northern Ireland Assembly introduced a number of such measures through the then Education Minister, Peter Weir, who now sits in the other place.
I believe that more can and should be done to educate the general public to be fully confident in how to use defibrillators. Local churches, community groups and coffee shops should all have people who are trained and able to step in when needed. I commend the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland for moving the motion today; I will stand with him in this place as we seek to take steps to make a difference.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I thank my colleague and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), for securing this important debate.
Nearly half the postcodes in my constituency are not within easy reach of a defibrillator. That is not just a statistic, as we have heard; it is the difference between life and death. We know that when a defibrillator is used within three to five minutes of cardiac arrest, survival chances rise from just 8% to more than 70%, yet too often communities in Durham are left without timely access. This inequality is compounded by cost. Community groups, sports clubs and small businesses fundraising for devices face average VAT bills of £500 per defib. That is an unnecessary barrier to saving lives, so I join colleagues in urging the Government to look at abolishing the so-called heart restart tax.
One organisation that has done magnificent work in helping to get defibs into key locations across our region is Rotary North East, which has installed more than 100, including in Durham city centre. The work it does, particularly the work of my constituent Tom Sharples, has genuinely saved lives in the north east. Not only has Tom worked to roll out defibs across the region, in conjunction with our brilliant police community support officers for Brandon and Brancepeth, Paul and Dan, but he has invested his time in delivering training sessions for young people in those communities.
Following the harrowing scenes during the 2020 Euros, when Christian Eriksen suffered a cardiac arrest on the pitch, I became determined to improve lifesaving equipment. I supported the roll-out of CPR training for young people across my constituency.
In 2021, I led a campaign that helped bring about a change in Football Association policy. Since then, all new FA-funded facilities must have a defibrillator as standard. That was an important step forward, but it is only part of the solution. Every day, 80 to 90 people die from cardiac arrest outside hospital, and many of those lives could have been saved. Wider availability of defibs would save lives, reduce pressure on our ambulance service and prevent the devastating long-term impact of brain injury and loss that follows so many of these cases. I urge the Government to act to close the defibrillator gap, end the postcode lottery and give every community, including mine in the City of Durham, the fair access that they deserve.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on a sincere and thoughtful speech.
I am indebted to a lady called Elspeth Husband, a community first responder in Caithness. She made a point to me that echoed exactly what the hon. Member said about VAT: she services defibrillators, and the cost of pads and batteries is all subject to VAT. That seems straightforward wrong for such important lifesaving equipment. She also suggested that the same law that applies to lifebelts should apply to defibrillators—in other words, it would be an offence to use one wrongly or to remove one. I ask the Government to consider tightening up on that.
All the right points have been made about why defibrillators are so important, but I draw attention to my constituency, which is the northernmost, the most remote and the largest in the UK. Hon. Members can imagine that an eight-minute response time is extremely difficult in the area that I have the honour to represent. That is compounded by a decision taken by the Scottish Government in 2016 to centralise maternity services in Inverness, which obliges mothers to make a 200-mile round trip from the north of my constituency to give birth. I have talked about this many times in this place, and I am sorry if I have bored Members on the issue. Let us think on this: when the ambulance goes from Wick, Thurso, Bettyhill or a remote part of the north coast to Inverness with the mum on board, if somebody has a cardiac arrest, the defibrillator has headed south in the ambulance. To me, that is straightforward bonkers. That kit, which is vital for life saving, could be on the road many miles from where it is needed. To my mind, that is a perfect example of not-joined-up Scottish Government thinking, which is a disgrace. I conclude by saying this: I am more than disappointed that there is not a Scottish National party Member here to take part in this debate, because health does not respect boundaries between states or countries. Health is for everyone.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this important debate. There can be no overstating the importance of publicly accessible defibrillators. If used within the first three to five minutes of a cardiac arrest, as hon. Members have said, they can increase the chance of survival by up to 70%. For a device that costs only a few thousand pounds, that is a truly remarkable statistic. I was told that stat by a remarkable constituent of mine, Naomi Rees-Issitt, at a defibrillator and CPR training session that she had arranged for the community. She knows more about the critical importance of defibrillators than most people, because she set up the OurJay Foundation after the tragic death of her son Jamie, who suffered a cardiac arrest. Although a defibrillator was nearby, it was inaccessible.
It is clear that a lack of accessible devices continues to hinder lifesaving intervention, but thanks to the incredible work of Naomi, her family and the OurJay Foundation, Rugby now has a significant number of accessible defibrillators. But it should not fall solely to charities and grieving families to bear the cost of this vital equipment. When the OurJay Foundation was established, Rugby had just seven 24/7 defibrillators for a town of 80,000 people. Today, thanks to its efforts, the number has risen to more than 170. They are triggered six to seven times a week. I welcome the Government’s commitment to improving access to automated external defibrillators, as hon. Members have referred to, so I will not rehearse that. The Government have also committed to providing a defibrillator in every state-funded school in England. Sadly, there remains no legal requirement for organisations to make AEDs available on their premises, although many have done so voluntarily. Could the Minister comment on whether the Government are considering this?
Naomi and the OurJay Foundation are also campaigning for AEDs to be put in every police car. Recent Home Office funding, which was very welcome, has enabled additional defibs for every force. Warwickshire police has secured 30 new defibs, which it is putting in specialist operations vehicles. I saw that for myself, alongside Naomi, and met the officers whose dedication to the public I commend. The urgency is underlined by recent figures from the Resuscitation Council, which show that out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in the UK have risen to 40,000 each year. The survival rate remains a devastating one in 10.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for bringing this important discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) rightly points out the survival challenge. We know that survival is improved with quick access to these vital devices. Many Members have described deserts of access to these devices in their constituencies. In my own constituency there are only four devices per 10,000 people, so 70% of people do not have access in the three to five-minute timescale that my hon. Friend recommended. Does he agree that to improve that stat, it is vital that we get more devices in the community and, fundamentally, that we make it cheaper to access these devices for community groups, local and national Government and the police forces that he mentions?
John Slinger
I agree entirely. Obviously, there is not an unlimited amount of money, but we—whether Government, hon. Members, charities or businesses—must do everything we can to ensure more devices in our communities.
I will conclude by saying that Naomi is calling for Jamie’s law. This would make it mandatory for all police vehicles to carry defibrillators. I am sure that hon. Members in and beyond this room would agree that across our country we should do everything we can to increase the number of defibrillators, and am sure that I am not alone in having lost a friend who died young from a heart attack. I pay tribute to Naomi Rees-Issitt for her effort and her dedication to saving lives in the community in memory of her son. She is an example to all of us of taking action to save lives.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for bringing this important debate. As someone whose parents both died as a result of cardiac arrest, I know the impact that these kinds of sudden medical events can have on families.
Every minute without defibrillation after a cardiac arrest reduces a person’s chance of survival by 10%. That means just five minutes of delay could cut their chance of survival in half. Yet in the south-west, in constituencies like Frome and East Somerset, access to these lifesaving devices remains dangerously limited, especially in rural communities where ambulance response times can be alarmingly long. Defibrillators are already expensive, typically costing between £800 and £1,500 per unit, but there is a hidden barrier that the Government could easily remove—the 20% VAT on them. This tax drives up costs, making it harder for schools, sports clubs, public buildings and community centres to afford them. For a device that can mean the difference between life and death, charging VAT is simply unacceptable. I endorse the calls that have been made here for first aid training in schools, and the call by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for defibrillators in new developments, but removing VAT now would make defibrillators more affordable for community groups and local councils. It would also signal a clear commitment from the Government to improving survival outcomes in the UK, particularly in more rural communities.
In Frome and surrounding villages, we are very fortunate to have 29 defibrillators that are monitored and maintained by eight dedicated defibrillator guardians, who are part of Friends of Frome hospital. These eight guardians regularly check the defibrillators to ensure that they are in working order and fit for the community. When originally supplied, the defibrillators had a service life of 10 years, but this was reduced to eight years in 2018. This year, 20 of Frome’s defibrillators will reach the end of their service life. Their replacement will come at a significant cost to the Friends of Frome hospital, made worse by the added burden of VAT. We are incredibly lucky in Frome to have this group of dedicated volunteers, but for many people in more rural areas of my constituency, access to a defibrillator is still too far away. I ask the Minister to tell us why the Government will not remove VAT from this essential device. This would allow more to be installed and ease the financial worries of volunteers and communities who work tirelessly to keep their neighbours safe.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for bringing forward this important debate. I declare my membership of the all-party parliamentary group for defibrillators.
As has already been said, every minute that someone is in cardiac arrest without receiving CPR and defibrillation, their chance of survival decreases by 10%. I recently hosted CPR and defib training in my constituency, with an outstanding East Midlands Ambulance volunteer trainer, supported by Resuscitation Council UK. It was made clear that every single moment counts when starting CPR. If it needs to be performed, get help. Every minute can feel like a long time when carrying out chest compressions, but it is vital to continue until professional help and a defib become available. I also encourage everyone to complete free training online, and, if possible, attend an in-person course.
In my constituency, almost 50% of postcodes are not within easy reach of a defibrillator. On average, my constituents have a five-minute run, not including the time it takes to locate and unlock the defib. The stark reality of how far a new local business, CoalWorks, was from the nearest defib inspired it to take action. It successfully fundraised to install one at its gym on the business park. With its efforts, it was able to purchase an additional unit, and thanks to the partnership with Hinckley and Rugby building society, a second defib will soon be available in the centre of Coalville, benefiting the wider community. The cabinet outside the building has already been installed.
Having publicly accessible defibs is so vital. Let us imagine it is a Sunday and the only defib nearby is locked inside a closed shop: with so many sports clubs active on Sundays, and with exercise known to exacerbate underlying cardiac conditions, it is vital that these defibs are 24/7, yet too many remain tucked away. It is no surprise that Resuscitation Council UK estimates that the survival rate for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in North West Leicestershire is just 1.6%. But small changes can make a huge impact.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the work of Bournemouth Heart Club, which promotes good heart health, and also Regency Living, HENRA—Hengistbury Residents’ Association—and St Nicholas Church, which funded a defibrillator at St Nicholas Church that, just seven weeks after installation, saved a life at Hengistbury Head? Some 41% of postcodes in Bournemouth East are outside of direct reach of a defibrillator. Does she agree that we need to end this postcode lottery now?
Amanda Hack
Of course, I agree; heart health is really important, but access is key, too. We can all do our own bit. We can check if the defib nearest to us is registered and encourage a community audit. If it is not registered, someone in an emergency might not know it is there. Every school in North West Leicestershire has received a defib from the Department for Education, but it appears that only 28% have registered theirs—not even half. I will be writing to every school in my constituency to urge them to get their devices out of the box and on to the register.
We can also petition our local stores, supermarkets, schools and GP practices to mount their defibs on the outside of their buildings, where they are always accessible, and we can fundraise to secure new defibs in the most impactful locations. One resident contacted me after a fundraiser at the Kings Arms in Coleorton, expressing frustration that VAT is charged on lifesaving equipment purchased with charitable donations. I ask the Minister to consider that in her response.
There is so much more to say: I feel deeply passionate about the urgent need for more defibs, greater knowledge about CPR and defib use, better awareness of heart health and a wider screening programme to detect risk—in young people in particular.
That was it: around three minutes. Had resuscitation not been started while I was speaking, the chances of surviving a cardiac arrest would have dropped by 30%.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on securing this important debate, and I start by sending my condolences to George Smith’s family at this very difficult time.
Many Members may know that, before coming to this place, I was both a doctor and a barrister. As a doctor, I worked predominantly in acute care, so I have seen the brutal speed with which cardiac arrest can lead to death. But as a barrister, I specialised in inquests and clinical negligence, and I also saw what happened when people did not get timely interventions, and the devastating consequences that arose.
As many Members have set out, the stark reality is that every minute counts. Every minute reduces life expectancy by 10%. If someone gets prompt intervention, their survival rate can be as high as 70% if their defib is within 200 metres of their location. That is a three-to-five-minute brisk walk there and back. But the stark reality is that out-of-hospital arrests have a survival rate of less than one in 12. Compared with in-hospital arrests, the survival rate to discharge is in the region of 25%. That is why this was an important focus for me when I was elected to Parliament for Solihull West and Shirley.
Despite the fact that my constituency has a mix of urban and semi-rural places, only 40.32% of our defibs are within the recommended distance and there are only seven public defibs per 10,000 people, which is well below the national recommendation. Across the United Kingdom, the per-population count for defibs is approximately five to 10 times lower than it is in a country such as Japan. That cannot be right in this day and age, which is why, for one of my office fundraisers this year, we all went and did the Solihull way. We walked 20-odd miles in the day, and raised money for two defibs and some bleed kits on behalf of a brilliant charity called the Daniel Baird Foundation. It was particularly moving to be able to donate one of those defibs to the Wave café in my constituency, where a valued member of the community had sadly died some months earlier because they did not have access to a defib.
I am going to reiterate a couple of calls that have already been made to the Minister, who I know has been listening carefully. First, we should exempt defibs from VAT—it is ridiculous. For every five defibs that are currently bought, we could afford another if we got rid of VAT.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I agree with the hon. Member that this is a UK-wide issue. However, my concern is the potential for inequality and the need to ensure that poorer communities such as my constituency, where 63% of postcodes are out of direct reach of these lifesaving machines, are not left behind. The hon. Member referred to the fact that he is a barrister; believe it or not, because public and community access is essential, defibs are often stolen or vandalised, so does he agree not only that a VAT exemption would help to tackle the issue of inequality in poorer constituencies, but that we should consider creating a specific criminal offence to help to protect these vital machines?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The hon. Member makes a really important point. The consequences of vandalism or damage to this equipment can be life-changing—it can end a life. The ramifications have to be clearly pointed out and reflected in the law of the land.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) and I recently wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport about expanding education on lifesaving skills as part of driving tests, and we should also incorporate it more into the national curriculum. Will the Minister speak to her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Transport about ensuring that everybody in this country knows not only where a defib is but how to operate one, to enable lifesaving interventions as quickly as possible?
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this debate, because it could not be more important.
Cardiac arrest can strike at any time and in any place, and when it does, every second counts. We know that defibrillation within three minutes can increase survival chances by more than 70%, but those odds fall by 10% for every minute without access to a defibrillator. A cardiac arrest is one of the most terrifying experiences that anyone, or their loved ones, can face. It often comes without warning at the very moment we least expect it.
The harsh reality is that, in rural Scotland, delays in ambulance response times can mean the difference between life and death. It cannot be right that people in rural communities face lower survival chances simply because lifesaving tools are out of reach.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
First, I add my voice to those calling for VAT to be removed from defibs. That appears to be an easy win for the Government at the coming Budget.
Secondly, a lot of Members have spoken about voluntary groups and charities in their constituencies that do good work. The Southport Saviours charity in my constituency does sterling work to raise funds and awareness and to put defibrillators into parks and on to the streets. The charity organises the annual “Defib Dash” fundraising run, which takes places later this month and which I have, perhaps in an ill-advised moment, signed up for. Will my hon. Friend commend charities across the country and give her support for the work they do?
Johanna Baxter
I absolutely commend the work that charities such as the Southport Saviours are doing to raise money for this vital equipment.
If anything, the lack of emergency services makes it all the more vital that defibrillators are readily available, yet too often they are not. In my constituency, our vibrant villages are at the very heart of our cultural identity. Kilbarchan is a village of 3,500 people, with one of the oldest populations in Renfrewshire. It has a proud and active community council, which recently undertook public CPR projects, hosted training sessions and ran a thorough consultation on this issue. The findings were clear: the village did not have enough public access to defibrillators for its size and layout.
Kilbarchan needed three more devices to bring it up to the recommended standard. The cost? Just £3,800. Despite its fundraising efforts, it fell a little short and applied to the SNP-run Renfrewshire council for support through the villages investment fund. The council’s response, delivered last week, was to grant only £1,600—less than half of what was required. One of Kilbarchan’s brilliant local councillors, Gill Graham, described that decision as “stingy in the extreme”. I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with her. For the sake of £2,200, the council chose not to ensure that the village has the lifesaving equipment it needs.
Is it any wonder that trust in politics is so low when communities are met with that kind of penny-pinching? This is about not just the message it sends but the lives it risks. What makes it even more incomprehensible is the broader context: last year, the Labour Government provided the Scottish Government at Holyrood with the highest funding settlement they have ever had in the history of devolution. It is therefore unacceptable that communities in Scotland are being forced to rely on fundraising and charity drives to secure something as basic and essential as a public defibrillator.
The truth is that the SNP Government in Holyrood are not funding defibrillators themselves and have underfunded local authorities, which could provide the money, year after year. That chronic underfunding has forced councils into incomprehensible choices where, unbelievably, public safety and survival are being sacrificed. That is indefensible and I urge the Minister to raise this issue with her counterparts in the Holyrood Government.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for raising this important issue.
Saving lives should be in the interests of us all, and I am sure that is what brings us here today, but we have some hard questions to ask of Government. When the availability of defibrillators can definitively save lives and the absence of them can cost lives, we have to address the question of whether the Government are doing enough to fill the gap. One particular issue of concern relates to VAT, which I will return to.
We know from the statistics that the chances of surviving a heart attack that takes place outside a hospital setting are low—maybe as low as 8%—but that if a defibrillator is available, the chance of survival can increase by 70%. The key factor is the proximity of the defibrillator: the three to five minutes—the vital lifesaving window. Therefore, many of us who represent rural constituencies are concerned at the dearth of supply in some of our areas. In my North Antrim constituency, 63% of postcodes do not have a defibrillator within the three-to-five-minute lifesaving range. That is quite disturbing.
I pay tribute to the many community organisations that provide this lifesaving equipment. Very often, it is not the Government, education authorities or health trusts that put a defibrillator in the local village, but a local community organisation. The Government demand 20% in VAT from that community organisation, which is not VAT-registered and has no possibility of reclaiming it. It really is quite disturbing that the Government think they need that pound of flesh in taxation on defibrillators.
If the Minister takes away nothing else from this debate, I ask her to take away this fundamental humane appeal: instead of making it harder by putting a tax on lifesaving equipment, the Government should make defibrillators VAT-exempt supplies. If they made them VAT-exempt, there would be a huge opportunity to bring an uplift in life and survival to our communities.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on securing this important debate.
I pay tribute to Dylan Rich, a Rushcliffe constituent who tragically passed away aged 17 from a cardiac arrest, during a game between West Bridgford Colts and Boston United in Nottinghamshire in 2021. He was an extremely talented footballer, and his family and friends have dedicated themselves to creating a positive legacy from his tragic early death, notably through the Dylan Rich Legacy, a registered charity that provides funding for charitable projects that, among other things, promote access to sport for young people in Nottinghamshire.
In addition, Dylan’s family and friends have raised money for the installation of defibrillators in the local area and for fantastic related charities such as Cardiac Risk in the Young. I am sure the whole Chamber will join me in paying tribute to their important work.
Despite that very high profile, tragic death in Rushcliffe, data from 2024 suggests that over 60% of my—admittedly rural—constituency is still not within a three to five-minute walk of a defibrillator. I acknowledge the work of the last Government on this matter, but I think everyone here would agree that our ambitions must go further and faster if we want to improve survival rates.
As so many Members have said—we have clearly read the same briefing note—every minute without a defibrillator being used reduces a cardiac arrest victim’s chance of survival by 10%. In other words, a lack of access to a defibrillator means a high chance of death, longer stays in hospital or more complex care needs in the long run. Greater accessibility and the quicker use of defibrillators will therefore save the NHS in long-term medical care costs.
I want to put on the record my support for the Heart Restart Tax campaign, which many Members have talked about. We already exempt from VAT defibrillators bought by the NHS and some small charities, but a cricket club, football club or small business in my constituency should not be discouraged from taking the same lifesaving action. This is a classic example of a small policy change that could go a long way. Many other examples have been mentioned, and I hope that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, has listened closely to what Members have said in reiterating the importance of such small policy changes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. There are three hon. Members left wishing to speak. We have done quite well, but I am going to reduce the time limit to one minute and 30 seconds, which still means taking a bite out of the wind-up speeches.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer.
We have heard the terrifying statistics on the number of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests that occur each year, and about the terrifying survival rates. The outcomes for cardiac arrests remain stubbornly poor in London—which should be one of the easiest places in the country to provide good access to defibrillators—primarily because the equipment is still out of reach. That is why the work of charities such as the Paul Alan Project is so important. The charity was founded by Sutton resident Clare Parish in memory of her late father, Paul Alan Parish. She was standing beside her father when, in January 2022, he died of a cardiac arrest without warning while they cheered on Fulham at Craven Cottage.
I have heard Clare talk movingly about her father, and her resolve that CPR and defibrillator training should be widely accessible to everyone. She told me that losing her father in a crowd full of people, none of whom had had proper CPR training, was a tragedy that inspired her into action. The Paul Alan Project provides that training—which I have taken myself—free of charge, raises awareness of accessible emergency equipment, and fundraises for and installs bleed kits and defibs across the community. Clare is tireless in making sure that barriers to accessing not just training, but the defibs themselves, becomes a thing of the past. She partners with local businesses to get defibs—
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this debate on what is literally a matter of life and death.
Last week, I was fortunate enough to unveil a new community defibrillator in the Evington ward of my constituency, thanks to the dedicated work of community champions such as Teej and organisations such as the Evington Road Neighbourhood Association, and to the generosity of the local pharmacy, Pearl Chemist, which allowed them to use its wall. That work shows that when people get together they can achieve anything, but it also highlights the wider crisis that access remains a postcode lottery.
A quarter of the postcodes in my constituency are not within easy reach of a defibrillator. Every single day, 80 to 90 people die from a cardiac arrest out of hospital. However, when a defib is used quickly, not only does it save lives, but recovery is faster and the risk of comorbidities, including brain damage, and the need for long-term care are dramatically reduced. An intensive care unit bed costs around £2,300 a night, but a patient treated with a defibrillator within one minute will often avoid intensive care altogether and suffer far fewer longer-term complications. Early access to a defibrillator therefore saves the NHS and the Government significant amounts of money, as well as saving lives.
Defibrillators should be readily available everywhere, but one area where they are not is places of worship. I ask Ministers to scrap the VAT and give peace of mind to our communities.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for raising this important issue and for highlighting that every day in the United Kingdom, people suffer out-of-hospital cardiac arrests and do not survive, when they might have been saved by access to a defibrillator.
In my constituency, more than 60% of people live in a defib desert. Concerned about that, Kirkintilloch Rob Roy football club has compiled a list of locations of defibrillators in its area and shared the information widely, while groups such as Torrance parish church and Milngavie and Bearsden Men’s Shed have equipped their facilities with them. The efforts of people in our communities are saving lives, and the increasing number of defibrillators is a good sign. While there are still not enough, we are heading in the right direction.
I want to highlight the Lauren’s law campaign, which was started following the sudden death of a 19-year-old from an asthma attack and calls for the provision of non-prescription salbutamol asthma inhalers at defibrillator sites. In that way, we can save even more lives by having emergency equipment available and accessible in our communities. I urge the Government to make defibrillators easier for our communities and first responders to access—and by providing inhalers in the same locations, we can prevent even more unnecessary deaths.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
We come now to the Front-Bench contributions. I ask spokespeople to keep their speeches to about eight minutes, which will leave a very short time for the Member in charge to respond to the debate.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this vital debate on such an important topic.
The impact of heart conditions is felt acutely by so many across the country and, as we have heard, there are Members here today for whom this debate holds particular resonance. Cardiovascular disease affects 7 million people in the UK and is responsible for one in four premature deaths. It is also one of the starkest drivers of health inequality: those in the most deprived communities are twice as likely to die as those in the wealthiest, and for people living with severe mental illness the risk of death rises by 85%.
The figures on heart attacks, many of which are caused by heart disease, are grim. Every year, around 80,000 people suffer an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Emergency services attempt to resuscitate roughly 30,000 of them, yet fewer than 10% survive, as we have heard from many hon. Members. Half those incidents are witnessed by somebody else, and survival depends heavily on immediate action: starting CPR, calling for help without delay and, if possible, getting access to a defibrillator.
I recently spent time in my constituency at our first Emergency Services Day. I pay tribute to the tireless efforts of the paramedics and ambulance staff, and also the voluntary organisations, which play such a crucial role in saving thousands of lives. Public campaigns that explain the steps to take when someone collapses are crucial to improving survival rates. These must continue across the country, but the most decisive factor is timely access to a defibrillator. Defibrillation within three to five minutes of collapse can increase survival rates by 50% to 70%. Literally every second counts. Defibrillators have already saved thousands of lives, but access is patchy, and often, where need is greatest, the provision is weakest. Poorer areas often have fewer defibrillators than wealthier ones, with huge disparities between different parts of the country.
The British Heart Foundation recommends that every postcode should be within a three to five-minute walk of a defibrillator. Currently, that is achieved in only 50% of postcodes. Access to lifesaving equipment must never depend on postcode or privilege. Too often, defibrillators are procured only after a tragedy has already struck, as I have seen at first hand. A good friend of mine, Andrew Chiverton, suffered a cardiac arrest as he left his front door. He survived thanks to the quick action of another friend of mine, Jeanette Sutton, who saw him collapse and performed CPR until the ambulance could arrive. That incident prompted a local campaign to fund a community defibrillator and train local people, myself included, in what to do when someone suffers a cardiac arrest.
We must immediately take proactive steps to reduce the barriers preventing communities from having these lifesaving devices. The first of those barriers is cost. Community organisations, sports clubs, schools and businesses may have to pay up to £2,500 for a defibrillator. That is prohibitive for many, when they have so many other costs to consider. The Liberal Democrats therefore support the removal of VAT on community defibrillators, to make the devices more affordable across the nation. Maintenance and upkeep are equally important, as without them, the risk of a device malfunctioning when called upon increases—we have heard a perfect example of that today—but that requires local training and sustainable funding, for example through the community defibrillator fund.
Investment in the technology is also vital. Defibrillators have already been transformative, but the development of smaller, more portable models suitable for households and workplaces could be revolutionary. May I press the Minister on what steps the Government are taking to encourage innovation and economies of scale in the production of small-scale defibrillators, so that they can become a regular part of households and workplaces, making access far more universal?
Another priority must be better data. Ambulance services and 999 call handlers can only direct people to the nearest defibrillator if the location has been recorded. If nobody knows where it is, it is effectively useless. The Circuit has made excellent progress in mapping defibrillators and sharing that information with local ambulance services, helping to highlight the so-called defibrillator deserts, but it needs greater support. What steps are the Government taking to improve identification, registration and visibility of defibrillators, so that they can always be used when they are needed most?
Beyond defibrillator access, we must address the root causes of cardiovascular health issues. Britain should be one of the healthiest countries in the world, but after years of Conservative government, the nation has become sicker and now lags behind its international peers. The Health Secretary promised to deliver the healthiest generation ever, but promises are not policies. The Government should start by reversing cuts to public health grants, enabling local authorities to take preventive steps against cardiovascular disease. These grants fund programmes such as smoking cessation, drug and alcohol services, children’s health initiatives and, vitally, the provision of free blood pressure tests. A portion should also be ringfenced for tackling health inequalities, which are so clearly reflected in rates of cardiovascular disease. Alongside that, national action is needed: investment in active travel, wider use of social prescribing and the implementation of a coherent food strategy. Taken together, these measures will lead to people living healthier, more active lifestyles, which, alongside steps to improve access to defibrillation, will save thousands of lives.
Will the Minister look into the feasibility of removing VAT on defibrillators? How are the Government supporting staff in the maintenance of these devices and in understanding processes and procedures? What supervision is offered to staff tasked with being guardians or custodians of defibrillators in the public sector and what support is available after a defibrillator has been used in a community setting? Will the Government commit to reversing the cuts to public health grants to allow communities to begin tackling the causes of cardiovascular disease? This debate has shown both the urgency of the challenge and the solutions that are within our reach, but without Government action, progress will remain piecemeal.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this very important debate. I declare an interest: as an NHS consultant, I have used defibrillators on patients from elderly adults to very young babies—although, thankfully, their use on children is relatively uncommon.
Modern defibrillators are clever devices—they are capable of delivering varying joules of energy and of delivering synchronised shock, in line with the heartbeat, for cardioversion—but in their simplest, most common use, they deliver an electrical shock to the heart, essentially depolarising all the myocardial cells at the same time, allowing a reset moment, which hopefully allows the natural pacemaker to take over with a normal rhythm.
As we have heard this morning, that can be lifesaving. The survival rate for cardiac arrest is poor, and it is lower still for the 30,000 that happen outside hospital settings every year. According to Resuscitation Council UK, 9% of people who have an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest will survive to discharge from hospital, but research suggests that defibrillation within three to five minutes for those patients who need it can increase that figure to 50%. If we want to save lives, improving access to defibrillators is really important. I pay tribute to the community groups supporting and fundraising for their communities—both those mentioned today by various hon. Members, and the very many across my constituency and the wider UK that have not been mentioned.
I want to talk about the last Government’s work in this area. They instituted the community automated external defibrillators fund to allow town halls, parks and post offices to install defibs, and they matched it, based on an application form, to areas of rurality and increased need where there were less likely to be defibrillators. In 2023 the Conservative Government also supplied external defibrillator devices—more than 20,000 of them—to every state school across our country, making them much more available.
Many people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), have talked today about the importance of education and making sure that people know how to do CPR. Others have talked about the success of CPR in individual cases. The previous Government added first aid and CPR to the national curriculum in 2020. Has the Minister been advocating for it to remain there, in the light of the current Government’s review of the national curriculum?
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) talked about the catastrophe that can occur when a defibrillator that is supposed to work does not. The 999 call handlers will direct people to the nearest defibrillator that they are aware of, but there is no national Government register of defibrillators. The British Heart Foundation’s The Circuit network collects data, which is provided voluntarily, that it can then provide to 999 call handlers and others. As part of that, it issues reminders to ensure that maintenance is done and that people are checking that the equipment is still in good order. Is the Minister happy with the current processes? Is she aware how many times a year somebody goes to a defibrillator that is not working, and what is she doing to minimise that? Maintenance requires battery and pad changes because of expiry dates, and machines need to be kept clean and checked after use. Is the Minister satisfied with the feedback loop for that? What is she doing to improve it? Medical devices regulations ensure that adverse events are reported. Can she tell the House how many people experience such events and what she is doing to minimise those?
I also want to talk about managed obsolescence. I was talking recently to a resus officer for an NHS hospital in England, who told me that every single defibrillator in the trust, which covers several hospitals, is being replaced because the company that makes the defibrillators that are currently used has stopped making spare parts for them. That has required the trust to buy a raft of very expensive new equipment. What is the Minister doing to ensure that spare parts have to be kept available, and for what period will they have to be available?
I want to talk about the safety of women. We have talked about health inequalities in this debate, but women are 28% less likely to receive CPR in a public venue—a shocking statistic. Why is it the case? Partly it is because when someone is doing CPR and wants to move on to defibrillate, the defibrillator pads have to be put on to bare skin. That means removing the clothing from the patient. It means exposing the chest. It may mean touching the breasts, to move them slightly out of the way to place the pads. People are uncomfortable and concerned about that, in some cases. In fact, in some cases they are concerned about the legal issues they may face if they do it but perhaps get something medically wrong. We need to ensure that that is not the case, and that people are aware. The mannequins that we use do not have breasts; they are essentially male mannequins. We have child and baby mannequins, but female mannequins are not in widespread use. What is the Minister doing to ensure that the 51% of the population who are female have the same access to defibrillation, and to reassure the public so that they are well educated in how to provide defibrillation to female patients and know that they can do so without fear of litigation?
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) talked about Justin’s Hearts for Herts campaign. One change during my medical career was from ABC—airway, breathing and circulation—to catastrophic haemorrhage ABC in trauma cases. I am pleased to hear that, across my hon. Friend’s constituency, bleed packs are being made available. I want to thank the people from SHOCK Sleaford, North Kesteven district council and the Safer Lincolnshire Partnership, who have just completed fundraising and co-located four bleed packs across my local area. That means that people experiencing catastrophic haemorrhage, perhaps from a farming or vehicular accident, will be able to have their lives saved. Does the Minister have any plans to ensure that such bleed packs are located across the country, to improve the safety of people everywhere?
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) said about inhalers. There are arguments for provision of all sorts of things: inhalers and EpiPens come immediately to mind when thinking about how we can improve the safety of people across the country with access to things that can immediately save lives. Finally, as many hon. Members have mentioned in this debate, it is important to ensure that such devices are available without being taxed. Although I know that the Government like to tax, it seems counterproductive and counterintuitive to tax something that is potentially lifesaving, and that could even save the NHS money.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. It has been really well attended, with over 20 Back-Bench contributions. I also thank the Front-Bench spokespeople for their contributions. I will try to respond to all the issues raised, but there have been a tremendous number, so if I cannot respond to them all, I will write to hon. Members on any that I do not cover.
I recognise the individuals who have been honoured by hon. Members, particularly Tom Sharples, Naomi Rees-Issitt, Dylan Rich and his family, and Andrew and Jeanette, all of whom have been appropriately recognised. I also particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing the debate. I was sorry to hear how his mum needed emergency resuscitation when he was a child, and I offer my deepest sympathies on the death of his friend and colleague, George Smith.
A cardiac arrest can be an incredibly frightening experience for a person and their loved ones. My hon. Friend knows that rapid access to defibrillators can be the difference between life and death. As he said, early defibrillation within three to five minutes of collapse can increase a person’s chances of survival by as much as 50% to 70%. Thanks to data collected by the British Heart Foundation, we know that AEDs are only used around one in 10 times where they could have saved a life. I am pleased to update the House on what the Government are doing to drive that figure upwards. Our 10-year plan for health is shifting the focus of our NHS from hospitals to community. It is right that local communities are leading the way through public bodies, businesses and charities. I commend the hard work of London Hearts, AED Donate and the Community Heartbeat Trust and other organisations raised today. Forgive me if I miss some of them: Hearts for Herts, Lucky2Bhere, Stargate & Crookhill Community Centre, Lechlade Lions, Friends of Frome Hospital, the Daniel Berg Foundation, Southport Saviours, the Paul Alan Project, Evanton Residents’ Association and Lauren’s campaign. There are many more organisations and projects working hard to improve access to AEDs for all.
There are now more than 110,000 AEDs across the UK registered on the Circuit, the independent AED database backed by the NHS. The Circuit continues to see a regular increase in the number of defibs registered. I was delighted to hear hon. Members talk about encouraging defib guardians in their areas to register. More than 30,000 have been added in the past two years alone and we look forward to more. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland highlighted, more than 3,000 were provided by the Department of Health and Social Care’s community defibrillator fund.
My hon. Friend also rightly pointed out gaps in provision across the UK. As someone who represents a rural constituency, I completely understand his position and that of hon. Members from other rural communities, many of whom spoke in today’s debate. That is why we have partnered with Smarter Society, which has helped us get AEDs to communities with the greatest need where they have the greatest impact. That includes remote communities with extended ambulance response times, places with high footfall and hotspots for cardiac arrests, such as sporting arenas, venues for vulnerable people and deprived areas.
We fully funded the first 100 devices distributed by the Smarter Society, and have committed to supporting communities by matching the funds they spend on defibrillators pound for pound. Local communities will determine where defibs are kept for the best response to the needs of their communities. Unfortunately, defibs sometimes get stolen and communities are best placed to decide whether they should be in locked cabinets. Some charities, such as the British Heart Foundation, insist that devices they provide are kept unlocked.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) made the interesting suggestion that the theft or damage of a defib should be a specified offence, which I will raise with relevant Ministers. If the defibrillator is registered on the Circuit, the national AED network, the guardian will receive regular reminders to record checks on the AED. To support maintenance, the Circuit sends guardians notifications and records when an AED is used, so as to notify the guardian that pads will need to be replaced.
Many hon. Members referred to training. AEDs are designed to be simple yet lifesaving devices that anyone can use without formal training. That said, training can help people use defibrillators with greater confidence. The NHS runs training sessions on first aid, CPR and the use of defibrillators in communities and schools, to support Resuscitation Council UK’s “Restart a Heart” initiative. The NHS England has trained more than 35,800 adults and children in CPR and defibrillation in the past 13 years, and more than 2,100 people since January 2025. NHS England also runs workshops in harder-to-reach communities and ethnically diverse groups, training more than 400 people this year.
I was interested to hear the shadow Minister’s comments about women, and some people’s reluctance to use defibs. I will speak to the Minister responsible for women’s health about how that can be improved.
Many Members raised ambulance response times, which the Government are determined to improve so that people can be reassured that help is on the way. Our urgent and emergency care plan commits to reducing ambulance response times for category 2 incidents to 30 minutes on average this year. We are tackling unacceptable handover delays by introducing a maximum 45-minute standard, ensuring that ambulances are released more quickly and get back on the road to treat patients. I am pleased that in the region of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland the latest figures show that average response times for category 1—the most serious, life-threatening cases—were six minutes and 13 seconds, which is faster than the national standard of seven minutes. The hard work of paramedics, clinicians and NHS staff makes that possible, and I commend them for that. We will continue to do all we can from Government to support those improvements and reduce variation in response times across the country.
Many hon. Members who spoke today raised the issue of VAT on devices and parts. I do not want the provision of defibrillators in communities to be a matter of cost—I will discuss that with Treasury colleagues. Decisions on VAT are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I will make sure that Treasury colleagues are aware of the issues raised in this debate today. The Government will continue to keep the matter under review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland spoke powerfully about the prevention issues. Anyone who has read our 10-year plan for the NHS will know that he is pushing at an open door on that with this Government, because our ambition to cut premature mortality from heart disease and stroke by a quarter within a decade is a key tenet of our 10-year plan. We are making that shift from treatment to prevention. While we are tough on treating cardiac arrest, we will act on what public health doctors call the “causes of the causes”, with action on smoking, obesity, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and access to green spaces for exercise. This year we have set targets for integrated care boards to increase the percentage of patients with GP-recorded CVD who have their cholesterol levels managed to safer levels. Almost nine in 10 people with GP-recorded hypertension in England had their blood pressure checked in the last year, and more than two thirds had their blood pressure treated to target in the last year.
The NHS health check programme engages over 1.4 million people and, through behavioural and clinical interventions, prevents around 500 heart attacks or strokes a year. We are also making the shift from analogue to digital. To improve the programme’s uptake and engagement we are developing the NHS health check online, which will be available through the NHS app.
The Opposition’s shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), spoke about the national curriculum review. I will ensure that the issues are raised with my colleagues in the Department for Education. I was very interested to hear the ideas and thoughts of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), on innovation; I commit to exploring that further.
I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland for securing this important debate. I look forward to working with him long into the future to get stuff done. I hope we have shown that the Government are committed to shifting the focus from hospital to community, moving care closer to people through community-based initiatives and targets, and embracing the digital transformation of the NHS. Together those shifts will mean healthier communities, more lives saved and an NHS fit for the future.
Sam Rushworth
I thank everybody who has participated today. There have been 22 Back-Bench contributions from across six political groups, all in broad agreement with each other. We have heard some strong calls about VAT; I am grateful for the Minister’s commitment to raise that with Treasury colleagues, but that is just the start—the common-sense, no-brainer stuff about not having a tax on restarting hearts.
I really appreciated the contributions on working to ensure that more defibrillators are external and that more are registered; on preventing theft; on ensuring they are in working order; on the potential to add other medical devices; and on ensuring that more people are trained. I also appreciated the contribution from the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) about the propensity to act, which can be challenging in the circumstances. I thank all the people who have spoken about different community groups in their areas. In a month when the media have been focused on the meaning of patriotism, nothing is more patriotic to me than the group mentioned by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), the Friends of Frome Hospital, who no doubt are baking cakes and running jumble sales to provide vital lifesaving equipment. That is true patriotism from the British public. But it should not just be left to the British public—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. Will hon. Members leave as quickly as possible so that we can move on to the next debate?
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Pony and Trap Racing: Regulation
(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
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I will call Sarah Green to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will be no opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the regulation of pony and trap racing on public roads.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. The debate is about the regulation of pony and trap racing on public roads but, to be more specific, there is no regulation and it is sorely needed. If someone wants to organise a cycling competition or road race in the UK using the main roads, there are regulations to follow. There are licences they need to get and authorities they have to consult, which means that cycling races are routinely organised safely and with minimum disruption to the community hosting a race. None of that is true for pony and trap racing. I suggest that the Government need to introduce regulations for pony and trap racing along the same lines, primarily because of road safety, but also because of the significant policing resource that these unofficial races eat up.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this issue forward. She is right to highlight it. The reason is quite simple: there is no doubt that there are significant safety risks that come along with it, especially for young drivers. As an example, in 2023 on the Antrim Road in Belfast, Northern Ireland, a teen lost control of what is referred to as a sulky cart, resulting in a collision with a car and causing serious injury. Does the hon. Lady agree that for the safety of drivers, pedestrians and indeed the animals themselves, there must be greater discussion with the devolved nations on guidance for pony and trap racing, especially on our public roads?
Sarah Green
I agree. These races happen in my constituency on a fairly regular basis and I have similar stories to share. One such race took place this weekend. Residents of Chalfont St Peter and Gerrards Cross have their weekends disrupted by pony and trap racing events, also known as sulky racing, far too often. During these events, the A413, a stretch of busy dual carriageway, becomes an unauthorised racetrack. The races attract not just competitors and their support vehicles, but spectators who gather to watch them and place bets on the outcome.
To be clear about what I am referring to, pony and trap racing is a form of horseracing where two-wheeled carts are pulled by a single pony that thunders down a stretch of public road. These events can involve multiple traps racing each other or a single vehicle completing a time trial. Those taking part in these races in my community gather at a section of the A413 and run a series of races along the straight stretch of dual carriageway. The immediate danger is posed to those already using the dual carriageway. While the races are taking place, support vehicles follow the ponies and traps. Those are larger vehicles, usually 4x4s or pick-up trucks, which sometimes have a horse box with them. They drive next to each other and block both lanes of the carriageway, creating an illegal rolling roadblock to allow the race to take place.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
My experience of treating horses that are taking part in these races, and that of all other equine vets, is that there is very little regard for animal welfare in these situations. Not only are they often unshod, they are often underdeveloped and immature and carrying large, often multiple, men in a cart. This can cause a huge amount of animal welfare issues. The injuries are horrific. Does my hon. Friend agree this is as much an animal welfare issue as it is a public safety issue?
Sarah Green
I do agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising the animal welfare point. It is legal to ride a horse down our public roads, but they are being put in unfair danger.
On a busy dual carriageway with vehicles travelling at speeds of up to 70 mph, the lives of innocent road users and of the animals themselves, as my hon. Friend has just mentioned, are endangered as the rolling roadblock forces motorists to slam on their brakes with no prior warning of the hazard ahead. Without proper regulation in place, there is a high risk of a serious accident or worse. Without licensing, there is no organiser to hold accountable for any of the unacceptable and sometimes dangerous behaviour taking place.
The regularity of pony and trap events has increased in recent years, and it is outrageous that my constituents should be put through this on a regular basis. Just last month a constituent reported being run off the road twice by the vehicles supporting the race taking place. As the law stands, it is legal to use a pony and trap on the public highway, but there are no regulations in place and no licence is required. There are no procedures to follow and no accountability for those who organise pony and trap races. On the grounds of road safety alone, I urge the Government to introduce a licensing scheme.
I would also like to mention the impact these races have on policing locally. In February, Thames Valley police received reports that over 3,000 people were expected to attend an event on the A413. The worry among the local community was palpable. Following significant commitment of resource and effort by Thames Valley police, the projected 3,000 people did not attend on that particular day. However, this is my second reason for calling for regulation: quite apart from the road safety angle, the level of policing time and resource that these races eat up is unacceptable.
Thames Valley police has confirmed that there have been 200 incidents connected to pony and trap racing in our area alone in the last five years. At present, police forces are able to deal with individual offences as they arise, like dangerous driving. If reports are received far enough in advance, section 34 dispersal orders have previously been issued. While these give the police powers to deal with antisocial behaviour, or to disperse crowds, they do not prevent the races themselves from taking place. Once the race has started, it becomes extremely difficult and dangerous for officers to intervene. On this point I echo the Thames Valley police and crime commissioner that prevention is better than cure; I know he is calling for regulation in the way I am today.
It is true that changes to the road infrastructure could act as a deterrent, but such a change in the road layout, at significant cost, would simply shift the activity somewhere else. That became clear when racing was displaced from Hampshire to south Buckinghamshire. There is a similar issue with the use of traffic regulation orders, both in terms of cost to the local authority and the shift in location of any racing event that comes as a result of it.
There is an alternative solution available. The Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits the racing of motor vehicles and regulates cycle races. There is no equivalent regulation for pony and trap racing. I urge the Minister to consider formal regulation for pony and trap racing. I am not seeking to ban the activity in its entirety; I am calling for a permit or licence scheme, like that for cycle racing, for those wanting to race ponies and traps. Such a scheme would require an organiser to meet certain conditions and to seek permission from the local authority and police, to ensure events are well managed.
Should there be any issues during or following the race, a single point of contact could then be held accountable. The police would be able to deploy officers resourcefully and in line with the scale of the event. Disruption to local residents would be significantly reduced, with advanced warning when a road closure was due to happen. Restrictions could even be placed on the dates and timings of events and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) referred to, animal welfare could be put front and centre.
There are many obvious risks involved with the act of pony and trap racing on public roads, and it is high time the Government imposed formal regulation. I request a meeting with the relevant Minister to explore that further. The safety of my constituents and other road users should no longer be put at risk due to unregulated pony and trap racing, and the officers of Thames Valley police, whose resources are regularly deployed to respond to reports of racing, should be better supported to enforce safe and fair use of the road for all, while not penalising those who wish to safely stage legitimate racing events.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) on securing this debate. I thank her for raising pony and trap racing, which is clearly an important issue for her constituents, although I confess that, until I started to prepare for this debate, it was not something that I had experienced, nor have I seen it in my constituency. I imagine that it is not something found in all constituencies, but it is clearly an issue in some.
As the Minister responsible for road safety, I am pleased to be able to respond on behalf of this Government. I want to be clear that ensuring the safety of all road users and improving road safety is one of the Department’s highest priorities. We are currently considering a variety of road safety measures for inclusion in a strategy, and I reassure the hon. Lady and others that the Department takes road safety seriously. As we develop the strategy, I am committed to continuing to engage with hon. Members, stakeholders and road safety organisations. Today’s debate forms part of that work, so I thank hon. Lady for taking this opportunity to bring the issue of pony and trap racing to my attention. I look forward to publishing the road safety strategy in due course.
I note that concerns have been raised in this debate about pony and trap racing being a seasonal problem on certain roads, the potential for it to create risks on our roads and the disruption it can cause to local residents. The hon. Lady made a powerful case, setting out how the issue impacts people in her local area and why she is bringing it to the attention of the House. She also drew attention to the absence of a licensing framework similar to the licensing scheme for cycle races held on public roads. I also note the animal welfare concerns highlighted by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers).
In considering and potentially dealing with the issue of pony and trap racing, there is a challenge of ensuring that the use of a pony and trap as a legitimate transport means is not made illegal. The question is how to differentiate between activity that is legal and that which is not. There are already existing powers in the legislative framework to deal with occurrences of pony and trap racing that breach the current road traffic legislation. That is a local policing matter, and we believe that the existing powers are sufficient. The police can use those powers to tackle any unlawful pony and trap racing; for example, I understand that they have utilised existing powers such as dispersal notices as a means of preventing potentially unlawful pony and trap racing, and the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to the use of such measures.
I want to make clear that the police are operationally independent, and that it is for them to treat each case according to its individual merits and make appropriate risk assessments about what action to take. It is clearly impossible to consider every conceivable set of circumstances that the police face in dealing with potential breaches of the law. As I have said, it is their role to make that judgment. There are existing powers under the law to deal with instances of dangerous or careless driving by motor vehicles or with people seeking to obstruct traffic, as the hon. Lady described—to deal with driving that falls below the required standards or with those who unlawfully obstruct the highway.
