Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
The previous Government’s neglect of the railways saw a decade of decline in passenger performance, but we are starting to see performance stabilise. Passengers are responding to these improvements, and passenger numbers were up 7% last year. We are now working with the rail industry on a performance restoration framework with five clear focus areas, including timetable resilience, staffing and keeping trains safely moving during disruptive events, to help restore the performance that passengers deserve.
Charlotte Nichols
I am sure I speak for all fellow MPs on the west coast main line who are regular commuters on Avanti when I say that having to plan our weeks around its appalling service and regular last-minute delays and cancellations is among the worst parts of the job. My constituents—both those travelling north to Wigan and Cumbria and those travelling south to London—are fed up with the service, which affects their ability to work, visit family and travel for leisure. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to reviewing whether Avanti has breached the terms of its franchise contract, and accelerating the process by which it can be brought into public ownership?
Heidi Alexander
I am obviously sorry to hear about the issues that my hon. Friend and her constituents experience when attempting to travel on Avanti West Coast. I know how frustrating these issues can be, but let me reassure her that while performance has improved, officials continue to hold regular meetings with Avanti and Network Rail to try to resolve matters. We have always been clear that we will transfer operations to public ownership when contracts end, rather than spending money on breaking contracts early. We expect the transfers to have completed by the end of 2027.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Last week, London North Eastern Railway announced huge cuts to rail services from Berwick-upon-Tweed station, which serves not only the town of Berwick but my constituents in the Scottish Borders and North Northumberland. The Government promised more trains, but this is the opposite. LNER is now owned by the Government, so will the Secretary of State meet me and local residents, so that we can explain the impact that the cuts will have on local communities?
Heidi Alexander
Passengers on LNER will benefit from the new December timetable, which will bring an overall improvement in reliability and capacity, but I would be very happy to ask the Rail Minister to speak to the hon. Gentleman about the particular issues at Berwick-upon-Tweed.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Before I ask my question, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the fact that last night, a man lost his life, a wife lost her husband, and children lost their father because of political intolerance. It was a personal tragedy, but also a tragedy for the body politic. I want to take a moment to recognise the importance of free speech in our democracies.
The Secretary of State quite rightly talks about improving rail performance, yet we are in a city paralysed by strike action from the RMT. The Government claim that nationalising the railways under Great British Railways will bring untold improvements. They are “untold”; Lord Hendy tells us that there will be rigorous performance standards, but he has repeatedly refused to set out what they will be. When will the Secretary of State set out the standards by which the Government’s nationalisation experiment should be judged—or are they still discussing them with the RMT?
Heidi Alexander
I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the importance of free speech, but I disagree with his assertions about improvements under Great British Railways. Conservative Members know the value of bringing train operating companies into public ownership; they did it themselves when they were in government. Back in 2023, they brought TransPennine Express into public control, following years of poor performance. It is no surprise to me and Labour Members that since then, TransPennine Express has had a 75% reduction in cancellations and 42% growth in passenger numbers.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
This Government’s landmark Bus Services (No. 2) Bill will deliver a step change in local bus services around the country, putting power over buses back in the hands of local leaders and enabling the delivery of more reliable, safe and inclusive routes. We are also investing £1 billion to support and improve local bus services and keep them affordable; confirming multi-year funding to allow local authorities to plan and invest ahead; and extending the £3 bus fare cap to March 2027.
Tom Collins
Worcester has been let down on transport. Our evening and weekend buses have been decimated, leaving our roads congested, our air polluted and our city centre cut off. I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for Labour’s early work, which has already restored some of our local services, but Worcester needs more. Our city centre businesses, our night-time economy and our commuters need and deserve a modern system of shuttle buses running all day long and at weekends. We are the Government of partnership, so will the Minister assure me that the Department is ready to do what it takes, working dynamically and creatively with a range of public and private partners to see this vision delivered locally in Worcester?
Simon Lightwood
I commend my hon. Friend for his commitment to improving local bus services in Worcester. We want better buses throughout the country, and I can assure him that the Government will continue to work with local leaders to give them the powers needed to deliver bus services that meet the needs of local communities.
Emma Lewell
My constituents are sick of being ignored when it comes to vital bus routes being withdrawn. More than 600 of them recently signed a petition after the unexpected and rapid withdrawal of the well used No. 17. Giving more powers to local councils does not always equate to communities having more of a say. Can the Minister please explain what checks and balances are in place to ensure that, as we devolve powers, residents really are listened to?
Simon Lightwood
I know the bus services in South Shields very well indeed, having been born there, and I know intimately from conversations with my family the struggles that my hon. Friend’s constituents are having with bus services. Our landmark Bus Services (No. 2) Bill will allow local leaders to take back control of bus services, and I am sure that Kim McGuinness, the Mayor of the North East, will be able to do just that.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Eastbourne district general hospital, where I was born, and the Hastings Conquest hospital are quite far apart. On a good day, it takes 45 minutes to drive from one to the other, and two hours by bus. More and more services are moving to the Hastings hospital, but we need better transport links, such as a shuttle bus, to make things seamless for patients. Can the Minister meet me and local representatives to discuss how we could secure a shuttle bus service to Hastings hospital for our town?
Simon Lightwood
This is why it is so important that the Government are handing local areas the power to design bus services around local needs. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to continue discussions with his local transport authority on doing just that.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The SNP in government has introduced free bus travel for under-22s, and last week, it scrapped peak rail fares. Those measures support access to employment opportunities, put more money in people’s pockets, and support local economies, especially in suburban and rural areas. Will the Minister acknowledge those excellent measures for consumers in Scotland and consider their benefits for the rest of the UK?
Simon Lightwood
We have the £3 bus fare cap in England, and we have committed to continuing that up to March next year. We will continue to keep our support for bus fares under review for the future.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
As I am sure the Minister knows and agrees, improving bus services must include making them safer for women and girls. Concerningly, sexual offences on the UK bus network have increased in recent years; for example, they increased by 13% on London buses in the first six months of this year. What is his Department doing to ensure that women and girls feel safe using the bus network, and can he share with the House any more information on the work being led by the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which he alluded to in yesterday’s debate on the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill?
Simon Lightwood
As I intimated in last night’s debate, the Bill requires local transport authorities and bus providers to give training to their staff. They will also have the power to introduce byelaws in order to clamp down on antisocial behaviour, and violence against women and girls in particular. On police officers being able to use buses for free across the country, I share the hon. Gentleman’s ambition. I have already commissioned work with the Confederation of Passenger Transport to explore how we could deliver that.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
The Government confirmed over £92 billion of capital investment in transport infrastructure at the spending review to drive economic growth and put more money in people’s pockets. That includes £24 billion to improve roads, £15 billion in long-term funding for our largest city regions and £2 billion for local transport, boosting growth in towns, cities and regions across the country.
Chris Webb
Taxis are an essential part of Blackpool’s transport network, yet the licensing scheme is failing both passengers and our local economy. Vehicles licensed outside the area continue to operate in Blackpool, undermining passenger safety, costing our publicly owned bus company nearly £1.5 million, and holding back wider economic growth. Will the Minister commit to urgently reforming the licensing scheme, so that vehicles and drivers licensed locally can operate in Blackpool, ensuring that public safety is protected and that vital taxi revenue supports our local economy?
Heidi Alexander
Following the sobering recommendations of Baroness Louise Casey in her review on child sexual exploitation, this Government are more committed than ever to tackling this issue. We have committed to legislating to address inconsistency in driver licensing, and we are considering all options, including on out-of-area working, national standards and better enforcement, to ensure the best overall outcomes for passenger safety.
Natasha Irons
I am a member of a parliamentary group on the Gatwick diamond growth area, and it is clear that expanding Gatwick airport gives huge potential for economic growth across the south-east and Croydon. Plans to upgrade Norwood Junction station, in my constituency, with a lift were shelved when plans to make wider improvements to capacity on the Brighton main line were scrapped by the previous Government. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to ensuring that there is enough capacity on our railways to support the projected growth of Gatwick, and how will she ensure that stations like Norwood Junction receive the investment that they need, so that communities like mine can feel the tangible benefits of growth?
Heidi Alexander
I was pleased to meet my hon. Friend in the summer to discuss this issue, and she is right to say that the previous Government cancelled plans to upgrade the Brighton main line. I can assure her that my officials are in regular discussion with Network Rail on opportunities to improve services and ease congestion in the Croydon area. I can also report that the recently completed upgrades to the station at Gatwick airport, and to track configuration in the Gatwick area, have significantly improved performance and journey times on the Brighton main line.
Henry Tufnell
Pembrokeshire is a beautiful county with huge potential for growth. Improved rail connectivity and more frequent services would bring significant benefits to our local economy, including by boosting tourism and expanding employment opportunities. How is the Secretary of State working with our Welsh Labour Government to enhance rail links for rural communities like mine in Mid and South Pembrokeshire?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is a great champion of the communities he represents, and I can assure him that the Government are investing in Wales’s future to drive economic growth. We continue to work with the Welsh Government, through the Wales Rail Board, to ensure that the benefit of our £445 million investment in rail, announced at the spending review, is delivered right across the nation, including in Pembrokeshire.
Mohammad Yasin
There is an exciting proposal for a Universal Studios resort in Bedford. The resort is projected to attract 8 million people every year, and the development is a golden opportunity for modern transport planning. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that in the infrastructure planning, public transport will be prioritised over road traffic, and that electric rail, buses, and walking and cycling solutions will be integral from the outset?
Heidi Alexander
The scale and significance of the proposed Universal Studios development in Bedfordshire is huge, and its success will undoubtedly be dependent on modern, sustainable transport options. We are committed to working very closely with Universal and the relevant local authorities as the development progresses to ensure that infrastructure planning prioritises public transport and active travel. We are really determined to make the most of this fantastic growth opportunity.
Alison Hume
This week, I visited Schneider Electric’s brand-new manufacturing facility in Scarborough, which will create 200 new jobs. However, those opportunities are out of reach for so many of my constituents who rely on public transport. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that poor transport in coastal communities like Scarborough and Whitby, which are untouched by city transport region funding, does not strangle economic growth?
Heidi Alexander
I assure my hon. Friend that we are committed to driving economic growth in all areas, not only the large city regions. York and North Yorkshire combined authority will receive £94 million in local transport grant capital funding over the next four years, allowing local leaders to support schemes, including public transport schemes, that are in line with local priorities.
Dr Sullivan
Given the scale of the disruption that Gravesham faces during the construction of the lower Thames crossing, what steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that a new transport system there supports real jobs for local people and has wider economic benefit? For example, reinstating the Tilbury-Gravesend ferry would strengthen business connections across the Thames.
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend will know that ferry services run on a private sector basis to meet local demand, and funding for local ferry services is a matter for local partners, including Thurrock council and Kent county council. However, my officials are working with them to ensure that the public transport opportunities that the lower Thames crossing may create are exploited.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
Economic growth is, of course, one of the stated aims of the High Speed 2 project, but the Secretary of State knows well that it has adverse effects on communities along the line of construction. She knows also that those communities need to make plans for land that will be made available to them when construction is over and HS2 no longer needs it. At Transport questions on 27 March, I asked her about the land disposal strategy, which was by then long overdue. Six months later, we still have not seen it. Can she tell us when we will?
Heidi Alexander
We have made some progress on the proposed eastern leg of HS2, which had been due to run up to Sheffield, but the previous Government cancelled it. During the summer, I made announcements about sites on that part of the line. I am aware that there are further issues in the Birmingham area, and with the section between Birmingham and Manchester. I am keen to make progress, but we also need to make sure that we have sites available for the necessary development and construction. My first priority is to get HS2 built at the lowest reasonable cost.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The A483 is critical to economic prosperity in mid-Wales and North Shropshire—it runs between Welshpool and Oswestry—but it has a huge accident blackspot at Llynclys in my constituency, which really holds up the traffic, and local people positively avoid the area. Highways England has said that it is keen to improve that road. Will the Secretary of State tell us the timetable for those works?
Heidi Alexander
I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making. If I may, I will write to her with details about that junction on the A483.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
The announcement by the Secretary of State of the investment in the M54-M6 link road was very much welcomed, but a number of local businesses, including Hollies farm shop and Cate’s Cakes, will potentially be impacted, as people may not be able to access them during construction. Will the Secretary of State arrange for one of her senior officials to meet me and a number of local businesses to discuss how these issues can best be mitigated?
Heidi Alexander
I was very pleased that the Chancellor announced in the spending review that we would move ahead with the M54-M6 link road. As the then Roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), has said, that was a “no-brainer”. I would be very happy to ask my officials to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss support for local businesses during construction.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Junction 10 of the M5 on the edge of my constituency is a key piece of transport infrastructure that can unlock growth, thousands of new jobs—it is adjacent to GCHQ, and so can support national cyber-security and intelligence work—and housing growth, which the Government have made a key priority. As a result of delays, there is a huge funding gap, amounting to about £70 million. Can Ministers have a word with their colleagues at Homes England and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to work out how that gap can be fixed, so that we can deliver those new homes, which are much needed, and the jobs too?
Heidi Alexander
I would be very happy to have those discussions across Government. I believe the local authority met recently to consider whether it could provide any support to fill the funding gap and, potentially, secure developer contributions towards that scheme.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Previous Conservative Governments were committed to repairing the railway line at Dawlish, which is vital to Devon and Cornwall’s economic growth, yet this Labour Government have said that they will complete the rail resilience programme only if and when survey work shows that it is needed. Given the likelihood that the Treasury’s emergency fund will have been spent on public sector pay increases, can the Secretary of State guarantee that funding will be found for resilience works, if they have not been planned and committed to as part of a fiscal event, should an unexpected incident or landslip take out the line at Dawlish?
Heidi Alexander
We are still funding drainage works and survey work on the Dawlish line. Four phases of work have already been completed. The cliffs are much more resilient than they were a number of years ago, when we experienced catastrophic failure. We have paused funding, but we will continue to keep under review the information that comes back from the survey so that we can continue to provide a reliable and resilient service for people in the south-west.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
On Friday, I had the privilege of meeting Lawrence Bowman, the new chief executive of South Western Railway, who brings with him over 20 years of experience in the industry. We travelled from Salisbury to Tisbury. He says that he has to write a five-year plan. I am keen to ensure that that has the maximum impact and deals with the Tisbury loop. Salisbury is on the gateway to the south-west. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State delegated an official or a Minister to meet me so that, as the five-year plan is constructed, there are no unreasonable constraints or misunderstandings over what is necessary to ensure that the railway is at the centre of economic growth in the south-west.
Heidi Alexander
I am pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman had a constructive meeting with the new South Western leadership. I was clear with Lawrence Bowman when he took up the job that I wanted him to meet local MPs along the route to talk about quick wins to improve services. I am very happy to ask officials from the Department for Transport to meet the right hon. Gentleman to have the conversations he seeks.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker. I also thank the Secretary of State for her welcome last night, and welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather) to his new role.
I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk yesterday. He was a champion of freedom of speech and open debate, and I know hon. Friends and Members from across the House all want to see politicians disagreeing well. On the subject of disagreeing well, I will come to my questions.
Fundamental to economic growth is a functioning transport system, but faced with tax hikes and inflation-busting fare rises people will find the Secretary of State’s comments difficult to believe—ASLEF strikes on CrossCountry, our capital city hammered with tube strikes and bus drivers striking tomorrow. Next weekend, Manchester will see the biggest strikes in years, followed closely by strikes in Luton, Milton Keynes, Stevenage, Hemel Hempstead, Preston and even, Mr Speaker, Chorley. Sir Sadiq Khan says that strikes in London are nothing to do with him. The Department for Transport, Downing Street and the whole Labour Government say that they are nothing to do with them, despite many of the unions on strike being Labour’s multimillion pound funders. So I ask the Transport Secretary, will anyone, anywhere in the Labour Government stand up for passengers facing an autumn of discontent?
Mr Speaker
Before the Secretary of State answers, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that welcoming the shadow Secretary of State does not mean that he can then have an essay to portray one question! [Laughter.]
Heidi Alexander
Let me congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. I know he has experience as a Transport Minister. And, of course, he had extensive experience of travelling the length and breadth of the country before the last election searching for that rarest thing, a Tory safe seat. [Laughter.]
On the substantive point, I of course recognise the frustration of the travelling public about strikes. The Mayor of London is completely right to have called for the RMT—the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—to get back around the table with Transport for London to find a resolution to the dispute. May I caution the right hon. Gentleman, though? He might wish not to adopt such an indignant tone, because when he was at the DFT there was a rail strike one day in every 10. In fact, under the Tory Government, we saw the highest number of total strike days for any 19-month period since the 1980s. Forgive me, I will not be taking any lectures from him on industrial relations.
Mr Holden
I have obviously followed the Secretary of State’s lead; I believe she had a constituency once upon a time in south London, but now represents Swindon. It is great to have that leadership there.
Growth requires investment, which Labour is cutting as it gives billions in no-strings-attached pay rises to train drivers. We have already seen a 50% increase in the bus fare cap, and just last week we saw the draft road programme published, with investment down 13% in real terms on the past five years. Labour is delaying schemes and cancelling vital upgrades like the A303 entirely, with hundreds of millions of pounds wasted. As ever, 90% of journeys take place on roads. Can the Secretary of State name one thing this Government have done for the millions of motorists who drive petrol or diesel cars?
Heidi Alexander
We have frozen fuel duty—that is what we have done. We have also invested £1.5 billion this year to fix potholes—a record amount of money—which will fix the equivalent of 7 million extra potholes.
I also say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that I am a very proud representative of my home town in Swindon. Searching around the country for a safe seat was not something that I indulged in.
Mr Speaker
Right, with all those pleasantries done, we now come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
A transport system can support economic growth only if it provides a reliable service on which businesses and passengers can depend. According to the Evening Standard, there have been 149 incidents of industrial action on TfL since Sadiq Khan became Mayor, with millions of people inconvenienced and businesses disrupted again this week in yet another tube strike. Can the Secretary of State tell us what steps she is taking, as a senior Labour politician, to sort out the mess caused by the Labour Mayor of London’s failure to reach an agreement with his Labour friends in the RMT, a union that has given hundreds of thousands of pounds to their comrades on the Government Benches in recent years?
Heidi Alexander
I understand everyone’s frustrations with the tube strikes; I use public transport in London every week, and I know that when the tube is down, not only are there queues for buses, but there is gridlock on our roads. It is right that the Mayor of London has called for the RMT to get back around the table with TfL. That is what this Government want, and it is what the travelling public want. I will be talking to the director of operations at Transport for London, Claire Mann, this afternoon, to understand what the next steps are in resolving this dispute.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
This year, our Department will publish the integrated national transport strategy outlining our long-term vision for transport in England. It will set out how the transport sector, Government and local leaders should work together to improve people’s everyday journeys however they choose to travel, including how people access ports and airports. We look forward to providing more information in due course.
Joe Robertson
I welcome the new maritime Minister to his place—it comes to something when Isle of Wight ferry company Red Funnel is operating ferries that are older than the new Minister. Will he speak to his new colleague in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Minister responsible for English devolution, to ensure that the new Mayor for Hampshire and the Solent actually has regulatory or licensing powers over transport across the Solent? If the Government create a new local leader without any powers over integrating the island that I represent, as the Member for Isle of Wight East, into the mainland, they will have failed to deliver any form of genuine integrated local transport for my constituents.
Keir Mather
The hon. Member speaks with passion about the state of ferry services in his constituency. It is an issue that I am keen to engage with him on further; I know the former maritime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), was very engaged in this work, too. I am looking to meet the hon. Gentleman next week, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), to take this conversation forward. On stakeholder engagement with the ferry operator itself, that local engagement is something I will be taking part in through the Department. I look forward to engaging with the hon. Gentleman as I take that process forward.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
This Government recognise the vital role the bus sector plays in keeping communities connected and able to access key services. That is why we are providing significant multiyear funding to local authorities, including more than £1 billion this financial year to support and improve local bus services and keep fares affordable, alongside the £15.6 billion we are providing for transport investment in our city regions across England. This investment will support British manufacturing, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Euan Stainbank
The consultation on 400 jobs at Alexander Dennis closes tomorrow. It has been a time of deep anxiety for the local workers. The SNP’s ScotZEB2 scheme initially sent over three times as many buses to China as to Scotland’s sole manufacturer. Although £40 million has now been made available by Transport Scotland, it must be spent correcting this SNP industrial failure. What engagement have Ministers had with the Scottish Government regarding recently consulted-on procurement reforms and their potential benefit to the Scottish bus manufacturing and operation sectors in the long term?
Simon Lightwood
I convened an extraordinary meeting of the UK bus manufacturing expert panel on 28 July, attended by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Transport, metro mayors and mayoral combined authorities, to accelerate the panel’s key priorities of establishing a bus order pipeline and strengthening local value within public sector procurement. I will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government on the issue. I know my hon. Friend has worked absolutely tirelessly for his constituents in this area.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. The Bus Services (No. 2) Bill passed yesterday, with many of the good things that we all wish to see happening here in the mainland, especially improving the frequency of bus services and addressing social inclusion for those who cannot get buses. Will the Minister share the good things that the Government are doing here with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, so that we in Northern Ireland can get some of the advantages that people have here?
Simon Lightwood
I will continue to have active engagement through the interministerial group and will be delighted to share the excellent work this Government are doing to re-empower local areas and their bus services.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
We are working hard to ensure that young people can book driving tests so that they can access opportunity in their local areas. We are recruiting and training more driving examiners, doubling examiner training capacity and offering overtime payment incentives. This is producing good results, with over 10,000 more tests a month now available than there would have been without the Secretary of State’s plans. There is more work to do, and we are committed to getting it right.
Lewis Atkinson
Learner drivers in Sunderland are fed up of waits of around 22 weeks for a driving test. In that time, they are often facing higher costs and barriers in accessing job opportunities. Can the Minister tell the House what steps he is taking to reduce driving test waiting times in Sunderland, and when he expects those waits to fall?
Simon Lightwood
Obviously, there were some issues with the close of the South Shields driving test centre, but no capacity was lost as a result of that. We recognise the impact that high waiting times are having on learner drivers across the country, including in the constituency of Sunderland Central, and the importance of helping learner drivers pass quickly. On 8 September, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency launched its latest recruitment campaign, which aims to recruit additional driving examiner resource to provide much-needed test capacity in Sunderland, Gateshead, Gosforth and Blythe.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
One of my constituents wrote to me this week about the difficulties she is facing rebooking her driving test. The nearest slot that she could find was in Swansea, two hours away from Bath. When she tried the 6 am rush, she faced a queue of 22,000, and when she finally reached the front, the site failed. Alongside test availability, will the Government review the quality and reliability of the booking system?
Simon Lightwood
We are absolutely committed to driving down the delays in these bookings. I would be delighted to chat further with the hon. Member to discuss the specific problems within her area.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
When driving tests came up at Transport questions in May, it was revealed that the wait time for a driving test on average was up, from 17 weeks in July 2024 to 22 weeks now. It has since been revealed that many test centres around the country have reached the maximum legal limit of a 24-week wait. Will the Minister acknowledge that for thousands of people up and down the country waiting for a driving test—waiting for that step on the ladder to get their first job or to college through the freedom of driving—it is simply not good enough for the Secretary of State to have pushed back the Government’s new target to fix this to 2026? Real people need real answers now, so will he redouble the efforts to get the wait time at least back down to the point it was at when the last Government left office?
Simon Lightwood
We inherited a broken system in which many learner drivers found themselves stuck in a frustrating limbo, unable to ditch their L-plates. We instructed the DVSA to take further measures this year, and we are beginning to see early signs of improvement. We promised more tests and we have delivered more tests. The DVSA carried out over 20,000 more tests between June and August this year, and the pass rate remains at the highest it has been since May 2021. There is still more to be done and we will do just that.
Greg Smith
The Minister is right that there is still more to be done—there is a lot more to be done. He inherited a broken system from his own predecessor in the Department for Transport, under whom the problem got significantly worse over the last year.
I do not think the Minister is listening to the country. I cannot be alone in having an inbox full of emails from constituents complaining about the wait time to get themselves or, indeed, their children a driving test. My constituent Sarah wrote:
“Young people’s work opportunities are significantly reduced by not being able to drive,”
particularly in rural England, in this case Steeple Claydon in my constituency. Sarah sets her alarm for 5.45 every day to try to secure a test, and the best she has managed is next February. Will the Minister apologise to everybody up and down the land who sets their alarm early because the Government are making the situation a lot worse?
Simon Lightwood
I hope the hon. Gentleman explained to his constituent the broken system that his party left for this country. We are absolutely determined to drive down waiting times. Thanks to the proactive measures taken by the Secretary of State we have, as I said, increased tests by 10,000 a month.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Our airports are gateways to the world for the British people and for investment into the UK from across the globe. The Government are committed to supporting the aviation sector as a central part of our growth mission. We are progressing airport planning decisions and modernising airspace; we invited and received proposals for Heathrow expansion, encouraging billions in investment; and to support sustainable growth we have introduced the sustainable aviation fuel mandate and the Bill on revenue certainty.
Alan Gemmell
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his new position. I spent the weekend in the bonny town of Ayr for the Ayr show, celebrating the aviation sector’s contribution to my constituency and the wider west of Scotland economy. That contribution includes companies such as BAE, Collins Aerospace, GE Caledonian, NATS, Spirit AeroSystems and Woodward, the turnaround of Prestwick airport, and the commitment of defence scale-up Aeralis to build the first British-built jet in 50 years at Prestwick. Does the Minister agree that we need to continue to support our aviation sector to create well-paying jobs at Prestwick and across the UK?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend has championed Prestwick airport and the aviation sector in his constituency, and I agree with him that aviation is vital to the UK’s industrial and regional prosperity. In 2022, air transport and aerospace supported around 240,000 jobs nationwide. The Government remain committed to backing the sector to deliver high-quality, well-paid jobs from Prestwick to communities across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
The previous Government consulted on pavement parking rules back in 2020 but failed to take any action. We have had to pick up the issue from scratch since we came into office last year. A lot has changed in the UK political landscape in the past five years, and this Government’s genuine commitment to devolution has shaped our thinking on pavement parking. We will be able to say more about that, and finally publish a response to the consultation, soon.
John Milne
Will the Minister assure us that any enforcement powers will be extended to local authorities, not just the police, in order to make any regulations effective? Alongside that, will he reassure us that local authorities will have the power to make exceptions in areas where such restrictions would be impractical, as is the case in many streets in my Horsham constituency?
Simon Lightwood
We of course continue to engage actively with local authorities in the development of this policy. Local authorities already have the power to restrict pavement parking wherever there is a need by introducing traffic regulation orders, and we are exploring additional measures to help them to tackle the issue.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
On Sunnyside Avenue in Tunstall in my Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove constituency, a particular issue with pavement parking occurs outside Mill Hill primary academy, where cars dangerously mount kerbs. Will the Minister please outline what more can be done to keep our kids safe around our schools?
Simon Lightwood
I encourage my hon. Friend to engage with his local authority to explore whether a TRO, as I mentioned in response to the previous question, would be appropriate in that instance.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
The Government are investing an unprecedented £15.6 billion in local transport across our city regions, including £1.5 billion for South Yorkshire and £2.1 billion for West Yorkshire, to support the delivery of transport schemes across the region. We have also confirmed £2.3 billion for the local transport grant over the spending review period for improvements in places outside major city regions, including to support more zero emission buses, cycleways and congestion improvement measures.
Paul Davies
I welcome the Department’s recognition of the positive impact that the Penistone line rail upgrade will have, boosting economic growth, improving connectivity and supporting ambitions for half-hourly services between Huddersfield and Sheffield. This is a clear example of what can be achieved when Labour leads at every level—council, mayor and MP. What further support can the Secretary of State’s Department offer when it comes to securing the next phase of this vital project to ensure a frequent and reliable service across the entirety of the Penistone line?
Heidi Alexander
I have a meeting soon to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend’s constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). I would be happy for him to join that meeting.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
The Government are committed to making Britain a clean energy superpower, which is why we are investing £4.5 billion to support the transition to electric vehicles. That includes £1.4 billion to support the continued uptake of EVs through targeted grants, with 35 models now eligible for discounts of up to £3,750 through our electric car grant. To make charging up an electric car as easy as filling up at the petrol station, we are also supporting the roll-out of 100,000 more public charging points, building on the 84,000 already available.
Perran Moon
Meur ras ha myttin da, Mr Speaker. I declare an interest as chair of the electric vehicle all-party parliamentary group. In the year to date, one in five new car registrations has been an electric vehicle, with the sale of new EVs up 27%. Demand is rising thanks in part to the Government’s proactive commitments to reducing transport emissions. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can make even more progress by providing that vital certainty to industry transitioning away from a fossil fuel-based transport system and ultimately saving drivers across the UK thousands of pounds?
Heidi Alexander
I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend, who—as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on electric vehicles—has great expertise in this area. It is right to acknowledge that the motor industry has faced unprecedented challenges in the last 12 months, so it was right that we responded proportionately by extending the flexibilities in the zero emission vehicle mandate. But we have also given certainty back to the industry and consumers with the reinstatement of the 2030 phase-out date.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
Shared e-scooter schemes can provide a great way to get around, but the scooters can pose a nuisance for other people, so we need to ensure that their roll-out is both safe and properly regulated. We have extended e-scooter trials until May 2028 to allow local authorities to test how the technology works. We have also committed to pursuing legislation, when parliamentary time allows, for the full regulation of micromobility in order to create a safe shared-use network where they work for all people.
Daniel Francis
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users. Does the Minister accept that a wheelchair, whether manual or with power, is a medical device that enables disabled people to maximise their independence and live the life they choose? Does he therefore agree that the terminology of “invalid carriages” in the legislation is discriminatory and outdated and that the regulations on the use of micromobility vehicles require updating urgently?
Simon Lightwood
I share my hon. Friend’s view that the term “invalid carriages” in the existing legislation is outdated and no longer reflects modern attitudes or needs. This Government are committed to ensuring that disabled people have the same freedom to travel as everyone else and we recognise that mobility devices are vital for many. That is why we are reviewing the legal frameworks surrounding mobility devices, including the outdated terminology, and we will consult on that in due course.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
Good rail infrastructure supports reliable services and economic growth, and is a central part of this Government’s growth mission. In July, I set out my priority for improvements to the rail network as part of giving the green light to over 50 road and rail upgrades, supporting over 39,000 new homes and 42,000 jobs. That included plans for stations at Cullompton in the hon. Member’s constituency, and in Wellington.
Richard Foord
Rail travellers are used to the excuse of leaves on the line, but travellers on the railway between Exeter and London Waterloo have recently encountered a new one: soil moisture deficit. Dualling the line on a three-mile section of the track near Whimple could give passengers travelling on the west of England line two trains per hour. Will the Minister please look favourably at that modest investment, which would improve frequency, reliability and resilience for one of the two main rail routes into the south-west?
Heidi Alexander
I understand the frustration of the travelling public. We experienced a particularly dry summer this year and Network Rail had made preparations to deal with that, but I recognise that “dry soil” is as frustrating as “leaves on the line”. I will certainly look into the specific scheme that the hon. Gentleman suggests and I am happy to write to him with more information on that.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
On 28 September, the historic Boulby line in my constituency will be reopened for passengers to celebrate 200 years of passenger rail. Yet I believe the line ought to be open permanently so people can access jobs and opportunities. Will the Secretary of State meet me to talk about that prospect and other transport proposals that I have for East Cleveland?
Heidi Alexander
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend. He is right that in some instances, reopening branch lines on the rail network can be transformative for areas. I visited the opening of the Northumberland line in the first week I was in this job. Passenger numbers on that stretch of line have exceeded expectations and are unlocking opportunities for a whole range of communities in the north-east. Of course we want to replicate that across the country. That is why we have announced additional investment in the MetroWest scheme, down in the areas surrounding Bristol. I am happy to talk to him about the situation in his constituency in Cleveland.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The Government are supporting the UK’s sustainable aviation fuel industry through the SAF mandate, the advanced fuels fund and new legislation introducing a revenue certainty mechanism. We are working with industry to cut emissions, to boost UK production, to create high-quality green jobs and to attract investment while ensuring value for money.