Let me turn to the possibility that the hon. Lady suggested: regulating pony and trap racing in the same way as cycling events. I need to say at the outset that, to be frank, the Government do not currently have any plans to do so. The legislation on cycling events dates from 1960 and, although there have been reviews in the past, no legal changes have been deemed of sufficient priority for inclusion in any legislative timetable.
It might be helpful to clarify how the requirements operate for cycling events. It is the event organiser’s responsibility to ensure compliance with the law and good practice, for example by providing sufficient numbers of marshals, with the appropriate training, at each event. The Government do not currently have any plans to legislate to require all cycling events to be licensable by local authorities. The current voluntary system works well, and local cycling events are a good way of encouraging more people to take up cycling, in line with the Government’s plans to boost cycling and walking.
The Government often have to make difficult choices regarding legislative priority. The hon. Lady and other Members will be aware that Parliament has a packed legislative timetable and that the issues facing the nation and the Government are of a huge scale. Such measures as called for in this debate would therefore not be foremost in any Bill consideration. We do, however, always keep the law under review to ensure that it is fit for purpose, and I would be happy to meet with the hon. Lady to better understand the evidence she has on the nature of this problem and how widespread it is. Then we, as a Government, can revisit our priorities and look at the matter in further detail. As I have already said, I look forward to laying out our road safety plans in due course.
Once again, I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate and for drawing to my attention the concerns of her constituents and the specific issues that she has raised.
Question put and agreed to.
The Battle of Britain
(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
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of commemorating the Battle of Britain.
Thank you for chairing this debate, Sir Desmond; it is an honour to serve under your chairship. I thank all those who will contribute to this debate and the Veterans Minister, whose presence is always greatly appreciated.
In 1940, the six-week battle of France saw British soldiers, including those of the Gloucestershire Regiment, fighting side by side with Belgian, Dutch, French and Polish soldiers against the advancing Nazis. Eventually pushed back to the edge of the western front to the beaches at Dunkirk, British troops were evacuated alongside their valiant but defeated allies to Britain over the 10 days to 4 June. With France lost to the Nazis, Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill declared on 18 June 1940 that
“the ‘Battle of France’ is over. I expect that the battle of Britain is about to begin.”
He continued:
“The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war.”—[Official Report, 18 June 1940; Vol. 362, c. 60.]
Within weeks, this very Hall had been struck by German bombs, as had the Elizabeth Tower and the House of Lords, while the House of Commons lay in ruins.
Over the almost four months of the battle of Britain, this island suffered sustained bombardment as the Nazis, through the Luftwaffe, desperately—and in vain—tried to destroy the Royal Air Force and break British morale. They failed, and the battle of Britain stands proudly alongside the battles of Trafalgar and Waterloo among our greatest military successes, but it is so much more. Every day across these isles, the legacy of the battle of Britain is lived. Modern culture and, to a significant degree, our national identity have been built on it.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on this debate and his magnificent introduction. I am sure he spent some time preparing it, and it is a tremendous introduction. Would he agree that what he is outlining, and I think we all have to commit ourselves to this, is not just that our generation remembers the tremendous sacrifice made all those years ago, but that the coming generation—those born in the past 25 years—remembers, so that we never repeat any of the mistakes of the past and that we achieve victories such as the one he is describing?
Cameron Thomas
The hon. Member speaks acutely to the point of this debate, which is that we must not forget what this country both suffered and achieved, and that we must support our current generation in the challenges it faces.
One toils to resolve any other historic snapshot that so well encapsulates the British mindset: the gradual withdrawal of liberty across western Europe before, on this small outpost, those forces—British, Belgian, Czechoslovakian, French, Irish, Polish, Commonwealth and even a handful of Americans—came together for Europe’s final stand to halt the fascist advance in its tracks and set the stage to push the Nazis back across Europe.
The iconic airframes of the battle of Britain memorial flight remain the most celebrated of fly-pasts at air shows and ceremonies throughout the year. I love a Eurofighter Typhoon as much as anybody, but, respectfully, I am really waiting to hear the Hurricane, Lancaster and Spitfire. I recall waiting for Iron Maiden to take the stage at Download festival in 2013, when the audience roared for the Spitfire fly-past, which Bruce Dickinson had squared away through his friends at the BBMF. Even at a festival where I had seen Motörhead and Queens of the Stone Age for the first time, the Spitfire remains the standout memory. Through those historic exploits of the Royal Air Force, air power is today one of Britain’s most recognised and celebrated brands. On the shoulders of the Hurricane and Spitfire, the Hawks of the Red Arrows spearhead British soft power across the globe, not just a display team but a diplomatic force all their own.
In commemorating the battle of Britain, the greatest tribute we can pay to its victors is to apply those lessons that can be learned from it. The stage is already set. As they did following the interwar years of the 1920s and 1930s, our armed forces, following years of diminishment, once more face the likelihood of a kinetic war against a battle-hardened and well-resourced aggressor. By July 1940, despite popular belief to the contrary, the RAF had ramped up production to such an extent that RAF Fighter Command was more than a match for the Luftwaffe, and held a minor numerical advantage.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making a powerful point about the preparedness of the RAF being much more than what was perhaps seen by the public. Will he join me in paying tribute to the Hurricane pilots of 602 and 603 Squadrons, based in the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, who conducted the first interception of world war two over the firth of Forth, which borders my constituency, when Junkers 88 aircraft sought to attack HMS Hood in the Forth? The action resulted in the death of 16 civilians on the ground and three German aircrew, but it showed how prepared the RAF was even at that early stage of the conflict.
Cameron Thomas
The hon. Gentleman is an excellent ambassador for his constituency and its heritage. We absolutely should celebrate the achievement of those brave pilots and the nation that supported them. I have a question for the Minister on preparedness. If the Russian war in Ukraine breaks out into Europe within five years, will the RAF be so well equipped?
If we strip away some of the folklore that has been built on the battle of Britain, the fact is that a British victory was almost inevitable. Crucial to the outcome was the Chain Home radar and the Dowding system within which it operated, delivering early detection of Luftwaffe aircraft to Sir Hugh Dowding’s Fighter Command. Three factors ensured the resilience and continuing serviceability of the Dowding system: redundancy, misdirection and interconnectivity.
Thanks to that system, the Luftwaffe would routinely reach Britain with just enough fuel remaining for a few minutes’ flight time, only to be met every time by Fighter Command, which had seen them coming 100 miles from the coast: numbers, formations and direction. Furthermore, every Luftwaffe pilot or crew shot down over Britain became a casualty or a prisoner. Every RAF pilot downed simply knocked on the nearest front door and returned to circulation.
The picture from the Führer bunker in Berlin, now under a nondescript car park on which I have proudly scuffed my shoes, was hopeless. I have too often seen Hitler unduly recognised as a strong leader; he was anything but. He was superstitious, paranoid, vengeful and feared by his officers, who were afraid to report their losses upward. His war in Europe was ultimately doomed by his leadership and that of his cabinet, comprising obsequious pleasers and party loyalists. The Nazis could never have won on or over British soil. Churchill knew that, as would have any rational leader.
That inevitability of British victory takes nothing away from the exploits of our courageous aircrew, the genius of our codebreakers and the resilience of the British people. What was achieved was a heroic, decisive national victory of liberty over fascism, and it needs no exaggeration. Britain’s victory is best commemorated with due recognition of the contribution of over 500 foreign pilots under Sir Hugh Dowding’s Fighter Command. In fact, that evidences my assertion that Britain is at its best not standing alone but when it leads in Europe, and that Europe is strongest with Britain at its centre. I will shortly conclude.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Before he does, I mention that I am very grateful indeed to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the Chamber. It is well known that the only Victoria Cross to be awarded to a fighter pilot in world war two was awarded to James Brindley Nicolson for re-entering, on 16 August 1940, a burning plane to shoot down an enemy bomber near Southampton. What is not so well known was that one of the British casualties in the same action was the youngest pilot to die in the battle of Britain. His name was Martyn Aurel King. To mark the 85th anniversary of his heroic death in that action, two months short of his 19th birthday, a memorial service was held at Fawley church in New Forest East, where he lies buried with honour among several of his comrades.
Cameron Thomas
What a wonderful intervention. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made it. We must never take for granted the sacrifice that so many made so that we may today live in peace.
I would like to contextualise the battle of Britain alongside Britain’s near future. Today, in 2025, we understand with absolute certainty that the Geneva convention will not be adhered to by the Russian military, nor by its unbadged operators of the hybrid war that it has been conducting against our country for over a decade. I remind the House that Putin deployed a chemical weapon on the streets of Salisbury. We must not blind ourselves to the significant likelihood that this hybrid war will go kinetic within the coming decade. To our adversary, civil infrastructure will be viewed as a viable target.
In Ukraine, Russia has deliberately and consistently targeted energy infrastructure in a bid to break Ukrainian morale and undermine its ability to replenish its armaments. The Russians have failed to recognise a lesson learned by Hitler in 1940 that trying to bomb a population into submission only strengthens its resolve.
Nevertheless, Britain must be ready to face such tactics in the near future. Just as redundancy ensured the resilience of the Dowding system, Britain can build redundancy into its energy infrastructure and industrial capacity by increasing our production of renewables and ramping up the installation of that technology to reduce reliance on the national grid. The introduction of peer-to-peer energy sharing within localities would be a game changer for UK energy resilience, public services and bill payers.
Once more, I thank you, Sir Desmond, and I look forward to welcoming the contributions of Members from across the House.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for securing this important debate.
There are few more pivotal moments in our history than the battle of Britain. France had fallen and the new Vichy regime had sued for peace. Britain stared down the prospect of invasion by the German forces. The Nazis already believed that the war was over and that Britain would be forced to recognise its hopeless military situation. Hitler counted on the British Government agreeing to his terms. It was not until months later that the Nazis finally came round to the truth that we would not concede so easily. Hitler had misjudged not only our fighters, but the determination of an entire nation. Against overwhelming odds, 600 British fighters faced more than 1,300 German bombers supported by hundreds of enemy fighters. And they won.
The scale of sacrifice in the battle of Britain was captured best by Churchill, who said:
“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”—[Official Report, 20 August 1940; Vol. 364, c. 1167.]
I have spoken in this place before about how victory in war was secured by ordinary people. The same is true, I believe, of remembrance. I pay particular tribute to one of my constituents, Beryl Spelling, who sadly passed away recently. She gave her time supporting the local RAF association, keeping alive the memory of those who served and what they stood for. It was Beryl who first invited me to the annual remembrance service for the battle of Britain, which is held every year in Morecambe.
Remembering our triumphs over fascism naturally leads me to remember what led to that dreadful time. For more than a century prior to that war, Europe had suffered under the clash of extreme nationalistic aspirations. In the wake of the first world war, treaties were signed and agreements were made, but these nationalistic passions flared up once more and fed off the despair and suffering of ordinary people. It was in this environment, while America was facing inwards and Europe was fractured and uncertain, that Hitler was able to exploit fear and mass hysteria.
I would hope that this speech could stay in the realms of history, but I do not believe that the echoes of that time can be ignored today. I feel a moral duty to use my position in this House to bring those echoes into focus. I speak, of course, of the actions of the new far right. The far right will always exploit feelings of fear or insecurity, putting forward a false image of what true patriotism is. I believe we must push back against this false narrative and the lies of the far right. The people who promulgate this distortion entirely fail to see the values that truly bind us together as a nation, such as democracy, fair play, the rule of law, and kindness.
To me, patriotism is not about racial or cultural superiority. It is not ethno-nationalism or the fear of others. It is not hating other people or undertaking violent acts, such as breaking into hotels and trying to make places that should be safe unsafe. It is not the racists who attacked a British nurse or the spreading of false rumours about asylum seekers. It is not exploiting the scourge of violence against women and girls to make gross and false political points. It is not sending people back to the Taliban to be tortured or flogged in the street or to have their basic freedoms taken away merely because of their sex. It makes me ashamed to see a small number—but a number, none the less—of Members of the British Parliament exploiting these false narratives about asylum seekers and using lines that would not have been out of place in the Third Reich.
Hatred of others, racism and dividing people along false lines was exactly what we fought against in world war two in order to keep Britain free from the scourge of fascism. It is from our history that we learn what we are capable of—acts of good and acts of evil. I believe that history is not predestined. We were not destined to win the battle of Britain or to defeat the Nazis, just as Germany was not destined to fall to fascism in 1933. These were choices made by people, shaped by courage or by fear. Hitler’s approach was to stir up prejudice, divisions and hatred. The same thing happened in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. In Latin America, we saw dictators rise on nationalistic, far-right propaganda. Today, we must be vigilant against those who try to do the same.
We have the strength to overcome this and we must overcome this, unfortunately, again and again, because remembrance never ends. The story of the battle of Britain is the story of our nation—ordinary people of all colours and creeds standing firm in the face of extraordinary danger, showing courage, perseverance and belief in something greater than themselves. It was a moment in which Britain’s true character shone through, undaunted by the odds, unwearied by the challenge and unbroken by the blitz.
There will always be those who will downplay the character of our country, who say that we cannot fight global adversity and who urge us to turn inwards and face away from the rest of the world. They echo the same misjudgment that the Nazis once made. The truth is that Britain’s strength has always been in its resilience, its openness and its refusal to give into fear and hatred. That is what we must carry forward today, and that is the true legacy of the battle of Britain.
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
I suggest six minutes for Back-Bench speeches.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I cannot think of anyone I would rather have chairing this debate, so it is of course a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) on raising this matter. In the time that I have been in this place, I think this is the first debate we have had about the battle of Britain. I ask myself why we have not had one before—I am rather guilty in that regard myself.
I rise simply to make some comments about the fact that my father was a fighter pilot throughout the second world war. He flew almost constantly in Spitfires and came in during the latter stages of the battle of Britain, so I grew up with stories about what happened. Almost the first story that my father told me was about when he was just finishing off his training—somewhere up near Liverpool, I think—and he and a couple of others were in a pub that night.
This was just after Dunkirk, and a bunch of soldiers who had returned from Dunkirk saw these RAF figures sitting by the bar and immediately came and attacked them under the stupid belief—it was not their fault, because the information was not given to them—that the RAF had not turned up at Dunkirk, because they could not see the aircraft overhead. The truth is somewhat different, because the fighter pilots had gone inland to break up the bombers long before they got anywhere near the beaches. If they got near the beaches, it was too late. He said, “We bore”—how can I put it?—“the imprint of a disgruntled set of pongos, who I remembered all the way through the rest of my life.” But he went on to qualify as a fighter pilot.
Most fighter pilots were not trained massively. There was a rush to get them done, so they had no real combat training. What they had was basic training on the aircraft to go solo, a few fighter runs and feints, and then they would be sent off to their squadrons, so the first time they would understand how to fly the aircraft properly was in combat. My father talked about what he used to say to his pilots when he later became a squadron leader and eventually a group captain. He said, “I used to tell my pilots that you have to abandon all that you have learned and understand only one thing: you don’t get into this aircraft; you strap it on—it becomes an extension of you. If you learn that, this aircraft will never let you down. It can always go as far as you want, and it will test you, but you will always come out of it.” That stayed with him all the time, and his pilots, I think, had very good records as well.
It is worth reminding ourselves that of course it was the pre-war planning that enabled us to have enough time and warning to put the fighters up in the air to take out the bombers. Sir Robert Watson-Watt and others developed the chain of radars. The Germans never understood fully what that was about until too late. And of course there was Dowding’s two-pronged determination. No. 1 was that this home chain should exist, and the system to run it through the tables, with the WAAF—Women’s Auxiliary Air Force—pushing all the details about individual squadrons coming across. The second bit, which was really important, was his argument with Churchill about not sending Spitfires over to France. That was critical because had we done that, we would not have been ready and prepared for what was to come next. That was a very big dispute. I think Churchill never really forgave him for standing up to him on that, but he was right to have done so, because we were ready and prepared with the right squadrons and the right aircraft.
The other side of it was that although, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury said, the Germans were never going to succeed, there was a period when they were pretty close, and that was when they were bombing the airfields endlessly. That meant that many squadrons were coming back to find their airfields destroyed and were having to be diverted to amateur airfields and everywhere else, where there was no support, no supply, no ammunition waiting for them and often no fuel. It would then take them longer to be ready, and by the time they were ready, it was almost too late.
Dowding was within, I think, two days of ordering his squadrons north of London, because they were pretty much exhausted, as they were not able just to come back and fly again. At that point, Germany switched the bombing to London. That was a critical moment. It gave him breathing space to reconstruct, rebuild, and be ready for them a second time when they came back to the airfields, and that is exactly what happened. His leadership in all this was critical, for which he was not properly rewarded directly afterwards but was later on. As the commanding officer, Dowding was as important to this as Nelson was to Trafalgar or as Wellington was to Waterloo, and we should honour him and others who worked with him.
My father got five gallantry medals during the war—two Distinguished Service Orders and three Distinguished Flying Crosses, which are all combat awards—but like many other pilots who were there, he did not ask questions about this. He became a very good friend of the actor Christopher Lee, who was the godfather to my brother. I remember as a young boy, sitting in a back room with my brother while they had a drink together—that was normal in those days—when he came through and said to me and my brother, “Your father is a man without fear.” This troubled me for some time. When I eventually was in the Army myself, one evening over a drink, I said to my father, “Christopher Lee said you are a man without fear.” He said, “That’s not true. A man without fear is a dangerous man, because he cares not about anybody else. I was scared all through the war, but I controlled it because I could not let those around me down.”
My father said that the toughest thing he ever had to do was to eventually deal with a pilot who had clearly lost it—who had broken. He had to send him down because he was a risk to the others around him. He said that these men would break down in tears in front of them because that was the end of their time—that was it; there were no further chances for them. He said, “That was the toughest thing you had to do; but, for the sake of the others, you made that decision, even though you hated doing it at the time.” Although they have become heroic figures, it is worth reminding ourselves that every day they were fighting for their lives and the lives of the people next door to them in the air. That is important.
I want to finish by saying that the lesson they taught us, from the 1930s all the way through, is one that we are now faced with again. We are faced by the growth of totalitarianism: brutal states like China, Russia and others, who will stop at nothing and who care nothing for human rights, nothing for the rule of law and nothing for freedom. These countries are growing in potency. Russia is invading a nation that is trying to become a democracy and fight for freedom. What we have to understand is that we are now under as big a threat as they were in the 1930s. We must understand that the preparation in the late ’30s is where we have to be today—I say that nodding to the Minister, who has served himself and will understand that fully.
There are three lessons that we draw from this. First, we can never appease dictators. Dictators of brutal totalitarian regimes must be confronted, never appeased. The second is: never trade land for peace. Fight for the souls and the hearts of those who honour freedom. Do not betray them with shabby deals, as we did in 1938, when we sold land of those we had no right to. The third bit, which I will finish on, is very simple: “Si vis pacem, para bellum”—“If you would have peace, prepare for war”—because if we are unready, you can bet that the others will not be. What is it that our fighter pilots taught us, those brave men who went on to fight through the rest of the war like my father and others? They said: “Never again find yourself in a situation where you have to put young men and women under fire because politicians failed to recognise what they had to do early on.”
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for bringing this important debate to the House. Equally, it would be remiss of me not to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) for her passionate speech, or the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who gave a powerful and interesting speech about his father’s experiences in the second world war. I thank him for bringing that to the House today.
I wish to commemorate the battle of Britain, one of the defining moments in our nation’s history, but also to champion the extraordinary contribution of my local community in Essex. While the courage of the Royal Air Force pilots is rightly celebrated across the country, we must not forget that the defence of Britain was not won by pilots alone; it was secured by towns and villages, by the people who built, maintained and sustained the airfields, roads and communications, and by ordinary citizens, who became the backbone of our nation’s resilience.
Essex played a pivotal and proud role in that effort. Airfields such as North Weald and Duxford were protecting London and southern England from the relentless attacks of the Luftwaffe. Near Harlow, RAF Matching, which is in my constituency, contributed to the broader air defence and bomb operations, reminding us that the battle of Britain was fought not only in the skies but on the ground, in every village and town that supported it.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
In a similar vein, I pay tribute to the brave radio operators around the country, one of whom, in my constituency, was awarded the George Medal for staying at her post in the Sherborne post office, even after it was hit. It was thanks to the bravery of civilians such as Maude Steele that we were able to succeed in the battle.
Chris Vince
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We cannot talk about those heroes often enough in this place, as far as I am concerned, so I thank him for his contribution. In Hatfield Heath, which is in my constituency, we preserve living links to that history. Prisoner of war camp 116, which was established shortly after the battle of Britain, housed Italian, German and Austrian prisoners. Despite the ravages of time, it remains one of the most complete surviving internment camps in the UK, offering us a window into the human stories of the war.
We also remember the 1944 B-26 Marauder crash, slightly after the battle of Britain and not far from Hatfield Heath, which claimed the lives of three American airmen. The memorial, which was unveiled in 2021, ensures that their sacrifice, and the deep bond between our communities and the wider allied effort, will never be forgotten. I will mention their names: Howard H. Noland, Jacob E. Crider III and Warren E. Terrain. I thank local historian Mark Ratcliff for championing the need to recognise those brave airmen. They came from a foreign land to fight for us, and they lost their lives in my constituency.
I also thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for mentioning the foreign airmen who joined forces with the RAF, across our skies and across the channel, to fight fascism. It is not particularly relevant to Harlow, but I pay tribute to the 303 Squadron of Polish fighters, who were some of the bravest and most successful—if that is the right word—pilots who fought in that battle.
Cameron Thomas
In his 1941 report on the battle of Britain, then Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding wrote that the other commands, the Commonwealth countries and four allies contributed unstintingly to meet the emergency, but
“Had it not been for the magnificent material contributed by the Polish squadrons and their unsurpassed gallantry, I hesitate to say that the outcome of the battle would have been the same.”
Chris Vince
I know that a friend of mine who sadly passed away, Paul Walentowicz—whose father fought in the battle of Britain as a Polish fighter—would be very proud to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, so I thank him.
When commemorating these events, it is important to look back. It is about honouring the courage of the RAF, the allied forces, and the local men and women whose work, diligence and sacrifice made victory possible. However, let us recognise that RAF and Army personnel still serve and protect this country. We have an hon. Gentleman in the room today, the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who we should mention in that same breath. We should recognise them at every possible opportunity.
Ultimately, the events and the information that I have shared today connect our local identity, educate future generations, and preserve the heritage that connects national history to everyday lives. I put on record my thanks to Hatfield Heath parish council and Hatfield Regis Local History Society for their work. I recently joined them for their VJ commemorations, and saw the effort that they make to preserve that history.
Let us remember that the story of the battle of Britain is not just about the pilots in the sky; it is the story of Essex, of Hatfield Heath, of Matching and of every community that stood together to defend our country. We must ensure that the courage, determination and sacrifice of those who came before us continue to inspire and guide us today.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for choosing and securing this debate.
In June 1940, with France fallen, Hitler expected Britain to negotiate a peace deal. When Britain made it clear that it would fight on, Hitler prepared the invasion of Britain, Operation Sea Lion. But first, he had to win command of the air over southern England. It sounded simple, but Devon had other ideas. Devon became one of the most militarised parts of England—the beaches of Beer, Seaton and Sidmouth were lined with barbed wire and scaffold barriers. Eighty-five years later, defensive bunkers still sit above Jacob’s Ladder in Sidmouth and at Beer beach. These are blunt reminders of how close invasion then felt.
RAF Exeter, to the west of today’s Aylesbeare, was a No. 10 Group sector station. It is now Exeter airport, but at that time was for the benefit of the Royal Air Force. From there, Hurricanes of 87 and 213 Squadrons took off to protect the channel and support the hard-pressed south-east of England. The station opened on 6 July 1940, and by August its pilots were already intercepting raids along the coast and near neighbouring Dorset and Portland. It was on 20 August 1940 that Churchill said those famous words,
“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”—[Official Report, 20 August 1940; Vol. 364, c. 1167.]
Devon was home to some of the few.
Born in Teignmouth, Group Captain Alan Richard Wright flew with No. 92 Squadron through the fiercest months of 1940, recording 11 confirmed victories over the Luftwaffe before being shot down near Brighton in September and awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross in October 1940. In Devon itself during the battle, our farms, our coves and our clifftop posts became part of that national nervous system that we have heard referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). Observers’ eyes and telephone wires fed the Dowding system that cued the fighters on to their targets. The young men and women of 1940 fought for a Europe where free nations decide their own future, and today those ideals are being tested once again in Europe.
Ukrainians are resisting Putin’s attempts to dictate their future, and in so doing, they defend democracy and the rule of law for the rest of Europe, just as we did in 1940. As we remember the courage on our cliffs, the squadrons at Exeter and the courageous servicemen we lost, we must also face today’s reality. Europe is turbulent, even though the threats do not now start at our shores and, of course, the battle of Britain was not fought alone by Britain; it was flown by pilots from across the Commonwealth and from across Europe. It reminds us that we are most secure when we stand with our allies and with our friends. Let remembrance be matched by resolve to work again to protect our nation, strengthen our shared security, and keep the democratic, liberal ideals that were bestowed on us by the few.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Dumfriesshire town of Moffat, which I have the privilege of representing and of living in, has a close association with a number of famous people. But few of our notable local sons or daughters had such a profound influence on the future of the United Kingdom as Hugh Dowding, who was born on 24 April 1882 and whose leadership of RAF Fighter Command during the battle of Britain was decisive, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), in defending the nation from both air attack and invasion by Hitler’s Nazi armies. It was during those summer and early autumn months of 1940 that the struggle for what was literally the survival of our nation was fought and ultimately decided.
Central to that fight were the character, leadership and effective tactics of Air Vice-Marshal Hugh Dowding. The later Lord Dowding was not a flamboyant man. He was pragmatic, and a believer in meticulous planning. Having served during world war one and thereafter joined the RAF, he made his mark during the 1930s as a member of the Air Council for Supply and Research, as a firm believer that research and development was essential. He argued for adequate funding for research, knowing that the days of the biplane were numbered, and pushed for development of faster, advanced fighter aircraft. This initiative is largely credited with the development of the legendary Hurricane and Spitfire aircraft, which were ordered into production in 1934, and which would go on to play such an iconic and pivotal role in the Battle of Britain.
Dowding showed enormous interest in emerging technology connected to the detection of enemy aircraft, and threw his support behind radio direction finding equipment, which again was central to victory in the skies over Britain in 1940. The foresight and determination to match emerging advanced aircraft and technologies with new, effective tactics led to the creation of what would become known as the Dowding system, which the hon. Member for Tewkesbury referenced in his opening remarks. That was an innovative air defence network, which integrated radar stations, ground observers and a centralised command structure. For the first time in history, an air force could see incoming attacks, track them in real time, and direct interception with precision. The new system meant that Britain, with its smaller number of aircraft, could resist the numerically far superior Luftwaffe, leaving German pilots often astonished at how swiftly RAF pilots appeared, seemingly out of nowhere, to disrupt their formations.
However, Dowding’s enthusiasm for new equipment, technologies and tactics was matched by an equally important human quality: his commitment to the principle that preserving trained men was as vital as preserving machines. He rotated squadrons to rest them; made full use, as we have heard, of pilots from across the Commonwealth, occupied Europe and even the United States; and was deeply moved by the sacrifice of his young airmen. Behind what was undoubtedly a reserved demeanour, he was deeply concerned for the wellbeing of his pilots and all his men, even speaking in later years of feeling their presence after death.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a fact that partly because of the great efforts of Lord Beaverbrook overseeing aircraft production, we never ran out of aircraft in the battle—but we very nearly ran out of pilots. So does my right hon. Friend agree with me that part of Dowding’s genius was generating enough pilots and then taking sufficient care of them so that we won?
David Mundell
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. Dowding was someone who valued the trained individual and who really stood up for his men.
From a number of excellent contributions we have heard Churchill’s assessment of the battle of Britain, in which he paid tribute to the courage of the RAF fighter pilots whose defence of our skies delivered both victory and the survival of our country. However, it is perhaps the more unvarnished estimation of an opposing protagonist that pays the most compelling tribute to Dowding. Following the battle of Britain, Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt commanded German forces in the west and had been involved in planning the invasion of Britain which was ultimately cancelled after the battle of Britain. During interrogation by the allies, the Field Marshal was asked at what point during the course of the war he had seen the tide turning against Germany—was it Stalingrad, Leningrad or El Alamein?
“Oh no,”
replied von Rundstedt,
“it was the Battle of Britain.”
That was the first time he realised that the Nazis were not invincible.
That shattering of progress towards what was seemingly an inevitable Nazi victory was down to the courage of the young pilots who fought and died in the skies over Britain in 1940, and their memory must always be honoured; but the vital contribution made by the son of a schoolmaster from Moffat should also be remembered. The quiet determination of Hugh Dowding, which gave those pilots the tools, the system and the strategy to succeed, was central to winning the battle of Britain and ensuring the survival of a nation and the freedom and liberty we enjoy today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you for giving me the chance to speak, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for allowing us all to sow into this debate, and boy did he set the right tone for it. Every one of us respects him for that—well done to him. I am pleased to see the hon. and gallant Minister in his place. He understands the issues that we talk about because he has lived them, and I very much look forward to his response to our contributions on a subject that we all love. It is a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), in his place; we see his passion for this subject in every intervention he makes on it. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire)—she has served as well—in advance for her contribution, too.
Members will be aware—I am always very proud to say this—that I served in the Territorial Army, the Royal Artillery and the Ulster Defence Regiment for some 14 and a half years as a part-time soldier, both in an anti-terrorism role and at the time of the iron curtain. I believe that gives me a small understanding of what service means, and I regard it with great honour. Having seen the impact of service on so many of my comrades over the years, it is with that personal view that I approach discussions concerning our veterans. The Minister encapsulates—I am not giving him a big head—the thing that I want for our veterans and, I think, that we all want for our veterans. We thank him for standing by them, as he always does.
I am aware that, as time moves on and values change, a shifting narrative of the wars and the actions that we took is appearing. The acts of courage and valour that we once held as a gold standard are increasingly being seen by some as acts of shame, and that concerns me greatly. Today, we sometimes look on those acts through a distorted modern lens that could never accurately portray the reality of war in the 1900s, or of the RAF during the second world war, which this debate is all about. I believe that the greatest commemoration of the battle of Britain is the education of our children to accurately reflect that war and the lessons learned, and I will try to focus on that.
We must ensure that every cycle of children who go through school receives more than simply an hour-long lesson on a battle fought back in the 1900s, as our young people now categorise anything that is over 20 years old. As a pensioner—indeed, well by a pensioner— I listen to my grandchildren and children, and they perhaps do not always see the sacrifices made over the years. Children must be taught the reasons the war was fought and the bravery of those who boarded the ships on D-day, those on the planes at the battle of Britain, which everyone has spoken about, and those behind the intelligence gathering that allowed men of influence to make decisions that they knew would sacrifice the lives of thousands to save the lives of millions. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) referred to Winston Churchill’s words:
“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”
As we all know, Winston Churchill was an incredible capturer of the English language and was able to say things with words that were so effective and helped the nation.
While I absolutely support the hon. Member for Tewkesbury in his wish to recognise the battle of Britain as one of the most important battles of the 20th century, it is my firm belief that true commemoration has to be much more than that. There has to be a determination to ensure that true history is not skewed or changed, but honoured in our education systems. The battle of Britain is certainly worthy of that honour.
Northern Ireland more than played her part in that battle, and I want to give a couple of examples of the role of the RAF in Northern Ireland. In my constituency of Strangford, the RAF was stationed at Ards airport and at Ballyhalbert airport, where the Polish squadron was based. About 10 years ago, a memorial was made at the Ards war memorial in Ards town for the Polish pilots. Some of them came and died in their battles, but some came and stayed. I always say that when any young men such as those pilots come to Northern Ireland and meet a Northern Irish girl, she is always special. More often than not, they do not go home; they stay in Northern Ireland. We happen to have that talent, I believe, among us menfolk. I am a one-woman man, by the way—I make that very clear. My wife has been very good for me over the years and has settled me down a bit, and I thank her for making that be the case. Without her I would not be half the man I am.
The tradition of RAF service in my constituency has also been carried through by the air cadets. In Regent House school in Newtownards, we have one of the largest detachments of air cadets. I am always minded— I attended a memorial service just before Easter—that 1,000 people or thereabouts were killed when the Luftwaffe attacked shipbuilding and aerospace sites during the Belfast blitz. I do not know why, but the Luftwaffe came down and bombed Newtownards as well, and 13 young Irish Fusiliers were killed. It is sometimes good to remember that the battles were not only in London, or in the north-east, Scotland and Wales, but in Northern Ireland, when the Luftwaffe went straight across to Northern Ireland, but our men and women of course served in uniform, and conscription was never needed there.
Northern Ireland has a proud aviation history, and it hosted military airfields such as RAF Sydenham. Those facilities were used by various squadrons, including those of the United States air force and of Polish forces. Again, that is a reminder that the horrors of war did not stop at Dover, but carried right on over. Northern Ireland produced vital fighter pilots for the battle of Britain, with at least some 28 serving. Notable among them was Brendan Finucane, one of the Irish pilots who fought for Britain. We sometimes need to be reminded that the Irish nation also contributed to the war against Nazism. The Republic of Ireland stayed neutral during the war, but there were many who fought, and today many serve in uniform in the Northern Irish regiments and those here on the mainland as well.
Belfast was a major industrial centre and made significant contributions to the allied war effort by producing naval ships, aircraft and munitions, which made it a target for the Luftwaffe during the Belfast blitz. Northern Ireland hosted the crucial No. 9 Group RAF headquarters at RAF Barton Hall. It was established in September 1940 to control fighter operations in north-west England and Northern Ireland, including bases such as RAF Limavady and RAF Ballykelly, which were vital for protecting Atlantic convoys. Churchill said that Northern Ireland’s contribution in the war was of such significance because we helped the convoys coming over from the United States and had our Air Force there to respond.
The naval historian John Hewitt made clear the role of Northern Ireland in our victory in the second world war when he stated very clearly:
“If we hadn’t won the Battle of Britain the Nazis would have invaded England and there’s no doubt about it. We would not have the freedom that we have today and Northern Ireland’s fighter pilots played a key role.”
However, I am not convinced that schools throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are explaining this history, and I believe we need to do that as the ultimate tribute to and commemoration of the battle of Britain. We need to once again instil a pride in our armed forces, whose courage and loyalty is the stuff of legends and worthy of our honour and regard.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, and indeed every Member who has spoken or intervened, on what has been an incredible debate and one of those debates that has inspired us. I look to the Minister to bring to the Cabinet the determination we have, and which I know he has, to teach such commemoration and allow our children to once again have that pride in being British. I love telling people that I am British because I am proud to be British. We stood alone and faced a threat of terror and oppression, and the blood that ran through the veins of the people in those days still runs through each of ours. We must honour that and honour them in living memory.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for securing this important debate.
The battle of Britain remains one of the most decisive victories in our nation’s history. In the summer of 1940 the Royal Air Force, outnumbered and under immense pressure, faced down the Luftwaffe. In doing so, it prevented invasion and gave our nation hope. Victory was a turning point in the war, a symbol of resilience and testament to the power of co-ordinated defence. We rightly honour the few—the young pilots whose courage inspired a nation. But we must also honour the many—the engineers and fitters, the armourers, the women of the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force who tracked raids on vast plotting maps, and the factory workers, many of them women, who ensured that damaged aircraft could be replaced. Their unseen work sustained our pilots in the air. Their story is one of collective effort, resilience and sacrifice.
This was an international battle. Pilots and personnel came from across the Commonwealth and from occupied Europe, Canada, New Zealand, Czechoslovakia and, most famously, Poland, whose 145 pilots played a decisive role. Indeed, the Polish No. 303 Squadron was the highest scoring unit of the entire campaign. Even volunteers from neutral countries such as Ireland and the United States chose to fight for Britain’s freedom. The battle of Britain was in every sense a collective endeavour. It was fought not only with Hurricanes and Spitfires, but with morale. Ordinary people endured blackouts, bombings and sleepless nights in the shelters. Yet the blitz spirit, stoicism, humour and neighbourly solidarity carried communities through. Churchill’s words and the sight of duels overhead helped forge a powerful sense of national unity—that resilience, both military and civilian.
In my constituency of Epsom and Ewell, the war touched daily life. Residents sheltered in Anderson shelters through long nights filled with anti-aircraft fire. On 18 August, remembered as the “hardest day”, Flying Officer Peter James Simpson of No. 111 Squadron was forced to bring his stricken Hurricane down on the RAC golf course at Woodcote Park, Epsom. Having engaged a Dornier bomber, his aircraft was raked with fire. He was injured but managed a forced landing near the clubhouse in an act of skill and courage that left its mark on our town’s history. A painting of that moment still hangs in the clubhouse, a vivid reminder that Epsom itself lay beneath the skies of the battle, and that this is not just a national story, but a local one as well.
Commemoration must go hand in hand with commitment. Just as the country pulled together to defend our liberty in 1940, so too must we pull together now to support those who have served. The UK Government must provide better care for all veterans, ensuring that their contributions are not forgotten and that they receive the recognition and support that they so rightly deserve. It is a scandal that in 2025 veterans continue to fall through the cracks. More than 2,000 veterans’ households were assessed as homeless in 2022-23, which is unacceptable. A fair deal for veterans must mean access to high-quality, affordable accommodation. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the building of 150,000 new social homes every year.
Mental health support must also be a priority. Between 2017 and 2023, more than 30,000 referrals were made to the NHS veterans’ mental health service. Over half of veterans surveyed said they had experienced mental health problems. These are men and women who put their lives on the line for us. It is not right that so many are left suffering with depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder without timely support. The Liberal Democrats are calling for regular mental health check-ups at key stages of veterans’ lives, better recording of outcomes, and a campaign to end the stigma that still too often prevents people from seeking help.
For today’s serving personnel we must get the basics right. It is shameful that some members of our armed forces are housed in substandard accommodation. Peers reintroduced to the Renters’ Rights Bill the Liberal Democrat amendment to extend the decent homes standard to Ministry of Defence housing. I urge the Government, when the Bill returns to the Commons next week, to accept that amendment as a positive safeguard for our service personnel. They deserve that decent standard as a minimum.
Remembrance is also about education and awareness, as many have already alluded to. The story of the battle of Britain must continue to be remembered in ways that reach future generations, whether through services of commemoration in our communities or through museums, exhibitions or teaching in our schools. Access to local stories, such as those from Epsom and Ewell, should sit alongside the national narrative so that young people see that this history is not distant; it happened on the very streets where they live today, and for their freedom and the peace that we enjoy today.
Eighty-five years ago, the few gave everything to defend the many. Today we honour their courage, but the greatest tribute we can pay is to ensure that their legacy lives on not only in words, but in the way that we care for those who serve today, and in the way we continue to tell their stories for generations to come. Remembrance is much more than words; it must be action as well.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Good afternoon, Sir Desmond. It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship as we debate these momentous events in the run-up to Battle of Britain Day, which commemorates the 85th anniversary of the culmination of the battle on 15 September 1940. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) on securing this very important and timely debate, which he introduced so very admirably. Lest we forget.
On a personal note, I regard it as a genuine privilege, as the son of a world war two veteran—albeit one who fought in the Royal Navy—to be able to sum up for His Majesty’s Opposition this afternoon. I would like to begin by declaring two personal interests, first as an amateur military historian and a battle of Britain buff in particular. Southend airport, which abuts my constituency, was RAF Rochford in 1940, one of Fighter Command’s vital forward airfields. Secondly, several years ago I worked with a former constituent and local historian called Steve Newman on a project to help restore and refurbish our official war memorial at Wickford. Steve is now involved in another ambitious project, this time to restore a world war two Hurricane, serial Z5134. With a dedicated band of helpers, he is attempting to rebuild this historic aircraft almost from the wheels up. I was privileged to view the fruits of their labour during the summer recess. Realistically, it will take them several years to achieve their ambition. I would like to place on record my admiration for what they are attempting, and to wish them every possible success.
Turning to the battle itself, there is no doubt that it was an example of heroism on multiple levels, beginning with the pilots, from some of the well-known aces, such as Peter Townsend, Bob Stanford Tuck, Douglas Bader and Sailor Malan, through to those who only flew in combat once and never returned. Those young men, some of whom had barely 10 hours on type, must have known before they took off that the chances of their returning alive were slim. Nevertheless, they took off anyway. In all, almost 3,000 allied pilots fought with Fighter Command in the officially defined period of the battle of Britain, which runs from 10 July to 31 October 1940.
However, it is important to note that the defence in the battle was by no means solely a British affair—far from it. As well as the RAF squadrons, those from other nations also played a crucial role, perhaps most famously the Polish 303 Squadron, based at RAF Northolt, which shot down more enemy aircraft—126—than any other squadron. It was supplemented by other Polish squadrons, plus the Czechs and Canadians, and indeed the three Eagle squadrons of American pilots who volunteered to fight with the RAF more than a year before Pearl Harbour.
History also owes a great debt to those who kept them flying, not least the ground crew of Fighter Command, but also the Royal Observer Corps, the General Post Office technicians who assisted with communications and those working in the factories to produce the iconic Spitfires and Hurricanes on which the defence so crucially depended. Although Churchill rightly paid tribute to “the few”, in fact there were many who contributed to that critical victory in 1940, the vast majority of whom never flew in combat.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I just wanted to make the small point that I was fortunate enough to sit next to Jock Colville, who was assistant private secretary to Churchill throughout the war. They were visiting Uxbridge on 15 September, when a huge armada gathered. Churchill was watching as, one by one, the lights went up, until everything was up. He said to the air officer commanding, “What are you going to do now? Where are your reserves?” The officer said, “We have no reserves, Prime Minister.” Churchill asked, “What will you do?” The officer said, “I don’t know about you, but I’m going to pray.” Jock Colville told me that, with that, Churchill stayed silent for three hours, something he never did, but that when he got into the car, he turned to him and said, “Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few.”
Mr Francois
The whole House is grateful to my right hon. Friend for that very telling intervention. While I have the opportunity, I pay tribute to his marvellous speech and, more than that, to the wonderful service of his father, of whom he can be immensely proud.
Also fundamental were the RAF commanders, principally Air Chief Marshal Sir Keith Park, who famously commanded 11 Group, which bore the brunt of the battle. Park, a New Zealander, displayed tactical brilliance in the husbanding of his squadrons, while also fighting a highly aggressive and effective defence.
Overall, however, perhaps the greatest single contribution to victory was that of the leader of Fighter Command throughout the battle, Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding. As well as being a pilot, Dowding was keenly interested in scientific development, which he pursued zealously when promoted to the Air Council in 1930, with responsibility for supply and research. That critical appointment was to have profound consequences for the subsequent conduct of the battle a decade later, as several right hon. Members have alluded to.
Dowding had three great attributes that materially contributed to the RAF’s victory. First, he possessed tremendous foresight. Like Churchill, he realised very early on that Nazi Germany and its nascent air force would one day provide a potentially fatal threat to Britain’s security, and he began to plan accordingly.
Secondly, Dowding’s genius—I use the word deliberately —was that he conceptualised years in advance the battle that the RAF would have to fight. He then used his new appointment enthusiastically to pull together multiple strands of scientific development, crucially including Watson-Watt’s experiments with radar, to create a highly resilient defensive system.
In May 1937, Dowding presciently delivered a lecture to the air staff regarding the air defence of Great Britain, in which the scenario he outlined was one of a war with a European dictator—the inference was obvious —attempting to starve Britain into submission by the aggressive use of submarines, but not before the United Kingdom had been subjected to an all-out assault designed to destroy the RAF and cripple the nation’s ability to make war, by remorseless attack from the air.
As head of the newly created Fighter Command from July 1936, Dowding went on to create a command and control network alerted by radar, all feeding into Fighter Command headquarters at RAF Bentley Priory, and supported by an organisation of group and sector headquarters designed to co-ordinate timely fighter interception of incoming German aircraft. That was all interconnected by a system of telephone and, later, teleprinter communications. The historian and operational analyst Stephen Bungay, in his brilliant book, “The Most Dangerous Enemy”, describes that system as “the world’s first intranet”, albeit an analogue version, half a century before Tim Berners-Lee. Critically, the Dowding system, as it became known, allowed the RAF to make best use of its resources in combating an enemy that frequently outnumbered it three, or even four, to one.
Thirdly, Dowding possessed tremendous moral courage in dealing with superiors, up to and including Churchill. The epic 1969 movie “The Battle of Britain”, with its all-star cast, opens with the Dowding letter of 16 May 1940, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) referred to. In it, Dowding famously argued the need to conserve Britain’s fighter strength during the fall of France. As he trenchantly put it,
“if the Home Defence Force is drained away in desperate attempts to remedy the situation in France, defeat in France will involve the final, complete and irremediable defeat of this country.”
In Dowding, Britain possessed a commander with an absolutely single-minded determination to prepare meticulously for, to fight and then to win the battle, for which his pilots, whom he referred to affectionately as “my boys”, held him in particular reverence. His truly was the controlling mind that orchestrated the ultimately successful defence of these islands.
Like many commanders before him, Dowding was a maverick, but he was not an extrovert. He was socially awkward, which led to his nickname “Stuffy”. He never suffered fools gladly, and his manner could be abrupt, even when dealing with superiors, which ultimately led to his downfall. Nevertheless, he was a man utterly dedicated to his task, and one to whom history owes an immense debt. Arguably, had Dowding never been born we might even have lost the battle, as we would undoubtedly have been far less well prepared to fight it.
David Mundell
My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that this Saturday, at his birthplace in Moffat, a bust of the then Lord Dowding will be unveiled alongside a replica Spitfire, and that his former home has been turned into sheltered housing accommodation for RAF personnel, known as Dowding House.
Mr Francois
I am sure that I speak for the whole House in saying that that is entirely appropriate.
James Holland, in his excellent book “The Battle of Britain: Five Months that changed History”, highlights the fact that the Luftwaffe made multiple mistakes in the campaign, but nevertheless concludes:
“This should not detract from the achievement of the RAF in the summer of 1940. Had it not had such a superb defensive system and had it not had such inspired and brilliant leaders, the Luftwaffe would still have prevailed, no matter how valiant or skillful the pilots.”
To conclude myself, the importance of winning the battle of Britain cannot be overstated. Had the RAF lost and had Hitler successfully invaded these islands, the whole history of the world thereafter would have been brutally different. Put another way, the debate today would not be taking place and there would be no Parliament or House of Commons for it to take place in. The Royal Air Force, as a service, can rightly be proud of the immense contribution it made in the battle of Britain to the defence of democracy, not just in the United Kingdom, but across the free world. The pilots whom Churchill famously christened “the few” have a special place in the annals of history, but so do the very few who so brilliantly commanded them to victory. We honour all of them today.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for initiating today’s debate, and to all Members and gallant Members for their contributions—particularly those with service history, but also great knowledge of the battle of Britain.
On 2 September 1940, 85 years ago today, the Luftwaffe launched a series of massive attacks on RAF airfields and multiple other strategic industrial targets across our great country. Just one of those waves consisted of 250 German aircraft, which is almost incomprehensible today. They darkened the sky as they crossed the English channel in a fearsome display of force and intent. Yet, even with all that firepower and industrial might, it turned out to be another costly day for the Luftwaffe. Harassed, harried and hounded by the RAF, the Germans’ air force was failing to meet its objectives.
At a briefing about the lack of progress, Reichsmarschall Göring criticised his airmen for the mounting losses. When he asked one of his leading flying aces, Adolf Galland, what he needed to turn the battle in Germany’s favour, Galland famously responded,
“I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my squadron”—
a reply that left Göring speechless with rage. He stormed off in disgust.
The excellence of the British aircraft was surpassed by the extraordinary courage of the heroes, such as the father of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who flew them. Today, we come together once again to say thank you to the generation who gave so much.