David Davis
I congratulate my parliamentary neighbour on his accession. It is good to see his talents recognised.
Much of the technology currently used in sustainable aviation fuel is of foreign origin. Part of the reason for that is that no Government body directly supports the development of core technologies used for that, supporting only the development of production facilities. The Aerospace Technology Institute, for example, should be able to invest in research and development programmes to develop sustainable fuel, but is currently not permitted to do so. Will the Minister look at allowing that, so we can accelerate the development of our own technology in this area?
Keir Mather
The right hon. Gentleman will know that through the ATI programme, the Department for Business and Trade co-invests with industry in research and technology development in the UK to maintain and grow the UK’s competitive position in civil aerospace. In addition, we fund the UK SAF Clearing House to help fuel producers navigate the testing and approval requirements for non-fossil fuel-based jet fuel. It co-ordinates testing and qualifications of SAF, helping to remove barriers to new fuels coming to market. Plus, the advanced fuels fund has allocated £198 million, with a core aim of overcoming technological risk for early-stage projects to support UK SAF production. If the right hon. Member wishes to discuss any other aspects of this policy, I will be very glad to meet him.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
On the subject of aviation, the beautiful Isle of Barra airport in my constituency has had to cancel 14% of its flights in the last year on the beautiful beach runway. This is not, on the whole, due to bad weather or tides, but because the Brexiteering Tories withdrew us from the European satellite navigation system, which allows flights to land in low visibility and bad weather. Will the new Minister celebrate his role by meeting me on the beach to discuss rejoining—perhaps not the European Union but at least the European geostationary navigation overlay service, EGNOS?
Keir Mather
What an attractive proposition from my hon. Friend—and so early in my tenure in this position. He raises an incredibly important matter, and it would be remiss of me not to give it the full attention it deserves, and therefore I will respond to his specific questions further in writing.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
Can I start by welcoming my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather) to my ministerial team? I am really pleased to have him on board, and I am sure he is equally pleased to be facing oral questions on day four. He is joining a great team that has achieved a lot over the summer as part of the Government’s plan for change.
The new electric car grant is putting money back in the pockets of drivers; 35 electric vehicle models, including from Ford, Nissan and Vauxhall, will see their prices slashed thanks to £650 million of Government investment. Since its launch, the grant has already helped over 7,000 drivers to choose an EV. We have announced a further £100 million in transport funding for local transport outside major cities in England, with uplifts for the north-west, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the midlands. Public ownership is already improving our railways, with South Western more than doubling the number of new trains in service, and there is much more to come in the next few months. We will publish the first road safety strategy in over a decade, as well as an integrated transport strategy for England, delivering better journeys that put people first, grow our economy and improve our day-to-day lives.
Mr Snowden
If my constituents pay £2 for a bus ticket one day, then £3 for a bus ticket the next, their fare has increased by 50%, not gone down, has it not?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Gentleman seems to be suffering a case of amnesia because his party allocated absolutely zero money to fund the bus fare cap beyond December of last year. I know how important affordable bus travel is to the British people, and this Government are determined to deliver it.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I know that my hon. Friend has raised this issue time and again with East Sussex county council. The delay to the Queensway Gateway project has wreaked havoc for her constituents. Given that the project was funded with Government money, serious questions must now be asked of East Sussex county council about these issues and the delays that have come about.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
When we next have transport questions, the Budget will be just days away, so can the Transport Secretary rule out any of the following—increased duty on fuel or flights, VAT on private hire, increasing the insurance premium tax or raising rail fares above inflation? If she will not, has she at least spoken against any of these measures in Cabinet or to the Chancellor since she took up her role?
Heidi Alexander
I know the importance of affordable public transport to people in Britain. I know the importance of the fuel duty freeze that we brought in last year. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will have conversations across Government to protect businesses and the travelling public.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Simon Lightwood
This Government committed in our manifesto to tackle the high cost of motor insurance, and I am pleased to see recent data suggesting that average premiums are falling. The Government’s taskforce, chaired by the Department for Transport and His Majesty’s Treasury, continues to work to identify short and long- term policy actions that may contribute to stabilising or reducing premiums.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Heidi Alexander
I know that affordability is a top concern for people when it comes to rail. No decisions have been made on next year’s rail fares, but our aim is that prices will balance affordability for travellers with what is fair for taxpayers.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
Simon Lightwood
I sympathise with those suffering in congestion at junction 40 of the M6, which I am told is due to various issues. I know my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) have been working hard to resolve those issues for their constituents. I am happy to arrange a meeting to discuss any future short-term interventions that could ease congestion with either me or my team or with National Highways.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Simon Lightwood
As I mentioned earlier, the Government are determined to bring, and have every intention of bringing, about legislation on e-scooters. All that will be taken into account in the development of the policy.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
Heidi Alexander
Like my hon. Friend, I am a big fan of the Elizabeth line, and I commend him for his dogged support of the scheme on his constituents’ behalf. It is a significant addition to the transport network in London and the south-east, and it has had tangible positive impacts on the supply chain around the country, as well as providing faster journeys into and across London from Reading. I was proud to have personally helped deliver this new railway in my previous role in London, and to see that it has now supported around 55,000 full-time jobs, as well as creating over 1,000 apprenticeship opportunities.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
Simon Lightwood
Responsibility for local transport is devolved to local authorities, which are responsible for the operation of their networks, including the extension of busways. The Government are committed to the Ox-Cam growth corridor. Lord Vallance has been tasked with exploring options on how best to deliver economic growth in that area.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
A workshop taking place in Bath this morning brings together key stakeholders from the rail industry and local authorities. It focuses on the development of rail services in Wiltshire, and will include the case for building a Devizes gateway station and increasing services in Melksham. Following Network Rail’s Wiltshire rail strategic study, will the Secretary of State or Rail Minister meet me and key stakeholders to discuss taking those key projects forward?
Heidi Alexander
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am aware of the Bath and Wiltshire metro scheme and the Devizes gateway project. Although we do not have any plans to take forward those schemes, I encourage local authorities, Great Western Rail and Network rail to continue working together to develop those plans and explore funding opportunities.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
My constituents who use the A259 coast road are being deprived the choice of safe and sustainable travel to Brighton, as Conservative-run West Sussex county council has dragged its feet for more than three decades on delivering a cycle path. What can the Government do to help me and Shoreham-By-Cycle to push for that much-needed infrastructure, which West Sussex county council has long promised but failed to deliver?
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I wonder whether the Secretary of State might have a word with her friend the Mayor of London about the appalling mismanagement of the Gallows Corner junction, where a flyover is being constructed. The gridlock, chaos and delays are affecting the whole Romford side of Essex, and east London. It really is chaos. Will she get it sorted out?
Heidi Alexander
I am sure that the Mayor of London and Transport for London will want to do all they can to minimise disruption during any construction of the type that the hon. Gentleman describes. I am sorry but I did not hear his question in full—did he say it was Gallows Corner?
Heidi Alexander
If he wishes to write to me with the specific details of those local issues, I will come back to him.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
My constituents have been very vocal about their opposition to the LNER timetable changes from December, including the removal of the 8.22 am commuter service from Durham to Newcastle on weekdays. LNER assured me that it would replace it with a similar service, but reports this week suggest that the service will now take an extra 10 minutes, arriving at 8.44. That is not an equivalent service. Will the Minister meet me and LNER to ensure that commuters leaving Durham are provided with an equivalent service?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is a great champion for her constituents. I reviewed her correspondence with the Rail Minister over the summer and was aware that the 8.22 service had been reinstated, but I was not aware of the longer journey times. I would be happy to meet her to discuss that further.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
In response to a recent written parliamentary question, the Department confirmed that it is shelving improvements to Skelton junction outside York. That will have an impact on the proposed improvements to rail services for commuters in Harrogate and Knaresborough. How does that align with the Government’s vision for growth?
Heidi Alexander
We are committed to improving rail connectivity and capacity in the north of England. I would be happy to have a further conversation with the hon. Gentleman about that scheme.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I, too, look forward to working with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather), in his new role. Last week, the Transport Committee heard that car clubs, peer-to-peer ride-sharing and car-sharing schemes align with Government objectives on transport integration, reducing congestion, increasing electric vehicle use and supporting residents in rural areas where public transport is poor. Unlike France and other countries, the sector in the UK operates in a policy vacuum, particularly since the Government withdrew the car clubs toolkit guidance in May. Is the Minister planning to address that policy vacuum?
Simon Lightwood
My hon. Friend is completely right, and I thank the Transport Committee for raising that important point. I have commissioned officials to consider how we can support and promote the use of car club and car-sharing schemes, starting with a roundtable of industry stakeholders. I would be delighted if she could attend. I will ensure that that guidance is reinstated.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Hammersmith bridge closed six years, four months and 22 days ago, cutting off the bus routes and causing congestion in Putney. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), holding the first Hammersmith bridge taskforce meeting. When will the next one be held?
Heidi Alexander
I am very aware of the problems relating to Hammersmith bridge, and I know the Minister hosted that first meeting of the resurrected Hammersmith bridge taskforce. I do have some good news for my hon. Friend: we announced in the spending review a structures fund, to assist local authorities with repairs to bridges and tunnels that are beyond their financial capacity to fund. We will set out the criteria for access to that fund in due course.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Half the bus sector’s funding now comes from public sources, but during the summer, National Express announced changes to bus services in my constituency with just two weeks’ public notice, which will have a really negative effect on residents in New Frankley, Allens Cross and Bournville Gardens Village retirement home. Does the Minister agree that when regulation is brought in—which is welcome—consultation must be included?
Simon Lightwood
I agree wholeheartedly. It is really important that local people are engaged when designing a network and making changes to it.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The Liverpool city region Mayor, Steve Rotheram, has submitted a new town bid with Liverpool and Sefton councils, to regenerate the most deprived areas of the country. Does the Minister agree that for new towns to succeed, there needs to be proper funding for integrated transport, and will he commit to working and meeting with the mayor and the politicians to make that happen?
Heidi Alexander
I can assure my hon. Friend that I have regular meetings with the Mayor of Liverpool city region. I am completely cognisant of the fact that for new towns to be successful, thriving communities, they need public transport built in from the start. Indeed, there is capacity to almost create new towns in existing towns where public transport is already available. Those are the sorts of conversations I am having with our regional mayors.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
The A12 is a major transport route into Colchester and a vital part of economic growth in the region. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the urgent need for upgrades to its western end?
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Luton station is the gateway to Luton town centre, and thanks to this Labour Government, it will soon be getting lifts to all its platforms. However, the roof still leaks. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of Luton council to see what can be done with regard to the state of the station?
Heidi Alexander
I will talk to the Rail Minister and ask him to meet my hon. Friend. We cannot have a leaking roof in Luton station.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Padiham Greenway bridge has been closed since 2021. In December last year, this Government gave £280,000 to Sustrans to get the work finished, but there is a shortfall. The Government have given £19 million to Lancashire county council through the active travel fund and the capability fund to get this project online. Does the Minister agree that Lancashire county council should prioritise this and get it done? I thank him for his extensive correspondence with me on this topic.
Simon Lightwood
I know my hon. Friend is a very active campaigner in this area. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss what further pressure we can apply to ensure this project is delivered.
Point of Order
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware of the mistakes made during the counting of votes yesterday. Are you able to give some guidance to those on the Treasury Bench on the importance of the work of the Whips?
Mr Speaker
Divisions are a core part of our business in the Chamber, and the accurate recording of votes is integral to parliamentary decision making. I appreciate that there have been major changes in the Whips Office, and things have to be delivered in these new roles. I know the House team will work with the Whips to make sure we get accurate results.
I met the Chief Whip this morning and explained the concerns that were raised with me following last night, through the Deputy Speakers. We do take this seriously. My door remains open for the Chief Whip, and I hope he will use that avenue as a way for us to work together. It is unfortunate that I have not had that conversation until this morning. I will leave it at that.
UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if she will make a statement on the process for the appointment of the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the United States.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
Before I respond to the question, it is important that as a House we all recognise that today is the anniversary of the 11 September attacks. Many of us will attend commemorations later, and our thoughts are with all the thousands of people who lost their lives in that despicable terrorist attack, including many British and American citizens, as well as those from many other countries.
The whole House’s condolences and thoughts will also be with the family and friends of Charlie Kirk— it was an absolutely appalling attack and murder yesterday. In this House, as we sit under the two shields commemorating our dear colleagues from across the political spectrum, we know too well the terrible consequences of political violence. I know that the whole House will be thinking of Charlie’s family, friends and others, and urging an end to that sort of political violence, which is absolutely appalling.
In light of additional information in emails written by Peter Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to the United States. The emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. In the light of that and mindful, as we all are, of the victims of Epstein’s appalling crimes, Lord Mandelson has been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect.
Neil O’Brien
Mr Speaker, I thank you for granting this urgent question, and I agree with the words of the Minister about 11 September and Charlie Kirk.
This is yet another extraordinary error of judgment by this weak Prime Minister. I pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition for yesterday securing justice for the victims of Epstein. This raises massive questions. It is not just that Peter Mandelson was Epstein’s “best pal” and said that he loved him, or that he brokered a deal for him while he was Business Secretary, but that, as we now know, he was working for Epstein’s early release after Epstein was convicted.
The simple question is this: is the Minister now saying that the Prime Minister did not know about any of that at the point when Lord Mandelson was appointed? The Minister should not say that the boxes were ticked and the process followed—what did the Prime Minister know at the point of Lord Mandelson’s appointment? The Minister said this morning that his understanding was that all the information was present—is that correct? Did the Prime Minister know? Will the Government now publish all the documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s vetting? If the Minister says that the Prime Minister did not know at the time, when did he become aware of the revelations?
Peter Mandelson quietly stayed at Epstein’s house while Epstein was in prison. Mandelson now says that he was wrong to think that Epstein was innocent. That is his defence—but Epstein had pleaded guilty. There are huge questions here. Did the US State Department give any warnings to our Government ahead of this appointment? Did the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Sue Gray, give any warning? Have any employees of Global Counsel visited our Washington embassy since Peter Mandelson’s appointment?
Next week will be the state visit. This is huge turmoil ahead of that, and I cannot believe that the Government have put our monarch in this terrible position. I am glad that Peter Mandelson has now gone. The Foreign Secretary has said that protecting women, girls and victims is her priority; how on earth does that square with the behaviour of the Government over recent days, squirming and twisting to try to protect Peter Mandelson, rather than the victims?
To be clear, this is a Government in which we had a corruption Minister having to resign over links to corruption; a former police officer having to resign over having not been clear with the police; a housing Minister having to resign over not paying tax on a house; and now we have our ambassador to Washington in the middle of the biggest scandal in Washington. This is a weak Prime Minister, with error after error of judgment.
Stephen Doughty
The first thing that we all need to be clear on across this House is that the victims of Epstein are at the forefront of all our minds—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not disagree with that. Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed the most heinous crimes and destroyed the lives of so many women and girls.
Obviously the hon. Gentleman wrote his remarks before the events in the last few hours, but I reiterate what I said to him. The emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from that known at the time of his appointment; in particular, the suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. Lord Mandelson has resigned and that decision has been taken. That is a very clear answer to the hon. Gentleman’s questions.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I am sure I speak for the whole House in sending our best wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) on the appalling fire at her office overnight. We send our very best wishes to her and her staff.
May I thank the Minister for his statement? The Prime Minister has made exactly the right decision, and I think that has to be acknowledged. He has moved at pace to put it right—[Interruption.] Don’t be ridiculous. Treat this seriously.
Mr Speaker
Order. Please—this is very important. A lot of people will be listening to what is going on in this Chamber, so let us give some courtesies to each other.
Andy McDonald
Clearly the appointment process did not pick up these issues; that is self-evident. Can we have an assurance that there will be an inquiry into why that was not the case and that this House will be kept informed?