It is difficult to imagine the mood, but also the courage and fortitude, of the British people as they contemplated Hitler’s next move during the summer of 1940. It is easy for us now, with hindsight, to look back with certainty, but for those sat here in Britain in 1940, invasion was imminent. They had watched our European allies fall to Nazi Germany one by one. They knew that a momentous battle was approaching—a battle for the future of not just Britain, but freedom and democracy. They knew that we might be defeated—certainty was not guaranteed.
The battle proved to be an immense test of national character and many made the ultimate sacrifice, with 23,000 civilians losing their lives and more than 1,500 RAF air crew personnel dying trying to protect them. Pilots often flew multiple sorties day after day, week after week, scrambling to their planes every time the next wave of bombers was detected, fighting on after sustaining damage and injuries high over the fields of south-east England, locked in high-stakes combat against a deadly foe. The battle was not only a contest for the control of our skies; it was a test of will that would determine the fate of our entire nation. At a time of supreme Nazi confidence, the battle of Britain demonstrated to ourselves, and was a signal to the rest of the world, that Hitler could be defeated.
What lessons can we learn from that for today? First, in an increasingly fragile world, we must continue to defend and to stand up for what we believe in and who we are against the rise of autocracy. We must be able to stand up, no matter how dangerous and no matter the threat of physical or economic consequences.
The second lesson is about the importance of alliances and friendships. United we are stronger. As one great general once said:
“The only thing worse than working with allies is working without them.”
We honour the crucial role played by the US, the French nationals, the Poles, the Czechs, the South Africans, individuals from New Zealand and many others on the ground and in the air during the battle of Britain. More than 15 nations, and some more, came together, united by a shared purpose and shared beliefs.
The third lesson is in the importance of consistent innovation. In 1940, the world’s first integrated radar-based air defence system gave the RAF a critical advantage. Just a few weeks ago, an audacious Ukrainian drone attack on Russian bomber airfields reminded us of how new and evolving technology is vital to success in modern warfare. We are continually innovating to keep our skies secure. We are investing heavily in uncrewed systems, but we must do more in satellite technology, as space becomes a key defence domain in the future and in our global combat air programme, alongside our allies and partners.
The fourth lesson we can learn for today is the importance of our defence industry. Behind the “few” who Churchill spoke about—the heroes who manned the aircraft and took on the might of the German air force—were the many. As the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) mentioned, it was the many who supported, armed and sustained our fighters throughout the battle.
Finally, in 1940, when we fought the battle of Britain, the whir and the echo of air raid sirens reverberated around every city in the UK. That is going on right now in one place not so far from here—the sirens echo every day in Ukraine, which is under sustained and relentless attack by an aggressor.
Churchill fully grasped that this was a war of production, and said:
“The front line runs through the factories. The workmen are soldiers with different weapons but the same courage.”—[Official Report, 20 August 1940; Vol. 364, c. 1160.]
I have always said that, while armies, navies and air forces may respond to crisis and fight wars, it is industry, economies and societies that win them.
Britain prevailed because our supply chains turbocharged our fighting power. Our victory was built in significant measure on manufacturing excellence and organisational strength, and our modern defence industry remains just as integral a part of our national security. That is why the Government are rolling out our new defence industrial strategy by making defence an engine for growth. We create a robust pipeline for the equipment and munitions that keep Britain safe, and we create secure, skilled jobs up and down this wonderful country, with the workforce continuing to play a vital role in the protection of our nation.
A variety of issues were raised by hon. Members from both sides of the House. One that resonated was the requirement to remember. I would argue that remembering is not just for individuals of our age in this wonderful place, but is about education, communication and remembering across every section of society at all ages, because those who do not read history are unfortunately doomed to repeat it.
I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for highlighting preparedness. The reality is that the first 70 to 80 pages of the strategic defence review are all about industry. Finding the fighting power and the humans to fight is quite easy during conflict; it is very difficult to build the industrial base to sustain the ability to wage a defence of a nation.
The tributes that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) paid to his father were truly unbelievable. I cannot comprehend the bravery of his father—day in, day out, he jumped into an aircraft and flew into the unknown. I am truly jealous of the right hon. Gentleman’s ability to sit in the flank and listen to some of those stories, probably as his father sipped a whisky and regaled him about his time defending this great country. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned courage and fear; I always say that courage is a decision and fear is a reaction. The courage to volunteer and then fly into the unknown every day is utterly commendable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) made a really valid point, highlighting the fact that anyone can be a patriot, but we must not allow anyone to hijack that narrative to the point where people feel nervous about championing their patriotism. We are all proud to be British, first and foremost, and I argue that our duty here is to serve our country as a No. 1 priority.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the manipulation of the narrative, or indeed the past. I am absolutely galled that we see protesters defacing and damaging military aircraft, and pressing industry and universities not to get involved in the defence industry. The naivety is utterly remarkable, for the very freedoms, permissions and laws that allow those individuals to protest in the first place are defended by the individuals and equipment they attack. The naivety rings through and potentially will be called out only when we are called to respond to an existential crisis.
The battle of Britain was a defining conflict of world war two. We collectively remain in awe at the courage, conviction and stalwart self-belief of the men and women of this great isle who faced down Nazi Germany. But we still live in a time that demands courage, resilience and sacrifice. Today, our armed forces are actively engaged in keeping Britain safe in a more volatile and more dangerous world than I have seen in 24 years of service. We are profoundly grateful for everything they do, and, indeed, for everything that everybody in this House does to remind both the population and the international community of the threats that they may face.
This anniversary reminds us that we cannot grow complacent about peace. Our military serves as our insurance policy against threats to our security and our way of life. The battle of Britain generation continues to inspire us to be strong in the face of overwhelming odds and adversity, to stand up for the values that we believe in at any cost, and to proudly defend our great nation and our western way of life. That is the best way to honour the heroes of 1940. As a fellow veteran, I particularly thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for helping us by bringing this great debate to the House today.
Cameron Thomas
The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) spoke bravely of the dangers that nationalism might replace patriotism today, as it did in Europe throughout the 1920s and ’30s.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke passionately about his father’s extraordinary service. I am so glad that the House was able to hear that. I also thank him for the astonishing rallying cry with which he concluded.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) ensured that in remembrance we do not forget those who served on the ground, nor our gallant allies who fought for freedom alongside us; my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) well represented Devonshire’s refusal to bow to Hitler; and the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) spoke well of his righteous pride in representing the home of Sir Hugh Dowding.
The hon. and gallant Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke eloquently of the importance of continuing to reflect on past conflicts, and of supporting our veterans and saluting their personal sacrifices. I am grateful that the contribution of Northern Ireland to the battle of Britain was included in our debate.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), a fellow retired military police officer, ensured that today we honoured the many who so diligently enabled the few. She also spoke of the importance of telling the local stories as well as the national legend.
The right hon. and gallant shadow Minister is a self-described aviation devotee, and I hope he will take it sincerely when I say that there is nobody I would rather have had at the Opposition Dispatch Box today. I wish his constituents well in their refurbishment of a Hurricane. I hope that one day he will inform me that tail number Zulu-5134 has seen completion. He spoke glowingly of the genius of Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding, who used his assets sparingly, often outnumbered three to one, which itself led the Luftwaffe to underestimate the strength of Fighter Command. I thank the gallant Minister for Veterans and People, who spoke sincerely of the threat recognised and faced by Britain—a threat that, through tireless resilience, innovation and courage, was defeated by the Royal Air Force, the world’s oldest independent air force and the most celebrated. As the Government look to the defence industry for growth, I hope they will look at Tewkesbury and at Gloucestershire to contribute. Once more, thank you so much for chairing this debate, Sir Desmond.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of commemorating the Battle of Britain.
Violence against Women and Girls: Pornography Prostitution
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
I will call Joani Reid to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the mover of the motion and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the mover of the motion to sum up afterwards.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of pornography prostitution on violence against women and girls.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I begin by thanking two organisations that have been hugely helpful in preparing for today’s debate: UK Feminista, which provides the secretariat for the all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation, and the Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation—CEASE—and particularly Gemma Kelly, its head of policy.
Let me set out from the beginning precisely what I mean by pornography prostitution. It is the fusion of the pornography industry and the sex trade into one system. It is the buying, selling and consumption of sexual access to women, livestreamed, or filmed and uploaded, and monetised as entertainment. It is seen by many as a new and booming industry. I disagree: it is commercialised abuse, repackaged and sold as entertainment. It is a form of violence against women and girls.
Nowhere is that clearer than on OnlyFans, a UK-based company that has now become the global giant of online sexual exploitation. Last year, it generated $6.6 billion in revenue. It markets itself as a harmless subscription platform but, in reality, it is the largest pimping empire in the world today. I want to focus on three areas where OnlyFans is enabling violence against women and girls.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First of all, I commend the hon. Lady on bringing this forward. I spoke to her beforehand to ensure that my thoughts are similar to hers. There is no doubt that online platforms such as OnlyFans pose a potential threat to how young people perceive sexual relations. Does the hon. Lady agree—the Minister is here to answer this, of course—that the law needs to be brought up to date to ensure that OnlyFans and all other online pornographic platforms, including adult services websites, put proper age and consent checks in place to protect young people from damaging content online?
Joani Reid
I agree. I think that age verification is hugely important in tackling children’s exposure to pornography. It is not just on those websites; it is found on mainstream websites as well, and I think that is something that we need to look at in the next regulations under the Online Safety Act 2023.
As I said, OnlyFans is the largest pimping empire in the world. It is a playground for child sexual abuse and exploitation. Harm and coercion are suffered by women who become so-called content creators, and there is a wider societal and cultural impact, particularly on children and young people.
I begin with the most damning evidence: OnlyFans claims to have a zero-tolerance approach to child abuse, yet Reuters has documented at least 30 criminal cases between 2019 and 2024 in the United States alone involving child sexual abuse material on the platform, including hundreds of videos and images, some depicting extreme abuse. In one horrific case, the graphic abuse of a 16-year-old girl was monetised for more than a year before it was taken down, and that was only after Reuters started asking questions. We should be under no illusion: OnlyFans is not a safe platform for consenting adults to express and enjoy themselves. As one survivor put it,
“A whole company has made money off of my biggest trauma”.
The truth is that all that is just the tip of the iceberg, because OnlyFans hides content behind millions of individual paywalls, and there is no meaningful way for independent investigators, charities, or even law enforcement to monitor the full scale of the abuse. That is not transparency; it is secrecy by design.
Ofcom fined OnlyFans for providing misleading information about age verification. While the company claims to set a global standard, the reality is stark. It has no meaningful age verification in the vast majority of the more than 100 countries in which it operates. How many of the 500,000 new users signing up every day are children? We do not know because OnlyFans will not say. OnlyFans likes to boast that every video is reviewed by a human moderator, but the figures just do not add up. Last month alone, 62 million pieces of content were uploaded. Independent experts have said that it would take tens of thousands of moderators to review it all, but OnlyFans employs just a few dozen staff. It outsources the rest to Poland and Ukraine, behind non-disclosure agreements, with no transparency. When the company tells us it has zero tolerance for abuse, we must ask: zero tolerance or zero credibility? The evidence suggests the latter. It is not a British success story; it is the British export of the abuse of children to the world.
The second reality is that OnlyFans is not the empowering feminist fairytale that its marketing suggests. It claims to give women financial freedom, but the facts tell another story: 73% of the profits go to the top 10% of creators, and the average woman makes just £4 a month. That is not liberation; it is a lottery in which a handful at the top get rich and millions of others are driven to push their boundaries further and further to survive. As one former content creator described it,
“I wasn’t there. I was doing things like a robot.”
Another said,
“When you’re making an OnlyFans, you are gambling…Betting that your clients are strangers who don’t cross into your real world.”
She said it was the worst thing that ever happened to her when she discovered that the man who had paid her over $10,000 over a two-year period for her explicit videos was not a stranger but her uncle.
Research by Talita, an organisation in Sweden that supports women out of prostitution, pornography and trafficking, found that almost all women drawn into online pornography had suffered childhood trauma: 96% reported abuse, 88% sexual abuse, and 79% physical abuse. Predators deliberately target vulnerability. Women do not wake up one day just wanting to make porn. As one survivor put it,
“At first I told myself, I’ll just sell a foot photo. And before you know it, you’re drawn in step by step.”
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I must congratulate and thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. This debate should be difficult to listen to, but it still does not compare to the violent impact of pornography on women and girls. Does she agree that the upcoming violence against women and girls strategy should explicitly recognise and address prostitution and pornography as forms of commercial sexual exploitation?
Joani Reid
I completely agree. I hope—and this is a point that I am sure the Minister will respond to later in the debate—that there is a section within the strategy to address these issues. That could possibly be advanced as a result of collaboration between the Home Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
I was talking about the abuse that women who are involved in online pornography have suffered: 56% were physically assaulted as a result of their online pornography, and 65% raped. No other industry in Britain would be allowed to operate with those statistics. Meanwhile, OnlyFans executives pay themselves handsomely and its owner reportedly takes home £1.3 million a day. That is the price of women’s pain. But the harm extends well beyond women directly exploited. Its cultural impact is shaping the attitudes and behaviours of an entire generation.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Does she agree that the normalisation of violent porn can mean that these horrors come out of the screen and into real life, particularly when defence counsels argue that consent was given to crimes of strangulation? Does she welcome, as I do, the Government’s steps to make strangulation an aggravating factor when sentencing for murder?
Joani Reid
Again, I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. I am delighted that the Government have brought forward plans to ban strangulation in pornography, but there is a whole host of behaviours within pornography that we know affect real-life abuse.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she agree that, having created the ban on non-fatal strangulation in pornography, the Government now also need to ban depictions in pornography that encourage a sexual interest in children—so-called paedophilic-adjacent porn—as well as depictions of step-family incest?
Joani Reid
Let me take the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she did with other members of the APPG to get the Government to make that commitment around strangulation. Yes, I think it should extend to those categories as well. We have to tackle pornography that normalises and glamourises child abuse. It is not niche; we know from the work that we have done and through the Bertin review that, on Pornhub, incest porn is a main category. It is absolutely repugnant and should be tackled through Government intervention.
The impact extends into the behaviours of children and young people: eight in 10 children have seen violent pornography by the age of 18. Increasingly, children’s first exposure to sex is not a healthy relationship but online abuse marketed as entertainment.
Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Pornography is nothing new, but access to the kind of content she has described is something that previous generations did not have to deal with. The most responsible and vigilant parents are struggling to prevent access to it. Does she agree that we need action from the companies that promote and disseminate this type of material, in addition to the work of parents, and the important work that the Government are doing?
Joani Reid
We have recently seen a step forward in the age verification process but, as we know, parents cannot be omnipresent, particularly online. Companies such as Facebook, Meta and Instagram are allowing pornographic content to be pushed and used within algorithms, and it is completely unforgivable. Yes, I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
The academic Dr Elly Hanson talks about a parasitic ecosystem, which refers exactly to what my hon. Friend mentioned: OnlyFans feeds off mainstream social media platforms, where sexualised clips are pushed to children by algorithms, which pushes them on to their sites. Teenagers are bombarded with adverts and the grooming is blatant. Children have reported seeing OnlyFans content creators appearing alongside exam revision ads on their feed, the content of which was so graphic when I looked at it in preparation for this debate that I cannot bring myself to quote it. Children are being pushed this content, and it is being normalised. It is not a bug in the system; it is the business model. One child said,
“The amount of porn and fights I get on twitter is just horrible.”
The result of all this is that girls report feeling coerced to imitate what boys expect, and boys describe being desensitised, seeing violence and degradation as normal. Doctors link the 40% rise in non-fatal strangulation during sex to pornography consumption. As a result, as we have already mentioned, the Government have announced that the depiction of strangulation in pornography will be banned, in a move to protect women and girls from violence. CEASE’s report “Profits Before People” makes clear that pornography is harmful not just for those in it but for society. It grooms boys to perpetrate violence and grooms girls to accept it. It is not a fringe issue; it is a public health crisis.
Let me briefly address an argument sometimes presented by so-called progressive voices, particularly on the left, who claim that they are advocating for the rights of sex workers. Let me be clear: what they are really doing is prioritising a tiny minority of privileged individuals—people like Bonnie Blue—who pursue this work out of commercial choice rather than desperation. In doing so they ignore, and in fact further marginalise, the vast majority of women trapped in cycles of abuse, violence and poverty. Elevating the voices of those who profit from glamorising exploitation is not progressive; it is regressive, and it fundamentally betrays the women, girls and children who are suffering.
I ask those who support Bonnie Blue, Lily Phillips and other successful porn prostitutes: are you really content to ignore women who are raped on camera, and coerced and trafficked then disregarded, simply because a tiny minority can make millions from the same system? To celebrate them is to turn a blind eye to the abuse of thousands of others. The truth is simple: they do not represent the vast majority who engage in this activity. Those women have no voice, and if we are to claim to be on the side of progress, it is their voices, not the voices of those who glamorise abuse, that we must hear.
We must face facts. OnlyFans is not a neutral digital platform company. It is a profiteer of exploitation. We cannot regulate it in the same way that we do Facebook or Instagram. It requires tougher and targeted measures. First, we need transparency. OnlyFans must prove that its 4.6 million creators are all over 18 and have consented to their content. It must also allow independent child protection and trafficking agencies behind its paywall. Secondly, we must protect children online. Ofcom’s current child protection codes are not strong enough. It must ban algorithms that feed sexual content to children. The wider tech sector is critical in this.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. One of the issues with OnlyFans is the way that it does its marketing. Content creators can only market their content by pushing it out on to other platforms. Does the hon. Member agree that we absolutely have to keep the law up to date with modern technology—pornography laws are now well out of date—to stop pornography not only being available on OnlyFans but creeping out on to regular social media platforms?
Joani Reid
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. Social media companies should not be allowed to push pornography and sexual content to under-18s, and they should be banned from doing so.
The wider tech industry is crucial to this issue—it is not just OnlyFans. It should not be allowed to profit from directing children towards pornography. If it does not comply, economic levers could be considered. If OnlyFans refuses to reform, it could face a levy on profits to fund services for survivors and education for young people.
We should learn from Sweden. On 1 July this year, Sweden became the first country to criminalise the purchase of sex online. The OnlyFans law sends a clear message that buying exploitation is not a digital game; it is a crime. The UK could look seriously at following that path. However, I appreciate that much work needs to be done before we reach that point. We must acknowledge that the prostitution laws in our country remain rooted in Victorian values and were designed in a different age.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
In my view, prostitution and sexual exploitation are inherently violent. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is right that we shift the criminal burden on to those responsible for sexual exploitation and violence, and that more should be done to criminalise those who buy sex, whether it is through prostitution or OnlyFans?
Joani Reid
What my hon. Friend describes is the Nordic model, which I fully support and hope to see implemented in this country some time in the future. Ash Regan, a Member of the Scottish Parliament, brought forward a private Member’s Bill there that made a serious attempt at trying to implement that way of doing things. We should modernise the system and appreciate that vulnerable women should not be criminalised—those who create the demand should.
Ultimately, we must be clear about the principle. For too long, it is the women who have paid the price while the men who purchase and the corporations that profit walk free. We need to turn that around. As survivors in Sweden put it: “It feels like redemption.” This is not about prudishness; it is about confronting violence and exploitation in plain sight. Pornography prostitution is not a career and is not harmless entertainment. It is abuse—filmed, monetised and uploaded.
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Order. I urge the hon. Member to give the Minister some time to respond.
Joani Reid
I have one sentence left.
OnlyFans is not a success story; it is a pimping empire built on the pain of women and children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
Thank you, Sir Desmond, for thinking of the time that I might have to respond. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I thank and commend my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven (Joani Reid) for securing this debate. She is clearly very passionate and informed about the topics in question. That absolutely shone through in her speech. It would be hard to listen to much of the testimony from women who have been abused in this way and feel anything else. My hon. Friend was one of a number of speakers to have referenced the challenges around pornography in the debate on violence against women and girls that I responded to at the start of the year. I am grateful to her and to all Members who have contributed today.
This is not the first time that Members of Parliament are considering the impact of pornography on violence against women and girls; the general themes have been long-standing subjects of concern. However, it does feel that the issues around pornography are taking on greater significance all the time, for many of the reasons that have been identified today. In lots of ways, that is inevitable given how universal the internet has become and the massive proliferation of online devices, especially among young people. Similarly, prostitution is another established area of focus for discussion in this space, and I note the points that have been made.
I will return to those issues shortly, but I want to couch my response in the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls, because of the fundamental recognition of the damage that is being done by these kinds of abuses, many of which we have heard about today. As a society, we must do much better, and we will. The Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and I are all committed to ensuring that these issues are dealt with once and for all.
On the points raised, as Members are aware, and as has been covered today, the online space is a significant enabler of sexual exploitation, and our response needs to reflect that. I would say that today the online space is the most significant enabler of sexual exploitation of both adults and children. It becomes an ever-increasing concern.
Online platforms must be responsible and held accountable for content on their sites, including by taking proactive steps to prevent their sites from being used by criminals. We are implementing the Online Safety Act 2023, which sets out the priority offences, including sexual exploitation and human trafficking offences. Online platforms now have a duty to assess the risk of illegal harms on their services, albeit this issue has a globally challenging element to it, and obviously our laws apply within the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven pointed out, many of the cases that she highlighted were US-based.
As of 17 March, online platforms need to take safety measures to protect users from illegal content, as set out in Ofcom’s code of practice, or face significant penalties, which OnlyFans has, as my hon. Friend pointed out. We are going further: schedule 13 to the Crime and Policing Bill will equip law enforcement officers with new tools to disrupt sexual exploitation that is facilitated through online platforms. They will be able to apply to the court for an order to suspend internet protocol and domain names for a specified period, up to 12 months, if they are used for serious crime, including the offences relating to sexual exploitation and modern slavery—anything that is illegal, essentially.
Through operational activity aimed at tackling modern slavery threats and targeting prolific perpetrators, the Government are further supporting law enforcement to tackle the drivers of trafficking for sexual exploitation. I will take away from the debate the point about the specific model. I have seen the work of law enforcement in respect of adult websites—I have seen women who were found on those sites being supported and taken to safety. I have also seen perpetrators criminalised—nowhere near as many as I would like, but that is an evergreen statement—in relation to violence against women and girls. However, I take my hon. Friend’s point about the specific model used by OnlyFans and the need to get behind what might not be able to be seen, and to ensure that that is possible. I will absolutely take that away and ask those questions.
The Government will continue to keep under review policies to tackle online enablers of sexual exploitation, and we want to ensure that online companies fulfil their duty to eradicate exploitation from their sites. If necessary, we will take further action to do that.
More broadly, Baroness Bertin’s independent review of the impact of pornography has given us valuable insights into the role of pornography. Nobody wishes to seem prudish; what we wish to do is safeguard the women who may be abused in this manner and the children in our country. There has been an exponential increase in the scale of pornography, but it has also become increasingly violent, degrading and misogynistic. We should all be seriously concerned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) said, about the ideas of stepchildren, child-based hooks, “barely legal” and so on. We absolutely must focus on that.
We are already working to change things. In July, we oversaw the coming into force of measures under the Online Safety Act that require all websites that show pornography and are accessible in the UK to have highly effective age-assurance checks. That means, quite rightly, that children should not be able to access pornographic content online. Ofcom has launched an enforcement programme to help to ensure that that is the case. We continue to monitor how well that works.
It is so important that children—both boys and girls—are supported to understand the potential dangers of pornography, and to understand how to form positive relationships. That is why the Government have committed to ensuring, through education on healthy relationships, sex and health, that we have a curriculum that equips young people with the knowledge and skills they need to build positive relationships. The new content was launched on 15 July, and it explores many of the things that we would want to see in happy, healthy relationships.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven and other Members that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and I, along with many other ministerial colleagues, are looking across Baroness Burtin’s review for inspiration and action. On the ask to include this issue in the violence against women and girls strategy, I do not just hear it; I believe it—and I think I can confirm that it will be.
I have absolutely no doubt about the harms to the individuals involved in the pornography that my hon. Friend outlined, and also about the cross-fertilisation to other sites through algorithms. I remember my son telling me, when he was 14, that he had been watching the Sidemen—there is a sea of blank faces in Westminster; the Sidemen are very mainstream online influencers—and they had been roller-skating with a load of women from OnlyFans. That was painted as being completely legitimate. My son said it to me as if there was nothing in it at all. I am grateful that I have that relationship with my son, but I can also see that there is danger in that cross-fertilisation of the expectation that violent, misogynistic porn is the kind of sex or relationship I would want my sons to grow up with. I hear my hon. Friend’s cries and look forward to working with her.
Question put and agreed to.
Eating Disorders: Prevention of Deaths
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the prevention of deaths from eating disorders.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank all hon. Members for attending this debate on a topic extremely close to my heart. As hon. Members may know by now, I am the very proud Member for Isle of Wight West and do my utmost to champion the island in this place, but I have brought forward this debate not only as an MP, but as a father who for some years was genuinely fearful as to whether I would see my child reach their 18th birthday.
From the moment someone becomes a parent, their instinct is to protect and nurture their children—often, admittedly, much easier said than done—yet nothing can truly prepare anyone for the overwhelming sense of powerlessness that comes when their child develops an eating disorder. Eating disorders, in all their destructive forms, are one of the few types of illness where the person affected does not want to recover and they actively work against you. Watching your child struggle not only with the illness but with the very treatments meant to help them is truly something I would not wish on any parent, yet it is the reality faced by thousands of parents, families and friends up and down the country.
We all know by now that the pandemic has taken a wrecking ball to children and young people’s mental health, but we cannot pretend that these issues do not predate 2020. Since the mid-1990s, eating disorders have been found to carry the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric illness. However, in the UK, we are unable even to quantify the true havoc that eating disorders cause, because of the lack of a national register for eating disorder deaths. The most recent year with confirmed data from the Office for National Statistics is 2019, when 36 deaths were recorded. However, a US study suggests that the real figure in the UK could be closer to 1,860 deaths, which I am sure people in this room would more than agree with.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
A constituent got in touch with me because sadly his daughter did not see her 30th birthday owing to an eating disorder. The point that my constituent made was that that was in part because of a lack of adequate services for those affected by these life-threatening conditions. Does the hon. Member agree?
Mr Quigley
I agree entirely. We are fully aware of the political situation and the condition that the NHS was left in under the previous Government, but the point of today’s debate is not to make cheap political attacks; it is to focus on the matter in hand, which is eating disorders, so I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.
With widespread under-reporting, misclassification and inconsistencies across the country, many of these deaths are wrongly recorded as organ failure, masking the true role of eating disorders and preventing us from fully grasping the scale of the crisis, especially among otherwise healthy young people.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, further to masking the scale of the crisis, excluding eating disorders as a contributing factor on death certificates also cruelly extends the pain that families feel, insinuating that otherwise healthy young people have died from organ failure?
Mr Quigley
I thank my hon. Friend for that important point—it does. The loss of a loved one is harrowing enough without the true cause not being recorded. That is why we are calling for a confidential inquiry into eating disorder deaths.
Given the concerns about under-reporting and inconsistencies in the data, it is even more alarming to read the findings from the Health Service Journal that revealed that between 2018 and 2023, 19 deaths related to eating disorders could have been entirely avoided. These tragic outcomes are attributed to severe failures in care, including missed or poorly managed safety risks, a lack of specialist knowledge among healthcare professionals and unacceptable delays in accessing appropriate treatment. If I were to ask for a show of hands in this room, I am sure many would be raised on that point.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
As the MP for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, I take a great interest in the progress of the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS foundation trust under the leadership of Caroline Donovan and Zoë Billingham, who I met recently in Parliament. Does my hon. Friend agree that early intervention is no more expensive and in many cases cheaper than delayed intervention, but is much more effective and saves lives?
Mr Quigley
I thank my hon. Friend for his extremely pertinent point. Early intervention saves not only lives but a huge amount in costs to the NHS.
I know the vast majority of NHS staff go above and beyond to support patients, often under immense pressure, and many of us here would like to put on record our thanks to them. However, these failures point to a systemic issue.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
One of the issues in geographically remote areas like Carlisle and Cumbria is that, sadly, the in-patient treatment for young people with eating disorders is delivered by an out-of-area NHS trust. Tragically, the inquest into the death of a young woman from my constituency earlier this year found that there had been a failure in collaboration between the two trusts, resulting, sadly, in her death. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just a question of resource, and that we also need a culture of collaboration and patient-centred care across all our trusts if we are going to prevent deaths?
Mr Quigley
It is true that a lack of understanding among professionals about the severity of the problem contributes to the situation. To have it put down to a lack of collaboration would be infuriating for that parent, as well as truly tragic.
We know well by now that early intervention is crucial for identifying and supporting recovery in patients with eating disorders. However, as a parent of someone affected, I must say that has not been my experience on the ground. Hospital admissions for eating disorders have surged, exceeding 30,000 for the first time in 2023-24, which is a 60% increase compared with pre-pandemic levels. While the NHS struggles to meet this growing demand, private equity firms are profiting from the crisis by owning many of the in-patient units the NHS depends on.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that his point highlights the urgent need for the Department to examine the influence of private equity in NHS in-patient mental health services? It is vital that private sector involvement complements the NHS’s mission to deliver high-quality patient-centred care and does not serve as a vehicle for profit-making at the expense of vulnerable patients.
Mr Quigley
My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Our experience of private equity is that it is selective in terms of the patients accepted. It profits from misery. We were put in the awful position of having to choose to send our youngest child to a hospital that had just seen the tragic death of Ruth Szymankiewicz—I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Ruth’s parents. Our second trip to a private equity-run hospital led to them forgetting to feed my daughter 11 times. My hon. Friend’s point is, unfortunately, well made.
More concerning still is that I do not believe that our approach to treatment is changing year on year to confront the heightened demand. If these admission increases were associated with a disease such as cancer, the treatment would quite rightly adapt. Our approach to mental health treatment, especially eating disorders, remains stagnant, outdated and alarmingly resistant to progress.
Another deeply concerning issue is how we respond when patients with severe anorexia refuse treatment and are subsequently diagnosed as terminally anorexic, a classification that holds precedent in UK Court of Protection rulings. In such cases, treatment may be withdrawn entirely, resulting in preventable deaths, such as that of a young patient known as BG who tragically died aged 19 in 2022. For those who may argue that treatment will be withdrawn only when a patient is terminally ill, I point to the case of Patricia, previously deemed untreatable by the Court of Protection, only to have the judgment overturned last month—August 2025. That reversal highlights not only the fallibility of such decisions but the danger in labelling eating disorder patients as beyond help.
We cannot ignore the fact that eating disorder deaths are most likely to occur due to suicide. Following an evidence session of the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group, one expert stated that their research found that anorexia sufferers are 18 times more likely and bulimia sufferers seven times more likely to die from suicide than the average patient, due to a combination of pre-existing and untreated mental health conditions, early discharge and the physical effects of eating disorder recovery triggering suicidal ideation. I do not wish to pre-empt the response from the Minister, who I know is keen to make improvements in this area, but I believe that eating disorders must be included in the suicide prevention strategy if we are to meaningfully tackle this worrying trend and stop patients from falling between the gaps in the already patchy world of child and adolescent mental health service provision.
The eating disorders APPG and campaigners from Dump the Scales are urgently calling for a confidential inquiry into avoidable deaths of eating disorder patients. Eating disorders are treatable illnesses. They are dangerous and life-threatening when untreated, under-treated or poorly treated. The risk to life is entirely preventable; deaths from eating disorders are not inevitable. With integrated, well-resourced and evidence-based treatment, recovery is possible, even in the most severe cases and after many years of suffering. Despite that, coroners, families and communities continue to see too many lives needlessly lost. That should not happen, and it does not need to be that way.
Although the facts I have set out today are difficult and harrowing, they must be heard. I also believe, however, that there are reasons to remain hopeful. I know at first hand that the Department, right up to the Secretary of State, is committed to improving outcomes and getting this right. As a Back Bencher, and more importantly as a father, I see it as my responsibility to push for this change to go further and faster.
Jade Botterill (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing such an important debate. I recently met a constituent who has been living with an eating disorder for years and who raised a number of important issues. She is fortunate to have a loving, supportive family but they often feel the system is impossible to navigate. Would my hon. Friend join me in encouraging the Minister to look at how the Government can support the families and loved ones of those living with an eating disorder, and to consider how care could be better structured to effectively treat the combined mental and physical effects of eating disorders in healthcare settings?
Mr Quigley
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent intervention. I agree that this is a family-wide illness. We must reach the point where no one in the UK dies from an eating disorder, where every individual—man, woman, girl, boy—regardless of age, location or clinical classification has access to the support they need when they need it.
I want to finish with the story of a young woman called Zara. She was diagnosed with anorexia nervosa in May 2013 and was admitted to an eating disorder unit almost immediately. Instead of being good news for her recovery, that was when the nightmare began. From May 2013 to June 2021, Zara endured 13 in-patient admissions across seven different units, including three years as a continuous in-patient, nearly two of which she spent without leaving one of the units or going outside. With each admission, her eating disorder and mental health deteriorated further.
During that time Zara was restrained daily, often by a minimum of six people holding her down. She received very little therapy; instead there was a culture of patient blaming and shaming. In the last two years of her life, Zara was crying out for help but no one would listen. The eating disorder unit eventually discharged her completely, handing her over to the community mental health team. Her mum, who is with us today, spent nearly every day taking ligatures off her neck, lifting her down from a wardrobe when she was nearly unconscious, and performing CPR when she was found unresponsive in the shower.
Zara’s mum states there was little to no support from the community psychiatrist; her family were left to cope alone. No matter how much they pleaded for help, it was a constant battle and they never received the support Zara so desperately needed. Zara should never have died of this illness. There was a whole world out there for her and she had so much to give, but ultimately she felt everyone had given up on her. She was only 24 when she died, but she was exhausted and did not know any other way to keep going without support.
Unfortunately, Zara’s story is just one of many, and it is a story unfolding for countless others across the country. Behind these tragedies are systemic failures, often overlooked and hidden behind a lack of national data, questionable legal decision making and cost-saving agendas. In many parts of the UK, the treatments available to patients are not supported by evidence and can even be harmful, rather than providing integrated and evidence-based care. Underfunded services and poorly trained staff often leave high-risk patients institutionalised or without any meaningful or appropriate support. The system currently fails to listen to those who matter most—the patients, their families and supporters. Too often, it fosters a harmful culture of patient blaming rather than delivering compassionate, personalised care that supports recovery. We now know that eating disorders do not discriminate, and neither should our services.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Order. There will be a formal time limit of one and a half minutes, and I will not be able to call everyone.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I will be quick, in that case. I express my appreciation to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for a very important speech; I am grateful to him. I particularly welcome the points made by him and the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) about the need for better understanding and collaboration in the system, and I echo his call for the national register of deaths to reflect deaths from eating disorders.
I pay tribute to the Cotswold House unit, run by the Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust in Marlborough in my constituency, which is a really important in-patient and out-patient unit working with adults. I echo the points, which I think are shared across the Chamber, about the value of NHS units as opposed to operations run by private equity companies, whose work I have real concerns about.
I want to add a couple of points to those made by hon. Members about the very legitimate campaigns of the organisations to which we are all indebted for their work. First, the point about early intervention has been made and I will not repeat it, but we clearly need to invest in more understanding both at GP level and among communities and families, and support people while they are still at home. Secondly, we must ensure we have a better and more adequate transition from children’s to adult services, which is a real issue I have come across in casework.
My final point is about the importance of step-down provision. It is not enough just to get people back to a healthy weight and then leave them to themselves; they need proper support for many months—
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing this debate and—if he will permit me—on his strength and resilience as a parent.
There have already been many profoundly moving contributions, and I think everyone here understands that the care and support for those with eating disorders, and for their families, are not good enough. The average wait of three and a half years between onset and start of treatment is not acceptable. In the Government’s 10-year plan for the NHS, where we are delivering record investment and groundbreaking reform, we must ensure that eating disorder services are part of that agenda.
There are great services out there, leading the way in showing what change for patients could look like. I am fortunate to have one of those in my constituency. The ABBI eating disorder clinic in Altrincham is an outstanding facility offering specialist day care and intensive out-patient services. It is an alternative to far more costly in-patient care, and in practice it means that patients remain at home with their family support networks around them. That is what patients want and what their families want—and it is what works. Such services change lives and save lives, but they face huge issues with highly fragmented commissioning. This disjointed commissioning creates significant inefficiencies; we need a change in commissioning to ensure proper pathways for patients and early intervention.
In this debate, we must also look at what young people are exposed to online, with one in three adolescents saying that they have engaged in disordered eating behaviours due to social media content. I look forward to hearing the Minister set out in more detail the good work the Government have already done, and what we will be doing to build on that success to prevent tragic deaths caused by eating disorders.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I have been the chair of the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group for six years and, frustratingly, things have become worse, not better. We set up the APPG six years ago to make eating disorder services better. I had hoped this Government would finally confront the crisis in eating disorder services after years of Conservative neglect, but in the entire 10-year health plan eating disorders were not mentioned once—not a single word. Other mental health disorders were rightly highlighted, but the one with the highest mortality rate was overlooked.
Screening data from England shows that the proportion of adults with a likely eating disorder rose from around 6% in 2007 to 16% in 2019. This is a national emergency hiding in plain sight. In the APPG’s most recent report, “The Right to Health”, we highlighted significant barriers to accessing treatment: insufficient training for healthcare providers, fragmented care pathways and a lack of standardised data for research.
Each death caused by an eating disorder must read like one, yet death certificates routinely list organ failure, cardiac arrest and other conditions rather than the disorder that primarily contributed to the person’s death. By masking the true cause, we underestimate the scale of the crisis and fail to target lifesaving resources.
In the debate here in April on eating disorder awareness, the Minister for Care said that he did care. I hope that this is the one thing that the Minister will look at.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond.
I will keep this fairly brief. Many of the points I was going to raise have been mentioned, but I want to say that tackling this issue is not new, and contrast the challenges we now face under this Labour Government compared with the previous Labour Government.
I had the pleasure of working for Tessa Jowell, and I remember her telling me that as Culture Secretary one thing she focused on was banning size zero models from the catwalk at London Fashion Week, and the impact that that made on the promotion of unhealthy body images.
This week I have two students from Beckenham and Penge, Claudia and Arek, doing work experience with me, and they are here today. Speaking to them about the challenges that they and their generation face as sixth formers today, they mentioned the constant bombardment of images on social media and trends such as #SkinnyTok. Our previous Government did not have to face that, but we have to face it today.
It will be really interesting to hear from the Minister how he thinks we can, all of us, address the new emerging challenges for the new generation, where we see eating disorders and associated conditions at a record high, in no small way down to the prevalence now of social media and smartphones.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing this vital debate.
As has been said, early intervention is vital—but sufferers and their families invariably face an overstretched and underfunded system, with services unable to meet demand and treatment offered far too late, if at all, while those who manage to get seen early on are not infrequently told, in effect, “Go away and come back when you are thinner.”
It is not only difficult to get help early on, but also, at that stage, to recognise there is a problem in the first place, as my wife and I know personally. One of our daughters, who has given me permission to tell her story, suffered with an eating disorder for many years. Neither my wife Samantha nor I recognised the early signs. By the time we realised, she was deep in the grip of this terrible disease. She did not want help, and actively and strenuously tried to refuse it.
Young people with eating disorders become adept at hiding them, and health education interventions can sometimes be counterproductive. My daughter told me that her PSHE—personal, social, health and economic education—lesson at school, which was supposed to educate pupils on the dangers of anorexia, was more like a how-to guide for the various means of hiding the condition from family and friends. That is why it is so important that parents, teachers and all those who work with children are better educated to be aware of potential warning signs. It is also a salutary riposte to those siren voices that, in other contexts, urge us always to accede to a child’s wishes.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I would like to draw on the time that I spent working at the brilliant Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership trust. That part of my career still has a huge impact on me and what I do in this place. In particular, I would like to focus on T1DE, or type 1 diabetes with disordered eating—a dangerous, often fatal condition that combines the comorbidities of type 1 diabetes with an eating disorder. Sufferers often stop insulin in order to lose weight, often coupled with well-known symptoms of disordered eating, such as obsession with nutritional information, binging and purging, and the use of laxatives. Consequences can be incredibly severe, including bone loss, blindness, amputations and even death.
The condition can sometimes be seen as niche, but actually 100,000 people in this country are sufferers of T1DE, including a staggering 40% of women and girls with type 1 diabetes. Because it sits at the intersection of physical and mental health, historically T1DE services just have not existed and many people have been bounced between different consultants. To their credit, the previous Government realised that and set up pilot sites for T1DE services, but, sadly, some of those closed last year. In response to calls from across the House, the Government extended the funding for the remaining pilots by 12 months, but now we once again face their closure in April 2026. I hope the Minister can give us some assurances on that, because T1DE specialist services are a literally matter of life and death for people suffering with this rare eating disorder.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for securing this important debate. My constituent Katie is mother to a daughter who, at the age of 14, became unwell from anorexia in the aftermath of the covid pandemic. She identified the warning signs early, but when she sought help, early intervention was unavailable. She describes how her daughter was eventually admitted to a hospital, only to be put on a waiting list. Her health would crash, she would go back to another facility and of course the cycle continued. Katie described how her whole family now lives with the eating disorder. I hope that she will take some measure of comfort from the fact that her experiences and those of her family have been echoed so consistently across this House, but that also speaks to the prevalence of eating disorders. It is astonishing that there is no reference to or strategy on them at all in the Government’s 10-year health plan, and I hope that the Minister will put that right this afternoon.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for securing today’s debate. I will focus my remarks on the more than 360,000 children and young people living with an eating disorder in England. What work is the Department undertaking to ensure that the access and waiting time standard for children and young people with eating disorders is being met? When does NHS England intend to publish its refreshed guidance on young people’s services?
I would also like to raise the case of my constituents Amy and Kester. Their six-year-old son has been diagnosed with ARFID, or avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, a less known and understood eating disorder. They found that few healthcare professionals are aware of ARFID and, once they finally received the diagnosis, they discovered that there was no treatment pathway available in our area. While there is a specialist team at Addenbrooke’s hospital, referrals are only available for children aged eight and over, meaning that their son will not be able to access services for two years. More damage is still being done, so could the Minister set out what work is being done to open up further pathways and help to better understand ARFID?
On artificial intelligence, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate recently published a report in which a fictional 13-year-old girl was given instructions and material related to disordered eating by an AI chatbot. What work is taking place across Government to ensure that we are tackling the potential harm being done, and that young people are not being given misinformation by AI that will drive more eating disorders?
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing this important debate.
Prior to entering this place, I worked in the charity sector for type 1 diabetes charity JDRF, as it was then. In the last Parliament, Theresa May and Sir George Howarth published an inquiry report into T1DE, or type 1 diabetes and disordered eating, which the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) outlined. Over the course of the summer recess I met with Dr Tony Winston at the Aspen Centre in Coventry. One of the key takeaways when it comes to diabetes and disordered eating and that complex condition is making sure that there are clear criteria. At the moment, as has already been outlined, as an eating disorder, T1DE falls through the net: it is referred to diabetes services, but often diabetes services try to refer it on to eating disorder services too. There is a bit of a gap in the net.
One of the key needs is integration of services between those two Departments. There must also be better collection, integration and use of data to prevent death before it occurs. People with T1DE have a three times higher chance of mortality, and we know that over 100,000 people are at risk of it. One of the key findings of the inquiry report that I helped to work on was the lack of education for healthcare professionals when it comes to identifying eating disorders, particularly in other areas and specialisms. Can the Minister comment on what his Department is doing to pick up that report and implement some of those recommendations?
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend and very good friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for securing this important debate and for his tireless campaigning on the issue, which I know is close to his heart. It cannot be at all easy.
According to Beat, one in 50 people in the UK are living with an eating disorder. Among 17 to 19-year-olds, the figure rises to a staggering one in eight. These are not just statistics. Behind every single number is a person struggling with what is often the most difficult moment in their life; behind them are families and friends who are heartbroken as they watch their loved one deteriorate.
We hear about GPs who, through no fault of their own, have received minimal training on these disorders and have just 10 minutes with their patients to make life-altering decisions. We know the cost of delayed treatment: longer recoveries, deeper relapses and, in most cases, lost lives. That is why early support is so vital. In my constituency, Derby-based charity First Steps ED is leading the way, from delivering body image workshops in schools and across Derby and Derbyshire to its brilliant Scroll Safe campaign.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend says. The majority of the people First Steps ED support are children and young people, but sadly demand is at a record high, outpacing the support available. I welcome the additional funding that the Government are giving to these services, but does my hon. Friend agree that ensuring early support for young patients is vital and cannot be left to charities alone?
Baggy Shanker
That is the point that I was just about to make. It is absolutely vital that Government support be available, because the charity sector alone cannot be left to provide that support and fill the gap. We need a national response that matches the scale of the challenge that we face.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to expanding community-based disorder services, but I urge the Minister to act swiftly. We know what works: early interventions, properly trained professionals and joined-up care that is close to home—a point that some hon. Members have made already. What we need now is urgency, because behind every delayed referral and every missed diagnosis is a life at risk.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing the debate. In the short time that I have, I want to make three points about Northern Ireland.
Stats show that 22 individuals—20 women and two men—died from eating disorders in Northern Ireland between 2008 and 2018. Reports have highlighted that these deaths can often be connected to complications such as heart failure and organ damage, and are frequently misclassified on death certificates, so realistically the figure could be even higher.
Secondly, there has been rising demand for support for those with eating disorders. There is a higher prevalence of disorders today than 20 or 30 years ago, especially among young people. A youth wellbeing survey undertaken in Northern Ireland in 2019 showed that 16.2% of 11 to 19-year-olds exhibited signs of a disorder in eating—a much larger figure than in previous years.
Thirdly, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action revealed that between 2017 and 2021, 26 people had to travel outside Northern Ireland for specialist care in relation to eating disorders. We must ensure that across this nation that is not the case, as it would leave us with prolonged recovery times, excess stress, anxiety and avoidable hospital admissions. Everyone is worthy of support, but we are simply not doing enough to make the recovery process as simple as it should be. I look to the Minister, as always, for his commitment to the country as a whole. I ask him to endeavour to ensure that treatment does not fall behind in different regions.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for organising this important debate.
I come to this debate through my work with the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention. There is a clear link with eating disorders, which has been drawn to my attention by the charity Eating Distress North East. Up to a third of people with eating disorders have made suicide attempts, and they are 18 times more likely to die by suicide. Measures to prevent this are really important and must be a priority. The suicide prevention strategy does highlight the need to tackle issues for eating disorders, but I know that lots of organisations in the field would like to see more done in that area.
I want to talk about the role of online harms, which are really problematic. Attention has been drawn to particular sites, and I know that the Government will want to work with Ofcom to make regulations effective for these people, but it is also about the impact of less harmful content. We need greater agency for people to control what they see. Saying that they are not interested is not sufficient. AI, of course, presents new issues.
Eating disorders are devastating and on the rise. Eating Distress North East recorded 78% more referrals in 2024-25—
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Order. I call the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for securing this important debate, but also for very bravely and emotively discussing his personal experience.
Those of us in this Chamber who have had relatives suffering from these disorders know that it can be so frustrating when someone does not appear to want to help themselves. It causes a huge amount of stress for the family and for the carers who are looking after them. We know that eating disorders kill more people than any other mental health condition. Those who do recover have been robbed of years of life: they have missed their adolescence and have had their school and social life affected. That can have ongoing effects for the rest of their life.
I am reminded of several people I spoke to while knocking on doors in Winchester. Securing mental health care for children seems to be one of the top issues with which people are struggling. In particular, I remember two different mothers saying that they had been told that their daughters, who were suffering from eating disorders, had to reach a lower BMI before they qualified for treatment. We know that that means having to be sicker for longer, so not only is a successful outcome less likely, but it will require longer and more intensive treatment and will be more expensive for the NHS. As the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) highlighted, with the benefit of his expertise, it is more cost-effective to have early intervention than to treat people once they have been sick for a long period.