Stephen Doughty
First, I was not aware of the terrible incident that my hon. Friend refers to; I have just been informed of that this morning. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House will be with my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). I know how seriously you take the safety and security of Members of this House, Mr Speaker, particularly in the light of international events and the tragic loss of colleagues. That underlines all the more why we must be able to go about democratic debate in this country, whatever our views, in a safe and secure way.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for his comments on the decision. As I said, the decision has been taken by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and Lord Mandelson has resigned. My hon. Friend asked about the process. Any candidates for ambassador positions are subject to routine, extensive vetting and background checks as a matter of course; I point him to the formal processes outlined in the diplomatic service code, which highlights the robust security clearance and vetting process that all members of the diplomatic service undergo.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Our thoughts are with the friends and families of the victims of 9/11. I also express my regret and sadness at the murder of Charlie Kirk, and I hope that the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) and her staff are all okay following the incident at her office. Political violence should have absolutely no place in society.
Lord Mandelson was tasked with overseeing the UK’s relationship with Trump, and the accusations surrounding him cast a damning shadow, so it is right that the Prime Minister has withdrawn his support for Lord Mandelson. Yesterday the Prime Minister stood by Lord Mandelson’s appointment and confirmed that rigorous background checks had taken place. What has changed since then? Questions remain over what the Government knew and when about Lord Mandelson’s relationship with the sex offender, whom he had previously described as his “best pal”. Did he resign, or was he sacked?
It is vital that the Civil Service Commission now investigates whether the ambassador broke the diplomatic service code by failing to come clean over these revelations sooner. Was the vetting process pushed through too fast? Will the Minister confirm that an investigation will take place so that no such incidents can happen again? Reports have surfaced that the Cabinet Office suppressed the release of a memo about Mandelson’s relationship because it could compromise relations with the US. Will the Minister confirm whether that was the case?
Stephen Doughty
I thank the hon. Member for her remarks regarding my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South. Again, I underline the importance of us all being able to go about our roles in a safe and secure way, whatever our political views and beliefs. In the light of international events, particularly in the United States, that should be at the forefront of our minds today.
In the light of the additional information in the emails written by Lord Mandelson, I have been very clear that the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. That is very clear; the decision was taken by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. Those emails show that the depth and extent of the relationship was materially different from that known at the time of his appointment.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I associate myself with hon. Members’ condolences and concerns about my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson).
I thank the Minister for his statement. I too am disgusted and appalled by Epstein’s actions, and my thoughts are with the victims of his crimes. Will the Minister confirm that we have an excellent deputy ambassador in Washington, who will ensure that our mission continues and that next week’s visit will go ahead?
Stephen Doughty
We have an excellent team overall in British embassy Washington. Indeed, I pay tribute to the work of all our diplomatic service colleagues across the world, who do an excellent job in representing this country and ensure that our security and prosperity is at the forefront of their work. Of course, our special relationship and unique security partnership with the United Staes is crucially important. I will be at the United States embassy later today. It is our closest and most important relationship. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is an excellent team in British embassy Washington.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Obviously this is a very sad day for the United States, with 9/11 and the assassination last night. Our relationship with the United States is crucial, and there is a dark cloud over the upcoming state visit, so will the Minister forgive me if I give him some gentle advice? In my experience of such scandals, the cover-up, the lack of due process and allegations of cronyism are much more serious than any original offence, or alleged offence. Will he ensure that every single document about the process is released post haste, including about the meeting that Mandelson requested with Prime Minister Blair over Epstein? We need everything released straightaway, and we need to move on and get a new ambassador.
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of our relationship with the United States. The upcoming state visit is very important, and we have an extensive team working on it. His Majesty the King is obviously very much looking forward to welcoming President Trump, and many, many officials are working diligently day and night to ensure the visit is a success. I will not get into the individual issues and claims that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but what I will say is that this is a decisive action. In the light of the additional information in emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I would also like to offer my support to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). That incident follows a number of others that she has experienced this week. It is out of order.
I thank the Minister for his statement, and I am really pleased that Lord Mandelson has been sacked, but I would like to know what due diligence was undertaken prior to his appointment. Everybody knew about his relationship with Epstein before it.
Stephen Doughty
As I have made very clear, it was in the light of additional information and emails written by Lord Mandelson that the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. I know my hon. Friend well, and I know that her thoughts and the thoughts of us all will be with the victims of Epstein’s appalling crimes.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The House needs to understand the sheer size of the failure of the vetting process here. It is in the public domain that Peter Mandelson had to resign for not telling the truth about an interest-free loan, and that he had to resign on a second occasion because he had helped a business friend to get a passport. Beyond that, there are still unresolved doubts about his behaviour as the European Trade Commissioner, when he gave concessions to the Russians, which helped his other dubious close friend, Mr Deripaska.
On the positive vetting process for when Peter Mandelson came to be a Minister again in 2010, section 3.1 of the ministerial code says:
“Ministers…must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.”
Secretaries of State do not have private diaries. He spent time in Mr Epstein flat, it seems quietly meeting other people involved in the Sempra deal. That cannot be seen as following his proper duties as Secretary of State. It was in the Government documents—it does not have to be a private email. Was that investigated, and was a judgment made on it?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman asks specifically about vetting. As I have said, all candidates for ambassador positions are subject to routine, extensive vetting and background checks as a matter of course. I point him to the formal process outlined in the diplomatic service code, which highlights the robust security clearance and vetting process that all members of the diplomatic service undergo. Again, I point out that, in the light of additional information in emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
I agree with the Minister’s utter condemnation of all the horrendous crimes of Jeffrey Epstein. Does he agree that as soon as this new information came to light, the Government took decisive action very swiftly, which is different from the Conservatives? When they were in government and there were serious misgivings, it was actually the independent ethics adviser who ended up resigning.
Stephen Doughty
I agree that this is decisive action. The Prime Minister has acted in the light of that additional information, the Foreign Secretary has acted, and Lord Mandelson has been withdrawn as ambassador to Washington.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I am sure that the Minister is delighted that he has not had to shred his own reputation like his ministerial and Cabinet colleagues have had to do on the broadcast rounds over the course of recent days, including this morning, in trying to defend Lord Mandelson and the lack of judgment shown by the Prime Minister. I do not know what it is about the decades of scandals and being best friends with a notorious child trafficker and paedophile, which should have rung some alarm bells in No. 10 before this decision was taken. If I listened correctly, the Minister did not confirm to the Father of the House that all relevant materials will be published. Did the Prime Minister know about these emails prior to standing up at the Dispatch Box just yesterday to say he had confidence in Mr Mandelson, and does he retain the Labour Whip in the House of Lords?
Stephen Doughty
What I can commit to is that we will keep the House updated on these matters. A decisive decision has been made. As I have made very clear, all candidates are subject to routine, extensive vetting and background checks as a matter of course. The Prime Minister, in the light of the additional information, has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador to Washington. In particular, the emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. But I agree, of course, with the right hon. Gentleman on the appalling crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein, and the thoughts of all of us are with his victims, as they are every day.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I associate myself with the comments that others have made about the disgusting crimes of Jeffrey Epstein.
Twenty-four years ago today, on 9/11, I was sat in the TUC Congress as a delegate when we were made aware of what had happened. May I put on the record my tribute to the first responders and public service workers in New York who came to the aid of people? Many of them are still paying the price today.
A lot has changed in politics in the past 24 years. One of the motivations that got me into public life was about the lack of accountability that we saw from senior Ministers when the Conservative party was in government, their failure to resign when scandals came up and the failure of Front Benchers to take action, so I welcome the swift action that this Government have taken now that new information has come to light. Can the Minister assure us that lessons will be learned and that, if these things arise again, this Government will uphold the highest standards and take the action needed to protect public life?
Stephen Doughty
I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend of that, and this is decisive action. He refers to the 11 September attacks, and I think we all remember where we were on that fateful and tragic day. That is why we remember the victims, particularly on the anniversary today.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I just point out that it was as plain as day, after the exchanges between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, that Lord Mandelson could not possibly carry on in his role? Why did the Prime Minister delay—or did he have to wait to be told what to do by Morgan McSweeney? Who is going to be the new ambassador, and how quickly will the new ambassador be appointed at this absolutely critical time, when Russia is testing the defences of NATO countries and we are showing such a weak response?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman, who I am sure has visited our embassy in Washington on many occasions, will know that we have an excellent and dedicated team there, as well of course in the Foreign Office in King Charles Street in London. They are working on many aspects of that crucial security, defence and economic relationship. We are working diligently in preparation for the state visit, and I commend them for that work.
The hon. Gentleman asked about new information. I have been very clear: in the light of the additional information and emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. I have gone into the particular items, and in the light of that, and mindful of the victims of Epstein’s crimes, Lord Mandelson has been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has acted swiftly and decisively. What a contrast with the Conservative party. I note that the shadow Foreign Secretary is not in her place today. What happened when she broke the ministerial code? The Conservatives promoted her. Does the Minister agree that we will not take lectures on ethics from them?
Stephen Doughty
I have been very clear that the Prime Minister has acted decisively on this matter and, in the light of that additional information, the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador to Washington. That is decisive action and that is responding to that information, and I have explained the reasons for it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) has just mentioned another Member. I presume that he has contacted her to let her know that he was going to do so. Is that the case?
Mr Speaker
Please do not do that again. We are meant to treat each other with respect. This message is for all Members: if you are going to mention another Member, do them the courtesy of ensuring that they are first made aware of the fact.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
On the Foreign Affairs Committee, we have seen the high calibre of career diplomats who usually take up the most senior ambassadorial appointments, so it is not obvious to me why the British ambassador to the United States was a former MP. In the emails that have leaked overnight, it appears that Lord Mandelson thinks that to govern is to schmooze. He famously declared in an election victory speech that he was a fighter, not a quitter, yet he urged the convicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, that to fight for early release was the right thing. And Lord Mandelson did not do the decent thing and quit. Does the Minister regret the original appointment?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman asks about precedent. He will know that there is precedent, and we do have excellent ambassadors and high commissioners around the world—he and I have met many of them directly as they represent this country diligently. I have been clear: in the light of the additional information and emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information, and the emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
The Minister is a decent man, and the House knows that the business of the House was delayed while he hurriedly had to rewrite the statement that he was expected to make, but he is stretching the bounds of credibility too far. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told the House that he had full confidence in a man who befriended the vilest of convicted paedophiles. He should not have been appointed in the first place—that was a gross error of judgment and everybody in this House knows it—and the Prime Minister has to take responsibility. Now that Lord Mandelson has gone, will there be a Cabinet Office inquiry into the manner in which Mandelson was negotiating with a convicted paedophile while he was a Minister?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman will understand why I will not comment from the Dispatch Box on his last remarks. What I will say is that the Prime Minister has acted decisively in the light of the new information, and he has taken the decision to ask the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador. Again, for the House’s information, the suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. The emails show the depth and extent of the relationship was materially different from that known at the time of Lord Mandelson’s appointment. Again, in the light of that, and mindful of the victims of Epstein’s crimes, he has been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The idea that our country should be represented in America or on the world stage by somebody who tried to get a paedophile out of prison early will fill us all with revulsion. Can the Minister be clearer? He has said that the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw the ambassador. He said the Prime Minister made the decision, but he also said in his statement that Mandelson resigned. Did he resign or was he sacked?
Stephen Doughty
I have been very clear: the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador. That is the process, and he is no longer in his position. I agree with the hon. Member about our absolute revulsion across this House at Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
I concur with the comments about Charlie Kirk that the Minister made at the beginning. It shows that anybody who is brave enough to put themselves up for public service and try to change the world for the better faces such dangers and risks.
May I ask the Minister, first, to reassure us that we will have total transparency about the process that was followed in this ambassadorial appointment? Secondly, assuming we get over that hurdle, can he please explain to the House why the appointment of a man who described President Trump as a “danger to the world”, whom the Americans described as an “absolute moron”, who has close links with China and who has a history of misfeasance in public office was the right appointment for the relationship with the most important and powerful country in the world, and one that is essential to this country?
Stephen Doughty
On the hon. Member’s first comments, he and I fundamentally disagree on many issues, but we know that we conduct our robust debate in this House, in our media and in our political society, and we do not engage in any form of political violence. What has happened in the United States over the past 24 hours is simply appalling, and our thoughts are with all of Charlie Kirk’s family and friends. As somebody who worked very closely with our late colleagues Jo Cox and David Amess, it has shocked me to the core. I think it has shocked all of us to the core, and it can never be acceptable.
The hon. Member asked about the processes, and I have been very clear. All candidates for ambassador positions are subject to extensive vetting and background checks as a matter of course, and I refer him to the formal process outlined in the diplomatic service code. I assure him that we will keep the House updated on these matters.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
While the whole House welcomes the withdrawal of Lord Mandelson as head of mission, can the Minister confirm whether he is still being paid as a civil servant?
Stephen Doughty
My understanding is that Lord Mandelson is still an employee, and proper employment processes will take place, but I will write to the hon. Member to confirm my answer to that question. Lord Mandelson has recently been asked to withdraw as ambassador, and I will come back to the hon. Member with a detailed answer, but I do not want in any way to inadvertently mislead the House on an important matter.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
It seems that there is a broad consensus across the whole House that this felt as though it was a question of when, not if. So during the extended vetting procedure, was there ever any interference or pressure from either No. 10 or the Prime Minister?
Stephen Doughty
As the hon. Member will know, I simply am not going to go into the vetting procedures, which are conducted independently. He can certainly look at the detail of how vetting processes are under- taken in the diplomatic service code, which outlines the processes.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
The diplomatic service code states that diplomats’
“behaviour, action or inaction must not significantly disrupt or damage the performance or reputation of the Diplomatic Service.”
It also states that diplomats
“must…set out the facts and relevant issues truthfully, and correct any errors as soon as possible”.
In the light of that, did Lord Mandelson set out how many payments he had received from the sanctioned Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to accounts in this country, Switzerland or other areas, and has there been one set of rules for civil servants and another set of rules for friends of the Prime Minister and Jeffrey Epstein?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman’s question gets to the essence of the decision that has been taken. In the light of additional information in emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to the United States. The emails show that the depth and extent of the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein are materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the procedures, and he knows that I do not have the documents relating to the vetting process in front of me.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On behalf of my party, may I convey my support to the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson)? I was in her company yesterday and she is very much in our thoughts. I also, on behalf of my party, express deep sadness at the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old conservative influencer who engaged with young people across the United States of America. I know he is in heaven. I pray for his wife and children; I think we should all do that.
At times like this, it is essential that we have an ambassador in place to convey our sincere sympathy with our allies. The removal of Peter Mandelson is to be welcomed. In my humble opinion, he should never have been in the post in the first place. Does the Minister believe that it is imperative that we have an ambassador in place, and that they must have adequate history and qualifications, rather than our having a jobs-for-the-boys mentality? What changes will the Minister make to the appointment process to restore confidence in the role?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member is rightly known as one of the kindest and most generous Members of this House. I thank him for his comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) and the attack that she endured this morning. I wholeheartedly agree with his comments on Charlie Kirk. He can be assured that we are already conveying our condolences to the United States. I expect to be with the United States ambassador in London later today, where I will be able to do that in person.
From a practical point of view, as the hon. Member will know, many ambassadors or high commissioner posts are vacant for a time. We have excellent teams who then do that job. Of course, when ambassadors or high commissioners are travelling, there is a team in post who are able to represent this country and ensure our that interests are pursued. That is exactly what will happen in this case.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
This is about the Prime Minister’s judgment. By Mandelson’s own admission, there is more very embarrassing information coming, so the Prime Minister could have said to the House yesterday, “I will suspend him, pending further investigation,” but he did not; he backed him. Can the Prime Minister be 100% sure that, in making any trade deals, or in any negotiations, Mr Mandelson has not been compromised by the information that has now come forward, and will he commit to investigating that?
Stephen Doughty
I bring the hon. Member back to the fundamental point, which is that in the light of the additional information and emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I associate myself with the Minister’s words about 9/11 and the untimely and tragic death of Charlie Kirk.
Yesterday, it was reported that in 2008 Lord Mandelson emailed Epstein and said that his conviction in the United States
“could not happen in Britain”,
and encouraged him to go for early release. The whole House can see that the Prime Minister has an issue when it comes to judgment, acting only when he is pushed to by events in this House. Will there be an investigation of Lord Mandelson’s meetings while he was ambassador, to see if there was any conflict with his current business interests? Will the Government remove the Whip from him in the House of Lords, yes or no? And will Lord Mandelson be entitled to severance pay after this sacking?