The Minister and the Opposition spokesperson both served with me on the Public Bill Committee on the Mental Health Bill. It was a conciliatory piece of legislation with cross-party support; there was genuine intention and passion on all sides to improve mental health in the UK. The disjointed provision of mental health care, especially for eating disorders, was one reason why I tabled an amendment to review how services for eating disorders are delivered. I will never forget a consultant psychiatrist coming to my surgery. He said that he was trying to get mental health care for his own child; it was not specifically about eating disorders, but he was struggling to navigate the system. He said, “If I, as a consultant psychiatrist, am struggling to navigate the system to get healthcare for my own child, what hope does anyone else have?” It is a very confusing situation.
There are plenty of other elements of this topic that are a real cause of concern. I will not repeat what everyone else has said, but I am really concerned that eating disorders are increasing, with hospital numbers doubling in a decade, and yet 24 of the nation’s 42 NHS integrated care boards are due to reduce their spending on under-18s in 2024-25, once inflation is taken into account. It is a really difficult situation: there will be increased pressure and less real-time resource to deliver.
We must all remember that although they are very serious, eating disorders are treatable. No one should be condemned to suffer for years on end because they cannot access treatment. We must all be committed to tackling damaging stigma. We must take an evidence-based approach to preventing eating disorders, which are hugely multifactorial. The factors are often non-clinical; social media has been mentioned already.
Eating disorders are the mental health crisis hiding in plain sight. They carry the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric illness, yet services are being cut, waiting time standards have been abandoned and young people are being left to deteriorate before help arrives. Early intervention saves lives, and we must be bold and move heaven and earth to deliver it. We must reinstate waiting time targets, protect funding and build a properly resourced national strategy so that no child or family is left trying to fight this illness alone.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) said that he wants to push for change, and he is a tremendous advocate for doing exactly that. We are six months on from a very similar debate on eating disorders. The fact that so many Members across the parties are here to support the debate shows the strength of feeling.
In the short time that I have, I will not repeat everything that I said last time. Following the debate in April, I wrote to the Government to find out more and ask some questions. I received a letter from Baroness Merron on 12 June. The first question I had asked was whether the Government had a plan for eating disorders. The reply stated:
“The Department has no current plans to create an eating disorder strategy”.
It went on to say:
“NHS England is currently refreshing guidance on children and young people's eating disorders. The refreshed guidance will highlight the importance of awareness and early recognition of eating disorders within schools, colleges, primary care, and broader children and young people’s mental health services.”
I hope that the Minister can provide us with an update on when that updated guidance will be brought forward.
Back in April, I also posed the question whether the Government would be open to having a cross-party meeting or roundtable with experts in APPGs. I have not yet had a response to that question, either in a debate or in the letter that I received, but I think it would go a long way towards helping to explore this issue in a way that would make a difference.
In the previous debate, the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) raised an issue around the recording of death. She said:
“Accurate recording will raise awareness and ultimately save lives.”—[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 30WH.]
The Minister responded:
“I share the concern of the hon. Member for Bath about accurate recording of deaths to understand the extent to which eating disorders and other factors have caused or contributed to deaths. This matter is being explored with the national medical examiner for England and Wales, the Office for National Statistics and the Coroners’ Society of England and Wales.”
Can he provide an update on where that has got to and what the outcome is?
Back in April, the Minister also gave us great expectations about the 10-year health plan:
“Through the 10-year health plan, this Government will overhaul the NHS and ensure that those with mental health needs, including those living with eating disorders, are given the support that they need.”—[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 49WH.]
He also said:
“Raising awareness of eating disorders and improving treatment services is a key priority for the Government, and a vital part of our work to improve mental health services.”—[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 47WH.]
I will be grateful if the Minister can respond to the Beat CEO, who has said:
“We’re very disappointed to see that mental health hasn’t been consistently highlighted as a priority throughout the Government’s 10 Year Health Plan, and that there are no specific commitments on eating disorders.”
That is a concern—not as a party political point, but because people who are suffering can now see it written that there is no strategy, and it is not mentioned in the 10-year health plan. I will be grateful if the Minister can alleviate the concerns about whether this issue is truly a priority.
Finally, one of the big plays that the Government have made is changing integrated care boards. In the last debate, the Minister said:
“The Government’s view is that ICBs are best placed to make decisions as close as possible to the communities that they serve and to target and, if necessary, reallocate funding accordingly.”—[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 47WH.]
The changes brought forward by this Government have seen a reduction in staffing of 50% in many ICBs. Are the Government concerned? Has any analysis been done of whether there will be an impact on commissioning in respect of eating disorders, given the severity that has been highlighted across the Chamber?
It is often said that treatment is about progress, not perfection. I guess that much the same could be said about formulating policy as we deal with the rising number of people with eating disorders. To that end, I hope that the Government will take these questions as part of the process, helping to highlight this area in which we all want to see progress as the Minister brings his policies to bear on this country.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing today’s debate and speaking so bravely and movingly about his family. I pay tribute to his work in the all-party parliamentary group on eating disorders, and I know that he and many other hon. Members present have worked tirelessly to advocate for those with eating disorders.
Every death from an eating disorder is a tragedy. We have heard from hon. Members about the devastating effect of these conditions, both for patients and their loved ones. But we must be clear that eating disorders are not terminal illnesses. With the right treatment and support, recovery is possible. Many across the Chamber have made that point, and I pay tribute to everyone who has contributed so powerfully. I also congratulate Arek and Claudia, who I know made outstanding contributions to drafting the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon).
Through the 10-year health plan, the Government will ensure that those living with eating disorders are given the support they need. We will cut waiting times and ensure that people can access treatment and support earlier. Improving eating disorder services is a priority for the Government, and a fundamental part of our work to transform mental health services. Last financial year, we provided £106 million in funding for children’s eating disorder services, an increase of £10 million since 2023-24. That increase in funding is helping our clinicians to support more people, and to change and save lives.
Tom Gordon
One of the great organisations that does a lot of work on the accountability of services, including eating disorder services, is Healthwatch. We know that these organisations are going to be scrapped. They have done loads of valuable work at local and regional levels. What levels of accountability will the new systems put in place for eating disorder services?
Stephen Kinnock
I agree that Healthwatch did some important work, but what we are doing is changing the culture of how our NHS works. As the hon. Gentleman will have seen, we are abolishing NHS England. That is of a piece with our belief that proper leadership, proper accountability and proper management of a complex system such as our NHS, and particularly its interaction with ICBs and trusts, is about having a clear line of accountability from the Secretary of State through Ministers into the system and those operating at the coalface. We believe that if more layers are put between, and cut across, those lines of accountability, that does not actually drive better outcomes—it drives poorer performance. That is the approach we are taking to the entire system.
Wera Hobhouse
As I said, I have been the chair of the APPG for six years, and nothing has changed and got better. I really trust that this Government will make a difference—I hope they will. This is about culture change, but eating disorders are a very complex illness. The APPG has therefore called repeatedly for a dedicated strategy on eating disorders. Will the Minister please look at that?
Stephen Kinnock
I will come on to talk about the guidance that is being produced. There is a risk that we can end up with a proliferation of documents, strategies and plans. Our view is that the more streamlined we are and the clearer the lines of accountability, the better the performance becomes. We are committed to the guidance, and I will talk a bit about that, but we are not convinced that having strategies alongside guidance, plans and other documents will help the process.
Members here will be well aware of the increase in the prevalence of mental health conditions, including eating disorders, since the pandemic. The increase in demand has placed significant pressure on services, but the extra funding is making a difference. The latest quarterly figures from NHS mental health services monthly statistics show that, between April and June 2025, 3,138 children successfully entered treatment in community eating disorder services. That is the highest figure on record since NHS England began collecting this data in 2021.
At the same time, waiting lists to begin routine eating disorder treatment have shortened by 20% from the year before. NHS England has also commissioned the Royal College of Psychiatrists to carry out a national audit of eating disorders. That audit is collecting data on eating disorders across community and in-patient settings to drive improvements in the identification and treatment of eating disorders. The audit will monitor how services are performing against standards, and highlight any inequalities in access to care. That will help services to provide safe, effective, patient-centred, timely, efficient and equitable care.
In addition to improved services for the treatment of eating disorders, we are also working to tackle their underlying causes. In particular, we are deeply concerned about harmful online content that promotes negative body image, harmful eating behaviours, suicide or self-harm to those who are most vulnerable. The Online Safety Act 2023 has now come into force and delivers on our commitment to make the United Kingdom the safest place to be online. By now, all sites with a significant user base in this country are required to have conducted children’s access and risk assessments, and to follow the new children’s safety codes to prevent them from accessing harmful content, such as promotion of eating disorders. Ofcom now has the ability to investigate or carry out enforcement action against any site that will not abide by those codes.
Hon. Members today have raised the need for early intervention to lower the numbers of hospital admissions from eating disorders. We know that the earlier the treatment is provided, the better the chance of recovery, and we are committed to ensuring that everyone with an eating disorder can access specialist help. As part of our mission to build an NHS that is fit for the future, there is a critical need to shift the treatment of eating disorders from hospital to community, including children’s community eating disorder services, crisis care services and intensive day-hospital or home-treatment services. Improved care in the community will give young people early access to evidence-based treatment involving families and carers, thereby improving outcomes and preventing relapse. By preventing eating disorders from progressing into adulthood, we will build on our aim of raising the healthiest generation of children.
We have also committed to expanding mental health support teams to reach full coverage in England. To date, we have expanded MHSTs to 52% of pupils; they are working hard in schools to support staff and students alike in meeting the mental health needs of children.
Dr Luke Evans
I thank the Minister for giving way. I am pleased that his Government have continued the roll-out, because we share the aim of trying to deal with this early. On that point, there was mention of the updated guidance, and clearly these hubs are going to need that guidance if it is updated. Will he set out when that guidance will be brought forward?
Stephen Kinnock
I absolutely will; that is just coming up in my comments. I am not sure that the shadow Minister will be satisfied with the answer, but I will refer precisely to the question that he is asking.
The MHSTs will continue to provide assistance to school staff in raising staff understanding, recognition and awareness of eating disorders, ensuring that they can provide crucial early intervention for children at risk.
Early intervention is also a priority for adults with eating disorders, as set out in the NHS’s adult community mental health framework. NHS England has established 15 provider collaboratives focusing on adult eating disorders. Those collaboratives are working to redesign care pathways and focus resources on community services. By providing treatment earlier and closer to home, we will see better outcomes for adults with eating disorders and their families.
Turning to the guidance, which a number of hon. Members, including the shadow Minister, have raised, we are producing updated guidance to help services to implement those transformations. NHS England first published guidance in 2019 for adult eating disorder services to ensure that they are integrated with day-patient services or in-patient care. A new service specification for adult eating disorder in-patient provision has been through a public consultation and will progress to publication this year. So I can guarantee that it will be published before 1 January, but I cannot give the shadow Minister a precise date.
Stephen Kinnock
Can I come back to the hon. Gentleman on that? I will double-check. My understanding was that this was for both. My notes do say “for adult eating disorder services”, but my understanding was that this was a holistic process that would include children and schools. I will come back to him to confirm that point, so apologies if that is not entirely clear. Actually, I am sorry—it is next in my comments. NHS England is also producing updated national guidance for eating disorders in children and young people. That will reflect the full range of eating disorders in children and young people, and the treatment options available to CYP and their families to address them. It will focus on early identification and intervention, community treatment and support, and it will highlight the importance of integrating schools, colleges and primary care to improve support. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, he will have noted, as I have, that there is no specific date for that, so I will come back to him on that. The adult one will be before 1 January.
I would like to address the very serious concerns that have been raised about reports of people with eating disorders being offered end-of-life care. Let me be absolutely clear: these reports are deeply troubling, and I acknowledge the distress that they will have caused to families and all those affected by eating disorders. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has been crystal clear that eating disorders are not terminal illnesses. It has updated its guidance to re-emphasise that important point, so that no person, nor their loved ones, should ever feel that treatment has reached a point of no return.
NHS England is clear that all those with severe, complex or long-standing eating disorders should have access to eating disorder services, including hospital care when needed. A personal recovery model, with a focus on harm minimisation, symptom management and quality of life, is well established in providing hope and opportunities for recovery for many people with eating disorders. English law provides a robust framework for safeguarding a patient’s best interests.
I assure hon. Members that we take these concerns very seriously. We will continue to work with clinicians, NHS England and families to ensure that the highest standards of care are upheld, and that every person is given hope and support in their recovery.
Hon. Members have raised how those with eating disorders are disproportionately at risk of self-harm or suicide. The national suicide prevention strategy has highlighted the increased risk, and is committed to working with policy, clinical and personal experience experts to explore bespoke suicide prevention activity when needed. Specialists in eating disorders must ensure that they take a holistic approach to eating disorder treatment, and ensure that they are not likely to inadvertently increase the risk of suicide.
Several hon. Members, as well as the APPG report published in January this year, have raised the creation of a national register for eating disorder deaths, and the holding of a confidential inquiry into all eating disorder deaths. I reassure colleagues that the Department of Health and Social Care is wholeheartedly committed to learning from deaths, in order to prevent future tragedies and to improve quality of care.
The Department receives and responds to prevention of future deaths—PFD—notices relating to eating disorders, and it uses that work to inform practice going forward. For example, the medical emergencies in eating disorders—MEED—guidance was created following a coroner’s report and has since been rolled out nationwide. This Government are determined to focus funding directly to frontline services, in order to best support those currently struggling with this deadly illness.
Similarly, we share the concerns that have been raised about eating disorder deaths not being accurately recorded. It is vital that the extent to which eating disorders have caused or contributed to deaths is properly known. That matter is currently being explored with the national medical examiner for England and Wales, the Office for National Statistics and the Coroners’ Society of England and Wales.
To draw my remarks to a close, I would like to thank all the hon. Members here today. The fact that the debate was so well attended reflects how important the issue is to all of us and our constituents. The service that we provide can often be a matter of life and death. We are all very conscious of the gravity of the responsibility that we hold in that context. I thank all those in attendance for advocating for their constituents and all those across the country who have been affected by an eating disorder.
Mr Quigley
I thank the Minister for his response and all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions. It has been truly heartening. This is the main message I hope to leave today: one death from any eating disorder is one too many. These deaths are not inevitable; they are preventable, yet far too many lives have already been lost, and far too many people continue to suffer needlessly.
I am pleased that the Minister and the Department have committed forcefully to improving the area, and to working with members of the APPG and me. We look forward to launching our report, at the end of October, on preventing eating disorder deaths. I hope to see many of my colleagues there when we do.
Lastly, I pay tribute to Zara’s mum, to Debs and cousin Tricia, and to all the parents fighting for the wellbeing of their children.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of the prevention of deaths from eating disorders.
“Learning from Lives and Deaths” Report: Learning Disabilities and Autism
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
Today I would like to acknowledge the publication of the eighth annual report “Learning from lives and deaths—People with a learning disability and autistic people” (LeDeR) produced by Kings College London. A copy will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. We know that families and stakeholders have been waiting for this report and it has been significantly delayed due to the need to resolve practical data issues.
It has been just over a year since I was appointed as the Minister of State for Care. I have felt privileged to fulfil this role and to hear from people with a learning disability, autistic people, their families and carers, and staff about their experiences, both good and bad. It is critical we continue to learn about what we need to do to address the clear health inequalities that continue to exist in our health and social care system. We must reduce these inequalities, and highlight the action needed to prevent avoidable deaths and understand how services can improve. To do this, it is crucial that we review the deaths of people with a learning disability and autistic people.
The latest report shows that on average, people with a learning disability die 19.5 years younger than the general population and are almost twice as likely to die from an avoidable cause of death. This is unacceptable.
In 2022, LeDeR began reporting on the deaths of autistic people without a learning disability. The number of deaths reviewed this year remains small, although the findings are very concerning. It is crucial we improve our understanding of the deaths of autistic people. We expect that with increased awareness of the ability to report these deaths, we can then take specific action to address the issues raised.
It is promising to see from the latest report that, since 2021, LeDeR reviews that identified good practice in care of people with a learning disability have increased by over 10%. While such improvements are encouraging, the findings about health outcomes and how care can be improved to prevent premature mortality highlight that there is much work for us to do. We are committed to maintaining LeDeR going forward as we integrate NHS England and the Department and we are taking action to drive tangible improvements to our health and care services.
In July, we launched the 10-year health plan which will drive a shift to care in the community, rather than in hospitals, to preventing sickness, rather than just treating it, and to harnessing digital opportunities. Neighbourhood health services will work in partnership with other local services to provide more holistic, ongoing support including for people with a learning disability and autistic people.
To support this, we have been rolling out the Oliver McGowan mandatory training programme to ensure health and care staff have the right knowledge and skills to provide effective care.
We set out in our manifesto a commitment to modernise mental health legislation. Our Mental Health Bill, currently before Parliament, will limit the scope to detain people with a learning disability and autistic people and introduce a package of measures to improve community support. We want to see this legislation implemented as soon as possible so that people with a learning disability and autistic people get the support they need in the community, improving care and keeping people out of hospitals.
Alongside the legislation, action is being taken now to reduce reliance on in-patient care. NHS operational planning guidance for 2025-26 sets an objective to deliver a minimum 10% reduction in the use of mental health in-patient care for people with a learning disability and autistic people.
Patients and their families, carers and advocates have a critical part to play in their care and can be uniquely placed to identify acute illness or deterioration in their or their loved ones’ condition, including where that may indicate a need to change their treatment or care. Martha’s rule is a major patient safety initiative in hospitals encouraging patients, families and carers to speak to the care team if they notice changes in someone’s condition and providing them with a way to seek an urgent review if their or their loved one’s condition deteriorates, and they are concerned this is not being responded to. Martha’s rule is being rolled out in 143 acute in-patient pilot sites, as announced in February 2024. In addition, NHS England is working toward roll-out in further acute hospital sites that were not part of the original 143 sites.
NHS England has published its action from learning report 2023-24, highlighting actions across the country to improve care and reduce avoidable and preventable deaths of autistic people and people with a learning disability.
People with a learning disability aged over 14 who are on a GP learning disability register are eligible for a learning disability annual health check. At March 2025, 80% of eligible people had received a learning disability annual health check and 79% had a health action plan. NHS England has also developed an autism-specific health check, currently being tested in primary care.
Further work is under way to ensure people with a learning disability and autistic people access the right support at the right time in the right place. NHS England is working with people with lived experience, clinical professionals and commissioners to produce a quality framework for the learning disability annual health check. This will set out expectations for the annual health check and the accompanying health action plan. Both should make it easier for GPs to add people to their learning disability register so that more people can access appropriate care and support more easily. NHS England is also working to co-develop standards of practice for appropriate interventions for adults and children in a range of settings.
Roll-out of the reasonable adjustment digital flag is progressing, which enables health and publicly funded care professionals to record, share and view details of the reasonable adjustments that individuals need to support their care and treatment. NHS England has also recently published guidance for frontline staff in acute hospitals about how to implement the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for people with a learning disability, helping to ensure that people’s human rights are upheld.
Together with NHS England and partners, we are committed to driving further improvements, implementing our 10-year health plan and working towards healthcare that is equitable and provides the quality of care that people with a learning disability and autistic people should rightly expect.
[HCWS901]
Local Regeneration Fund
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
As set out in the landmark devolution White Paper, this Government were elected on a manifesto that promised a partnership approach with local authorities, resetting the relationship between central and local government, and supporting local leaders to drive growth.
To this end, I am delighted to announce to the House that, today, we will be bringing the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government levelling-up fund, town deals and simplification pathfinders pilot funds together into a single, consolidated funding pot, the local regeneration fund.
We have listened to feedback from local authorities, who want less bureaucratic micromanagement, and more local control. Where previous Governments made unfunded promises to places they could not keep, we will fulfil those promises. Through this change, we will continue to honour all funding awarded via the constituent programmes, so local authorities are fully funded to deliver these programmes, while giving them the additional flexibility they need to get spades in the ground.
The decision to bring together these three funds, with a significant capital commitment of over £1 billion over the next two years, will allow local authorities access to a single pot of capital funding, with less bureaucratic reporting and more flexibility to adapt schemes to local needs, without asking central Government’s permission. We are committed to pushing power to local authorities, reducing burdens and allowing them to get on with delivery.
It is our firm expectation that projects already under way will be completed, for the benefit of local residents. In the small number of cases where projects are no longer viable, our consolidation means that money can still be used to deliver change. We expect that councils will rescope their plans and use the funding available for a new project in the area that originally stood to benefit, so local residents can feel the improvements to their everyday lives that they have been promised within the timeline of the fund.
As a result of these changes, we expect local authorities to be able to deliver faster, freeing them up to use the funding most effectively in a way that will maximise impact on the ground.
This new funding pot and its flexibilities only relate to the MHCLG element of the levelling-up fund. The Department for Transport remains responsible for the LUF schemes it leads and the processes by which they are delivered.
A full accounting officer note has been published and we have notified all local authorities who are due to receive funding from the MHCLG levelling-up fund, town deals and simplification pathfinders pilot programmes.
[HCWS900]
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
“(6A) A child is not required to be registered under this section if the parent has submitted a portfolio annually demonstrating suitable education and learning progress.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows an educational portfolio as an alternative to registration, offering a less intrusive way for parents to demonstrate their child is receiving suitable education.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I will move Amendment 231 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Wei, who regrets that he is not able to be here today, as he has to attend a close family member’s wedding.
The day looks as if it will be devoted to elective home education and, owing to my imminent defenestration and general crumbling health, I am in a position to say—since I shall be disengaging from this arena after 15 years in it—that I have found the home education community a total delight to work with. It is a collection of extraordinary people, and I find it very easy to understand how the Government do not find them easy to work with. I very much hope that, in the course of the Bill, we will help lay the foundations for a good, strong relationship.
I thank very much the Minister and her civil servants for all the time and effort they took over the Recess to work through the amendments in this section and to look at how we might gain a better understanding of them and share that with the home education community. I look forward to the continuance of that progress through Report. My approach today will be to be very concise where I can—I will await what the Minister says about individual amendments and respond to that. So much has passed between us and civil servants that rehearsing my amendments as if that had not happened would seem futile.
A large number of the amendments arise from uncertainty over the Government’s intentions, so it would be good to have something clear and unequivocal from the Minister that supports the rights of responsibilities of home educators; that celebrates the contribution they make both to the state—they save the state a great deal of money—and to the education of their children; and that requires local authorities to be supportive.
The role of local authorities is crucial here; it is clear that the role they play is vital. There are many instances where people are set on home educating for the wrong reasons or where home educating goes wrong. Looking after the children in those circumstances is hugely important. However, if the relationship between local authorities and home educators is to work, it must be based on trust and mutual appreciation. If you can get that to work, as many local authorities do, you get a strong information flow into the local authority on what is happening; you get really good support for the children involved; and it is much easier for a local authority to focus its efforts on the things that are going wrong.
As it is written—obviously, there is a lot to come in regulation—the Bill gives local authorities huge powers. Just a comma out of place in some detail on the education that you provide for your child and the local authority can tip your child back into school. That is the way it is written. I understand that that is not how it will work in practice, but it has raised considerable concerns in the home education community. Also, in talking to local authorities, I have found that their impression is that the Government’s wish is that they be much stricter on home education and push children back into school wherever possible. These are misapprehensions, I think, but I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on them.
Local authorities are thoroughly oversubscribed and financially stressed by adult social care and special needs. The home education department is usually small. Sometimes people have been pitched into it for the first time and are having to learn their way through it. Sometimes it contains people of supreme intolerance. Portsmouth gets mentioned frequently, but I know that the Minister has had shared with her a letter to home educators from Bristol Council, which shows, I think, a deep lack of understanding of how the relationship between local authorities and home educators should work. We need to come out of this Bill clear ways in which the Department for Education can steer local authorities, help them improve their practices and provide a method of recourse for parents who feel that they are being badly done by by their local authority. I also hope to see a way of celebrating the good practices that go unnoticed; too often, those local authorities that are really doing their job well go unnoticed.
I come now to the amendments in this group. We are looking at a request for information, which is very loosely described and might be interpreted at a really detailed level. What is the child doing for each five minutes of the day? With whom are they interacting? Home education can be a very varied, loose way of educating a child. It is often child-led, even if there is a lot of parental direction in there, and follows no clear, predetermined path. Recording that in the way the Bill seems to ask for would require a daily report being sent by the parent to the local authority. This cannot be what local authorities want to receive. They just are not set up for it. Here, we need something sensible and practical; understanding what that is will be really important. There is certainly an established practice in some local authorities of an annual report, which can vary in length from six to 60 pages and allows a parent to present a clear, consistent picture of the education that their child has been receiving to put everything in context.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, as this is the first time I am speaking in Committee, I declare various unremunerated positions in Gypsy, Traveller and Roma organisations. I wish just very briefly to comment on Amendment 322, on nomadic organisations. I should say that all the evidence I have seen, and many conversations, attest quite firmly to the fact that most Gypsies and Travellers, that small minority who lead a nomadic life, welcome registration and the offer of support from local authorities—although I shall have something to say about that later. This amendment does not correspond to the experience of Gypsies, Travellers, boaters or showmen. I just briefly add that it seems that most of these amendments are at odds with the reality of the situation of most children who are not in school, and with the intentions of the Bill, but I will not prolong the debate at the outset at this stage.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the chance to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and his eloquent and rather moving statement to the Committee about how he sees this. Echoing those important points, in the end this is about relationships, and about children and their needs and relationships. As the noble Lord said, with the Bill there is a real danger that this will be hugely disruptive for local authorities and parents, and in many ways could be a recipe for trouble to come if we get this wrong. But there are ways in which we can get this right and get proportionate reporting around the Bill. So there is a lot to get right here.
I will come back to various of those points later, but the simple point I wanted to make here was in relation to Amendment 238, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which is about the requirement to know which parents are educating, how and for how long. We will come back to that point in various ways in later groups. There are two key points here. One is about safeguarding, where there is an issue with at least one of the parents, which the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has an amendment on, and there is one about the division of time between parents educating, which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has an amendment on.
This whole section needs to be rethought. What do we really need to know? We need to know which parents are taking responsibility, and where they are and how they can be contacted, but it seems that the rest of it is superfluous. I simply make those points in response to Amendment 238.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 234 in particular, to which I have put my name, and, more generally, endorse the views that my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, just set out.
I have just begun to engage with home education as a concept and as a community, and it is clear right from the start that the community is very well motivated and, indeed, deeply reflective about education in this country and how it works, and it has a lot of expertise into which government should be trying to tap and learn from rather than regiment and regulate. If it should turn out that the worst happens and my noble friend Lord Lucas is indeed forced to step back from advocating support for this sector, I am sure that I and other noble Lords will be very willing to pick this up and continue the discussion.
I thank the Minister and her team for all the communication that there has been over the summer, as there have been some very comprehensive communications and emails that have been very helpful and will be very useful today.
I want to make just one brief point today, which is relevant to Amendment 234 but also to all those in this group, which is the point about trust. Trust is the way home education works—trust and mutual understanding. In many ways, the Bill as drafted gives huge powers to the Government which appear to be based on a lack of trust and a determination to regulate. They are very detailed and prescriptive and will cause all sorts of practical difficulties, and are based on a misunderstanding about how much of home education actually works.
Now, it is true that some local authorities are not as positively motivated as others. It is certainly true that all are extremely overworked in this area. It is difficult to see what is gained by generating vast amounts of paper and reporting which go into a drawer and are not much looked at.
To conclude, if it is not too late, a rethink in this area would be helpful. There could be a pulling back of some of the prescriptiveness and a better understanding from government—centrally and locally. There could be more support for local authorities and a clearer direction from the Government to get the approach right. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I look back to eight years ago, I think, when I had a very simple Private Member’s Bill, which said that home educators should register. That was it. It was as though I had ignited a bonfire of education, because the online abuse and letters that poured in were just unbelievable.
Together with my noble friend Lord Addington, I, perhaps stupidly, decided to organise a round table to discuss home education with home educators, teacher associations and anybody else who was interested. That was a real learning curve for me. Since that beginning, I have got to know many home educators. In fact, one recently sent me a wonderful, illustrated book on home education. However, when we met at the round table there were pointed and jabbing fingers; it reminded me a bit of the local city council. Nevertheless, we became quite good friends and I understood home education quite well. Since that time, we have all been on a very important journey. We have to ask ourselves why we want to do this. It is for one reason only—for our children and young people. If every home-educated child went to school, the system would not be able to cope.
The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, are correct. It is all very well our agreeing legislation, but we must always have at the back of our minds whether it will work. It is important not only to know where our children are and that they are being educated, but that there is a correct relationship between the local authority and the home educator. There are some fantastic examples where local authorities work closely and successfully with home educators to the benefit of both. There are some learning curves where local authorities do not have that good relationship with home educators—where they think that giving the cane and waving the statute is more important than trying to do what is in the best interests of the child.
There are thousands of wonderful home educators, but there are also children who are not being educated but are languishing at home for all sorts of reasons. As I have said, there are children who are being home-educated in a religious setting. This is not about giving them a wide education; it is about them understanding their particular religious texts. To my mind, this is not beneficial for the child as a whole.
I am glad that we have almost got to the stage where we think we should register home-educated children—not least so that we know where they are and can, we hope, make sure that they are safeguarded. I am not sure that having an education portfolio is the same as registering; I am not sure that being a chess grand master entitles you to say, “I do not need to register”; and I am not even sure that teachers with formal educational qualifications should not have to register. That seems bizarre. We live in a society where one of the important words is “equality”—equality of opportunity, whoever and wherever you are.
I hope that, when we continue this journey on Report, we are not just mindful of home educators but—I speak as a local councillor mindful of the capacity issues for local education authorities—that we make sure that local authorities are able to cope with the legislation and that it works, not just for the family and the child but for the local education authority as well.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, all the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, ably presented by my noble friend Lord Lucas, seek exemptions from or exceptions to the basic principle that there should be a register of children not in school. Rightly, my noble friend stressed the importance of the relationship between the local authority and home-educating parents. As other noble Lords pointed out, the Government need to take great care in this legislation so that the requirements set out in the Bill do not inadvertently damage that relationship and potential trust.
Having said that, I cannot support these amendments and their aim to find exemptions. First, at its simplest, the point of the register is to ensure that a local authority knows which children are not in school and, obviously, the amendments would undermine that. Secondly, one of the key points of the register, as I understand it, is that it would allow home-educating parents who need support from the local authority to access that support. Again, excluding these children would prevent that. Finally, these amendments assume that in these conditions it may indeed be preferable to educate the child at home. Even if this is the case in the majority, if not the vast majority, of cases, it remains reasonable and proportionate to record that that child is not in school.
With regard to Amendments 234 and 238, my noble friend Lord Lucas raised the important point of principle that the information collected should be proportionate, which, in simple terms, means that the local authority needs to actually use that information, as my noble friend said in his opening remarks, rather than just record it. The Government’s proposals for the information collected go a lot further than the legislation we brought forward in 2022. I share the doubts of my noble friend Lord Lucas and other noble Lords as to whether it is all necessary.
Going back to the point about the relationship between the local authority and parents, a good test for this legislation, and one I tried to use when we debated the 2022 Bill, is that the legislation needs to feel fair to parents. There is a risk that the amount of information and detail being requested could feel unfair and damage that relationship with the local authority, which is so important. I hope very much that when the noble Baroness closes, she will be able to reassure the Committee that that is not the case.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Wei, Lord Lucas and Lord Crisp, my noble friend Lord Hacking and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for taking time over the summer to meet my officials. Having the opportunity to discuss in detail with noble Lords how the provisions for children not in school are intended to work in practice was extremely beneficial and instructive. I am giving careful consideration to some of the finer details of the provisions with which noble Lords have indicated that they are not wholly satisfied.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that in government we have worked well and closely with home educators, who are rightly challenging on many of the issues that noble Lords have raised in the debate. Just to be completely clear, we know that the home education community is diverse and varied. Home education can take place in all walks of life, in cities or the countryside, and be delivered by those with professional teaching experience and those without. It often delivers an excellent education to children, but it is important that the registers work as intended. They should not encroach on the ability to home-educate.
I have said previously in these debates and will continue to say that we wholly recognise the right of parents to educate their children outside schools. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said, it must be possible for local authorities to identify all children not in school to ensure that they are receiving a full-time, suitable education. That oversight should be underpinned by local authorities engaging positively with home educators. That is why the Bill also places a new duty on local authorities to provide advice and information when requested to do so by parents. The registers should give us a clearer picture of not only how and where children are being educated but also how local authorities engage with and support children not in school and their families. This information will support the department to identify best practice and consider how it can potentially be replicated across authorities to build strong, trusting relationships with parents.
I recognise the point made by several noble Lords that it is important that we ensure that these relationships are maintained and built on the basis of trust and a sense that what is being asked for by the Government is reasonable. We will, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said, use this information to support and direct local authorities to ensure that that is happening, not, as I know some people fear, to prevent parents from home-educating, but to make sure that that relationship is based on a recognition of the best interests of children and of the right of parents to educate their children at home as long as they are providing a suitable education in doing that. The department will and has stepped in where local authority practice is wrong or overbearing.
Speaking in particular on the amendments in group one, these amendments seek to limit which children must be registered on local authority children not in school registers and to reduce the mandatory information that is requested from parents for the registers. This group seeks to do that on account of evidence provided by the parents or the circumstances of the child or parents. I will respond first to all the amendments dealing with which children should be included on registers: Amendments 231, 232, 233, 318, 321 and 322. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, a key objective of the registers is to aid local authorities in their existing duty to identify, as far as possible, all children in their areas who are not registered pupils in school and who are not receiving a suitable full-time education. Exempting eligible children from inclusion increases the risk of a local authority failing to identify a child who may be receiving an unsuitable education.
While I do not agree with the amendments, I appreciate the intention behind them, but I am afraid that the logic does not track even in terms of the arguments made by noble Lords. For example, to exempt children of parents with formal teaching qualifications from registration, as per Amendment 233, or children of parents who have submitted a portfolio annually demonstrating suitable education, as per Amendment 231, the local authority would need to know of the children and to record details of their parents, which might be even more cumbersome than the requirements that this legislation is asking for.
Amendments 318 and 322 seek to exempt children from rural areas, unless safeguarding concerns are present, or children from nomadic families as long as education is provided. This would still require the local authority having knowledge of these children in order to make these assessments. A registration system is the obvious solution to collect an appropriate level of information about a child’s circumstances, as my noble friend Lady Whitaker identified.
Amendment 231 seeks exemption for inclusion in the registers should the parent have previously demonstrated suitable education through an annual portfolio, while Amendment 232 seeks exemption if the parent has previously home-educated a child who progressed to university, employment or vocational training. Just because a parent has previously demonstrated suitable education, has previously home-educated a child who progressed to further or higher education, or holds certain qualifications, it does not necessarily follow that the child will receive a suitable education indefinitely or at all. Furthermore, exempting children on the basis of one measure of ability, such as achieving the status of a chess grandmaster, as per Amendment 321, offers little reassurance that the child is in suitable education overall or is safe.
I turn now to the amendments in this grouping concerning the mandatory information that is requested from parents to be held on local authority registers: Amendments 234 and 238. We will, in our debates on later groups, talk further about the nature of this information. The information required of parents is necessary to build an accurate understanding of who is involved in a child’s education and where this education is taking place. Let me be absolutely clear: the only information required to be held on registers is information which is easily available to parents and obtainable by local authorities and which is considered necessary for ascertaining suitability of education and safety of the child. This includes basic information such as the child’s name, date of birth and address, as well as high-level details of education provided by the parent and others. We will go into this in more detail but, to be absolutely clear in relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, of course this would not require daily, weekly or even monthly reports from parents. That is absolutely not the intention here. We do not believe that this basic information is overly burdensome for parents to provide or for local authorities to request and maintain.
Amendment 234, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would mean that parents would not be under a duty to provide information for registers. We know that many local authorities already maintain registers and that some parents voluntarily provide information for these, but the status quo is not good enough. It is currently too easy for children to slip under the radar. If a child has never attended a school or has recently moved to a new local authority area, for example, the local authority may be unaware that the child is in its area and not attending school. We need to be certain that local authorities are aware of all children not in school in their areas so that they can identify which children are missing education and are therefore in need of support. A parental duty to give information is the only way to achieve this. This requirement is proportionate and brings the process in England and Wales to the same level as that in the majority of other countries. In some cases, it would in fact be much less intrusive and much more supportive of home education than in many other countries.
I hope that noble Lords will permit me a brief digression to clarify a point of confusion—I know that this has been raised by and is concerning parents—regarding the consequence for parents failing to provide information for registers. If a parent does not supply the required information, they are not subject to a fine. Instead, the consequence of failing to provide information is that the local authority may, at its discretion, issue a notice requiring the parent to satisfy the local authority that their child is receiving a suitable education.
As is the case now, should the parent fail to do this and it is expedient for the child to attend school, the local authority must then issue a school attendance order, requiring the child to attend school. If the parent breaches that order and cannot prove in court that the child is being suitably educated, only then will they be found guilty of an offence and could be subject to a fine imposed at the magistrates’ court’s discretion. Again, it is important to reiterate that the school attendance order process that would be used here is an existing process and that the fines for breaching an order are completely avoidable through compliance. With this in mind, the number of families ultimately subject to a fine for breaching an order will be low compared to the overall number of orders issued.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that reply, in particular her words on the relationship with local authorities. I will study that in Hansard and come back to her if I have any problem with it, but my first impression was that it was hugely positive and very helpful. I thank her very much.
She said that the Department for Education has intervened with local authorities. I will ask for a better understanding of how that process works, because it is such an important part of making sure that local authorities that are not in the best place progress to a better one.
I understand the objection to my noble friend’s “do not register” amendments. I was wondering how he would have argued for Mozart—I think Mozart might have appreciated the intervention of a local authority in his education.
I should like to pick the Government up again on how nomadic families are to work with this legislation. Which local authority do they register with? How does that work? This is just so that it is clear. I know it is an item of detail and I will obviously not pursue an amendment on it, but knowing how that works for nomadic families and families not consistently in one place would be very helpful.
The Minister said some very helpful things about requiring high-level information, not every day or even every three months, which comes back to the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, about focusing on an annual report. I would love to see that. The Bill does not say that. The Government are relying on their ability in guidance to take what is in the Bill, which is a very detailed, “record every minute” requirement, and say, “Actually, if you give us a report once a year, that will be fine”. Very early on, I sent a message through the department to the Government’s legal draftsman to ask what the limits on this are. How far can guidance go against what is there in the Bill? Do the Government have the power to say in guidance that an annual report would be enough? I would really appreciate an answer on that. I should like to understand where that lies.
Similarly, that applies to things such as, where parents are together, the requirement to say who is providing how much of the education. Again, obviously, that can be dealt with in regulations, but is it within the Government’s power to put that in guidance?
When it comes to the consequences of failure, I am delighted—I thought it was the case that there were no fines involved—that the process is moving towards a school attendance order. In this sort of area, the process is the punishment; it has been tipped into this process. It is about the stress, worry and effort required to fight through that process. Therefore, again, it comes down to the importance of a strong, positive relationship and a well set-up local authority, and to how important all that is to the Bill working.
For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that data collection under section 436B respects rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, including Article 8 and Article 2 of Protocol 1. It prevents disproportionate interference with family life or educational convictions and upholds privacy and parental choice in home education.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, this group concerns data protection and sharing. Obviously, we are dealing here with some very personal data. People want to be sure that it is handled right and not shared with the wrong people. Where families are in the process of breaking up or where abuse is concerned, it is particularly important that the data does not get to the wrong people. By and large, the amendments in this group for which I am responsible are self-explanatory. It would be most helpful for me first to listen to the Minister responding on where the Government find themselves. I beg to move.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I want to say a few words about Amendment 254A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, to which I have added my name. I want to spell out what I suspect noble Lords understand fully, which is that there are issues here. In certain cases, where perhaps one parent has been abusive to their child, partner or spouse, it is vital that addresses are not made available to that parent.
Perhaps I could just go back two or three steps and preface my remarks by saying, first, how much I appreciate the warm remarks on home education made by the Minister in opening. They set a much better tone than has tended to come through in this debate. Something else that I omitted to say at the beginning is that my thanks go to the Minister and her officials for the excellent meeting we had. It lasted much of the day and, frankly, they were very open and willing to discuss things; that was very helpful. I do not know how much movement we got out of it—we will see during the course of today—but it was helpful to have that meeting and to understand things clearly.
As all noble Lords have said, there is an issue of balance here between supporting the good people who are providing home education because it is best for their children, or for another good reason, and supporting the missing children who are abused or neglected or have missed out. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, made an important intervention on this. We need to get that balance right.
We discussed with officials the issue dealt with in Amendment 254A. It was said that this could be picked up in regulations or whatever, but there needs to be something in the Bill to help parents who are specifically worried about safeguarding. This amendment is probably as simple as it gets in pointing out that where there is a concern about abuse, or an order standing against one parent, this should be handled by an authority in an appropriate fashion.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 267 in my name and in those of the noble Lord, Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, whom I thank for their support.
This amendment mandates local authorities not to keep the information they have on the register after the child has grown up, for two reasons. First, it is not necessary after the age of school education has passed. Secondly, many Gypsy, Traveller and Roma families have a well-founded mistrust of unnecessary scrutiny, targeting and intervention on the part of authorities. This amendment would allay their fears and ease liaison with the registering authority. It may be that discretion should be used in the case of SEND children, perhaps until the age of 25, but that is for discussion later. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will understand the need for this amendment.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 254A, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for his comments. As a society, we can be proud that, over the years, we have carefully and proportionately brought in safeguarding procedures which really make a difference to the lives of children and young people. We know that, by and large, our children are safe. Occasionally, we find a gap in the regulations or in the provision, and we come together to try to sort that out.
In a sense, safeguarding information can be shared with parents. This amendment comes out of conversations with a number of organisations that have given thought to how, in some cases, this can be harmful for the child. If there is a safeguarding concern, details can be shared with both parents, but my amendment questions whether it is appropriate if it risks further harm to the child. In a sense, this is a probing amendment, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say as it will impact my thoughts when we come to Report.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to this group, which, in common with some of the earlier groups, seeks to probe the Government’s position on some important, albeit quite technical issues. These include the right to privacy and family life, as covered in Amendments 235 and 297; the handling of data breaches, covered in Amendments 268, 275 and 375; and data removal, covered in Amendments 267 and 273. Throughout, the House is looking for reassurance and clarity from the Minister as to how these issues will be handled. Amendments 265, 272, 328, Clause 33 stand part and Amendment 504 all relate to data protection. Again, the points about relationships and trust, and families having absolute clarity as to how their data will be protected, who will have access to it and what will be public, are obviously important.
Finally, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, Amendments 236, 236A, 254A—in the noble Lord’s name—266 and 305 relate to the delicate and difficult issues about sharing information in cases where abuse of a child by a parent has either been alleged or confirmed. Again, the more clarity the Minister can bring, the more helpful it would be for the House.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, the amendments in this group concern the sharing and protection of information on the registers. I can completely understand concerns about the collection and processing of data, and I hope to provide in my response some of the reassurances that noble Lords seek. But we must also be clear that we must not make them a barrier to legitimate information sharing. The recording and sharing of relevant information on children can be life-saving and, as we have discussed, children not in school registers will support local authorities to keep accurate records of eligible children, identifying those who require support and facilitating better co-ordination between support services, as well as enabling them to fulfil the requirement to understand where children are receiving education outside school.
Amendment 235, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to ensure that local authorities are not required to collect information on their registers that would be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Our published ECHR memorandum outlines the position on this, and we are confident that the provisions in the Bill are compatible.
I turn to Amendments 236 and 236A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 254A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. As with Amendment 238, which I spoke to on the previous group, these amendments seek to place exemptions on the requirement for registers to contain certain information on the child’s parents. I have outlined why that information is vital, but I appreciate that noble Lords have tabled these amendments based on concerns that some parents are estranged from their families for reasons such as domestic abuse. Recognising that concern, we have engaged with organisations that support domestic abuse survivors on our proposals and will continue to do so as part of their implementation.
Organisations like Women’s Aid have long called for the introduction of children not in school registers. Indeed, this is one of the recommendations it has made as part of its Nineteen More Child Homicides report published in June this year. If a parent could pose a risk to the child, it is even more crucial that authorities have this information. Holding information such as where the parent lives and whether they are providing education to the child, as well as time spent in such education, could help the local authority to identify the frequency and nature of the contact the child has with the parent. This could feed into a local authority’s assessment of whether a child is at risk of harm or is likely to be receiving an unsuitable education, so that further action can be taken if needed. Without evidence that a child may be at risk, it is difficult for authorities to intervene.
But I understand the concerns of parents, and I want to respond to that. Just to be clear, parents who have fled domestic abuse should be reassured that they will not be required to seek out the details of the other parent. They need to provide only the information that they know. But I will be clear about how we can ensure that the register will not reveal, for example, the whereabouts of a parent who has escaped abuse. Data protection protocols will help to ensure that all those on the register are safe. Specifically, in cases where a known abuser has made a subject access request regarding their child, the local authority, as data controller, can make determinations, considering the facts of the case, including safeguarding concerns.
I and my colleagues in the other place are clear on the importance of ensuring that all appropriate safeguards can be in place for victims of domestic abuse. We will continue to work with organisations with expertise in domestic abuse to ensure that all necessary protections can be built into the guidance that we will produce.
Linked to this but on a slightly different issue, Amendment 266, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and Amendment 265, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, concern information from local authority registers being published. Let me be clear that local authorities will not be able to publish from their registers the name or address of an eligible child or their parent or any information that could lead to their identities being deduced. The Bill contains a provision in new Section 436C(5) explicitly preventing it. However, it is important that local authorities can publish information relating to their home education cohorts—in fact, I think that in later groups some noble Lords will be asking for further information along these lines—in terms of numbers, reasons for home education, and demographics. That will aid transparency in terms of how each local authority is undertaking its duties. We will ensure that regulations made in relation to this setting out whether and how registered details may be published will be subject to public consultation, and they will also be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 267 in the name of my noble friend Lady Whitaker and Amendment 273 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would require the destruction of all data in relation to a child held on children not in school registers upon that child turning 18 or re-enrolling in school. I assure noble Lords that data protection laws are clear that data must not be kept longer than necessary and must be retained only when there is a lawful basis. Entries on the register will therefore be deleted prior to a child turning 18 as a child is eligible to be included on the register only if they are of compulsory school age. As my noble friend alluded to, some information may need to be retained on other local authority records for a longer period; for example, a looked-after child remains with their local authority until they are 25, and it is crucial to hold some historical information as part of education and safeguarding inquiries. Current laws already allow this.
Amendment 275, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and Amendments 268 and 375, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to ensure that parents are notified of any data breaches that occur as part of the children not in school measures and are able to claim compensation, and that local authorities are liable for the consequences of breaches. UK GDPR already sets out that a local authority must report a notifiable personal data breach to the Information Commissioner’s Office within 72 hours and to the affected individuals “without undue delay” where there is high risk that they are adversely affected by the breach. Families who have suffered damage as a result have a right to claim compensation from the local authority, which may also face fines or regulatory action.
Amendment 305, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendments 272 and 328, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to restrict or remove the powers relating to the use and sharing of data on the registers. As I suggested earlier, local authorities and the department need to collate and share register information, often at speed, with relevant persons, to fulfil duties related to the education, safeguarding or welfare of a child. Requiring written parental consent in every case, as Amendment 272 would do, would potentially prevent children receiving support in situations where swift action is vital. New Section 436F inserted by the Bill makes it clear with whom data from the registers may be shared and under which circumstances.
For example, local authorities may share information with those persons and organisations listed in Section 11(1) of the Children Act 2004 if appropriate to do so for the purposes of promoting or safeguarding the education and welfare of children. These include organisations, such as the NHS, which are a central component of either local multi-agency safeguarding arrangements or national efforts to protect children. If there is information on registers that can aid these organisations in protecting or promoting the welfare of a child, I am sure noble Lords will agree that it is important that it is shared. In relation to Amendment 328, I reassure noble Lords that immigration authorities do not feature in any of these categories.
Amendment 297, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to remove the requirement for out-of-school education providers to provide local authorities with the names, dates of birth and home addresses of children who are attending their provision above a prescribed threshold. We will talk about the provider duty in more detail later but, in effect, this amendment would remove the provider duty, which is, we argue, crucial in supporting local authorities both to identify children who should be on registers but are not and to cross-check records for children already on registers. There is no way for local authorities to achieve this without asking for basic identifying information.
Amendment 504, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would delay the commencement of the children not in school registers until the National Cyber Security Centre or an equivalent body certifies them. The Government already conduct extensive internal and external assurance processes to ensure that systems are safe and secure before launch. To support local authorities in meeting their data protection obligations under the measures, we will issue guidance that promotes best practice for keeping parents’ and children’s information secure.
Finally, I turn to the stand part notice in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which would oppose Clause 33 standing part of the Bill. As I have outlined in responding to this group, Clause 33 ensures that the processing of personal information as required or enabled by the Bill does not contravene the Data Protection Act 2018. It promotes the highest standards of data security and transparency. I hope that that provides your Lordships—and parents—with some assurance. I also hope that noble Lords will feel able to agree that this clause should stand part of the Bill and that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will withdraw Amendment 235.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that thoughtful response. I will pick up anything with which I disagree—I did not notice anything —later.
I want to say just one thing on Amendment 504. The Government created this cybersecurity centre—because the risks, the techniques and the availability of those techniques are moving so quickly, particularly with artificial intelligence—so that the best possible expertise is available to government departments. Time and again, though, they do not use it. In a recent case with which I have been dealing, DSIT got a chunk of its vital core code developed in Romania. It is not secure to do that; you do not know what it is doing and who it is doing it for. The way in which devices were secured was not up to scratch either. This resource is there as part of government. It should be used by departments, which cannot in all reason keep up with the latest threat and techniques, to be sure of what they are doing when it comes to security. It really is the best thing that can be done, so I encourage the Minister to get the department to take advantage of that facility.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hacking
“(b) the names and home addresses of the parent or parents who are taking responsibility for the education of the child;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to identify the minimum requirement for providing information for the register and ensures that information is only included on parents who have responsibility for educating the child.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, the grouping of these amendments is becoming a bit confusing. This amendment and Amendment 237 are directed to the protection of sexually abused children, but so are Amendment 236A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 254A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I will therefore be addressing the problem of protecting sexually abused children at this stage in this group. I did not intervene earlier because I thought it sensible to collect all my words dealing with the same issue together. Before I go any further, I should like to refer to when my noble friend the Minister got to the Dispatch Box at the beginning of this stage of the Committee and kindly mentioned my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Lucas, and other noble Lords who have participated in this Bill. She also referred to the meetings that have taken place at the Department for Education with her officials and with her colleague the Minister, Stephen Morgan. I wish to express extreme thanks to my noble friend and the officials for their helpfulness. On this Bill, the Government are listening. This has not been exactly a feature of recent Bills, either from the Conservative Benches or my Benches. On this Bill, however, the Government are listening and we are grateful.
My attention was drawn to this problem by a mother who had a serious problem with her husband abusing her son. That kind lady has been very objective and forceful in presenting her case. She spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Frost—I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber. She also came to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. I do not know whether she came to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but he has certainly been in contact with her. It has been helpful to have the evidence that she provided. I am not going to identify her, although I should also mention that the Minister himself, Stephen Morgan, met her. My noble friend’s officials also met her and exchanged emails with her. A lot of information has been exchanged, which has been helpful.
In brief, her son was sexually abused by her husband, I think from the age of four. It went on for several years. When the mother found out, she was absolutely horrified and wanted, as do all mothers who face the same situation, the maximum protection. That is what these amendments are trying to do. My submissions on this issue are not based on just one case. I am afraid that a number of cases of sexual abuse of children are undetected, unreported or both. This brings me back to many years ago, when I was a barrister appearing at the Lincoln Assizes. I was involved in a case of incest. The prosecution case against the accused was that he was committing incest on the complainant, who was both his daughter and granddaughter. That illustrates how horrific the problem of sexual abuse can be.
Under these amendments, the protection sought is that the misbehaving husband should not have access to any information, particularly, as my noble friend identified, as to the whereabouts and address of the abused child. He should be entirely separated from that poor child. One can do that in a number of ways —that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in Amendment 236A, or by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, in Amendment 237. Amendment 235A was his amendment, not mine, but somehow his name was lost from the Marshalled List. I apologise but I hope he has forgiven me. He is a very forgiving Peer. The position, which is the point I really wanted to establish, is that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is still with the amendment and supportive of it. I did not quite get a nod from him but I will work on that basis because it is a very sensible amendment.
The Minister was quite right—she referred to data protection too—when she said that there is a strict rule in new Section 436C(5) that puts a strong prohibition on the publication of any information in the register and on it being made “accessible to the public”. I keep calling the Minister my learned friend—she is very learned, but I should stick to the correct parliamentary description of her as my noble friend. Anyway, new Section 436C(5) provides a strong prohibition, but of course that means that the officials with access to the register have to be trusted to follow new Section 436C(5).
The lady to whom I just referred, who has been so helpful in our deliberations on this issue, recalls a situation when a husband, who had been convicted of the sexual abuse of his child—actually, in that case it was two girls—had been sent to prison but had rung up to collect information from the register, which was given. The only way that we in this House can properly protect the abused child from being traced by the abusing father is by making sure that the information is not in the register. Of course, if it is not in the register, it cannot be released. I suggest that that is the best approach.
I end by thanking my noble friend again for how she has conducted this entire Bill, with helpfulness, a willingness to listen and, above all, a willingness to work with this House. That is a matter deserving of great congratulations and great thanks. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, I must apologise: I should have advised the Committee that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, alluded to, Amendment 237 is in an incorrect place on the Marshalled List—hence my calling Amendment 235A now.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, this is the point at which I will make one of the two main interventions that I propose to make today, on my Amendment 254B. Before I come to that, I will comment on two other amendments. I added my name to Amendment 239, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which would leave out the bit about the split between parents of how many hours are provided per week. This seems completely redundant information and is not necessary. I understand the point that the register should include some reference to the fact that parents are providing the education—it is not all being done through a private tutor—but it seems to me that the split is unconvincing.
When the Minister responded, essentially to this point, in an earlier group, she said something about wanting to know the number of hours of education taking place during the week. I may have misinterpreted but I think that is what was said, and it prompts me to ask a question of the noble Baroness. Does she have a number of hours per week that are expected to be covered by education? I should be interested to know if there is some number that the department has in mind.
The second amendment to which I have added my name, Amendment 260, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is about local authorities being able to ask for any other relevant information. That is too much of a catch-all; enough information is already provided. I should be keen to hear her arguments on this and hope that the Minister will accept them.
My main intervention is on Amendment 254B, which concerns the first point at which parents are asked to provide a lot of information about who is providing the education. My amendment picks up the point that this is a large set of possible providers. As written, it could include the occasional organised event. It could include regular visits to the Guides, which is an educational charity, I understand. It could include a rugby club and other such things—anything that has an educational component as the amendment is written. I should say in parentheses here that I have received one reference from a provider of home education, a wildlife trust in the Midlands—I will provide the name to the Minister—which has already written to the people for whom it provides home education, saying that it will put this on hold until the Bill’s impact is clear. Already this wildlife trust—I do not know what level of education it provides—has stopped providing education to home-educated children because of its fears of what the Bill might mean for it in terms of the amount of information the trust has to provide in future.
However, my intervention here concerns the information that the parent or parents need to provide. In our useful discussions with officials, they made it clear that they would put in regulations something that implied that there was a certain amount of time beyond which one-off events would not count, and that events that happened once a week but were only three hours long, or primarily social and recreational, would be taken into account. That is fine in regulations but you need some parameters in the Bill to state:
“The requirement to provide the information set out in subsection (1)(e) only applies to providers which are providing regular education sessions amounting to 10 hours or more a week, which are not primarily social or recreational in nature, and”—
importantly, a point that we have not discussed at all—
“where the information has not already been provided to the authority in other formats, such as an annual report.”
Let me pick up that point about duplication. I am as keen as anyone to weed out fake or failing home-educating parents or arrangements. However, this register is not the way to do it. Form-filling will not catch the diversity of a child’s needs and of educational methods. It is the match between the two that is so vital, particularly as we know that more than half of those who are home educated have special needs of different sorts. This really is not one size fits all, yet the Bill seems to be treating it as though it is. Nor, I believe, will inspection of a child’s work and timetable, without the wider context of a parent’s own assessment of their child’s needs, be an effective method of doing so. The Bill misses out the most important evidence of all: the reality of that particular child and their circumstances. That is why the attempt to use the register to make any meaningful assessment of the quality of education provided is fundamentally flawed. There is an existing alternative.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, he has totally persuaded me that Amendment 254B should be adopted, and I hope the Minister will respond sympathetically to it.
Amendment 257A in my name would require the statutory local registers of children not in school to include whether a child is a young carer, and whether a young carer’s needs assessment has been carried out. It is a revised version of Amendment 251 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Storey. The wording is identical, but by amending new Section 436C(2) rather than new Section 436C(1) it makes it easier for local authorities to comply, because new Section 436C(1) is compulsory with no exceptions, whereas new Section 436C(2) refers to information that the local authority has or might reasonably obtain.
I thank the Minister’s officials for the constructive discussions that they had with the Carers Trust and local carer services on this issue. They led to this new amendment, which I hope improves its chances of acceptance. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for indicating their support for this revised amendment. The amendment is closely related to Amendment 209, which we discussed on 3 July. That would require local authorities to ensure that they have offered a young carer’s needs assessment if they are notified of a pupil who is being withdrawn from school. Amendment 257A, which we debate now, complements that by including such information on the register.
I will not repeat the arguments for improving the protection for young carers, but I mention very briefly the case of Salma, who is caring for her mother, who has physical and mental health issues, and her father, who has physical health issues. She was taken out of school after being subject to bullying. The parents stated that they were home-schooling her while always working towards getting her back into specialist provision. After Salma returned to that specialist provision, she admitted that no home-schooling had taken place and she had been caring around the clock. She had missed one and a half years of school before she was given a permanent placement in that specialist provision. So, repeating what I have said before, I am not saying that a young carer should never be home-educated—I have listened to the powerful arguments from my noble friends and from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp—but we need safeguards for the reasons I have just given so that children do not slip off the radar, to use a phrase that the Minister used in an earlier debate.
Related to the previous amendment and this one are delays in carrying out a young carer’s assessment. I raised this in July and the Minister wrote to me on 9 July—I am grateful for that. She told me that the Care Quality Commission is currently assessing how well local authorities perform their relevant duties under the Care Act 2014 and that every local authority will have been assessed by next March. She also strongly urges all local authorities to sign up to the No Wrong Doors for Young Carers initiative. Following the CQC report, I hope that the Government will take strong action against local authorities that are underperforming.
Turning specifically to the amendment, the addition of young carers to the school census is helping to increase the visibility and understanding of young carers within schools and of the impact that caring can have on educational opportunities. For example, we now know that young carers in our schools are missing over a month of their education each year. So including young carers on this register will help ensure that local authorities can comply with their statutory duties under the Children Act 1989, which requires them to take reasonable steps to identify young carers who might be in need of support. By including young carers on the education not in school register, local authorities will be better able to work with families and local young carers services to ensure that caring responsibilities do not mean that the child misses out on education.
Finally, to put it in perspective, there are around 15,000 children who are caring for an alarming 50 hours each week, including over 3,000 children aged between 5 and 9. A further 21,000 children are caring for 20 to 49 hours a week. This has a huge impact on their health and their future life chances. Young carers taking on significant caring responsibilities are 86% less likely than their peers without caring responsibilities to obtain a university degree and 46% less likely to be in employment. Currently, it takes far too long for these young carers to get the support they need—on average three years, with some going more than 10 years without support. That is why this amendment seeks to ensure that this group of children is at the front of our thinking when we are talking about children not in school.
The clause, if amended, would mean that young carer status would be included on the register only if the local authority knows that the child is a young carer or could reasonably obtain such information. But, given that the majority of young carers are not identified, will the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that local authorities are complying with their duty to identify young carers outside education?
This simple amendment is an important small step to help ensure that all young carers are able to have the same educational opportunities as their peers, whether they are educated in school or elsewhere.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. I added my name to his original amendment. I am afraid I was a bit slow off the mark in adding it to his revised amendment, to which the noble Lord has just spoken. I strongly support it. The noble Lord has set out the case for it extremely well.
I want to emphasise a couple of points. I have always had concerns about young carers being withdrawn from school for home-education. I am concerned that they do not get the necessary breaks from caring responsibilities. We all know how important respite care is for all carers, particularly young ones. Young carers can find themselves taking on ever-increasing levels of caring responsibility. Some of the case studies I have been looking at may well be at the extreme end of the spectrum, but they were talking about young carers who were looking after mum and dad with multiple physical and mental health needs, as well as looking after two or three younger siblings. I really do not know how on earth they can take on that caring responsibility and still ensure that they are educated.
I was also very struck by the statistics mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young. He said that over 15,000 children were caring for 50 hours or more per week. This is not compatible with a child receiving the degree of education that we would all want them to have for their own life chances.
I am also concerned that they will be missing out on the support that can be provided for young carers just because they are not in school. I know that some schools are very good at running groups for young carers, such as peer support, mental health support and additional academic support. It is critical that young carers can still access this kind of support if they need it and are being educated at home.
My main concern is the inappropriate or excessive levels of care that these young people are being asked to take on, because of the feeling of isolation and the emotional impact it has on them. This amendment is essential to protect them. The word the noble Lord, Lord Young, used was “safeguards”. We need strong safeguards if we are to be satisfied that young carers with significant caring responsibilities at home are also being home-educated.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 250 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, whose support I greatly value. This amendment would oblige schools to ask for and record why the child is to receive home-education. This is not done at present and the Department for Education lists the reasons as “unknown” in 42% of cases. The current census estimates that 111,700 children are being home-educated, a 20% rise since last year—hardly an endorsement of what has been going on in some schools. The reasons must be collected to get a better understanding of why children abandon the advantages of school and where feasible, deal with them. We know there are many reasons, some of which, like the bullying which so many Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children endure, must be more effectively and specifically tackled; among those reasons, regrettably, is the desire of some schools to ensure their exam pass rates reach a certain level, thus neglecting the children who most need their education to work. I hope my noble friend the Minister can accept this amendment.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I will contribute very briefly to this debate. I thought that the amendments by the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Crisp, showed the difficulty of the Bill in that very different groups of young people are being referred to and both sets of needs need to be met. Therein is the difficulty of getting the legislation right. I very much took the point about children with caring responsibilities and hope that we can take this opportunity to improve that; it is something about which I have been concerned for a while.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest: I am now a member of the Northern Ireland Curriculum Taskforce Advisory Committee. I support amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran, and I support and echo some of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, my noble friend Lord Young and others.
To put it in context, we are one of the most permissive countries in the world on home education. We have a strong default presumption that parents should be able to home-educate if they choose and no expectation of tight supervision of that. When I was chief inspector, my counterparts in other countries were often astonished at the degree of freedom that parents in this country have. There are countries where home education is simply illegal, and there are many countries where there are quite significant controls on quality.
To take just one example, in Belgium, I recently talked to the Flanders chief inspector. Parents must have their child do the end of primary school test. If they fail, they have one further opportunity; if they do not pass either time, they must be registered in a school. Similarly, there are provisions that if parents repeatedly refuse to allow a local authority employee to visit them at home, the child must be registered at school. I am not advocating these things specifically, simply putting it in context.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, made a important point that this is not a single community. People have referred a number of times to communities. There are communities of what you might characterise as the archetypal home-schoolers, many of them excellent, which include many parents of children with special educational needs of various kinds. They are strongly represented in forums, support groups and lobbying, and they are valuable and important people. There are also many parents who do not take part in these kinds of forums. They are the parents of children in illegal schools where children are nominally home-educated but actually in illegal institutions. They are parents of children who have been essentially forced out of school and off-rolled, who typically have substantial behavioural problems and often significant educational needs, whose parents are disproportionately unlikely to be able to give them a suitable education. There are parents who have simply withdrawn their children to avoid prosecution for non-attendance, and there will always be a few sad exceptional cases, but I will not go into that.
My Ofsted work made me strongly supportive of a register, and I spoke regularly about this over many years, but it is important to be clear about a couple of things. My understanding is that this is not reversing that historic presumption that parents are free to home-educate. So, if we draw out the questions that a register helps local authorities to answer, they are, first: “Is there any reason to think that this child will not be getting a suitable education?” It is not microassuring that, yes, it is definitely suitable; it is slightly the other way. Secondly and similarly, it is not aiming to provide absolute certainty around safeguarding; it is asking, “Are there warnings or flags that suggest that some more work might be needed?” Thirdly, it is about gathering some of the administrative data that central and local government need in order to understand what they need to provide and where rules and incentives need to change.
Quite a lot of what we have heard today has been on the assumption that this is about completely reversing that presumption and moving to microjudgment of the quality of what every parent is doing at every stage. I do not think that that is there, but it would be helpful for it to be explicit that that is not the case. It is important that this does not become just a register of concerns. The requests for exemptions are, sadly, a little misguided because they would narrow this down to being a register of concern. Broadly, it is much clearer if it is simply an objective that the register of children in school plus the register of children not in school adds up to the totality.
I started today intending to support the pragmatic amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran around limiting the information that has to be collected to the things that genuinely support those purposes. What I have heard has led me to think that there is a simplification that the Government might consider that would help to draw together and streamline the thrust of the points that have been made on carers, for example, and those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. It is that if it is information that we would normally expect to be collected in the administrative data section of a school register, it should also be in the not in school register. We are perhaps over- complicating it.
On what is collected about the education itself, I have another point. It is important not to push this too far. To the extent that this register contains subjective information about how children are being educated and about how much time children who are being educated with flexible models spend on maths, English or whatever it might be, it will not work well. Different parents will interpret it very differently. It is the kind of information that it is hard to do well even when constructing a research study. I suggest that there is room to take this back a bit in the light of the purposes I outlined and to commission research studies and sample studies where appropriate.
Similarly, lovely as it would be, the register will never provide all the information that a social work department might need to decide that an investigation is necessary. We need to think about what is straightforward to collect and not subjective to answer and what will help to create the join-up we expect, while not creating an administrative monster with information that turns out to have relatively little value in practice.
That is all I wanted to say. I support this register strongly, as I said, but one iteration further could be done with these provisions to make the register as clean, effective and supportive as it should be.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I wish to follow on; in fact, my noble friend has given an introduction to the comments that I wanted to make in relation to Amendment 260 in the names of my noble friend Lady Barran and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. She mentioned phrases such as “not push it too far” or “take a step back from this”, and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, outlined on a previous group that this should be proportionate reporting and information collection, which is really important.
On Amendment 260, we get down to the clauses— I am a lawyer by training and have been in government as a Minister, and I know that government loves such clauses—which require the collection, if it is reasonable to obtain it, of
“any other information about the child’s characteristics, circumstances”
or needs. The only caveat to that is that those should be included in the register
“for the purposes of promoting or safeguarding the education or welfare of children”.
My first point in relation to that is that that is new paragraph (m), so we have already asked for an awful lot of information before we have our lovely “scoop it all up” clause. But is “characteristics” limited to protected characteristics? That is a separate paragraph in Clause 31, so I suspect it is not. What kinds of characteristics will be asked of families in relation to their children, what kinds of circumstances and what limit on that or on their needs? Obviously, we are not talking about special educational needs because that, again, is somewhere else. It is an enormously wide power for them to be able to reasonably obtain this information.
The only limit on it is
“for the purposes of promoting or safeguarding the education or welfare of children”.
Part of that limitation is well known. It apes the Children Act, which says that we are there to promote and protect the safeguarding of the welfare of children. But here it is about the safeguarding of education, a slightly new concept that is there as a key limitation, in the way the paragraph is put together, on what local authorities can ask of families.
So I strongly support Amendment 260 on that kind of “scoop it all up” information about parents in these circumstances, particularly parents who may have, for good reason, withdrawn their children. I can see all kinds of headlines and problems if this kind of information, on such a broad basis, is asked of parents by the local authority. I think that there will be legal challenges to define such a broad clause that the Government seem to want, and that it will be the subject of complaints of intrusion. Although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, obviously this is not to take back that presumption that it is the parents’ right, but such a wide clause that gives the local authority such extensive powers to ask for basically any other information risks changing that presumption, or at the very least it creates a perception for parents that it has been changed.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to add to the support given to Amendment 257A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, from all sides of the Committee, and just to emphasise almost the moral case for it.
Earlier on in Committee, when we were talking about the important role of kinship carers, I think we recognised the enormous debt that we as a society owe to them for the burden that they take on and the large number of young children they keep out of the care system, at disproportionate cost financially and to themselves socially and developmentally. The same is true of young children who end up being carers. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, we have 15,000 children caring for 50 hours or more a week, of whom 3,000 are between five and nine years old. If I remember dimly myself at that age, and if I think of my children at that age, the idea of taking on the responsibilities that some of these young carers take on, through no choice of their own, is extraordinary.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I was going to rise very briefly to speak to Amendments 243, 249 and 260 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to which I added my name, but the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, has put it far better than I possibly could. I was going to talk about concerns about the home-schooling fraternity, but my noble friend Lord Crisp has put it far better than I could. I have also been persuaded by my noble friend Lord Russell and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, that Amendment 251 is extremely powerful. I am greatly looking forward to the Minister’s reply to these powerful arguments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I should just say “ditto” to that, should I not? What the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said is hugely important, as is the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the words of my noble friend Lady Spielman. It is unclear how this set of amendments is going to work. It unclear whether they are proportionate. We would like to get a good understanding. We can see that there is a purpose and that they are important, but we have concerns about how the demands of this Bill fit with reality and are going to work in particular circumstances. I will not go into the detail of the amendments that I have in that space—I will wait for the Minister’s reply—but I will pick up on some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Wei on his amendments. Amendment 245 provides that, if a private tutor teaches online and never sees the child in their home, there should be no need for that tutor to supply a private address. There are other aspects. It appears that a company has to provide details of all the people it employs. What happens with online companies where you are not interfacing with anyone at any obvious location but are just interfacing with the software? It is really hard to read what you are supposed to produce and why it is reasonable to produce it.
Amendment 248 highlights the absurdity of trying to quantify every minute. Many parents rightly say that their children learn continuously through conversation, trips and hobbies, without rigid slots. Precise time-logging is trying to force home education into a classroom straitjacket.
Amendment 260 and, in particular, Amendment 261, which my noble friend Lord Frost has supported, seek to address what is breathtakingly open-ended stuff. What is required here and why? What is the underlying purpose being served? We have to be careful about going in for open-ended data collection. Those of us who have been here for a while will remember what happened after we passed RIPA, and the way in which local authorities started using it to find out parents who might be cheating when it came to saying what their address was in school applications. Anything that is collected under such a register does not just sit quietly in a database; it becomes available throughout government and will be swept up into the profiling systems used by the police and the security authorities.
We know from history and from the work of those such as Professor Eileen Munro that these systems tend to record deficits, not strengths, and to build up negative pictures of people. This results in children from black and other ethnic minorities being racially profiled as being bad. People worry about them and so something appears in the database, and then they are seen as a problem. That information will appear everywhere that the authorities look them up. We need to be really careful about how we allow information to be collected.
I do not see any practical provision that would allow anyone to know what is on the register or to correct what is on it. There must be some process for making it accurate when the local authority has added stuff of its own volition—it does not have to tell anyone that it has done so, and the information might be completely daft and inaccurate. There is no provision for how information should be assessed and removed. We need to look carefully at this. Dr Stephen Crossley’s work on the troubled families programme illustrates that this leads to intrusive interventions justified by mass data trawling and families being
“bullied to no good effect”,
with little evidence of positive outcomes.
In this area, we should legislate with humility about what the state can know and manage and about what is useful and practical. We should be careful about turning supportive families into defensive ones, educational flourishing into compliance anxiety, or safeguarding into a byword for intrusive bureaucracy.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this group is about gathering information, and I am struck by certain things. Are we collecting the right type of information? Are we ignoring other information?
I was particularly struck by the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, which seeks to include on the register why the child is being home-educated. That would be a useful addition, though I am fully aware that others are saying that we might get a sea of information that ignores the key reason. As somebody who comes at home-education from a special educational needs background, I am familiar with lots of people who have removed their children from school because the school simply did not have the capacity to teach them accurately; teachers are trained to teach those who more closely conform to the norm and these children’s learning patterns do not correlate with that.
The same will be true about the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, when she said that blocks of time sitting down and studying is what education is. This is the type of education that has failed that group. For instance, many schools say, “We are going to give them extra help”. If you do not give them the right help, for this group, because the learning patterns are different, it still will not work. There are lots of little things in here that I would like the Minister to start to clear up. Too much information and the wrong sort will not help.
Even then, there are certain other bits that probably should be there. Are we going to review this periodically? Are we trying to get a feel of it? If we do not do so, there is a danger that we overload. But the register should be there because every child—it comes back to this—is entitled to an education. As was movingly put and supported by my noble friend Lady Tyler, who is a carer, that child is entitled to some support. Carers are entitled to function as an adult in the outside world after they have finished their caring duties—indeed, if they ever finish them. If we do not get away from that, I should like to know a little more on how we are going to use this information. It is a difficult subject, and I do not envy the Minister when she comes to answer on this group, but it is one we are entitled to extract the information from.
There are lots of situations here where we need to get an approach more than we need to get the detail—something that says whether it will be flexible enough. Is it going to understand the types of situations involved? We have heard they are variable, and anybody who has looked at this knew they were variable. So I look forward to the Minister’s reply and do not envy her her task.
Lord Storey (LD)
I have listened to Members talk on all these amendments, and it raised some thoughts in my mind, which I just want to mention before dealing with the amendments. One of the things that we will perhaps appreciate even more as a result of having a register is that, never mind home education, there are currently 100,000 children missing. They are not in home education or schools but are missing. I hope that when we have established—if we establish—a register for home-educated children, we will know the exact number of missing children and have a similar opportunity to work out how we do something about it. It is one of the highest levels in western Europe. That is my first thought.
My second thought is that we constantly hear from schools about the workload that teachers have to have, and maybe some of the discussions about what we are requiring of home educators in terms of the information from them would be music to teachers’ ears as well. In my days as a probationary teacher in my first school, I remember that the head did not require me to keep any records at all. He trusted me as a teacher. There was a single school syllabus and you just got on with it. After five years, I moved on to my second school. It was a huge culture shock because the head teacher demanded that we all had our record books and that we wrote down in great detail a paragraph for every subject from maths, literacy and numeracy right through to technology on what we were doing in that week. Perhaps this discussion also relates to issues for schools as well. Each of these amendments has important things to say. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, was absolutely right to ask, what in these amendments adds value and what adds little value?
Sometimes it is not in plain sight. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, dismissed Amendment 244 as more bureaucracy. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, did not get up. His later Amendment 333ZA is about safeguarding. I do not think that many parents know that, currently, under UK law, an individual barred from working with children due to safeguarding risks or serious offences—including imprisonment—can legally offer one-to-one tuition to children when hired directly by the provider. So the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, which seeks to avoid having to provide details of staff at, for example, online schools, is a mistake. We should know the details of individuals who are not parents and who come into schools to do tutoring. That is hugely important.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will keep my remarks brief and focus on my own amendments in this group as I know that we have a very ambitious target to complete today; that noble Lords came in early to do this; and that we have had a well-informed debate already. My Amendments 239, 243, 249 and 260 were supported and elegantly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, with support from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp.
Amendment 239 would remove the requirement to specify the time spent by each parent educating their child, which was described by your Lordships as potentially redundant information.
Amendment 243 would set a minimum threshold of six hours weekly to avoid parents having to record every piano lesson and burdening local authorities with a volume of information that they cannot realistically assess. It has many similarities to Amendment 254B. I would not quibble with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, as his amendment was very well drafted, but the spirits of the two amendments have much in common.
Amendment 249 would exclude weekend and holiday activities so that we bring home-educated children into line with those at school, where we would not dream of asking how they spend their weekends and holidays. Again, we do not want every visit to the Royal Institution —however fascinating—or every swimming lesson being shared with the local authority.
Finally, Amendment 260—the “scoop it all up” amendment, as my noble friend Lady Berridge described it—seeks to remove the ability of the Secretary of State to require any additional information that they see fit to be included in the register. This is an important point of principle because it leaves the door completely open for a future Secretary of State to behave in a way that many of your Lordships might consider unreasonable and unfair. It is excessive—belt and braces—and the Minister may want to reconsider it.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a good debate on this group—interestingly, with some rather different perspectives on the nature of the extent to which information should be included on the register. Let me deal with the range of points, I hope, as reassuringly and informatively as I can.
Amendment 235A was introduced by my noble friend Lord Hacking, although it seems that it had several parents—I will try to respond to the principles of it—and Amendment 239 is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. These amendments would mean that registers would be required to contain the names and addresses of only the parents who are taking responsibility for the education of the child, rather than details of all parents of the child. Parents would also not need to provide information on how much time their child spends receiving education from each parent.
As I said in relation to Amendment 238 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the reason why both parents’ details are needed is because, by law, each parent has an equal responsibility for securing a suitable education for their child. This remains the case even if a parent is not providing the education themselves and is instead securing other providers to do so. Although I understand the intention behind these amendments, I worry that they would result in local authorities being unable to obtain necessary information.
My noble friend Lord Hacking gave a harrowing example in relation to access to information on the registers. I had hoped that my comments in our debate on the previous group had given some assurances around the control of and requirements for confidentiality around the register, which will provide some reassurance on that. Additionally, I am concerned that Amendment 239 would make it more difficult for local authorities to identify children who may not be receiving a suitable full-time education. Without having the time that a parent spends educating their child on the registers, how are local authorities to know whether the six hours that a child spends at a supplementary school each week is just part of their education or their whole education?
In relation to Amendment 235A, what if no parent claims responsibility for the education of the child? Unfortunately, we must face the reality that some children in England and Wales are receiving no education at all from their parents or from anybody else. Where this is the case, how can local authorities even begin to intervene if they are missing basic information, such as an up-to-date address for both parents?
Amendments 240, 241 and 247, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to restrict or remove completely the requirement on parents to provide information on the amount of time their child spends receiving education from individuals other than the parent. I will come back in a moment to the point about hours and time, raised—appropriately—by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lady Morris. But it is important that local authorities understand whether other persons are involved in the education of the child. This, alongside information on for how much time a child is educated by their parent, will support the authority to establish whether education is full-time or not and to fulfil their existing duty to identify children missing education. This is an important point, which the noble Lord, Lord Storey, also brought to our attention.
Lord Crisp (CB)
Will the Minister answer my supplementary question about whether the department or she have in mind a number of hours that make up full-time education that they are trying to get to through this process?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I said I will come to that—I am coming to it. I will also answer the other point about the annual report.
Once again, on this, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and other noble Lords for taking the time to meet my officials and to outline in detail their concerns about the nature of the information that we are requesting. I understand the concern not to limit the wide range of activities that effective home education may well involve, the range of different organisations that might be contributing to it and the burdens that might be placed. I reassure noble Lords that I am reflecting on the points raised.
Amendment 253, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to define what constitutes education for the purposes of for which activities parents must provide information on the registers. I anticipate that the noble Lord tabled this amendment to reduce parental burden, but it will actually do the reverse. It would bring a broad list of activities into scope of the duty to provide information, as any activity that results in the child learning would be classed as education. It is not the policy intention that registers will need to contain information on such a wide range of activities. The accepted definition of “education” is that it should contain elements of supervision and instruction that work towards defined objectives. This is supported by case law.
I recognise that noble Lords are concerned about the burden that the duty to provide information on a child’s education provision places on parents and local authorities. We will ensure that those burdens are kept as low as possible. Parents will not be required to give details on non-educational activities, for example, and we will outline this in detail in statutory guidance and, obviously, consult on the details.
Amendments 243 and 249, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and Amendment 254B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, seek to place limitations on the providers that parents must provide information on. They set a threshold so that parents need to provide information only on organisations that offer more than six or 10 hours of education a week, that educate their child during the school day, or that are one-off or largely social and recreational activities. Although I appreciate that these amendments seek to reduce burdens on parents, the exemptions would potentially leave large gaps in the overall picture of a child’s education. This is particularly true if a child is attending multiple providers or does not follow the school timetable. In relation to Amendment 254B, as I mentioned, we will make it clear in statutory guidance that parents will not be expected to give details of non-educational activities for the register.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting my noble friend in her very helpful answer. My amendment would require that schools get this information so that they can learn how they could educate children better. Of course, it is excellent that the local authorities have it, but should not schools have it too?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I understand the point my noble friend makes. When children’s parents ask for their child to be taken off the roll of a school, which of course is absolutely their right, and the school should do that, it should also, as my noble friend says, reflect on the reasons why the parents are wanting to home educate that child. More broadly, in policy terms, I think we all need to reflect on the points made by my noble friend and others about where the reason is less a positive decision about home education and more a concern about provision for children with special educational needs or otherwise. I think my noble friend is aware that the department already collects information on reasons for home education, but, as she has highlighted, there are gaps in the data. That is why the Bill already allows for this information to be prescribed for inclusion.
For example, recording whether a child is a young carer could be prescribed under new Section 436C(2)(m) of the Education Act,
“any other information about the child’s characteristics, circumstances, needs or interactions with a local authority”.
If prescribed, local authorities will need to record this information if they have it or can reasonably obtain it. We will consult on the content of these regulations, and they will be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. I hope that this will help to ensure that the information prescribed for inclusion in local authority registers is appropriate and useful. However, it is necessary that the information outlined in the noble Lord’s and my noble friend’s amendments remains voluntary for parents to provide. For some parents, the reason they have chosen to home-educate is deeply personal. Requiring it could cause parents to try to avoid registration altogether, making it more difficult for local authorities to identify and support those children who need it.
Amendments 260 and 261 in some ways reverse the argument being made in the previous two amendments, a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. These amendments aim to restrict any further information being prescribed for inclusion or recording by local authorities on their registers other than that which is set out in the Bill. To be clear, the purpose of these powers is to ensure that local authorities can include useful information in their registers that has not been explicitly mentioned in primary legislation or prescribed through regulations. It will allow that information to be recorded. We do not want local authorities prevented from making their registers a productive tool due to a lack of flexibility but, just to reiterate once again—
Baroness Barran (Con)
Very briefly, in new Section 436C(3) local authorities already have the power in legislation to include,
“any other information the local authority considers appropriate”.
My Amendment 260 limits the power of the Secretary of State to expand it in any way that the Secretary of State sees appropriate.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I will come back to the noble Baroness about whether that provides the flexibility I am arguing potentially needs to be in the Bill. The fear is that, as several noble Lords have argued, there are arguments for the inclusion of information that could be very helpful in identifying whether a child is receiving a suitable education, and, furthermore, what support it is possible to provide and should be provided for those children. We would not want to reduce the usefulness of the registers due to that lack of flexibility.
The point I was going to come on to, which I think is important, is that I must stress that parents are under no obligation to provide any further information, even if local authorities ask for it. I think there has been concern by some parents about the extent to which they will be expected to provide that information. That is not the case; it is, as several noble Lords have rightly argued, simply about how we can ensure that these registers are effective and useful while being as unburdensome as possible. That is what we are all striving to achieve here. I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments at this point.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I shall pick up on a couple of points that the Minister made, I think this would be a very interesting point—
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry, but I do not think this is in order. We have heard from the Minister, and now it is for the person who moved their amendment—
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, this is Committee. You can have as much backwards and forwards as you wish. That is basic Committee rules.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
I am advised that it is unusual—very unusual. Could the noble Lord keep his contributions exceptionally brief? Many other noble Lords intervened on the Minister at the pertinent points during her speech. It really is now the time for the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. The noble Lord’s Front Bench is agreeing with me.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, having been in this House for 30-plus years, no—you listen to the Minister, understand what they are saying, and perhaps that requires some further questioning. On the business of interrupting the Minister in the middle of her speech when you have not heard the full speech, I agree that it is relatively modern but it is clear that Committee is a conversation, and the place where that is restricted is on Report. I do not intend to be long but want to ask a short question. This is what Committee is. It is not, “Before the Minister sits down” but the basic process of Committee. I will take the advice of the clerks over lunch.
I make the point here: the noble Baroness is saying that she will put things in guidance. This is a good illustration of wanting to understand the limitations of the guidance. Can guidance definitively define a term in the Bill, such as “receiving education”, which is not defined in the Bill, in a way that is legally protected? Can guidance go against those terms? The Bill clearly says that everything must be recorded. The noble Baroness is saying, “No, only some stuff needs to be recorded”. Is there power in guidance to do that? Otherwise, the structure of the Bill needs adjustment. Also, I encourage her, if she does not want to go the whole way that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, does, at least to make it clear, probably in guidance, that doing this in an annual report is an option. Otherwise, the Bill is saying that it should be done within 15 days.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a good debate, as my noble friend recorded in her remarks, and it has now gone on for over one and a half hours. I have always been a supporter of registration, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, was wise to remind us of the large absenteeism of children who are not receiving any education at all.
I make a request of the Minister on only two points. First, after the productive discussions we have had with her officials, and indeed with her colleague Stephen Morgan—I hope we have persuaded her and her officials of the important amendments that the Government could make following those discussions. I put in the request therefore to see the drafts of those amendments before we go to Report. It would be helpful and enable us to know what to do on Report.
My second comment arises out of Amendment 251 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, and Amendment 254 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. We heard the replies of the Minister on those amendments. The reason for me drawing attention to them is that they were both valuable and should be given close consideration. The Minister replied that we can clear it all up in provided statutory guidance. I have always been rather nervous about leaving things to the guidance notes after the Bill because the terms of the Bill are those that the nation has to follow. One is worried about what statutory guidance will say and how it will change the application of the Bill. But that said, I withdraw my amendment and thank all noble Lords for the now over one and a half hours of debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Civil Service: Interns
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they will assess whether young people are from a lower socio-economic background when recruiting to the Civil Service fast stream summer internship programme.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
The refocused Civil Service summer internship scheme will give talented undergraduates from lower socioeconomic backgrounds the opportunity to see what a career in the Civil Service is like. We will assess eligibility for the summer internship scheme based on parental occupation at the age of 14. The Social Mobility Commission identifies this as the most accurate measure of socioeconomic background.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, both the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 and the Civil Service Commission’s recruitment principles make it clear that a person’s selection for work in the Civil Service must be on merit, on the basis of fair and open competition. These rules ensure that the Civil Service can recruit a substantial range of talent from all backgrounds. The changes proposed by the Government to the summer internship programme would allow the child of a mechanic, an electrician or even possibly a toolmaker to apply but discriminate against the child of a roofer, a taxi driver or a nurse, who would be deemed ineligible. Quite apart from this dramatically reducing the range of talent, does the noble Baroness really believe that this is still a fair, open and, indeed, sensible process?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness will not be at all surprised that I believe this to be appropriate, fair and open. She raises a crucial point at the heart of this issue: it is not about permanent positions in the Civil Service. All the statutes that she referred to continue to apply. This is about how we ensure that those people from all classes who have talent and ability have access. We are talking about 200 people a year getting access to an internship programme, one of several that are run by the Civil Service —never mind others that are run by the wider public service—to make sure that we do have a meritocracy. The noble Baroness will be aware that the previous Government operated a similar scheme, which increased the number of disabled people and those from minority ethnic backgrounds but failed those people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. In fact, the numbers fell, which is why we are trying to increase them now.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the First Civil Service Commissioner. It is the Civil Service Commission’s statutory duty to ensure that entry is based on merit and is open and fair. However, as the Minister has outlined, this is an internship that leads to a process of being able to proceed to the Fast Stream Assessment Centre. I therefore ask the Minister what plans she has to assess the percentage of those who are successful and how that compares with other measures to ensure that this exercise serves the purpose that it is intended to.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question and for her work in this area. She will be aware that the fast-track internship programme started in 2000 and has had many different iterations, and therefore there are well-established assessment processes in place to make sure that changes work effectively. With regard to how we are doing it, we are adopting this scheme through our test-and-learn approach within the Cabinet Office to make sure that if we do not believe it is working then we will change it. We will be using the criteria that have previously been used, which is why we are using the definition I cited. That is how I can tell your Lordships that in 2022 the internship scheme had people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds at a level of 33% of applications, but that fell to 19.7% and now has fallen even further at this point. We have the data to demonstrate why we need to do this.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister reminding us that the original scheme had a diversity element, which was abolished by the Conservative Government in 2023 in a rather Trumpian attack on the whole idea of diversity. Does the Minister recall that when Oxford and Cambridge introduced similar diversity schemes for children from deprived backgrounds in poorer state schools there was an enormous amount of criticism? I was on the staff of Oxford University at the time and remember being almost physically assaulted. After 30 years, these are widely accepted to have brought a number of extremely bright children from poor backgrounds up into very successful academic, administrative and other careers, and I think this scheme is likely to have the same sort of effect.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very good point. That is exactly what we are trying to do. Many Members of your Lordships’ House have had extraordinary opportunities. I am the first one in my family to have gone to university and yet I find myself in your Lordships’ House. Some of us have benefited hugely from similar schemes; this is making sure that there is as wide an opportunity as possible. The noble Lord is right, but he should also be aware that still a majority of people who end up on the fast track have been to Oxbridge.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, on this side of the House, we will welcome any initiative that helps kick the door open for young people from working-class backgrounds who, by the way, have plenty of merit but have been denied opportunities and face real barriers. We also know that at the top of the Civil Service the class make-up at senior levels has barely changed over decades. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us what the Government will do to ensure that those interns who are successful end up climbing that ladder and reaching the top, achieving their dreams?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness gets to the nub of why we have decided to change it. This is about making sure that the people who serve our country reflect our country, based on merit, talent and ability and not where they came from. We want that to be reflected throughout the Civil Service. We also need to make sure that people want to join the Civil Service. Noble Lords will be delighted, as I am, to know that the number of people applying for these internship schemes and for the fast track has increased by 65% in the last 12 months. I think that reflects a slightly different approach from our Civil Service.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the biggest contribution to social diversity in the Civil Service would be to create genuine parity of esteem between the so-called policy profession and the professions in the Civil Service to do with implementation—procurement, finance, and so on? Policy officials are more than twice as likely to hold senior Civil Service status and overwhelmingly likely to achieve the top jobs in the Civil Service, and until that white collar/blue collar distinction is removed, all her efforts are likely to be in vain.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very interesting point and one that I will reflect on and go back to officials to discuss. As someone who used to represent the electricians and engineering union, I agree that parity between white and blue collar is always for the best.
Baroness Gray of Tottenham (Lab)
My Lords, as a former civil servant from the most working-class of backgrounds, while I am sure there are very good intentions here, I would have found it really difficult when I joined the Civil Service to not have been exposed to a wider group; I learned so much from that. I would like to know what the evidence base is for reaching this conclusion as I think there are good intentions but there are other ways that the Civil Service can be opened up as well.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I rarely wish to disagree with my noble friend, but in this instance I do. Obviously, she has huge experience, but this is one of a series of measures the Government are taking to make sure that access to the Civil Service and our wider public service as an employer is based on talent and ability, as I have said. This is not about stopping the Civil Service being a meritocracy; it is about ensuring that the meritocracy is available to everyone regardless of where they were born.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, previous Government Ministers made a point of making sure that the diversity which has been referred to included moving Civil Service departments to different regions of the country. Does the Minister agree that in the intern programme we also ought to reflect the diversity of different parts of our nation as opposed to the other elements she has referred to?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right; as someone who spends their time in Stoke-on-Trent, I think that everybody and every government department should be based in my city. Noble Lords are all more than welcome to visit. Regarding the specifics, while this internship scheme is based predominantly in London, Manchester and Birmingham, the policy internship scheme— I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Maude—within the Civil Service is based in our Sheffield campus to expand opportunity and to make sure that we have geographic reach.
Friendly Wifi Certification
Baroness Thornton
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker what plans Parliament has, if any, to apply for Friendly WiFi certification.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, Friendly WiFi provides certification showing that public wifi meets essential safety standards by filtering harmful content. Parliament places the upmost importance on ensuring the online safety of all who use its wifi. Given that the highest level of filtering and blocking technology is in place across all our corporate wifi services, I am informed that Parliament has no plans to apply for this certification.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Senior Deputy Speaker for that Answer. This scheme is a kitemark, of which there are several on the parliamentary website. This shows that the 80,000 children who access the Parliamentary Estate will not be able to access or see age-inappropriate material. Of course, our Parliament completely complies with this certification. My frustration on this Question—which I have been addressing for three years now—is that, if local authorities such as North Yorkshire County Council, Newcastle City Council and many others, and major retails such as Ikea and Starbucks, and the Tate and major providers of public transport, can all see the importance of this scheme, why would Parliament not want to be seen to sponsor and help to promote a national scheme which is about improving online child safety? I wonder if this House might be able to nudge this along.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
My Lords, it is my understanding that Friendly WiFi certification is designed to reassure the users of publicly advertised wifi networks that essential safety standards are met and harmful content is blocked. It was intended primarily for retailers, hotels and transport companies, which advertise their wifi in this way. Parliament and government departments do not widely promote their wifi networks in the way that the universities, libraries and retailers mentioned do. The primary intention of the parliamentary wifi is to support visitors to the estate who are attending or supporting parliamentary business.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, is it not the case that the House authorities can already block access to inappropriate sites? When I was in the other place, my opposite number the Australian Chief Whip presented me with a 12-foot bullwhip, and the Ministerial Code required me to find out its value. When my private office went online to try to find its value, they were blocked for accessing inappropriate adult material.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
My Lords, I think the noble Lord has dealt with why the Parliamentary Digital Service believes that we have the highest level possible, both in this area and in cyber defence. Parliament has a guest network that can be accessed by visitors and members of staff on their personal devices; there is a separate wifi for parliamentary devices. Visitors logging on to the guest wifi have to agree to the terms and conditions of use, which clearly state that inappropriate material is blocked.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, now that another George has asked a terrifically funny question, may I ask a serious one for a change? When any of these changes, ideas and alterations around the House are introduced, the last people to find out about them are the Members. Will the Senior Deputy Speaker give an assurance that he and all his colleagues will make sure that there is first a full consultation with Members before there are any changes made to the arrangements around the House?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
My Lords, clearly in general terms, and particularly as this is so much a self-regulating House, we do need to ensure that the authorities are working with Members. I can think of a number of recent issues that have drawn great concern, not only from those involved in governance but from the House more generally. I take the noble Lord’s question very seriously, because we all have a duty to work together to make sure that we get the best results for the best working of this very important House of Lords.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I will take the noble Lord’s lead in asking a serious question. Having a fast and reliable wifi service in Parliament is vital for us to carry out our parliamentary duties but also for visitors in particular to have a safe and productive experience when they visit Parliament. Can the Senior Deputy Speaker reassure the House that our systems are entirely secure? When I was sanctioned by the Russian Government, I was grateful for the proactive work and advice on cybersecurity from the Parliamentary Digital Service and Parliamentary Security Department. In this heightened time of cyberattacks, can the Senior Deputy Speaker assure us that our systems have both entirely robust mechanisms and contingency arrangements for the very valid worries of serious cyberattacks from Russia and many other countries like it?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
The noble Lord raises another very important issue. Parliament already has extremely strong cyber defences beyond filtering and blocking technology. Parliament is clearly a high-profile target that is under cyberattack every minute of the day, and our specialised cyber defences protect against these. I should also say that the filtering software in place to ensure safe wifi across Parliament categorises new content continuously as it comes online to ensure ongoing protection.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, when I asked my noble friend about the background to this question, I was both puzzled and quite surprised by the answer and information that she gave me, given the number of public bodies and others that have signed up to this scheme. Although I appreciate the points made about the quality of the techniques that we currently have, surely it is in the interests of children that it can be perceived that Parliament is supporting a scheme that is of much wider applicability than just to us. Could the Senior Deputy Speaker say that it is surely to the advantage of Parliament and the wider public to show that the institution of Parliament is promoting this scheme?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
My Lords, again, it was the Prime Minister of the day who forwarded and promoted this scheme. As I say, my understanding is that the Friendly WiFi scheme is primarily directed at retailers, hotels and transport companies—all the areas I have mentioned—specifically because of the access to wifi in that regard, whereas visitors logging on to our guest wifi have to agree to the terms and conditions of use, which clearly state that inappropriate material is blocked. The protection of children is clearly essential; that is why anyone logging on realises immediately that inappropriate material will be blocked.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, will the Senior Deputy Speaker pass on to the officials in the PDS our gratitude for providing a really effective system that keeps us safe, as well as the very effective helpline service?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
The noble Earl makes a very generous point. I had a meeting with the managing director of the Parliamentary Digital Service yesterday, and one thing that he particularly said to me was that it is in its mission to ensure that the workforce has the right technical skills to deliver the services that Members and the wider parliamentary community rely on for efficiency and effectiveness.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, if Parliament is not going to apply for this Friendly Wifi certification, could the Senior Deputy Speaker use some of the time that is now available to try to ensure that every single Member of your Lordships’ House has an effective working landline delivered to their desks throughout the building? At present, the landline situation in many buildings, particularly in Millbank, is absolutely disgraceful.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
I have to say that this is one of the areas of concern that I pick up constantly. I am assured that work is in progress to ensure that we have a telephone that we can pick up and put a call through on, and it will work.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, while we are on the subject of provisions in this place, may I express the hope that at last the front door is more family-friendly than it used to be? I have also heard that we are now planning another potentially traumatic change in that area in relocating and transforming the bag security search. If that is the case, may I follow up on the characteristically serious question from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and ask: are we going to be consulted about it, is there such a plan, what are the costs and budget involved, and when will we hear about it?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Perhaps I should be formal and say that the Companion is very clear about asking supplementary questions that do not engage the main Question. However, I will say on this occasion in good will that I spent 10 minutes with the Yeoman Usher this morning looking at the door, ensuring that noble Lords and their visitors were able to enter and exit without due alarm. However, I use this opportunity to say that it is clear that we need to work with noble Lords to ensure that all in the parliamentary community are safe. I have picked up on the point that the noble Lord makes, and I shall make sure that there is, as always, proper consultation, if it is the case that there are going to be elements of security matters that affect the House. This is an issue on which, if we had our time again, we should have worked far more closely with noble Lords on ensuring that important security issues are properly discussed—mindful of the sensitivity of those issues because, clearly, we have adversaries who wish us ill. I take the noble Lord’s point very seriously and will report back to him.