Stephen Doughty
On the question about the Whip, as an employee of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Lord Mandelson was on a leave of absence from the other place, so that is very clear. As I said, the emails show that the depth and the extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from what was known about it at the time he was employed. In particular, his suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information, and that is why the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to Washington.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Prime Minister was hiding behind process yesterday, and is doing the same today. Did the Prime Minister know about these messages before Prime Minister’s questions yesterday?
Stephen Doughty
I am updating the House in real time on actions and decisions that have been taken. I have been very clear about the new information that has come to light, and the decision that the Prime Minister has taken as a result.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Minister claims that new information has come to light, which has resulted in the ambassador being sacked. Can he confirm that this is the only new information, and that all the other information was in the Prime Minister’s knowledge?
Stephen Doughty
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments I have already made.
Neil O’Brien
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister says that the only reason why Peter Mandelson had to resign was the additional information that he had campaigned for the early release of Epstein. The Government are not saying exactly what they did or did not know at the point of appointment. The only way for this House to know exactly what they knew is for the Government to publish the documents relating to his vetting. If the Government will not publish those documents, as the Minister says they will not, would it be possible for this House to attain those documents using the Humble Address mechanism?
Mr Speaker
That is not a decision for me. The Treasury has heard, and if the Minister wishes to respond, I am more than happy to let him. He is not going to.
Mr Speaker
I am not going to continue the debate, but I will take a point of order.
Stephen Flynn
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would welcome clarity further on points just made. The Minister was asked on numerous occasions when the Prime Minister was made aware of the additional email information that led to Mr Mandelson’s sacking. He has not provided the House with that information. What avenues are available to us Members to find out when the Prime Minister knew this additional information?
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Member and party leader knows very well the mechanisms that he can use. I do not think that today is the end of the matter. I think this will be returned to at some point. In fairness to the Minister, he said that the House would be updated as and when the Government had the information. The points have been taken, and I expect the questions to be answered at some time. There is a long weekend before we get to Monday. Let us leave it there; I do not want to continue the debate.
Paul Holmes
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This relates to the issue we have been discussing, but is about the House procedures. What I took from the Minister’s answer was that Lord Mandelson, a Member of the House of Lords, had not given a full account of his past actions while going through vetting processes. What disciplinary mechanisms can be used by the Lords to make him accountable for that, if true?
Mr Speaker
I have enough to do, dealing with the House of Commons. Responsibility for the House of Lords is not for me, and I will certainly not take it.
Life Sciences Investment
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology if she will make a statement on the cancellation of life sciences investment.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Ian Murray)
I start by welcoming the hon. Member to her new role. I wanted to do that yesterday, but time ran away from us during questions. I am answering this question on behalf of the Secretary of State.
As a significant life sciences company that employs more than 1,600 people and plays a leading role in delivering new treatments for diseases such as cancer, Merck—known as MSD in the UK—is a valued partner to this Government, and a key player in the life sciences ecosystem. MSD’s decision to not progress its investment in King’s Cross—a commercial decision for MSD—is therefore deeply disappointing.
King’s Cross is a shining example of the strengths of UK life sciences clusters. It is one of the biggest in Europe, employing more than 60,000 people in the area. It has had investment from major life sciences companies, including Novo Nordisk, GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca. It houses world-leading institutions, such as the Francis Crick Institute and the Wellcome Trust, as well as some of the country’s leading biomedical research centres. University College London hospital, Great Ormond Street hospital and Moorfields eye hospital are also based there.
We are proud of this industry; it has delivered great things for our country in the past, does so today and will continue to do so in the future. That is why life sciences is one of the eight priority sectors in the industrial strategy, and is backed by £2 billion of public investment to enable it to grow, lead the world and make great discoveries, such as personalised cancer vaccines and the new test for Alzheimer’s disease. MSD’s investment in the area would have enhanced the sector’s status further, and the fundamentals of the UK market are actually more advantageous today than when it made the decision to invest in this project. What has changed are the US and international fundamentals.
The UK has become the most attractive place to invest in the world, but of course, there is still a lot more for this Government to do. The academic environment in the UK continues to produce innovative ideas, and the talent to run with those ideas, which attracts foreign investment. The environment for research is outstanding; we have great academics; and the NHS provides a research platform that is second to none.
The decision is in part due to a broader effort by MSD to ensure that the company is optimising its investment and focusing its resources on its key drivers of growth. As such, it is not continuing its job discovery operations in the UK. The company has recently announced in its quarterly report that it is to cut $3 billion a year from its operating costs, resulting in a significant impact on its share price. That is compounded by an ever more challenging and uncertain global economic situation as regards trade and tariffs.
The problem with NHS medicines goes back 15 years— I wonder who was in charge over that period. Spending on NHS medicines has fallen from 15% to 9% in that time, and the last joint agreement on medicine prices by the sector and the previous Government was in 2023. We are living with the consequences of under-investment by the previous Government, who took their eye off the ball when it comes to NHS medicine investment. My right hon. Friend the Health and Social Care Secretary made a £1 billion offer to the sector in the summer. However, the Government also recognise that we need to do more to support and grow our life sciences sector. We have already started delivering on the work of investing £600 million in the health data research service alongside the Wellcome Trust, and are committing up to £520 million for life sciences innovation and manufacturing, unlocking billions of pounds. We continue to work closely with the sector to unlock growth and ensure life-changing treatments and technologies for this innovative sector.
MSD will continue to be a key investor in the UK. I welcome its continued investment in clinical trials, and its significant partnerships with our institutions, such as Our Future Health. MSD will continue to employ 1,600 people. We remain closely engaged with MSD as we take forward the life sciences sector plan and the 10-year NHS plan.
Mr Speaker
Order. I say this gently, as Ministers are in new positions, but you are only allowed three minutes in an urgent question, not the five minutes you get for a statement. I am sure that you are coming to the end now, Minister.
Ian Murray
Thank you for your advice, Mr Speaker. I am on my last sentence. We will continue to explore opportunities to partner with MSD further and build on our long-standing relationship.
Julia Lopez
I hope you will give me the same flexibility if I go a little over my time, Mr Speaker.
Julia Lopez
Last night, US pharmaceutical giant Merck cancelled the construction of a £1 billion drug research centre in the Prime Minister’s constituency. Eight hundred jobs that were going to be provided have now evaporated; 125 scientists were to be employed—no longer. The message from Merck executives was unsparing: simply put, the UK is not internationally competitive. The Government must wake up now.
If AstraZeneca’s announcement on investment was the canary in the mine for UK life sciences, last night’s announcement should be a klaxon sounding across Whitehall. Will the Minister assure us that he is arranging urgent meetings with Health, Business and Treasury Ministers today?
The facility was going to specialise in diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis. It was going to feed into the work of a cluster of life sciences bodies, such as the Francis Crick Institute. Did the Government engage with Merck before its decision? What damage will this cause to research and medicine access for our constituents who are affected by those conditions?
The Government told UK taxpayers that their devastating national insurance hike would boost the NHS, but NHS leaders admit that the money has gone on national insurance, wage deals and drug price inflation, not better services, and there is no money left for negotiations with life sciences companies. In fact, life sciences have faced a £1.6 billion tax bill and a real-terms cut to research and development. What are Ministers in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology doing to push the Health Secretary for progress on health data, advanced therapies, price negotiations and regulatory reform of the kind that will improve our life sciences offer?
For the last year, Labour has dined out on deals secured by the last Conservative Government. We were promised that a US-UK trade deal would open doors for business. Instead, American firms are cancelling projects, and our ambassador, who should have been batting for Britain, was battling for survival. Now that Lord Mandelson has slinked away—again—who is speaking to the Americans about this collapsed deal? What will the Prime Minister be doing ahead of President Trump’s state visit to help UK life sciences?
I welcome the Minister to his place, but where is the Secretary of State? In her very first week, she has overseen a £1 billion investment collapse. If she does not understand that this is the most important thing in her brief right now, and if the Government do not change course, it will not be the last deal to collapse.
Ian Murray
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for bringing the urgent question to the Chamber, as this is an incredibly important issue. Let me answer some of the questions—I think there were some questions in there.
The shadow Secretary of State asked what message America has given to the Government, but the message was from Merck in its quarterly report just a few months ago, when it had to cut $3 billion a year from its operations. That is a significant amount of money, and the company’s share price reflected the significance of that announcement. There is no doubt that MSD makes the world’s most profitable and popular cancer drug, which goes out of patent in 2028. It said in the quarterly report that that is causing some pressure with its share- holders. The US trade deal, which the shadow Secretary of State mentioned, said that we would use best endeavours to improve the conditions for US pharmaceutical companies in the UK, and the tariff for pharmaceutical companies to the US remains at 0%. The EU has a 15% blanket tariff.
In terms of NHS medicines, it is a common theme that shadow Secretaries of State come to this Chamber and bemoan the state of the economy and what has happened in the NHS. Waiting lists are falling from the record levels they were at. Satisfaction with the NHS when we left government in 2010 was at its highest level ever. It is now at its lowest—
Mr Speaker
Order. We cannot have points of order in the middle of the Minister’s response; they come at the end.
Ian Murray
There is no doubt that spending on NHS medicines has fallen from 15% to 9%, which is part of the problems in the pharmaceutical industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care made a £1 billion offer to the pharmaceutical industry over the summer, but it chose not to vote on that, so he withdrew from negotiations.
We are trying to clear up the mess that has been left after 14 years of Conservative government. The shadow Secretary of State should realise that that mess is deep and wide, and it will cause problems in the sector, but as the Health Secretary has stated a number of times, including when he made that £1 billion offer, he is trying to resolve some of these underlying issues.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his place, but I wish it was under better circumstances. The loss of Merck’s investment, following the loss of AstraZeneca’s investment in January, will certainly be perceived as a blow to the UK’s life sciences sector, though we must not forget the amazing work that businesses, start-ups and researchers do in constituencies across the country, including my own. We also must not forget the importance of value for money in NHS spending.
The Select Committee will hold an urgent session on Tuesday to examine the issues in the life sciences sector, including tariffs, investment incentives from the US, access to capital and the relationship with NHS pricing. In the meantime, it is clear that the life sciences sector plan, published in July, does not reflect market conditions. Could the Minister update us on how, and how quickly, he plans to revise that plan?
Ian Murray
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that constructive approach, and I look forward to the session on Tuesday to examine this really important issue. She mentioned the life sciences sector plan, which is really important. It comes with significant investment in research and development, improving clinical trial performance, and moving money and support from other key sectors into the sectors that are in the industrial strategy. Life sciences benefit from that. There is £2.5 billion a year going into life sciences from this Government, and that contributes to the £9 billion that the private sector invests every year.
As the Chair of the Select Committee will know, the Chancellor gave the most generous settlement for research and development ever in the spending review last year, with £86 billion over the spending review period. That is to support the industrial strategy, of which life sciences is a key sector. I know from companies in my constituency that the sector is growing and needs more support, and we are determined to deliver that.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I welcome the Minister to his place. It is incredibly disappointing that MSD has pulled out of this billion-pound investment in the UK, including the loss of more than 100 jobs in important life sciences infrastructure. However, this has been on the cards for some time, and the warnings to Government have fallen on deaf ears. Earlier this year, AstraZeneca also cancelled planned upgrades to its production, and Novartis has described the UK as “largely uninvestable”. One pharmaceutical company reducing its UK operations is a problem, but there is a worrying trend that threatens a crisis in the sector.
The UK is becoming less and less attractive to the life sciences industry, and with good reason. First, the Budget saw huge rises in costs to all businesses, including through Labour’s jobs tax. Secondly, there has been a notable lack of investment across the life sciences sector, including in job creation, critical skills and creating a commercial environment that can compete internationally. The Lib Dems continue to call for the Government to make research and development investment 3.5% of GDP, and the life sciences would be a key focus. That would be coupled with extra support for academic institutions to commercialise research. How do the Government plan to restore confidence among pharmaceutical companies that the UK is a competitive place for research and development and manufacturing?
Ian Murray
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those points. It is important to lay out to the public and to the House that MSD will continue to employ 1,600 people and be a key part of the life sciences sector. There are many companies that are investing in this country—Moderna, BioNTech, Isomorphic Labs—and in my own constituency, Roslin CT is expanding at such a great pace that it cannot keep up with the amount of space and the wet lab facilities it requires. Those are all the challenges that we have to try and deal with.
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman: the second sentence of his contribution was about the national insurance increases for employers and the fourth was about spending more money on R&D and life sciences. They cannot both be true. If we want to spend money on our priorities—political parties will have different priorities—we have to raise that money. We cannot have it both ways. The message to the industry is: this is the best place in the world to invest. Bring your investment here and this Government back you through an industrial strategy and a life sciences sector plan.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his place. Exeter has a very strong life sciences and R&D sector and just recently the University of Exeter was awarded £10.5 million from UK Research and Innovation to set up the metamaterials hub—that is real cutting-edge science—which also leveraged extra private sector investment of another £10 million. Does the Minister agree that that sort of investment and commitment to research and development will enable cities such as Exeter to thrive and grow in future?
Ian Murray
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work with the university in his constituency in a whole number of areas. All who represent university towns— I do as well—know that there is significant investment going into research and development and the life sciences, because that is the future for this country.
This country is committed to growth, and I assure my hon. Friend that I will do everything I can in this role to ensure that we invest in that. I gently remind the House again that the spending review saw the largest ever settlement for research and development in this country at £86 billion. That says to the industry: we are open for business; come and invest here and put life sciences at the top of that investment.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Discovery Park in my constituency at Sandwich is the phoenix that rose from the ashes of Pfizer. It is now a cluster of over 100 enterprising and successful small companies in the life sciences field. The loss of cornerstones such as AstraZeneca and MSD could have a devastating effect upon the architecture of the pharmaceutical industry in this country. What are the Government going to do, practically, to reverse the decline in confidence in that industry?
Ian Murray
I say to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have the utmost respect, that in the first part of his question he quite rightly promotes the wonderful work that is going on in his constituency at the Discovery Park and then says that everything is doom and gloom. That is not the case. This Government are investing in research and development to the tune of £86 billion, we are investing in the life sciences—it is one of the eight key sectors in the industrial strategy—and I hope that the business park in his constituency benefits fundamentally from that. I merely repeat that MSD is not leaving the UK. It will still employ 1,600 people here and be the cornerstone of research in this country.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his place. This is devastating news for the research scientists and the fantastic work they do on neuroscience, inflammation and immunology. Some of that is being carried out at the Francis Crick Institute, where I declare I am unpaid visiting research scientist. Does the Minister agree that the UK has so much expertise to offer and that he needs to look at the whole life science ecosystem, from bench discovery to dispensing at the bedside? Will he join us at the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee on Tuesday afternoon when we can go into those issues in depth?
Ian Murray
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work, unpaid, at the research institute. It will be good to hear from her about what she sees from inside the sector. She raises, I think, the most important point in any debate about science, research and development and life sciences in particular in this country: we have world-class institutions and companies and they are made so by the world-class scientists and academics that work within them. We should cherish that, we should grow it and we should have more
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
At Porton Down in my constituency, there is a hub of life science businesses. I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I recognise the difficult dilemmas that all Governments have in where to focus investment. However, the Minister must surely recognise that the additional cost of employing people, with the additional rights and burdens that that puts on employers—particularly small employers—plus 11 weeks of speculation about further tax increases will not make any sector feel more comfortable about where to invest in this country.
Ian Murray
The right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister, so he understands some of the issues involved here. I would merely point him to the report MSD released to its shareholders for the first quarter, in which it said that it had to divest from $3 billion a year in operating costs—that is a huge part of its operating agenda. It is a geopolitical issue as well as a commercial decision.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister will know that the part of London where MSD was going to invest has received significant investment for medical research, particularly research of brain-related diseases. This decision casts doubt on the future of the greater King’s Cross area. What are the implications of the decision to disinvest on that particular proposal, which has cross-party support?