Public Order Legislation
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chakrabarti
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the legislation around public order to consider its clarity, efficacy and compliance with fundamental rights and freedoms.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, post-legislative scrutiny of the Public Order Act 2023 began in May 2025. It will assess how the Act operates in practice. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 will undergo similar post-legislative scrutiny between April 2025 and April 2027.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful as always to my noble and learned friend—my almost learned friend—the Minister for that Answer, but the issue is about more than one statute. Indeed, the common law and statute law in this sensitive area has mushroomed under Governments of all persuasions in recent years. Given the summer that we have just had, and given the challenges to both freedom of expression and public order, is it not time that there was an overarching review of all the law in this area to examine not just adequacy and coherence but public and police understanding of this sensitive area of the law?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. As I have just said, legislation is kept under review at all times. We have legislation coming before this House very shortly in the Crime and Policing Bill that will add other measures to the policing of protests. The policing of protests is most definitely a matter for the police, and the freedom to protest and freedom of expression are extremely important. She raises a sensible suggestion to look at how we can ensure that the police and the public understand where the barriers are. I hope that we can reflect on what has happened at any protest and ensure that the right to protest is central but that the right to do so in a peaceful, orderly way is also central. Those are two basic tenets that would be self-evident and central to any review she suggests.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I suggest that Sections 12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 need amendment. To sit in a square and hold a placard is not an obvious act of terrorism. To arrest and prosecute such people is an infringement of the right to free speech and dissent. What needs to be caught are acts of definite terrorism—that is to say, acts which further that crime.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If the noble Viscount is referring to recent actions relating to Palestine Action, which I believe he is, he will remember that the House of Commons voted 385 to 26 only on 23 June and this House voted 144 to 16 only on 3 July to put in place measures to proscribe Palestine Action. One of the reasons for proscription was to ensure that people cannot support that organisation because of advice we were given about the levels of terrorist activity. The police are currently enforcing that legislation for those holding a placard in Parliament Square saying, “I support Palestine Action”. It is important that, in a couple of months, we look at how the legislation has progressed. By that I mean that there will be published statistics on the number of arrests, the number of charges and the number of convictions. I suggest this House awaits that information and remembers the reasons why, at this Dispatch Box and in the House of Commons, Ministers stood up and asked for that proscription order, overwhelmingly supported by both Houses.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I have listened to the Minister talk about the reviews he intends to have on the legislation, but there is serious concern in the country about the erosion of the right to free speech. That is demonstrated by the hundreds of people who have turned out simply to express their opinion about the situation in Palestine. They do not want to commit acts of violence. They believe that our country has always cherished its right to free speech. So although His Majesty’s Government intend to have reviews, this issue is bringing the law into disrepute because so much police time is being used in processing the hundreds of people who are arrested in situations which are, as the noble Viscount said, questionable. What can the Government do short of two years to ensure that our democratic right to free speech is protected?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that the rights to free speech, to protest, and to make a view known about Palestine or Israel, or any other issue before the House, are central to the democratic rights that we all have as citizens. This House, with the other House, made a decision to proscribe Palestine Action. That does not mean that people cannot protest about the issue of Palestine or support or condemn Israel—it does not mean any of that. It means that Palestine Action has been deemed, on advice to Ministers, an organisation that goes beyond issues of protest and of criminal damage to organise activities which are potentially in the sphere of terrorist activity. I say to the noble Baroness: protest about Palestine, protest about Israel, protest any way you like—wave a flag, hold a placard—but supporting Palestine Action under the terms of the proscription order in this House and in the House of Commons, overwhelmingly passed, deserves to have action taken. That is why the police are upholding that legislation currently.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, a recent report by Policy Exchange has highlighted the chaotic nature of the application of the law regarding unfair and disproportionate disruption caused by protesters as a result of the Ziegler ruling by the Supreme Court. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to reform the law of public protest so that prosecutors do not need to prove that a conviction would not be disproportionate interference in convention rights, and so reconcile the problems caused by the Ziegler ruling?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord has raised an extremely important point. I do not want to answer it directly at the Dispatch Box now; I will need to reflect on the issues he has raised. I hope he will understand that. I will get back to him in writing so that there is clarity on that ruling.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches next.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, I point out to the Minister that the large majorities he is so proud of were achieved by bundling together Palestine Action with two obvious and very extreme terrorist organisations. In Israel, many citizens are lawfully protesting against the slaughter and starvation of the people of Gaza. By contrast, here, right outside this building, 522 peaceful protesters—also protesting about Gaza—were arrested under terrorism legislation. This spectacular own goal against our right to protest was the entirely predictable consequence of the Government’s proscription of Palestine Action as terrorists. That was enabled by our far too broad definition of terrorism, which includes damage to property that most people do not consider to be terrorism. When will the Government review and correct this overreach in the Terrorism Act 2000?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord will remember that, although the three organisations were put together, Palestine Action has committed three attacks that met the threshold set out in the very Act he mentions: at Thales in Glasgow in 2022, at Instro Precision in Kent and at Elbit Systems in Bristol—not to mention the recent situation at the airbase, on which I cannot go into detail because of ongoing legal proceedings. Palestine Action is encouraging terrorist action and working online to do so. There is a definitive difference in supporting a Palestinian state, which I happen to do, issues around the situation in Gaza, which raise real concerns for the Government and beyond, and criticism of Israel, which many Members of this House have made. These are all reasonable. What is not reasonable, under the orders of this Act, is to support the measures that Palestine Action has taken and is taking.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, if it was illegal noisily to call Israel’s actions a genocide then I suggest that many Members of this House and the other place would currently be serving time. It is not, as the Minister has said. He knows that I have supported the proscription of Palestine Action, but will he meet me to discuss my recommendation in the recent review that he is considering that much of this controversy could have been lessened if the Government and the police had had a mechanism to restrict the activities of this organisation, which was wilfully breaking the law and boasting about doing so, before it reached the terrorism threshold?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will happily meet the noble Lord to discuss his report and recommendations. What Palestine Action is doing now has reached a threshold. Its actions before were criminal; they could have resulted in, and are resulting in, prosecutions, which may or may not result in convictions downstream. The assessment that we have had to make, based on evidence that we have been given, is that Palestine Action has crossed that threshold. He makes a valuable point about how we examine the development of organisations, but the key issue for this House is that there is a threshold in the 2000 Act, which he mentioned, and the neutral assessment is that Palestine Action has crossed it. Therefore, as a Government, we have to take cognisance of that. If we did not and it took actions that caused significant damage or harm to individuals and/or property, which is very possible, we would be culpable for allowing that to happen. I will certainly meet the noble Lord and reflect on his points in due course.
Gilt Yields
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recent rise in gilt yields, and what contingency plans they have in place to manage any further rise.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, as is long-standing convention, the Government do not comment on specific financial market movements. Gilt yields are determined by a wide range of international and domestic factors. The Government are committed to economic stability and sound public finances. The fiscal rules are non-negotiable and economic growth is our number one priority.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The noble Lord is generally dismissive of criticism of economic policy, but the bond markets do not lie and their current verdict is crushing, with borrowing rates at a 27-year high. Sterling also slid this morning. Will the Government even now change course, adopt measures that really support growth and drop policies that destroy growth, such as the Employment Rights Bill and the destruction of the North Sea oil and gas industries?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. As she will know, recent gilt yield movements have risen in line with global peers, mainly driven by global factors. The recent gilt market moves have also been orderly. As she knows, our commitment to the fiscal rules is non-negotiable and we have a clear plan in place to put the public finances on a sustainable path and prioritise investment to support long-term growth. She talks about the position of the UK economy; she knows that this is an uncertain and volatile global economy, but even so the UK remains resilient and is outperforming our peers. The UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first half of this year and our commitment to stability is paying off, creating space for the Bank of England to cut interest rates five times since the election, with business confidence now at its highest level for 12 months.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, the Financial Secretary is right to point out that yields on German bunds have risen almost as much as yields on gilts in the UK over the last month, but does he recognise the importance of ensuring that the UK’s economic policy does not stand out from other medium-sized countries in Europe? To that end, can he reaffirm the Government’s commitment to their fiscal rules in particular and to sound money in general?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I am happy to reconfirm that; our commitment to the fiscal rules is non-negotiable. The Government have a clear plan in place to put the public finances on a sustainable path and prioritise investment to support long-term growth. At the Spring Statement, the OBR forecast that borrowing would fall in every single year of the forecast, from 4.8% of GDP to 2.1% of GDP in 2029-30.
The noble Lord also said it is important that our economic policy does not stand out from our peers. One area in which we did stand out when this Government came to office was in historically low levels of investment in our economy, which constrained growth. We had the lowest levels of investment in the G7, which is something that our fiscal rules seek to rectify.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, there is a global glut of sovereign debt as Governments across the globe keep borrowing, but among the G7 it is the UK that has had to raise its yields the most. To aggravate our situation, the wind-down of defined benefit pension schemes leaves us dependent on volatile domestic retail and overseas buyers. What is the Government’s immediate strategy to bring down yields and, more fundamentally, build a sustainable gilts market—and would sterling stablecoin contribute to this?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. As I have said, recent gilt yields have risen in line with global peers, mainly driven by global factors. Recent gilt market moves have been orderly; the gilt market is deep and liquid, with a good track record in responding smoothly to volatility in levels of gilt supply. Underlying demand for the UK’s debt remains strong, with a well-diversified investor base. It is most important that I stress that our commitment to the fiscal rules is non-negotiable and we have put the public finances on a sustainable path.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister remind the House what the bond market thought of the previous Government’s economic policy, especially the Truss element of it?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend is obviously right to draw attention to the previous Government’s disastrous economic policies. He knows that, as I have said, the Government do not comment on specific financial market moves, but he will also know that current conditions in gilt markets are completely different from those experienced at the time of the Liz Truss mini-Budget. Then, severe volatility in gilt yields caused instability in the pension fund sector and dysfunction in gilt markets. This led the Bank of England to have to intervene on financial stability grounds to restore market functioning. Recently, gilt yields have risen in line with global peers, mainly driven by global factors, and these market moves have been orderly.
As my noble friend draws attention to, when Liz Truss crashed the economy, long-dated bonds were most significantly impacted due to market dysfunction caused by unfunded tax cuts, unrealistic spending plans and the undermining of institutions that are crucial to economic stability, namely the Treasury, the OBR and the Bank of England. This pushed up mortgage costs by £300 a month, for which working people are still paying the price.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, bond markets obviously charge for their lending to certain countries, on the basis of differing judgments on the health of the borrower, on the prospects and on the signs of coherent strategy and direction. Could we interpret the movement of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury over to a new role, senior Minister inside Downing Street under the Prime Minister, as a first step—an attempt—to recreate a coherent strategy, which is so obviously lacking?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I disagree with the noble Lord’s interpretation of this Government’s strategy. We have a very clear strategy to grow the economy and maintain fiscal stability. It is incredibly welcome that my right honourable friend is now working inside No. 10 and will help to drive forward the Government’s agenda.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend respond to the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about North Sea oil and gas? Will he remind her of the CBI report in spring this year, which showed that in the previous year the green economy had grown by nearly 10%, as opposed to the pathetic growth figure that the last Government produced overall?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend says it much better than I can. I agree wholeheartedly with what he says. Of course it is important that we grow the green economy, but we must also make sure that we grow the whole economy as well.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister explain what the high level of bond yield means for those renewing fixed-rate mortgages, given that those are determined more by bond yields, albeit at the shorter end, than by base rates? At the moment, the disconnect is creeping towards the shorter rates too.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As the noble Baroness knows, the Government do not comment on specific financial market movements, but it is very clear that we have created space for the Bank of England to cut interest rates five times since the election. That will absolutely help those people taking out a mortgage.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, in his reply to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, the Minister did not refer to the question of index-linked gilts. Will he confirm to the House that 30% of the gilts outstanding are index linked, and that therefore this country is inevitably now much more vulnerable to swings in interest rates?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I have said before, the Government do not comment on specific financial market movements.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the yield rise does not affect the cost of servicing the debt already in place, including £2.71 trillion of debt inherited from the previous Government?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am not sure I entirely follow my noble friend’s question. What I will say is that current global market volatility underlines the centrality of our fiscal rules. We have fiscal rules specifically to give markets confidence that we have a clear path to get borrowing down, and there should be no doubt about the Government’s commitment to economic stability and sound public finances, which is why meeting the fiscal rules is non-negotiable.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, the recent rise in yields on bonds should serve as a warning that this country is much nearer to the risk of a financial crisis than the Government are even remotely acknowledging. It is not impossible to foresee a trip to the IMF eventually unless the Government can get their fiscal policy under control. They now have a very tough and difficult Budget to introduce, in which they will probably have to take some very unpopular decisions in the short term. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will stop floating various ideas to try them out in the newspapers, will look to raise revenue from the principal taxes that are usually used in these circumstances, which they foolishly ruled out as part of their election manifesto, and will curb and if possible reduce the level of borrowing they are making, and not simply define all borrowing as “investment” to say that it does not damage their fiscal policy? Only that kind of responsible action in the genuine medium and long-term national interest will stop the markets being as nervous as they have been.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. There was a lot there; let me see if I can cover some of that. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that, as the previous Government found, credibility is hard won but easily lost. That is why ongoing market volatility further underlines the importance of a robust fiscal framework and non-negotiable fiscal rules. I assure him that we will continue to meet our fiscal rules. He talks about reducing borrowing, and we have set out a very clear path to reduce borrowing across this Parliament.
The noble Lord has told me many times that we should raise taxes on working people. We have clearly said that that is not our intention, and we have a manifesto commitment to that effect. I will not give a running commentary now on the fiscal forecast or speculate on the next Budget. As he draws attention to, there has been much speculation in the newspapers, as is usual ahead of a Budget. A lot of that speculation is irresponsible, but I will not comment on individual tax measures now. We will do things in the usual way: the Chancellor will ask the OBR to produce a new forecast in the autumn, she will take decisions based on that forecast and we will set out our fiscal plans at the Budget in the usual way. The Chancellor will do so mindful of the importance of growth and investment to businesses and the economy.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe whether the wording of this paragraph is compatible with ECHR rulings regarding requirements to disclose religion.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, it is my intention not to speak to the amendments in this group but to await what the Minister will say about them in order to shorten the debate.
In view of the conversation before we had Questions, I want to reconfirm to noble Lords that, according to paragraph 4.31 of the Companion:
“When the House is in committee there is no restriction on the number of times a member may speak”.
Therefore, a Member may speak after the Minister, and the Minister may speak during the mover of the group’s response to the Minister. The back and forwards may involve as many sessions of conversation and ministerial intervention as possible; it is completely unnecessary to use the phrase “before the Minister sits down” in Committee. Committee is a free-for-all and a conversation. It is an opportunity to focus on the real issues of the group and to have the time to talk them out and get to the nub of them, even if that takes a certain amount of backwards and forwards.
The great advantage of this is that noble Lords do not need to speak until they are sure that the point they want to talk about has not been covered already by other people and satisfactorily answered by the Minister. They can wait to see who speaks and what the Minister says, and only then, if they feel that what they wanted to say has not been said, need they say anything. It is a great technique for focusing debate and shortening groups, which is something which I hope the Government will find helpful. On this group, I beg to move Amendment 255 and look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to this group of amendments on the children not in school register, which seek to probe issues surrounding privacy. The children not in school consultation aimed to collate thoughts and views around local authority registers of children not attending school to ensure that all children receive a positive and beneficial education regardless of where that education might be taking place. There were close to 5,000 responses, predominantly from parents, but also from both local authorities and charities, and the findings will help to weave a gold standard of policy and guidance, which I am sure all noble Lords wish to be entirely fit for purpose.
On these specific amendments, it is of course acknowledged that the priority should be to find the right balance between privacy on the one hand and the safety of children who are not well looked after on the other. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Barran, who has already set out so well His Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s view on these issues in the previous groups, so I will not detain your Lordships’ House by repeating those same arguments.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
Amendments in group 4, which we have now got to, concern the inclusion of certain information in the registers and the delegated power for changes to be made to the operation of the registers. I turn to speak to Amendments 255, 256, 257, 258 and 259, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Each amendment addresses an element of the information which the Secretary of State may prescribe for inclusion in the registers.
Just to reiterate, as I did on the last group, parents need to provide only certain limited information about their child: their name, date of birth, address and how they are educated. All further information which the Secretary of State may prescribe for inclusion in the registers is voluntary for parents to provide. This includes information on the child’s protected characteristics, which Amendment 255 would remove, current and historic child protection inquiries, which Amendment 256 would remove, current or previous child-in-need status, which Amendment 257 would remove, the reasons for the child having looked-after status on the registers, which Amendment 258 would remove, and reasons why the child is eligible for inclusion in the register, which Amendment 259 would delete.
As mentioned in the previous group, the Secretary of State may prescribe in regulations the information which the local authority shall be required to include in the “children not in school” registers, if they hold it or can reasonably obtain it. The intention is for this additional information to help local authorities better understand and support children who are not in school. My department will consult on the content of regulations following Royal Assent. I suggest to the noble Lord that the consultation process is the right approach to determine whether there is a case for omitting certain information or including details such as the reasons for a child’s looked-after status in the registers. On Amendment 255, I am happy to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the relevant provision is indeed compatible with European Court of Human Rights rulings. The ECHR memorandum makes this clear.
Amendment 262, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, removes the delegated power for the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to prescribe how registers must be maintained. This power is intended to enable the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to provide for consistency among local authorities as to how their registers are maintained. This could include factors such as how and how often registers are checked for accuracy, how amendments are to be made, their format, and whether and how registers should be published. Most local authorities already voluntarily maintain a register of children not in school, developed based on their local needs. However, to ensure the accuracy of data and encourage consistency of practices across all areas, the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers must be able to prescribe processes relating to maintenance and upkeep in the future.
As mentioned, we will consult on all regulations used to implement the “children not in school” measures, all but one of which will then be laid via the affirmative procedure. I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined, the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I thank the Minister for that explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(6) Each local authority must establish a parental advisory board, composed primarily of home-educating parents, to advise on and scrutinise the authority’s home education policies and procedures.(7) Where a local authority acts in a way that is contrary to the formal advice of the parental advisory board, it must publish a written statement setting out its reasons for doing so and make that statement available to the public within 28 days.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a statutory requirement for each local authority to create a home education parental advisory board. It also requires authorities to provide public justification if they act against the advice of the board, ensuring greater accountability and transparency in decisions affecting home-educating families.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Wei, I will move Amendment 270 and address other amendments in this group.
Amendment 270 would require a local authority to establish a parental advisory board. This is a useful structure for ensuring that parents and local authorities work together. Amendment 278 would allow parents to provide information in their own words. That may seem a small detail, but it is fundamental. The High Court in Goodred v Portsmouth City Council affirmed that the parents’ own statement is valid evidence of provision, but many councils insist on rigid forms that erase the richness of home education. When looking at the variety of home education, it is important that it can be expressed as it is and is not squashed into a mode of expression it is not suited to.
Amendment 280 would require that the information request be proportionate and relevant to education. Some councils issue broad, ill-defined demands, daily lesson plans and samples of child-generated independent work. Part of this is being able to demonstrate to local authorities what good practice is. As we will discuss in later groups, we need to work towards that.
Amendment 281 would introduce the word “substantial” to describe the information parents must provide. Without it, councils may request irrelevant minutiae under the guise of safeguarding; we all know which council I would use to illustrate that.
Amendment 282 would ensure that families are not bombarded with repeat demands. It is important that we look at the burden of the information provision on parents and indeed on local authorities. My understanding is that this will be addressed in the guidance, and I look forward to that confirmation.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am very sorry I was not here earlier today when Clause 33 was debated. The Green Party has had a very exciting morning electing a new leader, and that is where I was. I very much hope I am not going to make a Second Reading speech, but with so many amendments in the Bill, it is at times hard to see the way forward and to follow through a clear line. So I am going to make a speech, and I hope not to make too many more during the course of the Bill, however many amendments I have tabled.
I declare an interest as a grandmother of three home-educated children, all with special educational needs; two are now studying at colleges in Cambridge and the other is making short films about autism. So my experience tells me that school is not suitable for all children. Not all children can find a suitable school and you do not need to be wealthy to create a very rich educational learning environment out of school.
I, like many noble Lords, have had quite a lot of emails on this topic and I sympathise strongly with parents and grandparents of children with neurodiversities. Home education can take on myriad forms that are far removed from the classroom but are, none the less, educational, informative and far better suited to neurodiverse minds. Neurodivergent children are often repeatedly failed by the state school system, but the truth is that every child deserves a tailored education. Parents with the time and inclination to provide their children’s education know that no teacher can possibly have their child’s interest as much at heart as they do.
The Bill reads as if school is the safest, best place for all children to be. For many, that is simply not true. In fact, for many children school is a hostile environment. By making home education harder for parents, we are discouraging them from doing what is best for their child and for many others. Home educators give up their working lives to improve the lives of their children; to ask them now to continuously justify that choice and to make it even harder by adding bureaucratic hoops and hurdles is not in the best interests of all these children. You do not have to specifically disallow home education to make it unworkable, and home educators believe that this register will place an unworkable administrative burden on families.
I also believe that there is an inaccurate conflation of home education with a safeguarding risk. Evidence shows that children at risk are usually already known to social services, so home education is not the source of that risk. Subjecting home educators to intrusive monitoring is neither justifiable nor helpful. We need to improve children’s social care and to support action, not just documentation, for those children who are at risk, but we do not need another diversion targeting huge swathes of decent people and ignoring those in real need.
Setting up a register for children whose parents are not doing anything illegal or dangerous, requiring the collection of a significant volume of personal, sensitive and often impractical information from home-education families, is discriminatory. We should be supporting people to home-educate their children, not criminalising them.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on a few of the amendments. First, Amendment 270 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, should be considered. It actually happens with one local authority, which gets together home educators to share good practice and their experiences, but it should not be statutory, because it requires a considerable amount of organisation in terms of local authorities. However, if home educators in a particular area are working with a local authority that wants to do this, I would not be opposed to that. It might happen formally or informally, but it certainly should not be statutory.
I also think that the voice of the student is important. One of the concerns that I have always had with home education is that it is not just about education, it is about socialising. You have to work very hard to ensure that children and young people who are home educated have the important socialising that they need, but, again, this could happen organically or informally. It is not something that we should just ignore, but it cannot be a statutory provision.
Again, on Amendment 280, I think most local authorities would want to have the information from parents just once a year. I do not see a situation where they would not want that, unless there was “cause”, as the amendment states. Local authorities would want very much to get that information on one particular occasion and that is it, done and dusted, for that period of time.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas has raised concerns about parental and child involvement at both a national and local level. It is of course important that local authorities consult with home-educating parents. But His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition are of the view that the establishment of a “parental advisory board”, as suggested in Amendment 270, or a “children’s advisory board”, as suggested in Amendment 388, is potentially unnecessary in the Bill.
On Amendment 380, we want local authorities to be targeted in their investigations and to focus on those children who are not receiving an appropriate best-in-class education. They may be at risk, and we therefore find it challenging to support this amendment. On the other hand, an appeals process, as suggested in Amendment 382, might work well. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that amendment.
It is frequently said that constructive challenge and laser-focused scrutiny are the hallmarks of your Lordships’ House. But, when presented with eminently sensible amendments whose benefits have already been so eloquently put by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, there is no requirement to go over them again.
The other amendments in this group, which seek clarity on the frequency of responding to local authority requests for information, are understandable. Home-educating parents may have concerns on this and are also likely to be spinning many plates already. The amendments are self-explanatory and we look forward to the response from the Minister.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I am somewhat disappointed that there has not been support so far for the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which I co-signed. This is a very important amendment and I will explain why.
The amendment is basically to remove from the Bill the provisions in proposed new Section 436D. The purpose therefore is to ask the Government and my noble friend the Minister to think again about it. The provisions place a requirement to provide information within 15 days on all parents, who must provide initial basic information under proposed new Section 436C, such as the name and home address of each parent and, under paragraph (e), a lot of very detailed information about the home educators who will be educating their children.
If a parent is in breach of providing either the initial information or any changes to it, they are then guilty of breaching proposed new Section 436D. The further consequence, if they are in breach, is that they will suffer monetary penalty. This is unfair and far too harsh on ordinary parents who are trying to do an ordinary job of home schooling, and I ask my noble friend the Minister to think again about those provisions. They put the home-schooling parent into an almost criminal capacity, and that is just wrong. So I would be very grateful if my noble friend would think again about all those penalties.
Let us remember that under new Section 436C(1)(e) there is a lot of detailed information provided, for Sunday schools that a child may be going to or evening classes for physical exercise, and so forth. Things can easily change: perhaps there is a new gym mistress for the evening physical education class, or there are new preachers at the Sunday school. These are very detailed matters, but it does not matter about the detail. The obligation is for the parent to provide the details of the change and provide that detail of change within 15 days. This is far too onerous.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I have not spoken much at this stage of the Bill but, having heard the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I have to say very respectfully that I am concerned.
It seems to me enormously important that the local authority has the opportunity to understand what is happening with children who are home-schooled, and it has the responsibility to check. I have no doubt at all that the family of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, teach their children extremely well at home but my understanding from what I have been told is that this is not true in every family. I think the Government are entirely right to be taking the steps that they are taking, just to check that our children who are not at school are properly cared for.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, as I have said previously, the duty on parents to give information for children not in school registers is key to their operation. Information on where the child is being educated, and by whom, is vital in enabling local authorities to identify cases of potentially unsuitable or unsafe education.
The amendments in this group concern this requirement for parents to give information, and how local authorities must act in a transparent and accountable manner towards the home-educating families in their area. Amendment 277, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks, in effect, to remove the requirement.
I want to respond to the broader points that the noble Baroness made about home-schooling. I completely understand—actually, I am not sure that I do understand—why she might have wanted to celebrate the election of her new leader. In any event, I recognise that she has a new leader, which was decided this morning. Had she been here this morning, she would have heard what were, I hope, important comments from me and others on the support that exists within the English and Welsh education system, precisely for parents to home-educate, and the reiteration by this Government that there is no intention in this legislation to remove that right. In fact, there is an intention to provide additional recognition and support while also ensuring that local authorities are able to carry out their functions, by knowing where children are being educated otherwise than in school. I hope that the noble Baroness will read the comments that I made this morning about that.
Without a requirement on home-educating parents to register with their local authority, authorities cannot be assured that they have fulfilled their education duties towards children not in school living in their areas. Parents having to provide required information is an absolutely crucial component for the success of the registers.
I bring my noble friend Lord Hacking back to the point that I made this morning. I was completely clear that it is not the case that failing to provide information to the register would lead directly to parents having to face fines and penalties. I hope that my noble friend will reread that contribution and find that it provides some assurance around the point that he made.
I recognise that there are home educators who are already known to local authorities and are captured on voluntary registers. However, that is not the case for all because there is currently no legal requirement for parents to tell local authorities that they are home-educating. Without placing this proactive duty on parents, local authorities will have no assurance that they have identified all children not in school in their areas. As I have mentioned previously, the duty on parents to give information for registers is separate from but complementary to the annual reports that some parents submit to local authorities for the purposes of providing in-depth information about their child’s education.
In terms of parents giving detailed information on the child’s learning objectives and progress towards them, we want parents to continue to have flexibility to submit information in a way that works best both for them and for the elective home education officer. However, for the basic information, such as where the child is being educated and by whom, it is essential that there is a level of consistency in how this is submitted, collected and maintained. Parents of home-educated children in almost all other western countries must, as a minimum, provide details for a register. Children in England and Wales deserve the same level of assurance.
Amendment 278, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to allow parents to provide the required information in their own words. I appreciate how that approach would afford some flexibility to parents, but there needs to be consistency. That is why we are seeking a delegated power for the Secretary of State to prescribe how local authorities maintain and keep their registers, including the use of a prescribed registration form. We will ensure that the form is accessible and simple for families to use.
Amendments 280, 282 and 285, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to restrict the duty on parents to provide information for registers, and the ability of local authorities to request information, by imposing time limits. Amendment 280 would restrict local authorities from requesting required information to once a year and impose a “reasonable cause to suspect harm” threshold for further engagement. Amendment 282 would provide a similar threshold so that parents did not have to provide information more than once every 12 months, and Amendment 285 would go further by introducing a civil penalty of up to £5,000 for local authorities for asking for information too frequently.
Twelve months would be too long a period for a local authority to be unaware of a change to a registered child’s education provision or personal circumstances. Education concerns can arise at any time, and local authorities must retain the ability to act proportionately without needing to meet a safeguarding threshold. The threshold risks conflating safeguarding with the separate duty to ensure that a child is receiving a suitable education.
Amendments 283 and 284, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to extend parental response times from 15 to 30 days, as well as alternative deadlines that would potentially extend the timeframe to 12 months. We are keen that the length of time to respond to a request is proportionate and balances the needs of the family with the risk of a child being out of education for too long. That is why the Bill already allows a local authority the discretion to extend the timeframe for response to requests for information. That discretion could be used by local authorities if they make the request at a time when, for example, it is likely that a family may be on holiday.
Amendment 281, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to require parents of registered children to provide updates to their local authority only when there has been a substantial change to their information in the register. We share the noble Lord’s ambition that the burden on parents to provide information is kept to a minimum, but we have to ask: what would count as a substantial change? For example, a child attending a setting for an extra half an hour a week could mean that the child was then attending that setting for 18 hours or more, potentially indicating that the setting was operating illegally. Even though it was just 30 minutes more, it would be right that the local authority knew about it as the child might be attending an illegal school.
I know that the noble Lord is also concerned that families may overcomply with their duty to update information. I thank him and other noble Lords for detailing these concerns to my officials in the July meeting. We are committed to ensuring that the registers work for everyone and will continue to take into consideration the feedback that we have heard from your Lordships, home educators and local authorities.
I turn to Amendment 287, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei. In a situation where parents have not fulfilled their duty to give information for registers, the amendment would require a local authority to seek approval from a magistrate or independent tribunal before taking further steps to gather the required information. Requiring local authorities to seek approval from magistrates or a tribunal before making reasonable inquiries about a child’s education is disproportionate at best. At worst, it risks children being in unsuitable education for long periods.
If a parent of an eligible child does not provide required information for a register, local authorities may continue informal inquiries. They also have the discretion to issue a preliminary notice for a school attendance order. This notice would require the parent to provide information on the suitability of the child’s education. These are proportionate responses to ensure a child is in receipt of suitable education.
Amendments 270, 380 and 382 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to establish new review processes, including in situations where it is believed that a local authority is acting outside guidance or law. Local authorities are required to act in accordance with the law and should follow statutory guidance. If parents feel that a local authority has acted unreasonably or has not followed the law, there are several existing complaints processes in place, such as the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the judicial review process; in some cases the Secretary of State has powers to intervene.
The guidance updated as part of the children not in school measures will build on existing non-statutory guidance to ensure greater consistency around complaint processing. The new statutory guidance will also be consulted on prior to implementation. Data gathered by the department as a result of the children not in school registers will also allow us to draw comparisons between local authorities, identify any outliers and offer further support to these local authorities where appropriate. For these reasons, while we fully support engagement and transparency between local authorities and home-educating families, we do not believe that these amendments are the right way to achieve that aim.
Amendment 388 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to set up an annual review panel made up of home-educated children to advise on legislation impacting home education. The voice of the child is an important consideration when developing and implementing education and safeguarding policies. There have been previous consultations on changes to home education and young people were able to feed in their views, including a call for evidence in 2018, a consultation on the children not in school registers in 2019 and updates to the elective home education guidance in 2023. We would also welcome input from children as part of the future consultation on the children not in school statutory guidance as part of the implementation of the measures in this Bill.
For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive set of answers, most of which amount to “wait and see”, which I shall be delighted to do. I would be very grateful if she would send me some information on what she thinks the scope of the Local Government Ombudsman is in this area. I had previously thought that they would not have jurisdiction, so I would be very grateful for the Department for Education’s understanding of what sort of questions they will feel able to resolve. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Lucas
“(6) The register of children not in school created under section 436B must be maintained solely by the local authority and must not be compiled into or made accessible through a national database.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prohibits the creation of a centralised national database of home-educated children. It ensures that all data collected under section 436B remains under local control, in line with principles of data minimisation, family privacy, and proportionality.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, on this I think it would be best if I listened to the Minister’s responses. I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, we are doing things in a slightly unconventional way today, but I agree that it is probably in order. These amendments come down to the use of information. I would hope that education policy follows information and knowledge. I am talking here about the groups of home educators who are doing it not because they like the idea but because they feel they have to because needs are not being met.
Earlier the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, spoke to an amendment specifying that you should find out certain things. Effectively, it is a reaction to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Wei. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has tabled rather subtler amendments about the use and storage of information. I hope the Government can give us at least an assurance that they will be collating information to make sure that those who are home-educating because they feel they have no choice have an answer going forward. This will be very important in the Government’s long-awaited—and, I hope, not just aspirational—changes to special educational needs. We are a large group. I would hope that they are collecting this information, making sure they do something positive with it, then telling us how they manage and distribute it afterwards. That is an equally valid point.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Wei, are seeking further clarification on His Majesty’s Government’s intentions about the use of data from the children not in school registers at a national level. These are indeed valid points to probe, although we might suggest caution around creating a transparency register as set out in Amendment 307, with the additional workload burden it may have on currently overstretched resources.
It is worth noting that there is already a register of information processing, often referred to as a record of processing activities: a document that outlines how an organisation handles personal data. It is a key requirement of data protection laws such as GDPR, and serves as an inventory of all processing activities to ensure transparency and accountability within data handling practices.
Amendment 308 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, sets out some of the purposes for which national data should be kept, including monitoring the overall number of children receiving elective home education or children missing education. We will listen with interest to the Government’s feedback on this amendment.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for stepping in and moving the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short but thoughtful debate. I will not take it personally.
Fundamentally, the Government believe that the department’s understanding of children not in school can be improved through the measures in this Bill. Although we currently have collected and published aggregate data on home education and children missing education from local authorities since 2022, our understanding of this cohort of children can be enhanced further through improved quality of data collected by the department. This data will help identify trends among the cohort of children and help determine future policy needs. I assure noble Lords that any data handled by the department will be dealt with in accordance with data protection law and GDPR principles.
I turn to the substance. Amendment 271 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would disallow data held on a local authority register from being stored on or shared with any other database that is held and managed by an organisation such as the Department for Education. We believe there is considerable value in the Secretary of State being able to receive data from local authority registers to improve oversight and understanding of this cohort on national and local levels. It will make it easier to identify when children have fallen through the gaps.
The information collected will be used for straightforward reasons, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Analysis to identify trends to feed into policy development, maintaining the integrity of the register and supporting safeguarding, education and welfare will allow us to identify why some children are moving out of mainstream education. The adoption of this amendment would therefore undermine our efforts, as outlined in the Bill.
Amendment 307 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would require certain public bodies that process data to create a transparency register. As we have heard, this would require those bodies to produce and maintain detailed records of all data processing including the form and publication of the record, retention period and disclosure circumstances. Transparency is an important principle, but current statutory accountability mechanisms and audit provisions already provide appropriate oversight. For example, as part of the department’s commitment to transparency, details of all organisations with which we have shared personal data are published quarterly on GOV.UK, alongside a short description of the project, which I hope the noble Lord considers to be an appropriate safeguard.
Amendment 308, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would, as written, make local authorities unable to share individual-level data with the Secretary of State unless it related to making a direction about a school attendance order. Other information concerning home-educated children or children missing education would be shared only at an aggregate level.
The data processed through children not in school registers is envisaged to have wider uses than just determining whether to issue a direction regarding a school attendance order. Allowing the Secretary of State access to individual-level data will provide for more robust data analysis and research and the join-up of functions aimed at promoting a child’s education or safeguarding. For example, the sharing of individual-level data will enable cross-referencing with departmental databases to locate children who have slipped under the radar due to relocation or changing educational provision.
The provision in the Bill for local authorities to share information from registers with Welsh Ministers could be used in a similar way to enable the location of children who have disappeared from registers due to moving from England to Wales or vice versa. This amendment would therefore undermine the purpose of the registration system, limiting the use of the data it could contain to statistics and exceptional cases concerning school attendance orders. For the reasons I have outlined, I kindly request that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, that was a full and helpful answer, for which I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
“(6) The register established under section 436B shall expire two years after its creation unless the Secretary of State publishes evidence that it has demonstrably improved safeguarding outcomes.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a sunset clause to ensure the register remains under review and is retained only if shown to be effective in improving safeguarding outcomes.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, this group seeks to ensure that the most intrusive elements of the Bill, particularly the new register of children not in school and associated powers, are subjected to robust rolling checks and ultimately remain only if they demonstrably work. Amendment 274 from my noble friend Lord Wei would introduce a simple safeguard whereby the register will expire two years after its creation. This would make sure that the system does grow beyond its original purpose without a clear review.
The troubled families programme is an example of a programme that was sold as an early intervention, but which had very little effect and continued long after people knew it was not doing anything useful. Similarly, Prevent, introduced as a targeted strategy to counter radicalisation, was quietly broadened over time into schools, nurseries and local authorities. The UN special rapporteur described it as the systematic surveillance of Muslim families and their children under the guise of safeguarding. These systems do tend to drift, so having the ability to curtail the register, or at least a requirement to review it, would seem a sensible safeguard.
Amendment 330 calls for a two-year pilot scheme before the register is rolled out. We know from experience that local authorities are highly variable in their understanding, and we receive reports of wildly inconsistent demands. If we run this as a pilot, we will get a clear understanding of how the system is going to work before we have to try it nationally on a whole series of overstretched local authorities, some of which will be mid-reorganisation and not in a position to take on something new.
Amendment 320 proposes that every two years the Secretary of State must review the operation of Sections 436B to 436G and lay their findings before Parliament. If we are not going to actively renew these, as previously proposed, we should at least be sure that we review them.
Amendment 329 proposes an independent review board made up of home educators and education law experts. One reason why SEND tribunals overturn 95% of local authority decisions is that independent panels exist to scrutinise flawed local reasoning. If we do not have independent review, we will allow this new system, which we all wish to succeed, to decay unnoticed. The volume of complaints we have heard from families who say that their council simply does not understand autonomous learning, or that they keep applying a rigid “home at school” template and deem everything else unsuitable, demands some expert oversight. The document from Bristol shared with the Government would be an example of that. This board would ensure that decisions are not made solely by people who may have little real grasp of the varied pedagogies embraced by the home education community. Amendment 388, in another group, would give home-educated children a direct annual panel to advise the Secretary of State, as we have discussed.
These amendments are also about preserving the proper balance between state oversight and family privacy. We have heard families voice profound fears about how soft safeguarding powers have become heavy handed. In one county, a local authority insisted on seeing the family’s daughter alone to discuss why she was not in school, despite clear evidence of school-related trauma. The family reported that it felt more like an interrogation than support. Another council threated a school attendance order within weeks of deregistration, purely because it had no familiarity with unschooling approaches. My noble friend feels that these proposals would not harm the Bill but would strengthen it. I beg to move.
Lord Crisp (CB)
Rather foolishly in retrospect, I have added my name to several amendments proposed by Front-Bench Members of the parties opposite, and I therefore have to speak first on them, rather than just say that I agree. On this occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has proposed a new clause reviewing the impact on home-educators and the reduction of unnecessary reporting after the event. It also includes an assessment of the administrative and reporting requirements placed on local authorities as part of its proposed terms of reference.
Particularly in the light of this morning’s discussions, when we looked a great deal at the impact on home-educators but also on unprepared local authorities, and the expectation that local authorities should up their game considerably as a result of a number of measures in the Bill, it will be even more important to undertake a review such as this. The Minister has suggested that regulation will provide considerable flexibility. Some of us, including me, have been arguing that some of that flexibility needs to be put in the Bill and that there needs to be parameters around it. But even if there is flexibility, it will be interesting to see whether that actually works in practice. I am very much a supporter of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Storey.
Baroness Longfield (Lab)
I will make a quick intervention, if I may, just to counter the claim that the troubled families programme achieved nothing. The evidence does not tell us that, so it is important not to allow us to think that.
Lord Nash (Con)
I support the point that has just been made, which is perfectly valid. Some of the elements of the troubled families programme could be used for school home support for children persistently absent from school. I invite the Minister to look at that, because some of the issues with children who are persistently absent are wider family issues. They need a relationship with one partner of government rather than many, which they do not trust. The noble Baroness makes a very good point.
Lord Storey (LD)
I shall speak to my Amendment 331. This is quite simple, really. It is good practice from time to time to review how things have gone so you are able to adjust it slightly, leave it alone or trumpet the fact that it has worked well. Given this is an issue which has caused such a degree of concern among home educators, this is one small way to say that, whatever is finally agreed, we are going to review it in 12 months, two years or whenever. I think that would make them feel a lot more satisfied with the way we have dealt with this Bill.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on that. I think it is an excellent amendment. To have the certainty of that review would be a great comfort. Home education legislation appears so rarely that it might be 10 years before some malfunctioning system was put right. To make it appear after two years would be a great comfort.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, Amendments 274, 276 and 425 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to introduce different iterations of sunset clauses for the use of children not in school registers. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wei, when he reads Hansard, will understand it would be relatively challenging for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to support such an approach, as our long-standing policy has been to introduce these registers.
We do, however, see merit in Amendment 331 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, which seeks a review of reporting requirements and the impact on home educators. It is vital that we achieve workable and realistic reporting requirements as this Bill passes through your Lordships’ House in line with Amendment 260 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, debated earlier, which we very much hope will be accepted by His Majesty’s Government and which aims to avoid adding additional information requirements for the children not in school register. We look forward to the feedback from the Minister.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a useful and considered debate. I thank noble Lords for their participation. Local authorities have existing duties under the Education Act 1996 to identify children in their area who are not registered at school and not receiving a suitable education and to intervene in such cases. The ability of local authorities to fulfil these duties has been undermined by there not being an obligation on parents to inform the local authority that they are home-educating. Statutory children not in school registers, along with duties on parents and out-of-school education providers to provide information, will support local authorities to identify those children not receiving a suitable education and take action to address this.
On Amendments 274, 276 and 320, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, these amendments would require the Secretary of State to publish evidence on the impact and operation of children not in school registers within two years of their creation in order for them to remain in place. In relation to Amendment 320, of course we will periodically evaluate the impact of the registers on local authorities and parents, following their implementation, and bring forward any necessary adjustments to your Lordships’ House as appropriate. In response to Amendments 274 and 276, the central objective of the registers is to support local authorities to identify children not in school in their area who are not receiving a suitable education. This is not just a tool for safeguarding. We therefore do not agree with Amendments 274 and 276, which suggest that solely looking at safeguarding outcomes would be an accurate measure of the register’s success.
On Amendment 329, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, which would require the Secretary of State to establish a board of home educators and educational experts to evaluate the impact of the registers, this amendment is unnecessary as we already intend to evaluate the impact of the registers. We have established a forum of home educators and other key stakeholders and are engaging with them on the registers. We will continue engagement post-implementation to evaluate the impact of the registers.
Amendment 330, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would require that the Secretary of State delay the national implementation of children not in school registers until a two-year pilot scheme has been completed. A pilot scheme before implementation is unnecessary. The Bill already provides for adjustments to be made to the operation of registers where needed, including via regulations.
Amendment 331, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of children not in school registers on parents and local authorities within six months of the Bill becoming law, and report the findings to Parliament. While we agree on the need for regular and transparent monitoring of the registers, six months is too soon to gather meaningful insights. We will begin analysing data from local authorities one year after the registers come into force and engage with parents and out-of-school education providers at appropriate intervals. This monitoring will demonstrate whether adjustments need to be made. Where this is the case, we will bring it to your Lordships’ House in the usual way.
Finally, Amendment 425, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to ensure that all laws concerning home education are reviewed and will automatically expire after five years unless reapproved by Parliament following a public consultation. We believe this would not be the most efficient use of parliamentary time and would only create uncertainty. Of course the impact of any legislation should be monitored and reviewed regularly. However, the timelines for evaluation should be tailored for each Act, statutory instrument and part of the Bill.
Therefore, for the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for those responses. I am delighted to hear that the forum of home educators is to continue. Will the Government consider producing an occasional communiqué from that forum? I would not expect complete openness but something so that we can all know what is going on. The noble Baroness said she will start reviewing one year after. That seems a sensible timeline to me, but will she also commit to a baseline so that we know where they have started from and not just where they are in a year’s time? Might she also make a slightly firmer commitment to report to Parliament on how it is going?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I am happy to commit to write to the noble Lord and reflect on what he has said.
Lord Lucas
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would enable discussion about new inserted section 436E.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, this is an area where we have had substantial conversations with the Government so, again, I would prefer to start by listening to the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 288A is in my name. In a way, it is the counterpart to the amendment we debated this morning under which parents would have to provide information about providers. This is about the information that the providers need to provide. There are two points in it. I have used the same format as the earlier amendment to say
“a person or organisation is providing regular out-of-school education to a child not registered in school, for more than 10 hours in a week”
and used the words
“is not primarily social or recreational”
and
“takes place without any parent of the child being”
there. I will dwell for a moment on those two points: “regular” and “not primarily social or recreational”.