Ian Murray
At this stage, I am not aware that there will be any downside to the entirety of the ecosystem that revolves around the King’s Cross area of London. This decision has obviously come very late to the Government, and we will work with MSD on the future. However, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), there is a very bright future for this particular cluster, and for all the other clusters we have heard about from other Members across the Chamber this morning.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
For transparency, I should declare that I was the director of the Knowledge Quarter partnership in King’s Cross and cabinet member responsible for negotiating the MSD headquarters deal. It is disappointing news today. Turning to my current constituency, I hear from a number of life sciences and pharmaceutical companies that they have concerns about the previous Government’s levy under VPAG—the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth—and how it is working in practice, in particular that it is focused on revenue, not profit, and does not take into account the differential level of R&D needed. Celltrion, a South Korean company in my constituency, highlights that biosimilar medications require a lot more investment than other forms of pharmaceuticals. Will the Minister or his counterpart meet me and Celltrion to discuss the biosimilar sector and how we can support it to grow?
Ian Murray
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and would be happy to take him up on that meeting to hear about his experience directly. He raises the big issue around the legacy left by the previous Government after 15 years of underinvestment in medical pricing. The Health Secretary made a £1 billion offer to the pharmaceutical industry over the summer, which the pharmaceutical industry decided not to vote on, so it was withdrawn, which was disappointing. The last deal was done in 2023 under the previous Government. This is a long-term issue that must be resolved.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Life sciences play a significant role in the economy and public health initiatives across the Liverpool city region. It was a blow earlier this year when AstraZeneca pulled out of the £450 million deal to expand its plant in Speke. How is the Department supporting the Liverpool City Mayor and the life sciences investment zone to build confidence and secure greater investment for the sector?
Ian Murray
Very simply, the life sciences sector plan has been set out to give the industry certainty over the longer term that this Government are serious about the investment that both we and the industry will make in the sector, with £2.5 billion a year from this Government and, at £86 billion, the largest settlement for R&D ever in the spending review. I hope that gives reassurance to my hon. Friend’s constituents and to the life sciences companies in her constituency and around the region that this Government are serious about backing them.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I welcome the right hon. Member to his new role, although admittedly I am surprised that Labour have adopted the fire and rehire strategy. Scotland has one of the highest concentrations of life sciences hubs, and in the past five years has created six innovation centres directly aligned to life sciences. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of this announcement on Scotland’s research and development sector, and what support does he plan to put in place?
Ian Murray
I visited RoslinCT in my own constituency last Friday. The life sciences sector in Scotland is indeed buoyant and flourishing. There are lots of opportunities for it to expand. It is probably a dividend of the Union.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am very pleased that the Minister has confirmed and reiterated that the life sciences remain a priority in the industrial strategy. Keele University in Newcastle-under-Lyme is at the heart of our life sciences sector, which is particularly important for jobs and opportunities in the industrial heartlands in communities like mine, so will the Minister find time to meet me to talk about how we can support the work at Keele—or, even better, will he get on the train to come and see us?
Ian Murray
I am very happy to do so. I think that is my third invite already this morning. The question and the invite to Newcastle-under-Lyme demonstrate the thriving life sciences sector all across the country. I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that we intend to back the life sciences sector. Although the decision from MSD in relation to their new building at King’s Cross was incredibly disappointing, the sector is a thriving one, and many companies are investing and growing very quickly.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
This is just the latest in a series of blows to UK life sciences. Companies have been pulled towards the US with incentives and tariffs, while we have no detailed industrial strategy, an uncompetitive tax regime from the Treasury, and a Department of Health and Social Care that undervalues drug access. When the Government announced their life sciences plan, it fell short of what the industry and the sector expected, so will the Government commit to an updated cross-party refresh and give businesses the stability they need to invest in Britain?
Ian Murray
The hon. Member talks about yet more spending but with no idea of how the revenue would be increased. This Government had to make some incredibly difficult decisions in order to balance the books to give that stability in the economy so that we could invest in R&D, including in the life sciences. The NHS 10-year plan is moving from treatment to prevention, which require medicines; moving from hospital to community, which will require medicines; and moving from analogue to digital, which will enhance and better target medicines for patients. That is just one example of what we are doing in the NHS to improve our life sciences sector. It is a key part of the industrial strategy—one of the eight key sectors—and we intend to back it through the strategy.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) to his place as life sciences Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care.
I am incredibly ambitious for the life sciences in my constituency of Bracknell and across Berkshire; it is a key industry for us. Will my right hon. Friend share my ambition and agree to meet me, or set up a meeting with the life sciences Minister, to discuss what more we can do to support the sector in Bracknell?
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Medical isotopes are critical for the treatment of cancer, for diagnoses and for other medical applications, yet there have long been concerns about security of supply. Through Project ARTHUR—advanced radioisotope technology for health utility reactor—the Welsh Government are working with the nuclear-licensed site at Trawsfynydd in my constituency to develop the means of producing medical isotopes for security of supply here in the UK. What is the Minister’s Department doing to work with the Department of Health and Social Care to find a way of bringing that forward?
Ian Murray
I have just been working with the Department of Health and Social Care to try to bring that forward. I do not know the exact answer to the right hon. Lady’s question. If I knew the answer, I would give it. I do not, so I will write to her.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his place.
The life sciences sector is helping to regenerate parts of south Birmingham’s economy, from the new Waters pharmaceutical factory on the old Longbridge MG Rover site in my constituency to the University of Birmingham’s life science incubator. The Minister has been extremely generous in agreeing to meet Members today, so continuing in that spirit, would he be willing to meet south Birmingham MPs to discuss what more can be done to support this very important part of our local economy?
Ian Murray
I am tempted to say no, just to see what reaction that gets! But of course I will meet any hon. or right hon. Member across the House to discuss the life sciences sector. Whether we are talking about the north, south, east or west, including in my own constituency, the life sciences play a key role and will continue to do so.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I must declare that my wife works in the pharmaceutical and life sciences industry. The Minister and the Chancellor claim to want to boost growth, yet investment is fleeing the very sectors that he claims are a priority. Is it not the case that the vague aspirations of the Government do not meet the real-world test and that the people who are going to suffer from this are his constituents and, unfortunately, mine?
Ian Murray
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman’s wife on what she does in the sector—she is the only one in the family with a real job. That shows the depth and breadth of the sector across the country; everyone will know someone who works in it. We have £86 billion from the spending review going into research and development, and £2.5 billion backing the life sciences sector plan. Economic and geopolitical issues are of course affecting the pharmaceutical industry at the moment. As I said in my opening remarks, MSD’s quarterly report said that it had to take $3 billion out of operating costs over the next few years; unfortunately and regrettably, this decision is part of that plan.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I represent people who work at the excellent Living Systems Institute at the University of Exeter. The purpose-built institute was launched in 2017 to bring together physicists, mathematicians, biologists and biomedical scientists, with the expectation that the life sciences sector was going to enjoy substantial foreign direct investment in the years to come. What effect do the Government anticipate the withdrawal of private investment for life sciences will have on research students, including those at Exeter?
Ian Murray
I would say to life sciences students in the fledgling part of their career that it is a career they should be in for the long term. Life sciences is the future, which is why it is one of the eight key sectors in our industrial strategy. The news the Government have had today on MSD’s commercial decision is incredibly disappointing, but lots of wonderful stuff is going on in the sector, so we should not talk it down. Moderna is investing more, BioNTech is investing more, Isomorphic Labs is investing more, and RoslinCT in my constituency is investing more. Right across the Chamber today we have heard about the companies that are investing more in life sciences. It is a growing industry, so I say to fledgling academics and people who want to get involved in the industry: get in there.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. I think we are all seeking reassurance in relation to the sector. The news that MSD has withdrawn its plan for a research centre in the United Kingdom, with the loss of 125 potential jobs and staff, is devastating for our science plans. It shows a lack of faith in long-term planning by the investors we are so reliant on. How will the Minister seek to reassure global partners that science investment is a priority for this Government? Will we see a swift return of investment to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Ian Murray
Our workforce are the very best in the world, and our world-class institutions are made world class because of that world-class workforce. This is the best place in the world to invest at the moment. We are in discussions with the US in respect of the pharmaceutical industry and the tariffs in the EU-US economic deal. Lots of positive stuff is going on in the industry, and if we are to send out one message to the industry from the House today, it is that the industry is thriving. It is one of the eight key sectors in our industrial strategy and this Government back it. We are backing it with money, with our strategy, and as a whole Government.
Business of the House
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the new Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
Mr Speaker
I welcome the new Leader of the House and thank the previous Leader of the House. I am looking forward to this session!
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
Probably more than I am, Mr Speaker. [Laughter.] The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 15 September—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Employment Rights Bill.
Tuesday 16 September—Second Reading of the Sentencing Bill.
The House will rise for the conference recess at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 16 September and return on Monday 13 October.
The business for the week commencing 13 October includes:
Monday 13 October—General debate on baby loss. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 14 October—Remaining stages of the Mental Health Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 15 October—Remaining stages of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill.
Thursday 16 October—Second Reading of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill.
Friday 17 October—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 20 October includes:
Monday 20 October—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill.
Jesse Norman
I thank the Leader of the House for the business.
On this 24th anniversary of 9/11, I know the whole House will want to join me and, I am sure, the Leader of the House in sending our best wishes to the families and the friends of the victims of those horrendous terrorist attacks.
So, too, our best wishes go to those grieving the murder of Charlie Kirk in the USA, and to our own great colleague, the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), for the terrible news she has had this morning.
I thank the recently departed Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). She and I had our disagreements; I do not think there is much doubt about that. She supported the wrong football team, and I struggled to get her to answer my questions, but she was diligent and effective in responding to Members across the House, as well as in Committee. Without getting too teary about it, I will even miss her appalling puns.
But it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good. Hurricane tax dodge blew away the Deputy Prime Minister and destroyed the Prime Minister’s much-vaunted phase two, but it has brought us the former Labour Chief Whip! He was a history teacher, and there cannot be many better forms of public service than that. After his distinguished career channelling industriously away in the usual channels, I warmly welcome him blinking into the bright lights of the Dispatch Box.
I had somehow thought that, having plumbed the depths of incompetence over the summer, the Government would now settle down a bit. How naïve—how desperately foolish—I was. The No. 10 team were obviously taking the mickey. They were laughing at us. “You think this is incompetent?”, they said, “We have hardly got going. We can do vastly better than that. Resets are for wimps—let’s have a full-blown crash reshuffle. Let’s have a new Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary, as well as a new Deputy Prime Minister. And let’s undermine the Chancellor of the Exchequer by ostentatiously lining up the former Chief Secretary to replace her. The markets will really welcome that. Even better—let’s have an election for deputy leader of the party. People are already scared to death about all the taxes coming in the Budget, but they will be completely reassured if we run a Labour leadership election at the same time. Ideally, we can make the deputy leader a former Cabinet Minister whom the Prime Minister has just abruptly fired. That’ll be good for stability. Oh, and we can go further! We can actively undermine relations with our closest ally if we throw in a major scandal over the Prime Minister’s personal choice as ambassador to the USA.”
If only this were a joke—instead, it is a tragedy. It is like we are trapped in an unending episode of “The Office”, with the Prime Minister as David Brent. The unions are ratcheting up their pay demands. The RMT is holding seven days of rolling walk-outs. The tube has come to a standstill. The only people who probably will not be affected are junior doctors in London, who have voted to have strikes until the new year, so they will be staying at home anyway. As the former director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies remarked, it all shows how “staggeringly unprepared” Labour was for government, and it is we across this House and all our constituents who are paying the price for their arrogance and negligence.
The Leader of the House will only just be coming up to speed now, of course—one perfectly understands that—but, if I may, I would make one early request of him, with the utmost seriousness. He will know that many thousands of veterans, including hundreds in my constituency and in his, have had their lives thrown into uncertainty and bad—desperate, in some cases—anxiety by the Government’s decision to repeal the Northern Ireland veterans legislation, the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. That was more than a year ago now. The Government promised a legally sound and effective legislative solution to the problem they had created, so could the Leader of the House let us know—now or in a written update before the recess—when the Northern Ireland Secretary will come to the House and publish that solution?
Sir Alan Campbell
First, may I add my tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), for her excellent work as Leader of the House over the last year? She spearheaded the revival of the Modernisation Committee, which was a manifesto commitment, and oversaw the packed legislative programme that formed the basis of this Government’s first King’s Speech. I know that I am among many MPs across the House who want to thank her for her diligence and hard work.
I would also like to express my thanks to Colin Lee, the Clerk of Legislation, who retires this week, having joined the House service in 1988. MPs from across the House have valued his wise counsel over many years, and I know the whole House will wish him well.
I know that the House will also share my sadness about the death of Sir Roger Sands, who was Clerk of the House from 2003 to 2006. Sir Roger was a distinguished servant of the House for 41 years, and the House will want to convey our condolences to Lady Sands and Sir Roger’s family.
I thank the shadow Leader of the House for welcoming me to my place. Before I turn to his remarks, I should caution him, and indeed the House, that the last time I answered a question at the Dispatch Box was in the same year that the iPad was released. Both you and I, Mr Speaker, had a little more hair and of a darker hue. At the time the average price of a pint of beer was £2.91—there are people sat behind me who were not even old enough to buy alcohol then.
I am looking forward to these sessions with the shadow Leader of the House. We have been in the House together for a decade, but I cannot claim to know him particularly well, so I also went to Wikipedia to find out a bit more. He is a philosopher, a historian and an author of note. It is clear that he is a thinking Conservative, which is an increasingly rare commodity.
I associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about the anniversary of 9/11, and about the death of Charlie Kirk. Let us remember that, in these circumstances, Mr Kirk’s family have been robbed of a father and a husband. There is no justification at all for political violence, whatever the views of the person involved.
I know that there will inevitably be a degree of knockabout about the state of the Government, and indeed of the Opposition, at business questions. I am happy, any day, to have a debate on the comparison between this Government’s 14 months and the right hon. Gentleman’s disastrous Government of 14 years. The only thing that we were unprepared for was the scale of the state that this country was in.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s substantive point about Northern Ireland, he knows that those are difficult matters and that the Government have given a commitment to bringing forward legislation. It is important that reassurances are in place, and I can tell him that the Government will be saying something shortly.
Let me finish with this. The shadow Leader of the House and I both have a deep respect for Parliament. I can give him and the House the reassurance that I take my responsibility, both as the Government’s representative in Parliament and as the House’s representative in Government, very seriously indeed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I expect this to run for around an hour, so Members can help each other with short and punchy questions. I call Elsie Blundell to set a good example.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I welcome the Leader of the House to his place. I applaud the Government for the bold action that they are taking to reform the criminal justice system, but more must be done to safeguard communities from violent reoffenders. In Middleton, I have been in touch with the courageous family of Michael Hoolickin. Michael was tragically killed in 2016 by a prolific offender who, despite supposedly being under the supervision of the local probation service, was not prevented from committing that appalling act, which has devastated the lives of Michael’s family and friends. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time so that Members may consider how to mitigate reoffending by violent perpetrators, and to give voice to the countless bereaved families out there, who deserve our compassion and focus?
Sir Alan Campbell
That is without doubt an appalling tragedy, and my thoughts are with Michael’s family. It is important that we address reoffending—that is critical to public safety. On Tuesday we have the Second Reading of the Sentencing Bill. It aims to reduce offending, which has a devastating effect on victims. I encourage my hon. Friend to consider speaking in that debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I welcome the new Leader of the House to his place. I join him and the shadow Leader of the House in thank the previous Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), for her sterling efforts, especially with so many people bobbing to ask questions every Thursday morning. I look forward to working with the Leader of the House in the various Committees on which we serve. I hope that he will follow the Government’s mantra to go further and faster, especially in modernisation.
Today is a big day for news. In particular, I echo the words condemning the appalling attack on the office of the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson)—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]—for whom I have a huge amount of respect.
I also join other colleagues in recognising that today is the 24th anniversary of 9/11. I am sure that the whole House agrees with the importance of remembering the victims, including British citizens, their families and those who continue to be affected physically and mentally by the attack and its aftermath.