The point about “regular”, as we have touched on but not fully discussed, is that this should not apply to one-off or occasional items, some of which will come up at short notice and cannot therefore be included in the register because the parents did not know about them in time to give notice. It would be extremely useful to have this in the Bill and not just in guidance. As I argued earlier, we need some parameters around what will come out in regulation. The word “regular” is not a particularly difficult one for the Government to include and would clarify that this refers only to people who are providing regular activities—maybe a definition of regular would be needed.
The other point on which I want to dwell a little more is saying that these activities are “not primarily social or recreational”. The Minister will correct me, but I think that at some point she said that it was not expected that activities that are not educational should be included in the register. The trouble is that a lot of activities—such as rugby training or swimming lessons, where they are carried out by a school—are educational, or could be, and, for example, the Girl Guides is an educational charity. It would be easy enough to label these organisations and activities as educational, which is why I am trying to turn it the other way up and say that activities that should not be registered are those which are primarily social or recreational. That is a fairly simple judgment to make and it would allay quite a lot of fears, including, perhaps, the example I used this morning—although it may be regarded as more educational than social and recreational—of the Wildlife Trusts. It has already stood down its activities because of concerns about the data that it will have to provide on all the children that use its services as part of its home education programme, which has been going on for some time.
In looking at this, I ask the Minister to reflect a bit more on those two descriptions: “regular” and “not primarily social or recreational”, as opposed to the “not educational” aspect.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, this is probably not an interest that I have to declare under the rules of the House, but it is relevant. I am a trustee of the Atlas Foundation, which helps a couple of groups to do with rugby, and which regards itself as benefitting children through rugby. Rugby is a nice sport, with lots of structure and authority figures, and such groups reliably reach young people who are in danger of offending and so on. Will these groups be taken down by this?
This will not be the cuddly end of home education. It will concern people not in school because they do not like school and have rejected it, who might technically be regarded as home-educated. What is their status? Are they affected? Is this going to put an administrative burden on groups which are run by amateurs—by people who do their own tax returns, such as the secretaries of organisations? Will we put this burden on them? A little clarification and common sense might help. If some of your client base comes from this area, what is your status?
Placing another administrative burden on organisations which, if they are run on a charitable basis, do not want to spend their money on admin but rather on the help they provide, might put more pressure on them. I do not think it was the Government’s intention, but making sure this does not catch those organisations is very important.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this is a large group of very detailed amendments which seek to clarify the responsibilities that the Bill will place on providers and how they are expected to fulfil those responsibilities in practice.
The amendments, which are mainly in the names of my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Wei, highlight the variety that exists in the range of approaches that are used to educate children at home. I know that the Minister’s earlier commitment that officials would work through these points with my noble friends and other noble Lords over the summer was very much appreciated by them, and I hope that any outstanding uncertainty can be clarified when the Minister makes her closing remarks.
Amendments 291 and 293, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, are probing amendments and have, at least in part, been addressed by the Minister earlier today. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and I accept her point that the concept of weekends and holidays might not apply to some home-educated children, so I do not think there is any need for the Minister to cover that point again when she responds.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Let me organise my notes—you are keen for things to move quickly and then they move just that bit too quickly.
The importance of out-of-school education providers to home-educating families has been raised several times already. I recognise again the important part these settings play, providing enriching activities and education to a vast array of children. I hope that these providers will recognise that the measures included in the Bill give no reason to cease this valuable work—notwithstanding that I recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, about the concerns of organisations as we clarify the intentions here. We will continue, therefore, to engage with the sector on the implementation of children not in school registers, so it is confident in what the registers mean for it.
The amendments in this group concern the duty on certain out-of-school education providers to give information for children not in school registers. Amendment 288, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to remove the duty. This is a vital element of the measures that will aid the identification of children who should be on registers but are not. It is essential for enabling local authorities to cross-reference information on their registers to ensure accuracy. We know that many out-of-school education providers share our ambition to secure the best possible outcomes for these children and will gladly support the registers on that basis.
Amendment 290, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to remove the word “structured” from the definition of out-of-school education. Actually, the impact of this amendment would be to potentially bring many more providers into scope of the duty, such as informal or ad hoc educational arrangements. It is important that the duty remains proportionate. I know that proportionality is an ambition shared by many noble Lords in this House and has been an important theme of the debates today.
This is not to say that informal or ad hoc educational arrangements are invalid. We know that some home-educators follow child-led approaches to learning, in which, under the direction of their parent, children learn from a wide range of people they encounter in their daily lives. Parents can record this as time spent in education for the purposes of the registers, but local authorities will not have the power to seek information from those individuals.
It is also important to note that the provider duty applies only where education is provided without any parent of the child being actively involved in their tuition or supervision. This means that groups of home-educating parents who meet up with their children are unlikely to be captured by the duty. The duty also applies only when an individual is providing the education; therefore, creators of platforms for e-learning, for example, would not be required to give information on children who access their websites.
Amendments 288A, 291, 292 and 293, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would limit the Secretary of State’s power to set a threshold at which local-level authorities can request information from out-of-school education providers, or otherwise exempt providers from the duty to give information; for example, by removing the requirement in respect of education they provide on weekends or during school holidays to home-educated children—I will not return to that again; I have taken out the relevant paragraph.
I agree with the sentiment behind these amendments. The Bill allows for regulations to set a threshold, and we are committed to setting it at a suitable level. I recognise the probing element of the amendments in this case; however, noble Lords’ varying suggestions on where the threshold should be set—for example, at six or 10 hours—exemplify why it should not be set in primary legislation. We will consult further to ensure the threshold balances the need for local authorities to collect necessary information without placing unreasonable burdens on providers. Noble Lords will also have the opportunity to debate the threshold when it is set in regulations through the affirmative procedure.
To reiterate, the intention behind the provider duty is to capture the providers involved in providing a home-educated child’s education, rather than organised activities that the child may be involved in for primarily recreational or social reasons—even if they are important for their development, such as the example of rugby raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
As I previously highlighted, the ability to prescribe a threshold, as well as the ability to make regulations to exempt types of providers from the duty, will help ensure that only those that are relevant are captured. It is our intention to exempt those organisations that have a drop-in, drop-out nature or happen irregularly. Examples of that include museums that offer workshops for children, as my noble friend Lady Morris stated this morning; public lectures that are open to any family or individual to book; and periods of work experience, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp has suggested. It is our intention to exempt those organisations and types of activities.
I know that some noble Lords are concerned that the provider duty introduces a disparity between school children and home-educated children, but we must remember that there is a huge level of oversight for where and what children are learning at school, which is bolstered by inspection frameworks, curriculum requirements and attendance data. What we are asking of out-of-school education providers in comparison is minimal. As part of the implementation, we will keep engaging with the sector to ensure continuity of provision for home-educated children; I recognise how important that is.
Amendments 294 and 299, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to remove the requirement for providers to confirm to local authorities whether they are providing out-of-school education to a child for more than the prescribed amount of time, and to remove the requirement to provide information on the amount of time they are doing so. Amendment 294 would require providers to give information on any child. This would not be proportionate. The legislation limits this to children to whom they are providing education above a prescribed threshold without their parents’ involvement.
In reference to Amendment 299, on understanding the number of hours children are attending such provision without their parents, we will support local authorities to identify children who are attending unregistered independent schools. Some children not in school are attending those illegal settings for long hours and are not receiving a safe or suitable education. It is crucial that the local authority has the information required to intervene in those circumstances.
Turning to Amendment 298, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which seeks to further clarify the information that providers are required to give local authorities on the total amount of time for which they provide education to children, we believe this amendment is unnecessary. The drafting is already clear that the total amount of time that the provider provides education to the child refers to the time when the child is receiving education from the provider. However, statutory guidance can be used to give further detail if necessary.
On Amendment 296, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which would require providers in scope of the duty to provide only information that they already know to local authorities, providers should already hold the required information for health and safety and safeguarding purposes, and they will have to provide it only on request. Enabling providers to provide only the information that they know makes it too easy for unsuitable settings to just say “I don’t know” and to keep children hidden away from the services that are there to support them.
On Amendment 300, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which would remove the provision in new Section 436E that the local authority must request information from a provider by sending or leaving a notice at the place where the education is provided, providers in scope of the duty need clarity on how information will be requested. I acknowledge that the noble Lord has tabled this amendment due to his concerns as to how the provision will work for virtual providers. The legislation already provides for a notice to be served electronically, and we can make this clear in statutory guidance.
On Amendments 301 and 302, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which seek to extend the period by when a provider must respond to a local authority’s request for information, it is essential that local authorities have the requested information as soon as possible so that they can ensure that their registers are accurate and identify children who should be registered but are not. The timeframe for providers to give the required information is at least 15 days, and a local authority has discretion to extend that—for example, to account for closures over holiday periods.
Amendments 303 and 304, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 295, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, set out reasons to exempt some out-of-school education providers from monetary penalties should they not provide requested information for a local authority’s register. A local authority does not have to impose a monetary penalty on providers should they fail to provide information or provide incorrect information. It would be unlikely that a local authority would issue a monetary penalty if a provider had made a minor mistake for the first time, for instance. We will look to make it clear in the statutory guidance that authorities can engage with providers to correct minor mistakes without having to resort to penalty notices. The process for providers to make representations against and appeal a monetary penalty is set out in the Bill. I think this is sufficient recourse for providers who disagree with their monetary penalty.
I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined and because of the explanations I have provided, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, the Minister made some excellent and very clear statements in response to my amendment, which are extremely useful. Will she consider putting any part of that in the Bill? It seemed to me that she was very clear and definitive, and that it was not beyond the wit of the department to come up with some clever form of words that would indicate what she stated without making it very difficult to introduce regulations later. Perhaps that is something the Minister would consider.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have stated it on the record here. I have also identified one of the problems with putting it in the Bill—I used the example of time limits, where, so far, we have had two different suggestions as to whether that should be six hours or 10 hours. The noble Lord knows this, but there are real difficulties and inflexibilities in placing that sort of detail in legislation. I would be more than happy to write to noble Lords, going over again the intention with respect to those regulations. I think I am right in saying that the regulations will also be subject to consideration by this House. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord. As much as I know that people love things to be in Bills, in this case I genuinely think that we can be clear about the intention and provide assurances without creating the inflexibility that placing something in the Bill would do.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
If my noble friend could imagine that she has not sat down, I would like to ask one question. Maybe I have missed it out, but the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, tabled Amendment 295 but did not speak to it in the debate, and I am not sure that I heard any reply to it from my noble friend. This amendment is important because, once again, detailed information is being sought from parents and, if they are in breach of providing that information, it is stipulated 15 times that they are exposed to monetary penalty. Has my noble friend dealt with this? Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, can help here.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Well, I can reassure my noble friend that I did cover Amendment 295 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. What we are talking about in these provisions relates to penalties on providers. We have moved on from the discussions that we were having about the requirements for parents to provide information. I hope that my noble friend will look back on what I said. I did provide quite considerable reassurance about both the process and the range of circumstances in which monetary penalties would most certainly not be the first thing that would be looked to in relation to a failure by providers to provide information.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her tolerance and undertake to properly read the Hansard of today’s debate.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
May I say something? I was late to the debate, so I have no right to speak.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
The Government say no. I just wanted to apologise.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I was listening. I would just like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for speaking on my behalf so eloquently. I hope that he supports the rest of my amendments as well.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Barran
“(9) The Secretary of State must publish annually the GCSE results of children listed on the register.(10) The Secretary of State must ensure that the GCSE results of children on the register are included for each set of outcome data published by the Government.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to record outcome data for children on the register as a subsection of each set of performance data published by the Department for Education.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 306 in my name, which would require the Department for Education to publish the aggregate GCSE results of those children registered as being educated at home. I stress “aggregate”, because I think there was some confusion when this amendment was debated in the other place as to whether we were seeking to publish the individual GCSE results of individual children, which is not the aim of this amendment.
The aim is to give some relevant insight from this data, including what percentage of children who are electively home-educated end up sitting public exams, what those results are and what percentage are not sitting public exams. Our amendment would see these results being published separately from those relating to schools, so that the data would not be confused. I suppose I am puzzled as to why the Government would not want to publish this information.
I will touch briefly on the other amendments in this group. Amendment 317 is very much in the same spirit as my Amendment 306, in the names of my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Wei. It seeks similar data, in relation not just to electively home-educated children but to those looked after by the local authority, those in a PRU or in special education otherwise than at school. I wonder whether the Minister thinks this would be useful or whether some of the numbers involved would be so small as perhaps to be potentially misleading.
Amendment 316, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Storey, probes the provision of financial support for electively home-educated children sitting public exams, and the Minister will know that there are real issues in practice about these children being able to sit public exams, and finance is one part of that. I appreciate the pressure on local authority budgets, but of course these are, effectively, children who have saved the state money, and I for one would be keen to see as many as possible sit public exams. I beg to move.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 306 in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran. Given that this country has the joint lightest-touch approach in Europe in relation to the oversight of home education, I would have thought this is a no-brainer to enable us to understand more about the performance of these children. I also hope that those in the home education lobby will welcome and support the amendment, as it would give them the opportunity to show their paces.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 317 in this group, which would rather expand the range of reporting to other groups of children who are under the care of the state and not in a specific school. It is really important for the governance of education in this country that we understand how all our children are performing. I would expect a local authority to take an interest in the examinations of home-educated children and these other groups of children in Amendment 317 in their local area. I would expect the Department for Education also to be interested, not for year-to-year panicking but in a determination to understand what the difficulties and differences are and how, over time, to drive the results up. The basic starting point of that is to get the data out.
Particularly if you are reporting at a national level, you are not reporting anything that has any element of personal or identifiable data to it, but you are putting a bit of data down on the table to draw people’s attention to what the state of affairs is. That is a very important part of the way in which the state should have responsibility for what it is providing to our children.
Equally, I agree with those who are saying, particularly as we are bringing home education within the scope of the state so much more, that we should take responsibility for making sure that home-educated children find it easy to take crucial examinations. At the moment, it is extraordinarily difficult. They may have to travel hundreds of miles to find an examination centre and pay thousands of pounds to have access to an exam. The Prime Minister is borrowing a flat so that his child may have a quiet environment in which to study for his examinations, so one would hope that the Government realise that making it easy to take exams within a reasonable distance from home and without undue stress on the family’s finances is an objective we should have—particularly when, as my noble friend says, home-educated children are saving us so much money.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I support the proposal on GCSE results from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. It is very important, for the reasons she suggests. I have seen some interesting results from home-educated children, which show them performing well in these areas. The results would be interesting to see and may improve the score, as it were, for the country as a whole.
Secondly, I entirely support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I will say nothing more except that this is perhaps the biggest single practical obstacle in the current regime that home-educating parents have reported to me. I will leave it to the noble Lord to press that case.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I will deal first with Amendment 306 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which we also support. I am interested in hearing from the Minister about why we would not want to do this.
On Amendment 316, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, it is easy to say, “You chose to let your children not be part of the school system, so you can just get on with it. You chose to home-educate them, so we are not going to pay for exams or whatever”. That would be the wrong way to approach this. If we really want to make home education closer to local authorities, so that they support each other, there are a number of supportive things we can do.
Not every home educator has the financial resources to pay for examinations. We saw a huge rise in home-educated children during Covid, many of whom come from deprived areas. Families really struggle to find the costs for examinations, so supporting this amendment would be a hand of educational friendship. We know that home educators take huge pressure off the education budget as a whole and off school rolls, so I just think it is the right thing to do.
I am quite fascinated by Amendment 478 and looking forward to hearing the Minister’s reply. I thought that all high achievers—super-high achievers, if you like—whether they are educated at home or at a maintained school, academy or free school, would get that recognition. I do not quite understand this amendment, so perhaps the Minister will enlighten us.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised this issue at Second Reading. I supported him then and I support him again now. It is quite unfair that a child who has been educated privately at home should be placed in a different position from state-educated children. All children who have been home educated should be encouraged to go through these exams and not face a financial penalty. This is a very simple measure, and I ask my noble friend the Minister to give it favourable consideration. It is a much fairer system and it encourages all home-educating parents to put their children through examination, so that the quality of their teaching can be tested.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Supporting children to achieve and thrive requires parents, authorities and education providers to work together. That is what much of our debate today has been about and speaks to the amendments in this group that concern the facilitation of examinations and the publication of exam results for home-educated children.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response to Amendment 317. I understand her reluctance to publish information as if home educators were a school, but I urge her to think how useful it would be to have that information for understanding what is happening in home education.
It is one of the long-running criticisms of home education that there is no information as to how these children are doing—you say they are doing well, but you cannot show me any information as to that. It would be really useful in understanding, as the noble Baroness has said, whether an internationally liberal approach to home education is justified. Even if it is only for the Government’s own policy formation, I very much hope they will make sure that they can put together the sort of information I have detailed in this amendment, so that they can understand the effects of policies as they are at the moment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, I thank the Minister for her response. I absolutely support the sentiment just expressed by my noble friend Lord Lucas about the importance of understanding the outcomes for children who are home-educated.
In relation to my Amendment 306, the reasons that the Minister gave for not aggregating and publishing, or even aggregating and not publishing, their GCSE results was—as I wrote down—that, first, it was hard to do and, secondly, it would not produce the results that we expect. It feels curious to me that someone could not put a box on the form—that a child could tick, to say that they were home-educated—that could be aggregated.
On the expected results, the whole point, or part of the point, was to understand how many home-educated children were taking public exams and how many were not. I think that would be a useful bit of information. So I do not accept the argument that it would not produce the results that we expect; we do not have an expectation because we do not know what they are. More widely, when there were very small numbers of children who were home-educated, it was perhaps—
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Just to be clear, I do not know whether I said that they would not produce the results that we expect. If I did, that was not what I meant to say. What I meant to say was that in terms of the ability to have a statistical analysis of the quality of home education, the different nature of home education and the range, quite rightly, of decisions made by parents—many of whom might decide that exams are not the appropriate route for their children—would mean that we would not be able to formulate from that data the common view of performance that the noble Baroness is suggesting would be the objective.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for that clarification. What I wrote down is “not producing the results we expect”. We can check in Hansard whether that is what she actually said. I suppose the point I was trying to make is that this is a kind of entry point question. It is not going to give us a sophisticated analysis but it gives us some perspective. If we tried to estimate by taking a straw poll of Members of the House what percentage of home-educated children do GCSEs, we might get very varying results, so even just knowing that might be valuable.
On the other amendments in this group, the Minister was clear that parents are fully responsible, including on the financial implications of home education, but it was good to hear her reiterate the support duty, including on access to previous exam papers. How that support duty is communicated to parents will obviously be of great importance. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Whitaker
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require local authorities to offer appropriate support to the parent of a child on the register.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 309 and 310 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for whose support I am grateful. I also support Amendment 309A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, on language accessibility, and Amendment 426C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on access to sport and recreation. I can see that the practical implications of that are a little complicated, but it would be really important for home-educated children to have the same encouragement for physical activity.
My amendments would alter the behaviour of the registering authority in that it would have to offer, not wait for the home education parent to request, support. This is, first, because parents in marginalised communities, remote from the digitalised world and in some cases low in literacy, may not know that support is available, and, secondly, because, Gypsy, Traveller and Roma parents may have learned to distrust public authorities because of the widely attested discrimination and prejudice they will have experienced.
Requiring local authorities to make the first move would enable the authority to identify more clearly what kind of support is needed and, further, find out what problems the child experienced in school so that these can be addressed. I hope my noble friend will accept these amendments.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 313 and 314 in my name. I originally thought I was going to speak for rather longer on this, but so much has already been covered, including the fact that I was looking here for some very positive statements from the Minister about home education generally. Such statements have been coming throughout this debate, which is extremely good.
I am also totally supportive of the fact that the Minister needs to send out some very firm messages about the people missing school. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, there are more than 100,000 home-educated children but also a missing 100,000 and we do not know where they are, so there is a balance to be drawn between both of those.
My two amendments try to pick up on the point about rebuilding trust in the system among home-education parents, and indeed perhaps among local authorities, which has been quite badly damaged by the original presentation of this Bill. As has been said already today, there is a common endeavour here to secure the education, welfare and future of children and young people, some of whom are among the most vulnerable in the country. Those are the young people we are talking about. Throughout the Bill, we need to get the balance right between safeguarding and necessary bureaucracy, between parental and state responsibility, and between necessary assessment and support. I do not think that is being achieved at the moment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My amendments so far have tried not to put further administrative burdens on families who home-school. It can be vast, complicated and very difficult for them to achieve. However, my Amendment 315 follows on very nicely from the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, because, at the moment, there are huge financial pressures on local councils. We know that local authorities are struggling. I am told that the special educational needs and disabilities system is creaking at the seams—some people are using the words “breaking point”. So the premise that local authorities are best placed to judge the needs of any child, especially over and above their own families, is perhaps foolish, because local authorities vary enormously in expertise and understanding of alternative education approaches.
Officers who visit families might be very unfamiliar with the sort of experience they see. They may be unfamiliar with home education and special educational needs, and they may not know much about child development. They might make subjective and perhaps inconsistent judgments about the family they are seeing and might penalise families who are supplying excellent education simply because it does not look like “school”.
It is quite important that we understand that local authorities have to exercise extremely difficult judgment. Putting a further burden on families is really unwise.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. This is really the nub of things—how we can make support work.
I also support what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has just said. It is absolutely clear that some local authorities take any opportunity to tip home-educating parents into getting their children back into school. We want to be encouraging parents, at all times, to approach local authorities to say that they need some help—that is a perfectly ordinary thing to do. If you as a solicitor are sued by someone else, the first thing you would do is find another solicitor. Even if you are an expert, you go and ask for help. It should be regarded as ordinary. No one should take on something such as home education without looking all the possible sources of advice, because there will always be someone who has insights that go beyond your knowledge. Protecting against the misuse of that approach is important to making sure that we have a strong relationship between local authorities and parents.
My Amendment 311 would require local authorities to explicitly take account of the needs of the child and the educational preference of the parents. That is a very important part of the attitude; the local authority should understand the parents and work with them, not try to impose its own formula.
I will also speak to a number of amendments in this group tabled by my noble friend Lord Wei. Amendments 390, 401, 402, 407, 419 and 422 address the financial asymmetry borne by home-educating families. Every child educated at home saves the state around £7,500 a year. However, the entire burden of curriculum costs, exam fees, tutoring and lost parental income falls on the families themselves. Amendment 390 would introduce tax relief for education expenses, while Amendment 401 would grant rebates when families home-educate due to a lack of suitable school places.
Amendment 402 would adjust council tax to reflect that home-educating households are not drawing on local school budgets. Amendments 407 and 419 explore models for direct funding, whether through per-pupil allocations for individual families or co-operatives, which would bring a measure of parity to a system that otherwise risks confining high-quality home education to the affluent.
Amendment 422 recognises another imbalance: where the state compels parents to spend hours compiling reports or attending overnight meetings while simultaneously providing the labour of teaching, they should not do so entirely unpaid. Compensating that time, at least to the level of the minimum wage, is not only fair but respects the immense commitment that parents undertake on society’s behalf.
Amendment 396 presses the Government to fund independent research into home education practice. It is striking how much policy in this area proceeds on assumption and anecdote rather than robust data. What does successful autonomous learning look like across different family contexts? How do educational outcomes compare when we look beyond narrow test metrics to include well-being, creativity and lifelong resilience?
Speaking with my own voice now, that is something that I would very much support. As the Minister said, it is difficult to get a grip on how education is doing just from incomplete exam statistics. Doing some proper research would not only benefit the Government and their policies but enable the home education community to become a self-improving community and to do better by their own children, which is a huge motivation for them.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend Lady Garden was beaten by the rapid progress that has been made by recent standards, so I shall just draw the House’s attention to her amendment, which says that if someone does not have English as a first language, they should receive some help in understanding the requirements, and that that should be appropriate to them when they are dealing with this field. It is not a big thing, but it is important to get it and the Government’s response on the record.
Looking down this very eclectic list of amendments, I come to one from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about sports education, and I wonder if there is some way of linking in there. One of our challenges is how much we should help people with sporting education. Physical fitness is an important part of that; it is a great way of asserting degrees of confidence in certain groups of people, and we could put the arts down here as well. Are the Government looking at ways in which certain aspects that cannot be provided in a small setting might be done by the education establishment? Is any thought going into this? We have sport on the list, and we could easily put something like the performing arts down too.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, three main themes run through this group of amendments. The first relates to the practical support offered to home-educating parents who request it. Amendments 309 and 310 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, have merit in that they seek clarity about what support can be expected from a local authority, although in practice I imagine that the term “appropriate support” might be hard to guarantee.
As we have just heard, other amendments focus on very specific elements of support, such as Amendment 309A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, which would offer support in a language that parents understand, or Amendment 313 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, regarding the provision of the same support for electively home-educated children as is available to children in schools. It would be very helpful for the Government to set out what the basic support offer from local authorities will look like and how it will be funded. I hope very much that the Minister will cover this when she responds.
The second principle that emerges from this group is about the relationship between electively home-educating families and the local authority, which I know my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Wei have been particularly concerned about. This is set out most comprehensively in Amendment 314 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. It is helpful to see the spirit of engagement that electively home-educating families would like to have with local authorities. I am not quite sure—perhaps the Minister has an answer—how you legislate for relationships. Having clarity about the Government’s expectations in this area, alongside what the basic support offer will be, could create a degree of transparency, which is a good platform from which to build good relationships.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are introducing the first ever duty on local authorities to provide support specifically for home-educating families. While home-educating parents assume full responsibility for the education of their child, local authorities can and should be a source of information and advice for parents. At the heart of this is the importance of families and local authorities working together to support all children to achieve and thrive. The support duty establishes a baseline level of support across all English and Welsh local authorities. We will say more about the form that that should take in statutory guidance, were this legislation to pass—or when it passes, I should say, optimistically.
I shall respond to some of the points that have been raised in this group on the support duty and access to resources and facilities for home educators. First, I turn to those amendments which focus on the operation of the support duty and relationships between local authorities and home-educating families: Amendments 309, 309A, 310, 311, 313, 313A, 314 and 315. Amendments 309 and 310, tabled by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, would require local authorities to provide support to families irrespective of whether they choose to access it. I have sympathy with the points made by my noble friend about some of the very vulnerable children who may receive home education. It is probably more appropriate to think about the other forms of support that those children should receive—or even, given that level of vulnerability, whether or not home education is the appropriate and suitable education for them. The other issue is that this proposal would also remove local authority discretion as to the nature of the support provided. It would mean that many home-educating families who would prefer to have a choice as to whether they wish to access the support offered by local authorities would not have that choice, as the amendment suggests that authorities should provide support to families irrespective of whether they choose to access it.
Amendment 309A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, would require support to be provided in a language that the parent understands. I am happy to advise that local authorities will have to have due regard to each individual request from parents, which would include consideration of accessibility through use of languages other than English where necessary. This aligns with local authorities’ compliance with the public sector equality duty to consider the diverse needs of different individuals within their community.
I turn to Amendments 311 and 313A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Amendment 311 would require the local authority to have regard to the needs of the child and educational preference of their parents when considering which forms of support to offer. This amendment is unnecessary. We would already expect local authorities to take these factors into account when offering advice and information as part of the support duty. Amendment 313A appears to seek to introduce a “best interest” consideration in relation to the exemption of certain children from the benefit of the support duty—specifically, those children who would be exempt because they have secured additional learning provision or other provision as set out in the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018.
The children exempt from the support duty, as set out in new Section 436G(3) in Clause 31, are exempt in order to avoid the duplication of support from local authorities. For instance, a child in receipt of alternative provision arranged by the local authority would already be in receipt of support from the local authority. Including a “best interests” test in the process specifically related to children subject to Welsh additional learning needs legislation is unnecessary. We are confident that the support duty focuses on the right children, and the existing exemption prevents duplicative support having to be provided by local authorities.
I turn to Amendment 313, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, Amendments 408 and 412, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and Amendment 426C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. These amendments would give a right of access to a range of services, facilities and other advantages to home-educated children. Advantages such as access to a school’s facilities and extra-curricular provision are specific to school attendance. If parents wish to access these, a state-funded school place remains available for the child. When a child has an education, health and care plan, most parents will have the choice to make suitable alternative arrangements to those listed in it. For example, most parents can choose to home-educate rather than take advantage of the special educational provision secured by the local authority. It is right that, when alternative arrangements have been chosen and made, the local authority is released from its duty to secure education provision for the child. Local authorities will still have a duty to check the suitability of home education and review the education, health and care plan at least annually. If, at any point, the local authority considers that home education is no longer suitable, it should intervene to support the child by taking appropriate action.
On requiring access to venues for taking public exams, I acknowledge that this is an issue of concern to noble Lords and to parents, as we have heard. Amendment 312, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendments 383 and 426, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, focus on access to examinations for home-educated children. Amendment 312 would place a duty on local authorities to secure an examination centre within a reasonable distance for children eligible for inclusion on children not in school registers. Amendment 383 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to provide parity of exam fee support and access to past exam papers for home-educated children, as compared to children attending maintained schools. Amendment 426 would oblige private schools to let home-educated children sit exams on their premises.
Parents who choose to home-educate assume full responsibility for planning where to access examinations. The Joint Council for Qualifications website provides information on the nearest exam centres, and parents can ask centres to accommodate their child. Home-educated students can access past exam papers to support exam preparation. I recognise the noble Lord’s concerns, and I appreciated his willingness to discuss this in more detail during the meeting in July. It is certainly possible to think about how we could support parents in finding access to exam centres, in the way noble Lords have discussed, without placing the type of requirement on local authorities suggested by these amendments.
With regards to Amendment 426, as with state-funded schools, if a private school wishes to support private candidates, that is a choice for the school’s management. It is not for government to micromanage the operations of private enterprises in the way suggested.
Amendment 314, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, would place a duty on local authorities to build and maintain positive relationships with home-educating families, including through events, and to ensure that staff have appropriate training and experience. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has already identified, it is quite difficult for government to legislate for good relationships, but I can reassure the noble Lord that an expectation for local authorities to build positive and respectful relationships with home-educating families, underpinned by well-trained and knowledgeable staff, is set out in existing departmental guidance. However, I know that he and others are concerned by reports from some home educators that local authorities are not following this guidance. The department does take seriously any complaints received about the conduct of local authorities, as I suggested earlier today. If the Secretary of State is satisfied that a local authority is acting unreasonably, she can intervene using the powers available to her under Section 496 of the Education Act.
Amendment 315, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would prohibit the commencement of proceedings for a school attendance order if a parent has requested support. Although we welcome local authority support, allowing a request for support to halt legal action, even when the education provided is plainly unsuitable, would create a system that is open to abuse, delaying necessary intervention and potentially allowing children to be in unsuitable education for a prolonged period.
Amendments 390, 401, 402, 407, 411, 413, 419 and 422, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to provide financial incentives or reimbursements, for instance in the form of tax breaks for home-educating families. Although I recognise that home education can be a significant undertaking, the Government’s view is clear that parents who choose to educate children at home bear the financial responsibility for doing so, because a state-funded place is available for those children.
Amendment 396, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, aims to require the Government to fund independent academic research into effective home-education practices, with results published every three years. The data collected from children not in school registers will be a good and suitable vehicle for analysis and research into factors concerning home education. This is already occurring through the Department for Education’s existing data collection, which began in autumn 2022. It will be strengthened through improved data quality and by the statutory provisions for sharing data with the Secretary of State when the Bill’s measures come into force. Aggregate data will be published on an annual basis, subject to appropriate data-protection protocols. This will support the carrying out of some of the research that noble Lords have identified into the nature and success of home education.
Finally, Amendment 410, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would require the Secretary of State to establish a public-broadcast service which provides national curriculum-aligned educational content for home-educating families. As noble Lords are aware, there are already a wide range of educational resources which home-educating families can access, both paid for and free of charge. I am not sure it would be a reasonable or legitimate use of taxpayers’ money to develop a TV station in the way in which the noble Lord has asked for.
I hope that I have been able to provide some assurances and further information and that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response to my amendments, but may I pick up briefly the question of exam centres for home-educated children? The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, was kind enough in early 2024 to allow me to start exploring what was required to reverse the trend that we have seen for many years of a reduction in availability of exam centres. This was rudely interrupted in July—sadly, for us—but it was clear to me that there was no lack of good will.
We have a collection of about half a dozen organisations, each of which has sets of individual requirements and ways of looking at things that do not quite mesh and that make it difficult for a school to continue the provision. This includes the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. One of the great difficulties is that, if you allow any outside candidate, you have to admit all outside candidates, and if any of them have special needs and require particular provision in separate rooms and you do not have that, you do not know where to provide it and you do not have the budget for the staffing, you just say, “We cannot do this because we cannot handle the exceptional circumstances”. It is a question of getting people together and saying, “We, the Government, have an objective: we want home-educated children to have reasonable access to exam centres. Please sit down together, sort out your differences and give us the answer”. And they would, because it is perfectly possible; it just requires a series of small compromises.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am not convinced that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is the reason why there are difficulties in the way that the noble Lord outlined, but I take his point that we could make progress on this were there to be some brokering of arrangements. I would be willing to give further consideration to information about access to examinations and how to overcome some of the issues.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and I appreciate my noble friend the Minister’s sympathetic response. Perhaps I could discuss with her later some aspects of the approach to marginalised parents. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 309.
Lord Hampton
“Review of safeguarding protections in private tuition settings(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review of—(a) the adequacy of safeguards in place to protect children who receive private tuition, either online or in-person, (b) the extent to which providers of private tuition carry out background checks on their tutors, and(c) the impact, if any, of the activities defined as “Regulated activity relating to children” in Schedule 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 on safe- guarding in private tuition settings.(2) Within six months of the completion of the review, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the findings of the review and any recommendations to improve safeguarding protections in private tuition.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require the Government to assess the adequacy of safeguarding protections for children with private tutors, who may not have to undergo an enhanced DBS check under current requirements.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to the rather dramatically numbered Amendment 333ZA in my name and belatedly declare an interest as a state secondary school teacher. In the past I also worked as a private cricket coach, which is quite relevant here. I acknowledge the help of Edapt in this amendment and in bringing this issue to my attention.
I was astonished to discover that under current UK legislation, individuals barred from working with children can still legally operate as private tutors if hired directly by a parent. This is due to the private arrangement exemption in Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. As a result, there is no legal requirement for such tutors to undergo an enhanced DBS check, nor a legal mechanism to prevent someone on the barred list offering or delivering tuition to children. This is also true of those who have been struck off by the Teaching Regulation Agency. This loophole presents a significant and increasingly relevant safeguarding risk, especially in the context of rising private tuition, including via online platforms.
The private arrangement exemption applies even where tuition is paid, unsupervised or delivered online. Research published by the Sutton Trust suggested that 30% of 11 to 16 year-olds in the UK had received private tuition at some point. That includes both my children; it never occurred to me to ask for a DBS. The BBC recently reported that 90 private tutors in the UK have been convicted of sexual offences involving children over the past 20 years.
While many tutoring platforms and companies require DBS checks, the current legal framework leaves a large part of the educational landscape unregulated, particularly for self-employed tutors working independently. This is not commonly known. Speaking in September last year, Children’s Commissioner Dame Rachel de Souza said:
“Anybody who is working one-on-one with a child as a tutor, should have a DBS criminal record check. It’s an absolute basic minimum”.
Her predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, who sadly is not in her place, said in 2021:
“The Government should look at this loophole and see how it can be closed”.
This is also supported by organisations including the Safeguarding Alliance and the Tutors’ Association.
This amendment would put private tutors on the same legal footing as freelance sports coaches and mainstream teachers, close a bizarre safety loophole and contribute to making children’s lives safer. I beg to move.
Lord Storey (LD)
I am sorry that I raised this issue in the debate on an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Wei, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I was not aware of this situation until this morning, and I was dumbfounded. We have rightly made our schools very safe places for our children, and safeguarding is one of the key things that Ofsted inspections look at. As we have heard, the Sutton Trust says that about 30% of children aged between 11 and 16 have private tutoring, either in person or online.
Imagine a situation where a teacher in a school has been dismissed from their position after being arrested for a serious child sex offence, and might even have gone to prison if found guilty. They could do private tutoring if they were employed by a parent, with no safeguarding taking place. That surely cannot be right. This is not about criminalising parents who employ them—I do not think parents would be aware—but about making sure that, on Report, perhaps after conversations have been had with the Minister, this final loophole is sorted once and for all.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has made a very clear case that providers of online and in-person tuition services should be subject to the same safeguarding checks as those providing tuition in person, particularly in relation to the gap in the current legislation that he outlined. I agree completely on the importance of safety for children who receive private tuition and that those barred from teaching should not be able legally to offer their services directly to parents.
However, I have a slight hair shirt in relation to this issue, because I think that parents are ultimately responsible for checking out the tuition services that their children receive. Having a DBS check can contribute important information, but it is by no means sufficient. We know that the vast majority of sex offenders do not get reported to the police or end up with a criminal record, and their behaviour would not appear on a DBS check. There is a balance to be struck—in no way diluting the responsibility of parents while closing the loophole as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Storey (LD)
The noble Baroness might not be aware that not all agencies that employ tutors carry out checks.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I was aware of that, but my point on having clarity that parents need to think very carefully about who their child spends time with still stands.
Lord Storey (LD)
Parents might not have the wherewithal to know how to go about checking and would assume—wrongly, obviously—that if they employed a tutor from an agency, that tutor would have been cleared. If the tutor was not from an agency but employed directly, parents would assume that, because they were a teacher, they would have had safeguarding checks.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for initiating such an important debate, which has already had an effect by ensuring that more Members of your Lordships’ House are aware of this issue. His amendment would prompt a review of current safeguarding practices in private tuition, including background checks on tutors, and of the impact of activities defined as
“Regulated activity relating to children”
on private tuition settings.
This is an important issue and the Government recognise it as such. That is why we have already acted to improve the safety of children in private tuition, along with the wider out-of-school settings sector. The Government have published safeguarding e-learning for tutors and other providers, as well as strengthened guidance to help local authorities to act where there are safeguarding concerns. We are also widening the scope of regulated activity to include those who work frequently with children in supervised roles. This change will mean that employers engaging tutors in supervised roles can check whether the person is on the children’s barred list because the DBS considers them to pose a risk of harm to children.
The Government are also taking action to ensure that all those working in regulated activity with children can access enhanced barred lists checks, whether that is a teacher in a school or a self-employed tutor offering private tuition. With these measures, we will reduce the risk of a barred person working with children. However, we recognise the need to understand what more can be done. That is why we have also published a call for evidence on safeguarding in out-of-school settings. It will gather much of the information this amendment seeks and will help inform any future action to further enhance the safety of the sector. The deadline for submissions is 21 September, and I hope that noble Lords will actively participate in this consultation.
I want to take this opportunity to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Storey, about online DBS checks. Anyone who regularly teaches, trains, instructs, supervises or cares for children unsupervised is considered to be working in a regulated activity. This includes the majority of private tutors, whether they operate in person or online. By engaging in regulated activity, these individuals are eligible for and able to access an enhanced DBS check, with a check of the barred list if working as part of a tutoring organisation or engaged through an agency. We are legislating to extend this access to those who are self-employed.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for those slightly more reassuring words, but the fact that it was news to all of us just shows how much work still has to be done. We will wait and see on this one, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hacking
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak with a certain amount of repentance, because this amendment is too much of an overreach and I regret drafting it in that form. At earlier stages in the Bill, relating to Clause 31—this goes to my Amendment 233A—I found it necessary to seek to have taken out of the Bill provisions going over one, two or three pages. I proposed that for Clause 31 because there was far too much information being sought of parents and far too much of an obligation on local councils, which were being compelled to meet some 13 requirements as part of the process.
This is an overreach on my part, and I apologise. It is very important that the local council has full powers to issue school attendance orders. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and I have mentioned, there is a great worry about the number of children—some 10,000 was the figure given—who are not having any education at all. Therefore, local authorities should be diligent about finding where these children are and issue the necessary number of school attendance orders.
I support Clause 32 until the top of page 66, where there is a requirement for the recipient of the school attendance order to provide the information within 15 days. That is a very tight timetable for ordinary citizens, who would not be at all familiar with receiving an attendance order, which, presumably, is rather a scary experience. I suggest it should be a longer period, but that is the only revision I am now seeking under this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I was going to speak to Amendment 365, which is about appeals against a local authority’s decision not to revoke an attendance order. However, in light of the discussion we had about appeals in an earlier session in July, I had intended to withdraw this amendment, so I will not speak to it.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have several amendments in this group. My noble friend Lord Wei is concerned that we are not getting the balance right between the state and family, and I agree with him. It is the parents who have the primary responsibility for upbringing and the best interests of their child, and intervention by the state should be justified only in exceptional circumstances and must be proportionate. My noble friend feels that Clause 32, as drafted, risks tipping that balance the wrong way. Families already tell us that school attendance orders cause stress, anxiety and a sense of powerlessness. One parent said they were forced to send their child to school against her will, where her needs were not going to be met. They said, “We felt trapped, unheard, threatened and fearful for our daughter’s safety”. Another described a child with severe anxiety and seizures who has thrived only when withdrawn from school.
For many, home education is not elective but a response to systemic failures. I am sure the Government are aware of that, and what a mess the SEND system is at the moment. Many of the parents who home educate are doing so in response to a less than ideal system. I know we tried to improve the system, and that this Government are going to have another go; it is not easy. We must expect a continued flow of parents who choose to look after their own child because the state is not doing a good enough job, and be humble enough to recognise that that deserves our support and not continual harassment.
Amendment 334 would change the duty on local authorities to serve a preliminary notice from “must” to “may”. In the context of all the other discretions that local authorities have, it would be sensible to allow them to see that issuing a notice in a particular set of circumstances would do more harm than good. It would allow them to focus on the child’s welfare and not force them down a rigid path.
Amendment 335 would require that all relevant support be offered before issuing such a notice. This goes back to an earlier amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The first reaction of the local authority ought to be to ask if support is possible—can it help make this succeed?—as well as looking at whether school is a better option. It ought to come at this with support; families should not be threatened with orders without help being tried. The Square Peg campaign, supported by over 130 organisations, has called for a “support first” duty. One parent told us, “We asked for counselling and support, but what we got was a school attendance order. It only made my child’s anxiety worse”.
Amendment 338 asks in what circumstances a “best interest” test will be applied. Amendments 339 and 340 ask why just the existence of a Section 47 investigation is the trigger, rather than a consideration of whether that investigation has any relevance. Many Section 47 investigations are entirely unconnected to the suitability of a family for home education.
Amendment 341 looks at the question of how the local authority is in a position to judge best interests. What resources has the local authority got to enable it to do this? Why should the decision as to what a child’s best interests are be so hard for a parent to challenge? If it is not to be hard to challenge, what should the routes be?
Amendments 343, 344 and 345 are all concerned with the threat of a school attendance order not being a penalty for a minor infraction. I gather that the Government intend to put that in guidance, but it is important that parents understand that they are being judged by reasonable standards and are allowed to make ordinary mistakes—that they are walking a path and not a precipice.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
There are quite a lot of tweaks in this section, which suggests that it is perhaps not quite right and that it needs to be rewritten in some ways.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, just now that school is a very safe place, but I am sure he is well aware that school is not a safe place for everybody. Young people get bullied and it can be extremely distressing for some children, specifically if they have prior trauma, special educational needs or unmet needs, or have never attended school. There are all sorts of people for whom school is not the best and safest environment. I am trying to protect families who have already indicated that school is not meeting their child’s needs.
I hope we understand that local authorities sometimes judge in a completely erroneous way what families are doing with home education. We have discussed this, but I think Clause 32 is perhaps not fit for purpose.
Lord Storey (LD)
Truth be known, I struggle with the whole issue of attendance orders. Of course we want as many of our children as possible to be regular attenders at school or an education setting. When they are not at school, they are not learning—apparently. However, there are all sorts of reasons—I have two relevant amendments, I think in this group, which highlight particular groups of children—for this. The issue of bullying in schools has been raised. That can have a huge effect on children, making them literally petrified to go to school. It becomes a vicious circle then, with the local authority taking action and issuing attendance orders. There are also children with special educational needs. I had a pupil who had an absolute phobia of school attendance—I almost could not believe it. His mother, a hospital nurse, had to drag him to school every day. The whole thing was a constant battle. We have to think very carefully about this. There are certain groups of people for whom waving the stick of an attendance order is not the right approach. We have to look at other ways of increasing school attendance, and we have to be mindful of the situation they are in.
I always believed that parents who took their children on holiday during school time were wrong to do so. However, I reflected that the quality time they may have with their parents—often, perhaps more importantly, their dad—was hugely beneficial for them as a family, and that they learned so much as well. I hope we think this through very carefully before we enact it on Report.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this group includes a series of amendments, including several from my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Wei, on the Government’s proposed approach to school attendance orders.
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition believe it is important that local authorities are able to hold parents to account who are either not ensuring that their child attends school daily or not providing a suitable education at home. I appreciate some of the concerns that this could be seen as punitive by some families. Equally, if exceptions were introduced into the legislation, I worry that it would create a different risk, with inconsistent practice which is perceived to be unfair and could well be challenged in the courts.
I think, if I may say so, that the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Storey, referred are actually in the next group. I appreciate that, with so many amendments today, it is hard to keep track.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
To continue where the noble Baroness finished, a child receiving unsuitable education for as little as a day could be detrimental for their educational development. The measures in the Bill seek to make this process more efficient, minimising the time in which a child may be receiving unsuitable education.
We have heard many speeches that highlight the rights of parents to educate their children how they wish. Parental choice is important, but it is crucial to remember that with rights come responsibilities. All children have a right to a suitable education, and parents have a responsibility to secure that education for their children. Where parents fail in this responsibility, there must be a consequence for the parent and a swift route to suitable education for the child.
The amendments in this group are focused on the school attendance order process. I turn first to address the opposition from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to Clause 32 standing part of the Bill. We believe that Clause 32 is essential. Without it, local authorities would have no power to act when parents refuse to comply with the children not in school registration duties, or where a child is not receiving a suitable education. Clause 32 allows local authorities to require school attendance where a child is subject to child protection investigations or plans and where school is deemed to be in the child’s best interests. This is a vital safeguard for some of our most vulnerable children.
As part of school attendance order proceedings, local authorities will be empowered to request to visit the child inside their home, so that they can fully consider the environment in which home education is being provided. Parents have the right to refuse the local authority’s request. If access is not given, this will be a relevant factor for the local authority to consider when deciding whether to serve an order.
The clause strengthens the current system by introducing timelines to make enforcement more efficient and to reduce prolonged periods in unsuitable education. It allows parents convicted of breaching a school attendance order to be prosecuted again if they continue to breach it, without requiring local authorities to restart the enforcement process. Aligning school attendance order fines with attendance fines will further incentivise parents to ensure children are registered at, and continue to be registered at, the named school.
I turn to Amendment 333A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, and Amendment 334, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Amendment 334 seeks to make the issuing of a preliminary notice when a child is not receiving suitable education, or when home education is not in the best interests of an eligible child, a discretionary act for local authorities. I will not respond to Amendment 333A, as I had intended to, given what my noble friend said. Making the process discretionary would create inconsistency. A mandatory preliminary notice ensures that there is definitive action when a local authority has reasons to believe that home education is not suitable for, or not in the best interests of, an eligible child.
Amendment 335, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would require support to be offered before a preliminary notice could be issued. In cases where concerns about the suitability of education are serious or urgent, local authorities must be able to act without delay. Making support a legal precondition could inadvertently shield unsuitable provision from scrutiny. However, I appreciate that the noble Lord is concerned that a formal notice can be daunting for a parent to receive. We will consider what further guidance can be issued to parents and local authorities as part of the implementation of these measures to ensure that they can engage confidently with the process.