This week, I again met victims and family members who have been subjected to ongoing injustice in our health system, in particular women and their children who were affected by shocking failures of medical devices or by the prescription of drugs that had devastating and life-changing consequences. While pregnant, my constituent Mary was prescribed the anti-epilepsy medication, sodium valproate. Very sadly, Mary joined so many other parents whose children were consequently born with significant birth defects. Like any parent of a disabled child, Mary is incredibly worried about their future and what support will be in place to look after them when she is no longer able to.
Victims and their families are exhausted. They have campaigned for many years to draw political attention to such matters, but it seems that successive Governments are not listening. Indeed, the Government have yet to respond to the Hughes report on the sodium valproate and pelvic mesh scandals that was published more than 18 months ago. Will the Leader of the House ask the Health Secretary to make a statement to this House to provide an update urgently?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Lady for the tone of her question. I, too, look forward to working with her on the Commission and the Modernisation Committee. I commend her for campaigning on these important matters. Our sympathies are with those affected, and we are fully focused on how best to support patients and to prevent future harm. The Government will continue to listen to those affected in this complex area, and I will ensure that Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care and in the Cabinet Office have heard her concerns. If my hon. Friend wishes to meet them, I will seek a meeting.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I had the pleasure of meeting Fergus, Freddie and Michael, members of the band Jam Tub, on a recent visit to Framwellgate school in Durham. These musicians are passionate about contributing to Durham’s cultural vibrancy, performing at events such as the much-loved Durham fringe festival. They contacted me after they noticed a distinct lack of venues across the whole of County Durham for young bands to perform and practice in, limiting their opportunities to grow as musicians. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on the importance of addressing regional cultural inequalities that are having an impact on the opportunities available to talented youngsters not just in Durham, but across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
As a Durham lad, I concur with my hon. Friend. It is a question not just of venues in Durham, but of venues across the country. The Government and, in particular, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are cognisant of that. We will be doing everything that we can to support them. Such issues affect a lot of constituencies. Therefore, should she choose to seek a Backbench Business debate or even an Adjournment debate, I am sure that she would receive support from across the House.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I welcome the Leader of the House to his position. I hope that we can have an early meeting to ensure that Back Benchers can have their voice heard in this Chamber, as before.
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for 13 October, when we return from the conference recess. Given past experience of when we return from recesses, with the likelihood of statements and possibly urgent questions, and given that 78 people want to speak on the baby loss debate, I ask him to consider giving it protected time, so that they are able to relay their stories.
In addition, the business in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 16 September will be a debate on the International Day of Democracy. On 16 October, there will be a debate on World Menopause Day, followed by a debate on Ada Lovelace Day and Government support for women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. On 23 October, there will be a debate on histological testing of excised moles, followed by a debate on the impact of NHS workforce levels on cancer patients.
I was very tempted to ask a question about the legalisation that happened in an employment tribunal earlier this week that means it is now possible to discriminate against people because of the football team they support. However, there is a much more serious issue: the situation in Nepal.
Following the deaths of 20 protesters, the Prime Minister of Nepal has resigned, the Parliament building has been set on fire and there is the threat of a military coup. I have many constituents with relatives in Nepal, and they are worried about the situation for their families. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Foreign Office Minister to give a statement next week on what we are doing, as the United Kingdom, to protect those families and support the families in the United Kingdom?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, and I look forward to working with him. I will commit to an early meeting with him and also to regular meetings. He will know I have long taken the view that we need to take care on Mondays, whether it is with Backbench business or Government business, when we return from recess. I will give some thought to protected time, but the reality is that we can often manage the business of that day. The Government can manage the number of statements that go on; there is an issue around managing urgent questions, which is not the Government’s decision, but it nevertheless can be managed. I will return to that issue if need be.
On the really important matter of the situation in Nepal, let me say the recent loss of life and violence in Nepal is appalling. We support fundamental freedoms and respect for human rights, including the right to protest and peaceful assembly, but violence is not the way forward. I expect that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will be across this matter, but I will draw his remarks to its attention.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
School holidays are great, but they can be a really tough time for some families. Programmes such as the holiday activities and food programme help to bridge the gap by providing not only meals, but opportunities to build social skills and confidence with age-appropriate activities and a side serving of fun. This year I attended a HAF Plus event hosted by Northumbria University, at which young people aged 13 to 16 could do just that by taking part in activities from baking to gaming and martial arts, which were designed by young people themselves. I am delighted that the Government have invested to extend the scheme for another three years. Can we have a debate in Government time on how we can build on the success of HAF?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am delighted to hear about the success of the programme; as an alumnus, I am not surprised that Northumbria University is helping to deliver such successful programmes. It is a fantastic thing for our region. We recently announced that £600 million is being invested to extend the holiday activities and food programme for another three years, and it has already reached more than half a million children in the past year. I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard my hon. Friend’s question this morning.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I welcome the Leader of the House to his place and pay tribute to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell)—I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that she supports exactly the right football team.
People in Staffordshire Moorlands are very concerned that they should have their say about what happens in devolution plans. I am sure the Leader of the House will share my astonishment that the Reform-led Staffordshire county council has put forward a proposal for an east Staffordshire unitary authority, which would see not just Staffordshire Moorlands, but Burton, Uttoxeter, Tamworth and Lichfield drawn into a greater Stoke-on-Trent. Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the importance of local people having their own say on what happens in their local area?
Sir Alan Campbell
I have to say to the right hon. Member—I was going to say my right hon. Friend, which she is in many ways—that I do not share her astonishment about that at all, because that is not unique in places where Reform has councillors and is running councils. Nevertheless, it is an absolute shame that Reform councillors appear to have gone back on their word in this case. One of the themes that must run through the work we do in local government is listening to local people. I have no doubt that she will continue to make that case, and I urge her to do so by organising a debate on the matter.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
The Sikh Helpline is a fantastic charity in my constituency that supports Sikhs and people from all backgrounds with abuse, addiction and mental health issues. Over the summer, it did a 350-mile bike ride from Scotland to West Brom to raise money. Will the Leader of the House congratulate all the riders who took part and make time for a debate on the importance of such civil society organisations?
Sir Alan Campbell
I first want to recognise the fantastic work that my hon. Friend did as my predecessor’s Parliamentary Private Secretary. I thank her for what I assume, therefore, is her first business question. A 350-mile bike ride is a terrific achievement, and I join her in recognising the importance of the work that the Sikh Helpline does for its local community. That is the sort of matter that could perhaps be raised in an Adjournment debate.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
I too welcome the new Leader of the House to his position. I suspect he will have rather more fun at the Dispatch Box than his successor in the Government Whips Office will. I associate myself with his kind remarks about Colin Lee, whose service as one of the Clerks of the House has been exemplary. As one of the longest-serving members of the Speaker’s Panel of Chairs, I have had the pleasure of working with Colin over very many years. He will be sorely missed, and the House owes him a huge debt of gratitude.
Charities in the United Kingdom working in Africa tell me that as a result of the withdrawal of the United States Agency for International Development, women and children are dying in droves. The House will not be sitting when President Trump visits the United Kingdom, so we will not have an opportunity to send a clear message from this House at that time, but the Prime Minister will have an opportunity. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to place on the agenda for discussion in the margins the withdrawal of USAID from Africa, which is having such a devastating effect?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will commit to making the Prime Minister aware of what the right hon. Gentleman has asked, and I hope that will be heard when the President visits. Given the right hon. Gentleman’s experience and voice, I am pretty sure that message will be heard loud and clear.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
One of the concerns that my constituents in Lowestoft raise is the closure of our public toilets due to the local council’s redevelopment of our old Wilko site. I am concerned that older and disabled residents in particular are being dissuaded from spending their time and money in our town centre’s shops due to fear of being caught short. I recently met the British Toilet Association, and I learned that in the US there is a national standard of one toilet for every 10,000 people. I therefore ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a debate in Government time on the need for more toilets on our high streets.
Sir Alan Campbell
I could not agree more about the importance of the availability of toilets in our town centres. I am sure that issue comes to MPs’ attention very often. For many people—particularly those with complex needs or health conditions—the lack of a toilet can be the deciding factor in whether they leave the house. As the issue is clearly one for so many colleagues across the House, I think it would be a great topic for a Westminster Hall debate.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I too welcome the Leader of the House to his place.
Just three days ago, the BBC revealed how effortlessly an illegal vape laced with Spice can be purchased through Snapchat. One in six confiscated vapes in schools now contains Spice, which is described as a zombie drug—a prison drug. That is potentially condemning young people to a lifelong addiction and a criminal life, yet this week Ofcom wrote that such evidence does not meet the bar for enforcement action, even under the new Online Safety Act 2023. Can we have a statement from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to explain why Ofcom is refusing to hold social media companies accountable for drug dealing on their platforms, which puts thousands of young people at risk?
Sir Alan Campbell
As a former drugs Minister, I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s concern. I have always thought that a strong line should be taken, and of course social media plays a role in that. I thank her for raising that really important issue, which is important for many people, not least parents. I will draw her concerns to the attention of the new Science, Innovation and Technology Secretary.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
Our high streets in Leigh and Atherton are being undermined by illicit shops that are used for money laundering, illegal working and counterfeit goods. Raids on shops have taken place this week, leading to the seizure of over £10,000-worth of illicit goods, but the shops reopen within hours. Criminals are exploiting loopholes in the Licensing Act 2003, and councils are struggling to act. Will the Leader of the House confirm that restoring town centres is a Government priority, and will he allow time in Parliament to debate strengthening licensing laws and closing these damaging loopholes?
Sir Alan Campbell
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her recent marriage. She raises a very important matter, and she is a doughty campaigner for her local community. High streets are a cornerstone of our local communities, and we are delivering 13,000 more officers in neighbourhood policing roles to tackle these matters. I will draw her comments to the attention of the relevant Department, but I encourage her to attend the next Home Office questions next week in order to raise this issue with Ministers directly.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new role.
May I echo the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) in drawing his attention to the reply that his predecessor gave to me on 27 February concerning the Government’s response to the report on valproate? It really is necessary that we get a response. Janet Williams and Emma Murphy from the Independent Foetal Anti-Convulsant Trust came to see me this week. They are grateful for the opportunity to meet a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, but they really need a formal response to the commissioner’s report of 19 months ago.
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am new to this role, but I give him a commitment that I will follow that up after this session. Hopefully, I will be able to arrange a meeting with the Minister and get a response, which sounds overdue.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I have been supporting constituents living in ex-military housing on Embry Road in Wittering, in my constituency. The Ministry of Defence sold the homes years ago, but my constituents have been left in limbo because their properties remain wrongly classified under MOD commercial energy contracts. Despite repeated attempts, many have been unable to set up domestic accounts and are now suddenly facing backdated gas and electricity bills of up to £6,000. Does the Leader of the House agree that the issue of billing errors deserves a debate in Parliament? Will he ensure that Ministry of Defence officials contact me so that we can get those homes reclassified, which would allow my constituents to access fair tariffs and avoid further financial distress?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, and recognise that his constituents who have been affected will have gone through a great deal of stress in trying to deal with it. I will ask colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to reach out to him, in the hope that these matters can be resolved as soon as possible.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
May I, too, welcome the new Leader of the House to his place?
The Trussell Trust’s “Hunger in Wales” report, which was published this week, shows that families with three or more children are far more likely to be forced to turn to food banks. The two-child limit is at the root of this injustice. It deliberately punishes children because of the number of brothers and sisters they have, and it is driving thousands of families into needless hardship. Will Labour in Westminster and Labour in Cardiff work together to grant debates in Government time on the urgent need for this impoverishing policy to be scrapped?
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Lady knows that we are already taking action to help working parents. For example, free breakfast clubs will put £450 in the pockets of working parents. We have doubled the amount of free childcare for eligible working parents, we are expanding free school meals and we are extending the household support fund. I mentioned earlier in my remarks the holiday activities and food programmes. We are doing a great deal.
I know that there are discussions and debates about what other action can be taken. The Government have a child poverty taskforce, which reports from time to time and will be reporting soon, regardless of whether it has something to say about this issue. I have no doubt that these will be hot topics in the run-up to the Budget, and there will be ample time to debate them.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to his place.
I recently had the privilege of visiting Lambley reed pond. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking and paying tribute to Bonnie Bramwell and all those on the Lambley reed pond committee, who have worked tirelessly to protect and enhance one of the most beautiful hidden gems in my constituency?
Sir Alan Campbell
Yes, I will. Environmental matters are so important in constituencies, and the work of community groups is so important, because they are the heart of what makes a true community. I pay tribute not just to that group, but to my hon. Friend for his tireless work on their behalf.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Two nights ago, a man in his 30s was stabbed in the centre of Bognor Regis, and that follows a fatal stabbing earlier this year. Will the Government bring forward a debate to consider how to make high streets safer and tackle the increasing prevalence of knife crime in small seaside towns such as Bognor Regis?
Sir Alan Campbell
We are taking action to tackle knife crime. In fact, we have given a commitment to halve it over the next decade and, I hope, go even further. The hon. Member said two things that are particularly relevant to me. One is that, as a former Home Office Minister, I am acutely aware of the importance of levels of knife crime. The other is that, as an MP for a seaside town, I know how important it is that they are safe places not just for people to visit, but for people to live. The Government are absolutely determined to bear down on violent knife crime, and I am sure there will be opportunities to discuss that in future legislation or should she choose to seek a debate on the matter.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Many right hon. and hon. Members will know the name Armitage Shanks as the company that has been making basins and toilets for over 200 years. However, fewer people will know that it takes its name from the village of Armitage in my constituency. Sadly, Armitage Shanks is planning to scale down its operation there, shutting one of its kilns and threatening up to 100 jobs. I am working closely with the GMB union to make sure that those affected can find other opportunities and to safeguard as many livelihoods as we can, but the impact of those job losses on the community will be serious. Can the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in Government time on how the Government can help protect historic brands such as Armitage Shanks?
Sir Alan Campbell
The news of job losses that my hon. Friend brings to the House is disappointing. It is always disappointing when jobs are lost, and I know the whole House will share his concern, particularly as it is a well-known name employing a large number of people. We are committed to supporting British industry, and Armitage Shanks is a name well known throughout the land. The Chancellor has announced the date of the next Budget, which will turn to the long-term reforms that Britain needs to unlock growth and ensure that the economy works for working people. I will of course bring forward time for a debate following the Budget in the usual way.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
This is a truly sad and tragic day for our friends in the United States of America as they remember the events of 9/11 in 2001, and given the tragic assassination last night of Charlie Kirk. I was privileged to welcome him to the Houses of Parliament in 2018 and take him to Speaker’s House for a Christmas reception. He was a friend of the United Kingdom, he stood up for freedom and his Christian faith, and we mourn his loss and send our condolences to his family and friends.
Talking about someone of principle who stands up for freedom, 13 October—the day the House returns after the conference recess—will be the 100th anniversary of the birth of our finest post-war Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate on the legacy of Margaret Thatcher, which was to restore the British economy, stand up for Britain around the world, defend freedom and not give away British islands but protect, defend and restore them, as she did for the Falkland Islands in 1982?
Sir Alan Campbell
I echo the remarks I made earlier about Charlie Kirk. Whether we shared views or not, political violence is never acceptable.