Amendments 338 and 341, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to prevent local authorities considering whether it would be in an eligible child’s best interests for them to receive education by regular school attendance as part of the preliminary notice for school attendance orders. It is important for me to explain the reasoning behind the best interests test in this context. Currently, local authorities have no recourse to require a child on a child protection plan or inquiry to attend school unless they can identify that the child is receiving unsuitable education. The best interests test requires local authorities to take action when they identify children subject to child protection inquiries or plans whose interests would be best served by regularly attending school, regardless of whether the education provided at home is considered suitable. Statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, provides clarity on what making best interests decisions means and will be further updated as part of the implementation of these measures.
Amendments 339 and 340, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to remove or limit the ability of the local authority to issue a preliminary notice when a child is subject to an active Section 47 child protection inquiry. Local authorities will be able to issue a preliminary notice under the relevant subsection only if it appears to them that the child subject to the Section 47 inquiry is not regularly attending school and that it would be in that child’s best interests to do so. A preliminary notice will not automatically result in a school attendance order.
It is also important to remember that such inquiries take place because Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 puts a duty on local authorities to make inquiries where it considers that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. These formal inquiries are not initiated lightly; their use signals serious concerns about a child’s welfare. Section 47 inquiries should not be initiated based purely on the fact that a parent is home-educating, as we are clear that home education is not in itself an inherent safeguarding risk. It is vital that local authorities have the means to gather information on the circumstances of at-risk children and determine whether their interests would be better served by regularly attending school.
Amendments 342 and 346, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and Amendments 336, 337, 343, 344, 345 and 347, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to remove the ability of local authorities to issue a preliminary notice when a parent has not provided information, or has provided incorrect information, for a children not in school register. This power is discretionary, and local authorities should not normally issue a preliminary notice in response to a genuine error by a parent but instead continue informal inquiries. However, without a consequence on parents for not providing the required information, the duty on them to provide information would be, in effect, redundant. This duty on parents is necessary to ensure that local authorities have the required information to ensure that education is suitable and safe. Local authorities must act promptly once it appears that action should be taken so there is no delay in providing appropriate support to children who need it. The timeframes in the school attendance order process strike the right balance between urgency and operational practicality. Removing them could lead to inconsistent and slower responses across different authorities, resulting in children potentially spending more time in unsuitable education.
I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, does not seek to press his Amendment 365. It would perhaps be best for me to deal with the set of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei—which concern penalties for parents in a range of circumstances—by writing to noble Lords with some assurances about each of the amendments, rather than going through them all in this debate.
Finally, I address the stand part notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, which seeks to remove Clause 35 from the Bill. Clause 35 introduces Schedule 2, which makes consequential amendments to existing legislation so that the new school attendance order process for local authorities in England and Wales is reflected in the Children Act 1989, the Education Act 1996 and other relevant legislation. The clause is necessary to ensure proper functioning of the process, and I urge that it stands part of the Bill.
For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments, and I urge that Clauses 32 and 35 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I am grateful, as ever, for the Minister’s responses, but I would be additionally grateful if she could write to me, between now and Report, to give me a much clearer idea of what the parental experience will be. For example, when faced with a best interests determination by a local authority that the parents consider to be seriously damaging to their child, how do they appeal it? What is the process for taking that through? Assuming that the local authority has it wrong, what is the full process that results in the parents being able to help the local authority understand the reality of their child’s circumstances and where their best interests really lie. With all the help that has been given, I still fail to get a grip on what that process will be and will feel like, and I would love to share that with home educators.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Is the noble Lord clear that the best interests requirement relates to cases where children are subject to child protection inquiries or plans?
Lord Lucas (Con)
Yes. It is only in about half of Section 47 where one would judge that that is a real problem. I understand and accept what the Government are saying about the need not to find that we are not covering children whom we need to cover, and that means that there are children going through the system for whom the dangers are not absolute, but if, for example, the child has deep school anxiety, or has really been bullied in the school, or the school has taken against them for some other reason and they have a horrid experience, and the local authority says, “Go back in”, what is the experience of the parent in appealing that? I do not have the grip on the details of the system that I would like.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, provided that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, does not want to make any more interventions, I will take this opportunity to close the debate.
Your Lordships heard that I was repenting; I pleaded guilty to overreach. I did not seek to press this amendment, but because an enormous number of amendments are listed after Amendment 333A, I felt it was right that all Members should have an opportunity to speak to any of the amendments in this group. Having said that, I have no hesitation in withdrawing this amendment and thanking my noble friend the Minister for her very careful and adequate replies.
Lord Lucas
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to facilitate debate of school attendance orders
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, this is another group that would be best served by my listening to what the Minister has to say: there are a lot of detailed bits and pieces in here. I would like to give the Minister comfort that, where I have put down an amendment such as Amendment 348 and the Member’s explanatory statement says
“to facilitate debate of school attendance orders”,
that is what I mean—I do not mean to wipe them out of the Bill. Sometimes her replies sound as if the civil servants regard me as Attila the Hun bearing down on them. No, it is just because of earlier comments made from the Bench opposite that they would like to have an amendment to debate and to stick to that amendment, so I have tabled amendments to enable us to debate, with no other malevolent intention towards the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, since I joined the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in Amendment 348, I feel I should stand in repentance again, because this is a bad case of overreach and I regret it.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this is the briefest of brief debates, so I think the Committee hangs on the Minister’s every word at this point. The group contains a large number of probing amendments, and my concern about the majority of them is that, again, they would introduce too great an element of variability in the application of school attendance orders, with the concomitant risk of perceived inconsistency and unfairness that I mentioned on the earlier group. I will not repeat those arguments. Suffice it to say that the data published by the department shows considerable disparity in the use of notices and school attendance orders, even between neighbouring local authorities such as Portsmouth and Southampton or East and West Sussex. There is a genuine issue that needs to be resolved in terms of bringing clarity to the criteria and the use of school attendance orders.
I also understand why several noble Lords have sought to lessen the penalties on those parents who fail to comply with the terms of school attendance orders, but I do not agree that it is appropriate, given the negative impact on children of missing out on a suitable education. Rather, I think we should support the Government to offer the most streamlined response so that decisions are taken transparently, consistently and speedily. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I think I should fit in Amendment 368—I apologise; I thought the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was going to speak again—which is in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for whose support I am again grateful. It recognises that higher fines, and especially imprisonment of the often lone parent, in fact betray the interests of the child. The Government do not collect information on the protected characteristics of those who are subject to these penalties, so they cannot assess their impact.
All the cases I saw when I was a magistrate were of people in poverty, and we know that Gypsies and Travellers have the lowest rate of economic activity of any ethnic group—47%, as opposed to 63% for England and Wales overall. A Prison Advice and Care Trust survey of 2023, apart from confirming the poverty I have alluded to, points to a range of research showing increased risky behaviour among prisoners’ children, poorer mental health outcomes and the potential lifelong negative impact of parental imprisonment. When a mother goes to prison, 95% of children have to leave home. This amendment would serve the interests of the child, which should of course be paramount, and I urge my noble friend the Minister to accept it.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I join my noble friend Lady Whitaker on removing the threat of imprisonment: it would be entirely inappropriate, and there are enough people already in prison.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, as we continue to debate school attendance orders, we must never lose sight of the child at the heart of this. A child gets one chance at an education, and that is why our processes must act swiftly, decisively and in the best interests of the child.
Amendments 348, 349, 350 to 352, 358, 362, 363 and 367 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 357 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, look to remove or alter the ability for a school attendance order to be served. Amendment 348 seeks to remove the entire school attendance order section. I accept that that may not be the purpose or intention of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, so let me move on to Amendment 349, which would mean that a local authority could serve an order on parents of children who had historically been subject to a Section 47 child protection inquiry or plan, even if this is no longer the case and the child is receiving a suitable education. It would be disproportionate for a local authority to be able to serve an order in these situations. If a Section 47 inquiry has concluded and not resulted in a child protection plan, parents will not be required to demonstrate that home education is in their child’s best interests. If the notice was also issued on the grounds that the local authority was not satisfied as to the suitability of education, the parent would still be required to demonstrate that the home education is suitable.
Amendment 350 would require local authorities to consider only the major educational settings used by a child, and Amendment 351 would prevent the consideration of where the child lives as part of the decision to serve a school attendance order. Settings where the child is educated are an important part of the local authority’s suitability assessment. Children attending unsafe or otherwise unsuitable settings are unlikely to be receiving an overall suitable education. It is essential that local authorities can identify where this is the case and take action.
Turning to Amendment 352, I hope the noble Lord is reassured to know that the wording in new Section 436I under the Bill does not require local authorities to make financial inquiries of families as part of the school attendance order process. Amendment 357 calls for local authorities to provide formal reasons whenever a school attendance order is issued. Local authorities are already subject to public law duties, and this includes providing reasons for decisions. Statutory guidance will ensure that local authorities are given clear advice and expectations on these matters.
Amendments 358, 363 and 367 would prevent a school attendance order being enforced or require it to be revoked should a child no longer live in the jurisdiction. This would be a significant loophole. A parent could remove a child from the jurisdiction temporarily, or claim to have done so, and thereby avoid compliance. Ultimately, this amendment is unnecessary because, once such an order is made, there are already mechanisms for parents to apply for it to be varied or revoked should they move school or demonstrate that suitable education is to be provided outside school.
Amendment 362 seeks to ensure that, if a parent has asked that a private school is named in a school attendance order, an order will not be issued and instead education will be deemed as suitable. The intention behind this amendment is to prevent a parent having to pay unaffordable bills if their financial circumstances change. As previously mentioned, the parent can simply apply to the local authority to have the order amended to name another school if they can no longer afford the fees of the school named in the order.
Amendments 356 and 359 seek to remove timelines on parts of the school attendance order process. I understand that the noble Lord’s intention is to probe whether sufficient time is built into the process for informing a school when it is to be named in a school attendance order. I can reassure noble Lords that it is. New Section 436L in the Bill outlines that a local authority must serve a school nomination notice on a school which it intends to name in an order. If the school disagrees with the decision, it has 10 school days to make an application to the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers for a direction.
Amendments 349A and 362A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seek to prevent a school attendance order being issued to any child who has an education, health and care plan, experiences emotionally based school avoidance or is eligible for special educational needs support. All children deserve a suitable education. School attendance orders therefore need to apply to all children. It would not be practical to remove that option from local authorities for particular children. That would limit the available courses of action to secure a child’s education. A local authority should ensure that the school named in an order is right for the needs of the child in question. We recognise that some pupils will be impacted by issues such as emotionally based school avoidance. Our guidance is clear that schools should work with the child and their family to remove barriers to attendance and build strong and trusting relationships.
Amendments 364 and 391, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and Amendment 367A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, seek to amend the process for revoking a school attendance order. Amendment 364 would require a local authority to establish and consult a panel that includes home-educating parents when considering a revocation request. This would be wholly inappropriate. To come to a decision on whether to revoke an order, it is likely that the local authority will need to consider a range of information about the child’s education and personal circumstances. I cannot imagine that many parents would want this sort of sensitive information shared with a jury of other parents.
Amendment 391 seeks to give the parent the right to have their case heard by a jury trial if their child has been required to attend school through a school attendance order. The existing process affords sufficient opportunity for parents to demonstrate that they are providing a suitable education and therefore should not be required to send their child to a named school.
Do I understand correctly that my noble friend Lord Hacking is not now pushing Amendment 367A?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Right. I will turn then to Amendments 368, tabled by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, and Amendment 369, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei. These amendments seek to amend the maximum fine for a breach of a school attendance order. I understand that the prospect of fines is worrying for parents. However, a parent runs the risk of a fine only if they breach the order. The consequence of breaching a school attendance order must be brought in line with the offence of unauthorised school absences. This removes the perverse incentive for a parent to remove their child from school under the guise of home education to avoid higher school attendance fines.
Amendment 371, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would require the court to consider the best interests of the child when sentencing a parent for breaching a school attendance order. Courts in England and Wales must already consider the impact on the child when determining sentences, as per Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
There is a series of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, that have not been addressed in the debate. As I did previously, I will write to noble Lords responding to those amendments. I hope that, given the assurances that I have provided, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment, and other noble Lords will not move theirs.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, that was a thoroughly satisfactory set of answers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to remove the local authority’s power to request to visit a child at home, for the purpose of determining whether a school attendance order should be served.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, again, this is a group of amendments on which I would largely prefer to wait for the Minister’s reply. However, I have a particular interest in where the Government find themselves when it comes to visiting children at home, how that should be done and the circumstances in which it need not be done. A lot of what we have been discussing is about producing a system, a set of relationships between home educators and the local authority, meaning that most children get seen anyway in the course of activities in which the local authority is involved—by professionals who are qualified to make judgments on how the child is flourishing and to flag if there seems to be a problem. I am confident that, in a well-run local authority, the need to visit at home should be much reduced. None the less, there will be circumstances where this seems to be necessary, and it always produces conflict.
I am interested in the Government’s thoughts on how they will approach this. How will a well-run local authority deal with circumstances when it feels that it needs to see the child? How will a parent who feels that their child will react extremely badly to this intrusion have their voice heard? I am also interested in the potential role of third parties, such as the family doctor —for those who still have one—to mediate in that process.
For the rest of the amendments in this group that I am responsible for, I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I will weigh in just on Amendment 417. Home-educating families having a flexible school term calendar will mean they benefit financially for holidays because, as we know, during school holidays, holidays shoot up in price. Would it not be nice if all schools had the luxury of cheap holidays for their children? Maybe the Government could look at the eminently sensible suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Wei, on holidays, and see whether in some way holiday companies could be equitable with all school families and not hike up their prices during the holiday period.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this group again covers a large number of very technical amendments. Some of them appear to me to be at the more speculative rather than the probing end of the spectrum. They highlight a number of issues in relation to home-educating families and home visits, but the majority of these suggestions, as put in these amendments, would be very challenging for any Government to justify in terms of the potential resources that would be required to implement them.
My noble friend Lord Lucas rightly raised the issues around home visits and the pressure that they put on families. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that local authorities understand that too and would use those powers when necessary, and always in the best interests of the child. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, the voice of the child is key in creating a supportive, responsive and effective safeguarding and educational environment. I believe that the best way for a local authority to ensure that a child’s education is both suitable and safe is to meet with the child in the child’s home. We want to ensure that local authorities are able to capture and appropriately consider the views of children, so advice on how to conduct these visits sensitively, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, rightly suggested is required, will be a key focus of our statutory guidance.
In terms of the ask on parents, we have aimed for this to be proportionate and at the right intervals. The purpose is to minimise the duration any child is in receipt of unsuitable education. The compulsory information is what is required for a local authority to undertake existing responsibilities related to education suitability and safeguarding. It is not intended to be disruptive to the parents, who will still be able to focus on providing a suitable education for their child.
The amendments in this group seek to make changes to the ability of a local authority to request to visit the home and to limit the potential impact on home-educating families. They also seek to make provision concerning how home educators may engage with and would like to be treated by national and local government.
I am going to suggest that the amendments brought by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, beginning with Amendment 406, might be suitable for me to write to noble Lords about. Several of them fall within the category defined by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, as being at the “speculative end” of the spectrum. I hope I would be able to either reassure noble Lords or identify why they would not be suitable to be carried forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, makes a broader point with respect to Amendment 417 about holidays, and I am sure this is something that we cannot solve here this evening, but I recognise the concerns that parents have.
I will deal with the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Amendment 353 seeks to remove the local authority’s power to request to visit a child at home to determine whether a school attendance order should be served. I hope I have already identified the approach that we will expect local authorities to take with respect to visits. This ability to request to visit the child at home allows the local authority to see the environment in which home education is being provided and to meet the child. Without this, local authorities may not be able to form a comprehensive view of whether the home environment is conducive to the child’s education. Parents will be able to refuse such a request, but, if they do, the local authority must consider this refusal to be a relevant factor when determining whether to issue a school attendance order.
Amendments 354 and 355 would require a local authority to obtain a court order to request to visit a child at home and to consider a child’s reaction to persons in authority when determining whether to serve a school attendance order. A court order would be unnecessary as the local authority would only be making a request, which parents have a right to refuse. On the point about sensitivity, though, I can assure noble Lords that our statutory guidance will provide further steers to help local authorities sensitively conduct visits, and we will consider whether additional support is needed, such as training for local authority staff.
I hope that I have assured noble Lords that the ability to request a visit is an important opportunity for the local authority, but that these visits will be carried out sensitively, and, if necessary, we will provide further statutory guidance on how that should happen. I will respond to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Wei, in writing to noble Lords.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I am grateful for the Minister’s response to my amendments. I would be grateful for a brief response to the amendments put down by my noble friend Lord Wei—just a confirmation, I suspect, when it comes to Amendment 387, of the recognition that there is a lot to say about the methodology of home education and the curriculum, and similarly, on Amendment 393, confirmation that the timing of educational progress, which should in principle be respected, can form part of a suitable education.
I have met a very capable young Oxford undergraduate who did not begin to write until they were 13. Having learned entirely through other methods and found writing extremely difficult, he was able to move on to a keyboard aged 13 and get himself eventually to Oxford. The generality, which is picked up in my noble friend’s amendment, of not beginning formal education until seven is very common on the continent. There are structures which do not impose reading, writing and arithmetic before that age and which succeed on a national level.
The understanding that the Government recognise that there are other routes to educational success, and that this is something that local authorities do not understand, is of general interest, rather more so than some of my noble friend’s more focused amendments.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
On those points, I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that the law is already clear. We have discussed during the course of the debate that parents have the right to educate their children using the methods, approaches and content they think best, provided that the education being received is suitable and safe. The point, though, is that local authorities must be able to assess that education to establish whether or not it is. The Bill does not give local authorities any additional powers to regulate the content of home education.
On the point about the nature of education, we believe that a child must be provided with a suitable education from the age of five. Of course, the point about home education is that it would be up to parents, assuming that that education is suitable, to determine what sort of education was being provided to a child of five.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, as we are in the closing straight. Can the Government confirm that they accept that flexibility of approach is something that will happen? If we look laterally—says the dyslexic—at special educational needs, that is often what is required there. Some of the problems come from the fact that there is a structure that one is supposed to be doing, but not everybody learns like that. Can the Government confirm that this is something which should be worked across the education system?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have just confirmed that, and we have talked about it at various different times with respect to home education. I completely accept that one of the reasons why parents want to home-educate is to provide different and more flexible approaches to the way in which children learn. The most appropriate methods for learning and teaching will have to be at the heart of not just the Government’s reforms to special educational needs and disabilities but the very hard work that teachers and schools do for those children.
Lord Storey
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is connected to another in the name of Lord Storey which seeks to prevent school attendance orders being applied to children with an education, health and care plan.
Lord Storey (LD)
I think I have already spoken on Amendments 359A and 366A, albeit in the wrong grouping, so I will leave it there, except to ask the Minister if the letters he writes to the noble Lord, Lord Wei, will be available in the Library for all of us to see.
Lord Lucas (Con)
In the spirit of previous groups, I would very much like to listen to the Minister’s replies.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, these amendments relate to children, particularly those with education, health and care plans, and the use of school attendance orders. If I understood correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, argued through amendments in earlier groups and Amendments 359A and 366A in this group that these children should be excluded from the school attendance order regime. I outlined my concerns, which remain the same, about introducing inconsistency into a system where we already have incredible variability in how school attendance orders are used.
I have spoken to families who have a child with an education, health and care plan who are considering educating them at home. They have expressed concerns that the local authority can be particularly resistant to that because of the financial costs, which are sometimes related to the physical and medical therapies—health therapies—that a child might need. It would help if the Minister could comment on those fears. Equally, a child in receipt of an EHCP clearly has more complicated educational needs and it is entirely reasonable that the local authority should consider that carefully and ensure that the parents are able to deliver on their wish to support their child at home.
I confess I am unclear what material difference Amendment 360 would make to the Bill, but maybe the Minister will shed light.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, as I said previously, the school attendance order process is an existing process that is absolutely essential to provide children in unsuitable education a route to suitable education through regular attendance at a school.
In speaking to the amendments in group 15, I turn to Amendments 360 and 361, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. They seek to require a local authority to review rather than amend an education, health and care plan where the authority is required to serve a school attendance order in respect of a child and the plan does not specify the name of a school. If a local authority is serving a school attendance order, it has determined that the child is not receiving a suitable education and that the situation must be resolved. In this situation, it is right that the education, health and care plan be amended to name a school and that the school attendance order reflect this. This will enable the child to be enrolled in that school without delay.
The noble Lord may be concerned that parents will not have the opportunity to influence the school named in the order and the education, health and care plan. I reassure him that local authorities will still be required to follow the processes outlined in Regulation 22 of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014. These regulations require that local authorities send parents a notice outlining the changes to the plan. Additionally, the child’s parents can request a review of the plan at any point if they believe that the school is not meeting their child’s needs.
Amendment 366, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would remove the right to refer questions on school attendance orders in Wales to Welsh Ministers and delete the clause preserving the existing education, health and care plan framework. Parents must have a right to appeal a local authority decision to refuse to revoke a school attendance order, regardless of whether that local authority is in England or Wales. The mirror provisions in the Bill reflect our commitment to making the process as consistent as possible for families in both nations.
As previously mentioned, parents of children on education, health and care plans already have recourse to have the school on a school attendance order amended. The amendment would mean that duplicate processes would run concurrently, potentially resulting in confusion for local authorities, parents and schools.
I turn now to Amendments 359A and 366A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. All children deserve a suitable education. School attendance orders therefore need to apply to all children. It would not be practical to remove that option from local authorities for particular children, limiting the available courses of action to secure a child’s education. A local authority should ensure that the school named in an order is right for the needs of the child in question.
We recognise, as I said earlier, that some pupils will be impacted by issues such as emotionally based school avoidance. Our guidance is clear that schools should work with the child and their family to remove barriers to attendance and build strong and trusting relationships. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Storey (LD)
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Lord Lucas
“Protection of home education rights during emergency or authoritarian rule(1) In the event of a national emergency or authoritarian governance, the courts shall have the final authority to safeguard the right to home educate in accordance with this Act.(2) Authoritarian governance shall be defined as any period during which emergency regulations or executive actions suspend, limit, or derogate from rights protected under the Human Rights Act 1998 or the European Convention on Human Rights.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to protect the legal right to home educate in exceptional national circumstances by placing judicial oversight above executive restrictions.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I apologise that my final remarks will be slightly negative in tone, but I cannot support this amendment. It is not appropriate to have such a measure in primary legislation. I do not agree with my noble friend’s definition of authoritarian rule, nor with his prioritisation, if we were in a time of genuine national emergency.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I will speak to this amendment in group 16, which is about the right to home-educate. I reiterate—it feels right to be doing this at the end of this debate, as I did at the start—that parents have the right to educate their child in the way that best suits their needs, if that education is suitable. The Bill does not change that.
Amendment 378, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to protect a parent’s right to home-educate in the event of a national emergency or an authoritarian Government. First, this amendment would be ineffective, as Parliament is sovereign. Any law passed by a current Parliament can be changed or repealed by a future Parliament. However, existing legislation is clear that most parents have the right to educate their child otherwise than at school provided that the education their child receives is both safe and suitable. This Government support that right. I hope that, on that basis of reassurance, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, we seem to have gone awfully quickly. On that basis, may I ask that we adjourn during pleasure for five minutes in order for all participants in the next business to make their way to the Chamber? Therefore, the House will resume at 7.16 pm.
Borders and Asylum
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the wave of protests over the summer in opposition to the continuing use of hotels to house asylum seekers has evidently forced the Government’s hand. They have now been in office for over a year and, unfortunately, the situation at the border has deteriorated. We have seen some 29,300 people cross the channel in small boats to gain unlawful entry into the UK since Labour took office—the highest ever figure.
Regrettably, the Home Secretary did not offer an explanation yesterday as to why she thinks these figures have increased. Might I suggest to the Minister that the reason illegal crossings have reached a historic high is because the Government scrapped the Rwanda deterrent before it was even able to begin repealing most of the Illegal Migration Act and have failed to effectively implement policies to deter those who would attempt the crossing?
One major policy the Government have pursued, the returns deal with France, has yet to bear any results. The Home Secretary has stated that the Government are moving faster than the Conservatives were with Rwanda, obviously forgetting that the reason the Rwanda policy was delayed was because the Labour Party voted against it over 130 times. Although I appreciate that it is early days and this is just a pilot, can the Minister confirm when the Home Office will be sending the first people back to France? Is there yet a timeframe in place?
In the Statement, the Home Secretary stated that the Government have removed 35,000 people with no right to be here. Unfortunately, that statistic is highly misleading. The Home Office data for the year ending June 2025 shows that enforcement returns—people who are subject to removal or deportation by the Home Office—for the previous year stood at 9,072 people. The number of voluntary returns—those people who were liable to be removed but chose to leave the UK before being deported—was 26,761. It is the combination of these two figures that make up the 35,000 returns claim. Clearly, the vast majority of returns are therefore voluntary returns, not enforced deportation action by the Home Office. Is it not highly misleading for the Government to claim that they have removed 35,000 people when in fact most of those left of their own accord and they have only removed 9,072 people themselves? The figure is being used to mask the reality of failure to get a grip on the crisis at the border, smash the gangs and close down all remaining asylum hotels.
The Home Secretary—I am sure the Minister will not fail to repeat this—made the point that the hotels were opened under the last Government, and that this Government have been taking action to close them. Unfortunately, what she omitted from her Statement was that the previous Government were taking action to reduce the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels. From the peak of 56,042 in September 2023, we reduced that number to 29,585 in June 2024, but since this Government have been in office, that number has only increased. It jumped to 38,079 in December of last year and, as of 30 June, stands at 32,059. That is a 7.7% increase from when the Conservatives left government.
Furthermore, in the run-up to the election, the Conservative Government closed down 200 of these hotels. Had that rate of closure continued, there would be no hotels housing asylum seekers today. What is evident is that this Government have not continued with that pace of closure; nor are they taking enough action to deter and remove those who enter this country illegally.
The Home Secretary repeated the claim several times during her Statement in the other place that the Opposition are “resisting” and “opposing” the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill in this House. She even insinuated that we are attempting to slow the passage of the Bill. I must say to the Minister that I take issue with that characterisation. We have had three days in Committee on the Bill so far and are due to finish Committee stage next Monday—one day earlier than initially scheduled.
On a number of aspects, including the new immigration offences, we have supported the Government trying to toughen up the system. Indeed, I welcome the announcement in this Statement that the Government will be pausing refugee family reunion to tackle the large increase in the number of people applying to bring family members to the UK after a very short period. What we do resist, however, is the Government’s opposition to many of our proposals—or perhaps I should say “previous opposition”, since much of what the Home Secretary proposed yesterday has already been raised in this Chamber by those of us on these Benches.
This morning, the Home Secretary mentioned the number of students who arrive in the UK on a student visa and then go on to claim asylum, stating that she wants to “clamp down” on this “back-door” route. I entirely agree, which is why I tabled Amendment 193 to the border security Bill, which would prevent any person making an asylum claim more than one year after they have entered the UK. This would prevent precisely that scenario occurring. It has yet to be debated, but I am sure that the Minister will support it when we come to debate it.
One of the main announcements in the Statement is the establishment of a new body to deal with asylum and immigration appeals. If this is established quickly and efficiently, it may be able to help reduce the processing of appeals. However, several questions remain. Will this body deal only with administrative appeals made to the Home Office, or will it also deal with judicial appeals, which are currently made to the asylum and immigration chamber? Secondly, will the Government now be supporting our further Amendment 138 to the border security Bill, which would prevent a person appealing against a deportation order made under Section 32 of the UK Borders Act?
Finally, can the Minister confirm how these changes will be made, and when? Will the Government be bringing amendments to the border security Bill on Report in this House to implement these new policies?
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches agree with the Government that the Conservatives “trashed” our asylum system, leaving the backlog spiralling out of control. We also agree that there is no silver bullet to deal with that failure. However, the Government have so far failed to get a grip on the problem as a whole. There may be a glimmer of hope that a comprehensive policy will emerge from the content of this Statement, so we will scrutinise carefully any plan that flows from it. But the real solutions lie in speeding up processing, so that those with no right to be here are swiftly returned, providing safe routes to claim asylum, and ensuring that those with valid claims can get jobs, integrate and contribute to the community.
However, the closure of the family reunion route, albeit temporarily, is a sign that the Government are responding to current events rather than laying out what the complete reform would look like. We are deeply concerned by proposals to tighten family reunion rules and by what we are told will be the reduction of the move-on period from 56 days back to 28, much to the dismay of local authorities throughout our land. The Home Office itself acknowledges that a lack of safe alternative routes contributes to small boat crossings, so cutting these routes risks making that crisis worse. Refugees are not at an equal starting point. They have been forced to leave their homes and families, often in grave danger, and family reunion is crucial for their settlement and integration. What assessment has been made of the risk that tighter family reunion rules will push more families into the hands of people-smuggling gangs?
Regarding the new independent body and fast-track appeals, how will it be resourced to meet the 24-week target, and will there be a recruitment drive for asylum caseworkers to ease the backlog? Given the similarities of these roles to those of JPs, what timescale have the Government got in mind for, first, identifying suitable candidates and, secondly, training them in the legislative framework to undertake such duties? Furthermore, can the Minister guarantee that local authorities will be properly funded by government to support asylum accommodation, rather than having it imposed without consultation? We need a humane and efficient system, not one that continues to fail vulnerable people.
The UK-France returns deal, as we apparently know now, will see its first exchange of people at the end of this month. Can the Minister give us some idea of the timescale for expanding what looks like very small numbers at the beginning?
Finally, what safeguards will ensure that the fast-track appeals process proposed does not compromise fairness or lead to more judicial reviews later? Refugees are entitled to be supported as well. It will be interesting to note what the Government propose to be the manner in which that system will actually proceed.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to His Majesty’s Opposition and to the Liberal Democrats for their initial questions.
I will start, if I may, with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He makes the allegation that the Government are responding to the protests that have taken place around the country in August of this year, which were relatively small in number. I reassure him that the Government have a very strong plan to remove the mess in which his Government left the asylum system, the hotel backlog and the small boats crisis. The actions that we are taking are part of a long-term wider plan, which includes the immigration Bill that we will debate further tomorrow, to ensure that we resolve this issue in a way that meets our international obligations and, at the same time, deals with the issues that we all have a common interest in removing. I remind the noble Lord that this August saw the lowest number of boats for that month for four years.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord heckles from a sedentary position. We have been in office for 13 months now, and we have taken action—which relates, as I will come to, to what the noble Lord, Lord German, said—to establish a border command under the immigration Bill, to put in new powers to tackle small boats, which will be taking place shortly, and to scrap the Rwanda scheme that his Government put in place, which wasted £700 million of taxpayers money and removed, from memory, two people, both of whom went voluntarily. We are now using that resource to up the amount of money we are investing in speeding up asylum claims. In speeding up asylum claims, we are doing what we should be doing: assessing people and determining who has asylum and who does not.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned some figures in his contribution. Some 35,000 people with no right to abode in the UK have been removed in the past 12 months. That is up on his Government’s performance—a 28% increase in failed asylum seekers being removed. We have had a 14% increase in the removal of foreign national offenders, and an increase of 50% in the number of illicit work raids that we are undertaking to make sure that we maintain standards in employment.
I am afraid the noble Lord cannot get away from the fact that in 2015 there were very few hotels in operation, and we reached a massive peak under his Government. We are trying now to reduce that peak by closing hotels, and we are doing so by speeding up the asylum claims that he and his Government allowed to remain. So, with due respect to the noble Lord, I am not going to take lessons from him on how to manage asylum, immigration or small boats when the problems that we have inherited are ones that his Government and his Home Office oversaw as a whole.
However, the noble Lord asked some reasonable questions, and I will try to establish some information for him. He asked about the new commission that we are establishing. We will set out further details on it in due course and ensure that we clarify and put into the public domain the roles the commission will have. We will ensure that the commission is paid for with existing departmental budgets, so there is no extra cost to the taxpayer for that. To the point made by the noble Lord, Lord German, we will ensure that people have time to have rigorous training in decision-making and expertise to make decisions on appeal cases. I say again to all noble Lords that we are doing that to speed up the asylum appeal process that led to the highest asylum backlog in the history of asylum backlogs, under the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Davies. We are trying to speed up those claims because, ultimately, we need to determine someone’s right to abode in the UK under asylum, and if they do not have a right then we need to remove them. The previous Government did neither of those things to any effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned the French scheme. Noble Lords will know that under the previous Government no attempts at all were made to discuss with the French the issue on the beaches of France in relation to small boats. The noble Lord again shakes his head. Perhaps at some future time, when he gets an opportunity, he could write to me and tell me what agreements were struck with the French regarding small boats and beaches. There were none, and because there were none, we have had to pick that up. Over the past 12 months we have negotiated with the French, and we have a returns agreement in place. That agreement is a pilot scheme. It has not yet removed people to a great extent, as the noble Lord knows, but it is a pilot that we are monitoring and evaluating. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord German, we intend to remove and exchange the first individuals under the scheme by the end of this month. The pilot will be evaluated and monitored, and I hope it will prove a benefit.
As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, knows, because I tell him every time we have this discussion, we have had agreements with the French, the Belgians, the Dutch—the Calais Group—to take action. We have established a proper agreement with the Germans for the first time, to look at how we can stop boat manufacture and sale upstream, and we are putting extra effort into bringing people to justice so that we now have people before the courts for people-smuggling offences. There is going to be a difference between us because the noble Lord, Lord Davies, believes in the Rwanda scheme and I do not, but ultimately it is about delivery on these issues, and this Government, 13 months in, are beginning to deliver on them.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for his welcome for some of the measures in the Statement. I welcome his support over Border Security Command, the speeding up of asylum claims, the new powers in the Bill and the pledge to close hotels, because he is right that we need to ensure that we speed up the asylum backlog left by the previous Government. Those matters are in train at the moment, and we will continue to examine them.
As I have already mentioned, the French scheme will run in pilot form until the end of this month, but we hope to secure some action on that very quickly. I hope the issue regarding the new scheme of the appeals board, which I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord German, and have already mentioned in response to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is good.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord German, has concerns, which I recognise, about the family removal issue. I say to him that we intend to ensure that, at a date very shortly in the future, we bring forward a statutory instrument that will end the family reunion issue on a temporary basis while we review family reunion for a longer period. We are doing that for the straightforward reason that the number of family reunions has increased dramatically. I shall give him the figures now: over the seven years from 2015 to 2022, approximately 5,500 individuals were granted refugee family reunion each year. In 2024, 19,709 individuals arrived via this route—a 111% increase, which is just not sustainable. We need to review that, work on it and take action accordingly. At a date very shortly, we will lay a statutory instrument that will suspend the scheme and we will bring forward a revised scheme at a date in future when we are able to do so. The suspension is temporary while we undertake a full review and reform of current family rules.
In the meantime, the noble Lord, Lord German, has asked a legitimate question: what do individuals who want to have family reunion do? They are quite able to apply as of now. Whenever the new scheme comes into effect, we will honour family reunion applications to the date when the scheme was suspended. We will then be able to examine any further family reunion routes through other means on the normal route for family reunion that will take place. We will bring forward in very short order a revised scheme that I hope will address some of the issues that, in my view, need to be tightened.
I say to all noble Lords that there is a common issue here and we should try to address it. That is what I am trying to do with the proposals before the House today.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
Before we move on to the 20 minutes of protected time for Back-Benchers, I want to make it clear that this is 20 minutes for Back-Benchers only and that the form of the Back-Bench contributions should be questions on the Statement and not speeches.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I wish to raise a question about the legal obstacles to immigration. I suggest that it would be helpful if the Government produced a consultation document setting out in detail the obstacles that they believe arise with regard to immigration policy. I have in mind a consultation document identifying treaties, conventions, international obligations and domestic procedures and laws that may stand in the way of an effective immigration policy. When we have that kind of consultation document, we can have a more informed discussion as to what we should do about it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the suggestion from the noble Viscount. He will know that we have published an immigration White Paper, which trails a number of potential measures that are going to be looked at in principle, including Article 8 of the ECHR and a range of other measures that we are going to put in place. The immigration White Paper trails those issues because, for the very reason that he has mentioned, we want to ensure that there is further consultation on some of the key issues.
My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are in constant discussion with countries that were our former European Union partners, as well as countries outside the European Union, about what needs to be done in relation to the pressures and those legal issues. There were meetings in May this year between European Union countries and non-European countries of which Britain was part, and there will be further discussions. I hope that, if the noble Viscount looks at the immigration White Paper, he will see that there is a range of trails that will lead to further policy discussions in due course.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, in 2019 Boris Johnson and the Conservative Government stood on a slogan of taking back control of our borders and our laws. Over the next four years, we saw record levels of immigration and a shambolic and dysfunctional asylum system. Over the summer, we have seen the extreme right try to weaponise this subject, intimidating communities throughout the nation. In spite of that, ordinary people have genuine concerns about the levels of immigration. One particularly relevant issue is foreign prisoners. Can the Minister explain what the Government are doing to ensure that foreign prisoners who come to the end of their sentences are deported?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
To live in this country requires basic adherence to tenets of good behaviour, and if foreign nationals commit offences then they should be deported at the end of their sentence. My noble friend will know, I hope, that, since 5 July 2024, 5,179 foreign national offenders have been removed from the United Kingdom. That is an increase of 14% over the previous year and one that we intend to further increase for those foreign nationals who have abused the privilege of being a resident of the United Kingdom by committing an offence. That is coupled with the other issues he mentioned, such as a 13% increase in returns and a 24% increase in enforced returns. But the key to all of this, ultimately, is to speed up the asylum system and make sure that, when someone arrives and claims asylum, that asylum claim is dealt with speedily and effectively. That is what the new body announced in the Statement and the efforts we have made to date are really going to be focused on.
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)
My Lords, the Statement from the Home Secretary contains many laudable aspirations, and I am sure we can all agree that the timing of implementation is of paramount importance as numbers seem to be growing, deepening a sense of crisis, notwithstanding August’s favourable figures. One of the proposed measures, and a potentially important one, is to seek reform of the ECHR and especially Article 8. To change the operation of the ECHR would require the agreement of 46 signatories and presumably take many years, but I notice that the Statement refers to
“reforming the way that the European Convention on Human Rights is interpreted here at home”,
which is, I presume, a way of speeding up the process of reform. I have a very simple question. How do the Government propose to implement this change in interpretation and in what sort of timeframe?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is a very valid question, and I am grateful for the broad support that the noble Lord has given to the proposals before us. We have said in the immigration Bill, and we have said publicly, that we want to look at how Article 8 of the ECHR, the right to family life, is interpreted. We have seen wide interpretation of Article 8 to ensure that individuals can protect themselves against deportation when asylum claims have failed. In the next few months—and I hope the noble Lord will bear with me on this—we intend to issue a further consultation on what we need to do on that. It does not involve us, as some political parties and others would want, leaving the ECHR; I hope it will revise the guidance so judges can examine it and make different judgments accordingly, based on the information that we will ultimately supply.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware of the detailed and carefully worked-out proposal put forward at the end of last month by the Refugee Council. Its plan could close asylum hotels by the end of next year by putting in place a one-off scheme to give permission to stay for a limited period, subject to rigorous security checks, to people who are almost certain to be recognised as refugees. The proposal applies to people from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran, Sudan and Syria who were in the system on 30 June. That would represent four in 10 of the people in asylum hotels from those countries—more than 33,000 people in total in Home Office accommodation. To take some examples, 98% of Sudanese who apply for refugee status receive it, and yesterday in your Lordships’ House there was a great deal of discussion of how terrible things are in Sudan; and 86% of Eritreans receive it. Have the Government considered this carefully thought-out proposal, put forward by the Refugee Council, or anything like it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are open to a range of discussions on any issue because it is a manifesto commitment for us to end hotel use by the end of this Parliament. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, myself and others in government want to do that as quickly as possible, but—and I say this, I hope, helpfully to the noble Baroness—we have to do this in an ordered, managed fashion. We are trying to do that in an ordered, managed fashion now by reducing the level of hotel use as a whole, filling up the remaining hotels so that we maximise their use and looking at how we can exit those hotels over time. In the past 12 months, we have saved around £1 billion of taxpayers’ money by the measures that we have taken. We have had limited success to date in reducing the number of hotels, but we intend to speed that up. The suggestions that have been made will always be examined, but the ultimate objective for the noble Baroness, the Refugee Council and for us is to make sure that we exit hotels, speed up asylum claims and make sure that those who have asylum claims are dealt with and allowed to remain in the United Kingdom with a properly adjudicated, speedy asylum claim.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former Immigration Minister in this country and say that I sympathise with anybody who has to conduct the business of immigration, particularly with the pressures we have now. I very much welcome most of what the Government are now proposing. I hope it is possible for us to avoid a build-up of rhetoric, which I am afraid I have seen from all quarters, particularly the more extreme quarters in our country, in recent months.
I will contain myself to asking two simple questions. One is in relation to family reunion. I think it is right to say that the majority of people coming by boat seem to be very young men—of course, we have always had many people arriving to seek asylum in other ways—and in that sense I feel that we can resist the question of family reunion rather more positively than with different age groups and types. I wonder whether the Minister would confirm whether he thinks that particular part of the policy could be successful.
Secondly, does the Minister agree that perhaps we need to make sure that our officials are rather better educated on the 1951 refugee convention, which of course is the basis of all asylum granting? We seem to be allowing a lot of people to come to this country and to have asylum—which is a very valuable thing to grant—without really pursuing the very narrow criteria that grant that asylum. Therefore, the percentage of people who are being granted at first instance has shot up enormously, certainly from my day, and I think it is too high. My own view is that we need to make sure that our officials are clear and fair, but that they stay with those criteria in their deliberations and decisions.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As the noble Lord is one of the former Ministers in this House who have dealt with immigration, I know he will understand very clearly the challenges the Government face and the difficulties we have in delivering on these issues. I very much welcome his comments and suggestions.
With regard to family reunion, one of the reasons that we are going to lay the SI very shortly and put a temporary suspension on family reunion is so that we can review how it is being applied at the moment. I mentioned the figures earlier but they are always worth repeating: there was a 111% increase on 2023 and a 378% increase on 2022. Some examination is obviously needed of who is being granted family reunion and why. That is why the temporary suspension is on. We will bring forward legislation to bring that into effect at some point and will review the operation of family reunion. The points that the noble Lord has made will be part of that consideration as a whole.
The noble Lord’s second point is also well made and I will certainly examine those comments. In the interest of time, for now, I hope it will help him to have had some answers to his questions.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the House for being a few seconds late; the unexpectedly early start took me by surprise.
Does the Minister agree—I am sure he will at least agree with this point—that it is important that the language everyone uses on this subject is as moderate and careful as it can be? Otherwise, feelings are inflamed and the situation is corrosive. It is important to be positive about the contribution to our society and economy of immigrants. I make this point about language having talked to a friend who attended a protest—a counterprotest, if you like—in support of refugees at a local hotel. She was perfectly clear that there were a lot of people there protesting who were there because they wanted to take part in a general ruck. In fact, one of them said to the highly qualified doctor she was with, “Oh, you ought to learn to read a book”. That is a serious point.
I am glad that we will have the opportunity to debate family reunion because it is, after all, a safe route. It would be perverse if we stopped a safe route. The Minister said we will have the opportunity to discuss the new independent body. Can he tell the House now whether people—I do not know whether they will be called appellants or applicants—will be entitled to legal representation before that body?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments and the tone in which she has put them. She is absolutely right about the debate on migration, illegal migration, asylum and border control. In my view it is a challenge and a difficult issue, but I hope that between the three main parties represented here and those individuals from the Cross Benches and others, we can have that debate in a civilised way. I also hope that in the country at large it can be debated in a civilised way.
There is an important issue to discuss about who we allow into the country for immigration purposes and how. There is an important issue of how we stop illegal migration, and an important issue of how we manage and meet our international obligations on asylum. The Government, in these 13 months, have brought forward a White Paper on the first issue, have taken action on the second and are now looking at managing the asylum regime by speeding up asylum claims to get the backlog down. Those are really important issues, and those who seek to divide us are using them in a way that I would not support. The right to protest is always there, but it should be about the tone of that protest accordingly.
We will bring forward further information on the new body in due course. I hope tonight is an hors d’oeuvre for the noble Baroness, as the main course will follow.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the much tougher Statement from the Home Secretary. Not long ago, politicians making some of those suggestions would have been accused of perhaps being almost racist.
Does the Minister think that the huge pull factors for migrants living in horrible conditions in France are being tackled firmly enough? If we continue what some would describe as featherbedding people who arrive, that is bound to be a pull factor. Does the Minister agree that leaving the European Convention on Human Rights should still be on the table? Does he welcome the report with the foreword by his former boss—and mine at one time—Jack Straw, which makes it clear that whatever your view on leaving the European convention, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement certainly does not prevent that happening?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. When people speak about leaving the ECHR, I always wonder what rights they do not want. Is it the right to a free trial? Is it the right to not have modern slavery? Is it the right to not have exploitation at work? I am never quite sure which one of those rights people do not want. My forefathers and relatives in the past fought hard to ensure we have decent rights at work, including the right to a fair trial and the right to be free from slavery: all those things are embedded. Only a very small number of countries have not signed up to the ECHR. That is not to say—which is why I have said it—that there are not tweaks and interpretations we can make. That is why we will be looking at how we deal with Article 8 in the first place.
I will also, with due respect, challenge the idea that there are pull factors and that people seeking asylum are featherbedded. I do not regard that to be the case. There is no benefit being claimed. No allowance at any meaningful level is given to asylum seekers. We are also trying to end some of the pull factors by tackling very hard illegal working, which undercuts and undermines real people doing real jobs, exploiting people and undermining legitimate businesses.
So I say to the House as a whole that it is a very complex, multilayered issue, but the Government are trying, with a range of measures, to deal with this in a way that does not inflame the situation but looks at long-term, positive solutions to bear down on genuine problems.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
May I tackle the Minister on what he said about the ECHR? It is perfectly true that it incorporates important rights. It is equally perfectly true that those important rights can be incorporated in domestic law, and already are by human rights legislation. The fundamental difference is that, when the European court makes a decision which we as a Parliament differ from, we cannot change its effect in this country. If we were to repatriate the process to the domestic courts, Parliament ultimately would have a decisive say and could overrule the courts. That is what a democratic nation should seek to achieve.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I think we will have to have an honest disagreement with the noble Viscount. That is not my view of how this works. My view is that we are all party to a European court and convention. That is not a European Union issue; it is a Council of Europe issue. There are countries not in the EU and in the EU which have abided, since 1950, in the aftermath of a world war that split Europe apart, by a convention that gives basic rights to individuals. I support those basic rights, but that does not mean we cannot examine how they are interpreted. That is where the Government are coming from. Different parties are asking different things, and that will be a debate we will have, but I am trying to show the noble Viscount that there are, in my view, benefits to the ECHR as well as areas of potential challenge.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, expressed concern about the level of first-tier decision-making in the Home Office. I agree with the noble Lord that there is reason for concern about that, but concern about ill-founded refusals of asylum applications—the evidence for which is in the high number of successful appeals. On that subject, I have two specific questions for the Minister, and I will understand if he needs to write to me. First, Home Office checks in 2023-24 showed that only 52% of initial decisions passed the Home Office’s own quality standards. The figures for 2024-25 were supposed to have been published in August but have not been. Can the Minister say when those now overdue figures will be published? Secondly, Home Office data on appeals has not been updated since the start of 2023. There is data on appeals from the tribunals, but Home Office data historically has been more detailed. Are the Government planning to publish that data on appeals?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
In the interests of time, I will write to the noble Baroness on both those issues. I do not have the information to hand, and I would not wish to inadvertently mislead her by giving her an answer that subsequently proved to be erroneous.