Should the hon. Member wish to seek a debate on the anniversary of Mrs Thatcher’s birth, I can assure him that it would be well attended. I can also assure him that there would not be the unanimous approval of her legacy and record that he perhaps thinks there would be. I come from a community that was devastated by the loss of heavy industry, and to be honest, many of those communities are still suffering. The difference between those days and today is that when there is industrial change, this Government stand with working people to lessen the impact and ensure that new growth brings new jobs.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I think I am the only MP who can say they have two amazing football stadiums and two majestic cathedrals in their constituency. Liverpool Riverside is in the top 10 areas nationally for jobs, economic income and economic value. However, the hospitality sector is still struggling to recover from covid and the rise in national insurance contributions. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate in Government time to discuss how we can bring the UK closer to EU competitors by reducing VAT and providing the maximum discount for hospitality sites with a rateable value of under £500,000, to stimulate demand, boost competitiveness and keep venues open?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner not just for her constituency, but for her city. The Government are always concerned about the state of hospitality and making sure that we encourage investment in hospitality, which is at the centre of many of our constituencies, not least mine. We must ensure that there is not just decent pay and conditions, but respect for the people who work in the sector. I gently say to my hon. Friend that I know the importance of getting the tax situation right, but we need to raise national insurance contributions in order to fill a financial hole. These were not easy decisions, but they were made, and people cannot have it both ways—they cannot have more spending on public services or hospitality support unless we actually raise the money in the first place.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I would like to request a debate on rural broadband and rural 4G. Broadband coverage in much of Devon is poor, in spite of the last Government saying that they would spend £5 billion on it. These 4G notspots are widespread, but the Government scheme to get rid of them bears absolutely no relation to the broadband scheme. Will this Government please get a map of those areas without proper broadband, plot the 4G notspots on it and at least get everyone I represent one or the other?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will draw these issues to the attention of the relevant Department, but we are investing £500 million this year to deliver Project Gigabit and the shared rural network, to drive the roll-out of digital infrastructure in parts of the UK that are currently underserved. That will improve full nationwide connectivity by 2030, with more than £2.3 billion of contracts signed to connect over 1 million homes in some of Britain’s most remote locations.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I welcome the new Leader of the House to his place and thank him for all the help and support he gave those of us who were newly elected to this place 12 months ago in his previous role.
Last Friday, Cumbria’s first community county flag was unveiled at a special service at Carlisle cathedral. Cumbria county flag is the result of a county-wide competition and public vote, won by Cumbrian artist Ben Walker and presented to the lord lieutenant by the 1st Wetheral Brownies. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Mr Walker on his excellent design and thank Cumbria’s lord lieutenant for organising such a fantastic initiative that celebrates community cohesion and pride?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am happy to send my congratulations to Mr Walker and the lord lieutenant. We are proud of our flags, both national and regional. I know that Mr Speaker likes to mark historic county days by flying flags from Parliament’s flagpoles, so we may see Cumbria’s new community flag flying in Parliament Square in the future.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
May I ask the new Leader of the House for some help? I have been working with the Hinckley school to try and get its science and technology building project sorted. That has been going on for a couple of years and we are at a crucial point with contractors. With the reshuffle, the Minister in charge of that portfolio has been moved on, and we are therefore in a pending position. I have already sent the information to the Leader of the House and I would be grateful if he would contact the Department for Education on my behalf to put pressure on to ensure that we get a decision made on this, so that the development can get started before the winter sets in.
Sir Alan Campbell
I know that the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue with Ministers before, and I also understand that officials from the Department for Education reached out to discuss the matter on Monday. I pay tribute to him for campaigning on the matter as an assiduous constituency MP on behalf of children, predominantly, but also parents and staff of the school. He will appreciate, as he has acknowledged, that new Ministers are in post after the reshuffle, and there is indeed a new Minister in this role. I will ensure that this is raised with the Minister at the earliest opportunity, in the hope that the hon. Gentleman gets the earliest response possible.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Leader of the House to his new role and associate myself with the support across the House for my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). Members have raised many times the unacceptable level of threats that we face. Increasingly, abuse and threats are being driven and whipped up by one platform in particular, X, previously known as Twitter, which has become a sewer of antisemitism, racism, misogyny and dangerous conspiracy theories. Its owner has specifically targeted Members of this House. With a new director of communications in No. 10 and a refreshed Front Bench, may we have a debate in Government time on whether it is appropriate for that platform to continue to be used for official Government communications?
Sir Alan Campbell
What my hon. Friend says about X is truly shocking. We are very much in favour of free speech, but we are also against incitement to violence. We have delivered the Online Safety Act 2025 to seek to strike the balance between user protection and freedom of speech. On the matter of the Government’s use of X, it is right that the public are kept up to date with information and a number of people still use X, although of course many are moving to other platforms. I am sure that the Government will take that into account in our deliberations in future, and we also keep our wider social media practices under review.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
My new political movement, Restore Britain, is currently running a membership poll on support for deporting all illegal migrants. The response, from thousands of people, is almost unanimously in favour. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on mass deportations, given the extraordinary level of public support, and ensure that the House has the opportunity to debate not just the moral imperative but the legal and operational reforms required, including secure detention facilities, bilateral returns agreements, foreign aid suspensions, remittance taxes, visa cancellations, the introduction of a true hostile environment and plenty more, in order to deliver the mass deportation of every last illegal migrant at scale and pace?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am tempted to give the answer that one of my predecessors, Ted Short, gave, which is to say, “No”. However, I will not do that because these are important matters. I made it very clear in my opening remarks that I regard my role in this House as respecting the views of Members and making opportunities for Members to debate those, even if they are—I have to say—abhorrent. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that there are many ways in which these matters can be raised—he has just done so now. I am resisting the temptation to recite the very important work that the Government are doing, but if he seeks a debate on these matters in the usual way, perhaps he will be successful.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I welcome the Leader of the House to his new role and hope to see him being as generous with Government time as he was with his own time in his previous role. As he knows well, this month our country will celebrate 200 years since the world’s first passenger railway journey took place on the Stockton to Darlington railway. This momentous innovation changed the world and led to a huge industrial boom for our region. Hundreds of thousands of skilled workers have been employed in manufacturing and engineering roles over the past 200 years, but those jobs have declined recently due to the last Government’s neglect of British industry and manufacturing. Given how vital the ambitions of our region are for the industrial strategy, will he grant Government time to debate how this Government will back British workers, back British industry and get our region booming again?
Sir Alan Campbell
I commend my hon. Friend for the way she speaks for her constituency. It is important that we remember the 200th anniversary of the Stockton to Darlington railway, as it allows those of us from the north-east to claim that we are the cradle of the industrial revolution. As she alluded to, these things change over time. The Government are absolutely committed to bringing growth to every part of our country, including our north-east. That means working through our elected mayors as well as making sure that the skills we have in those engineering industries are kept—even though they are changing skills—and reskilling takes place. We must also have the support in place for companies who seek to invest in our region.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. About 20 Members are still on their feet and I am aiming to finish questions to the Leader of the House at 1 o’clock, so please keep your questions very brief.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I welcome the new Leader of the House to his place. Grave breaches of international humanitarian law continue in Gaza, including the unlawful blockade of aid and illegal settlements. According to an aid worker I met recently, sanitary products are being withheld from women and girls. Meanwhile, our Prime Minister rolls out the red carpet for the Israeli President, a man who has said on the record that the entire Palestinian nation is responsible for the 7 October attacks. Will the Leader of the House please commit to a debate in Government time on the UK’s duty to ensure that international law is always upheld and on how we must work with law-abiding international partners to guarantee that carries real weight on the world stage?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government have been clear in their condemnation of many of the things that have been happening over the last time in Gaza. They have made it clear that it is important that aid gets into the area and that we move towards a ceasefire to resolve this. But when the hon. Member talks about whom we might talk to about that, I say gently that most conflicts end with some kind of diplomacy, and that requires people to talk to each other, even though they may not agree. That allows the UK Government and the Prime Minister to put views across, which is really important. International law is at the heart of everything that the Government seek to do. As for an opportunity to raise that, there have been many statements and debates in this place about this important matter, and my intention is that that will continue.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I have enjoyed many Bournemouth air festivals, so its cancellation has left a huge gap. I recently met an event organiser who has a plan, and I am open to meeting more organisers. The BH Area Hospitality Association, under the leadership of Rosie Radwell, has launched “Check In – Chill Out”, which is a campaign to showcase how great Bournemouth is. Does the Leader of the House agree in the strongest possible terms that Bournemouth is the best seaside town? Will he congratulate the campaign? Will he grant a debate on tourism, particularly for coastal and seaside towns?
Sir Alan Campbell
I very much congratulate Bournemouth on how it is promoting its town, as well as my hon. Friend on how he is promoting it. I have to say he is stretching it a bit by asking me to say it is the best seaside town since I have Whitley Bay in my constituency, but it should not be a competition. What we need to do is promote seaside and coastal towns. They are fantastic places to live and to visit.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Last weekend, I met residents of New Park, alongside local Liberal Democrat councillor, Monika Slater. Residents are frustrated about the new Tesco that has been built and its impact on local businesses, with contractors regularly flouting the planning rules to work outside permitted hours. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate in Government time on local authority enforcement powers and, perhaps, how we can get Tory-run North Yorkshire council to use them?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am not sure of the detail of this case, but it is not unfamiliar to many of us to see the stress that big developments sometimes cause to residents. Again, this is the sort of thing the hon. Gentleman should seek an Adjournment debate on.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I recently had the pleasure of attending this year’s switch-on of the iconic Blackpool illuminations, lighting up our promenade and attracting millions and millions of visitors each year since 1879. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Kate Shane, Richard Williams and all the people at Visit Blackpool, Blackpool council and Lightworks for delivering such an impressive event this year, and join me in encouraging more people, far and wide, to join us in Blackpool for the illuminations this year?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Kate Shane and everyone at Visit Blackpool on their hard work. I also congratulate him, because he is a champion not just for Blackpool’s cause, but for seaside and coastal towns in general. I have very fond memories of holidays in Blackpool—I have to say some time ago—and trips to see the illuminations. From the illuminations, the tower, the piers and the Pleasure Beach, my hon. Friend’s constituency really has something for everyone. I encourage people to visit the illuminations, not least because they ensure the town has attractions all year round and it is not just seasonal—that is very important.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
One of my constituents has raised their concerns with me about the SEEMiS software used in the Scottish school system and the ability of staff to alter cases with no record of changes being made. Transparency in our public bodies is vital to the public trusting both our institutions and us. In these times when public trust in bodies is so low, will the Leader of the House grant time for a debate on upholding the Nolan principles across all public bodies, so that taxpayers can have confidence that decisions are made with integrity and transparency?
Sir Alan Campbell
Again, I have to admit that I am not across this issue. We would be very supportive on the general principle of transparency. As I am not sure where responsibility lies for such decisions, I suggest that the hon. Lady writes to me, and she might seek a debate on the issue.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I am aware that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are a strong champion of animal welfare, so you might be pleased to know that tomorrow, for the end of our lido season, is a “bring your dogs to come and swim” day. You might also be pleased, alongside the Leader of the House, to know that this year over 37,000 people have visited Peterborough lido since it opened its doors in May. That is an incredible turnaround since we faced the risk of it closing earlier this year. I pay tribute to Clare Marshall, the Friends of the Lido and the staff of the lido for that amazing work. We can now look forward to the Year of the Lido in 2026, as the lido celebrates its 90th anniversary. I am not ambitious enough to invite the Leader of the House to come for a swim with me in the lido, but will he join me in congratulating everyone who supports our lido in Peterborough, and may we have a debate in Government time about the vital role that lidos play in so many of our communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am not sure that would be a particularly attractive sight, I have to say, because my memory suggests that my costume has a hole in the knee. [Laughter.] But I do want to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Clare Marshall, the Friends of Peterborough Lido and of course its staff. A number of MPs have similar concerns—particularly seaside and coastal MPs, but also in other places around the country—and this is exactly the sort of topic that would be good for a Westminster Hall debate or a Backbench Business debate. I urge him to apply.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the right hon. Member to his new role. There is less pressure as Leader of the House in contrast to the onerous duties of Chief Whip. He referred to the colour of his hair, but he still has his hair whereas mine has been disappearing for many years.
Concerning reports have emerged that the Indian Government are increasing efforts to forcibly return Rohingya refugees to Burma, following the deportation of 40 individuals in May. Rohingya refugees face the risk of severe human rights violations and persecution upon their return. Given the UK’s longstanding obligation to the principle of non-refoulement and the special relationship with India, will the Leader of the House urge the Foreign Secretary to provide a statement outlining what action the Government will take to address this deeply concerning development and to ensure that the rights and safety of Rohingya refugees remain a priority?
Sir Alan Campbell
Perhaps this job is less pressured than my last one, but I confess that this morning it did not feel that way. As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a very serious issue. This Government are committed to defending human rights abuses, and regularly engage with the Government of India on a range of human rights matters. I will ensure that the Foreign Office has heard the concerns he raises, and I am sure that at the next Foreign Office questions he will also seek to raise the matter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
While I will not be able to get everybody in, I will get more in if Members can keep their questions to about two sentences. To provide a good example, I call Matt Rodda.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—no pressure. Earlier this week, I was notified that Southern Gas Networks wants to dig up a major road in Reading for 18 weeks. This is the latest in a series of sudden and abrupt interventions by utility companies. Can we have a debate in Government time on the behaviour of utility companies and how better to regulate their activities digging up roads?
Sir Alan Campbell
Again, these are issues that affect constituents across the country. I am sure that if my hon. Friend sought a debate on these matters, either in Westminster Hall or a Backbench Business debate, he would find that it was well attended.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
Sadly, last week in my constituency there was yet more flooding. This follows on from a very dry period and the hottest summer on record. Clearly, the weather is changing. Would the Leader of the House consider bringing forward a debate on building resilience to more extreme weather events, as he makes the political weather?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. I am sure there will be a lot of people across the country, particularly those who were hardest hit by the very fine and dry weather, concerned about what might happen going forward, in both the short and long term. Our flood resilience taskforce is focused on the long-term delivery of our flood resilience strategy and investment. Should she seek a debate, it would allow Ministers to set out our plans.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
In recent days I have been contacted by many residents concerned about increasing hate crime, racist graffiti, vandalism and even violence against police at protests. Will the Leader of the House join with me in the view that there is no place for hate in Hillingdon or anywhere in the UK, that our diversity is our strength, and that those coming to our community to work in our hospitals, in social care and to set up businesses are very welcome? Will he also make time in this place for a debate about a national cohesion strategy, and local strategies to follow?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join with my hon. Friend in his remarks. I am proud to say that this country is overwhelmingly inclusive, but it would be wrong to say that we do not face challenges in some communities. The Government are committed to developing a longer-term, more strategic approach to social cohesion. Housing, Communities and Local Government questions will take place once we return from recess. The subject would also make a timely Westminster Hall debate.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
The women’s rugby world cup is providing a fantastic sporting showcase, including the seven matches hosted by Sandy Park in Exeter to sell-out crowds. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the organisers, including the staff at Exeter city council and the teams for an excellent tournament so far, and send the best of luck from this place to all the home nation teams as they enter the knock- out stages this weekend?
Sir Alan Campbell
With record-breaking crowds at the rugby world cup and tens of thousands of fans packing out the Mall for the Lionesses’ victory parade after their amazing success in the Euros, we are showing ourselves to be true world leaders in women’s sport. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the organisers, but also in wishing success for the home nations. As he knows, there is a game this weekend between England and Scotland —both home nations—so it is a case of which side to pick.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
This week, 6 Towns Radio, a community radio station broadcasting to the six towns of Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme celebrates its 15th birthday. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Dan Townley, Terry Bossons and all the volunteers at 6 Towns Radio as it celebrates its milestone? Does he agree that community radio has played, and will continue to play, an important role in connecting our communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating 6 Towns Radio on its 15th anniversary and community radio right across our country. The Government recognise the importance of community radio and continue to support the sector as part of a diverse media landscape. He may wish to go further than just seeking congratulations for what is happening in his area and consider a Backbench Business debate on the matter, because I am sure that many colleagues would wish to speak in such a debate about their own community radio stations.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Last Saturday, the Linlithgow Union Canal Society celebrated its 50th anniversary with a flotilla from Winchburgh to Linlithgow, marking five decades of volunteer-led preservation and promotion of Scotland’s inland waterways. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the society and its volunteers on that milestone and wish them all the very best for the next 50 years?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do not have any canals in my constituency for pretty obvious reasons, but I love them and I think they are fantastic. Local waterways are so important; they do not just link communities but bring them together. I am pleased to offer my congratulations and again point to the fact that community organisations are the absolute backbone of our constituencies and I wish them well going forward.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate Cornwall on being in wave one of the Government’s innovative roll-out of the neighbourhood health services. We are one of 43 areas making that shift and we have provided services locally, such as community health and wellbeing workers, which have been very well received and which make a difference. May we have a debate in Government time on that shift to community care, with the recognition that urgent and emergency care is an area where Cornwall, like others, has struggled, so alternative services should always be in place as we make that switch?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend will know that the NHS is one of our priorities. She will also know that we are beginning to invest more and to turn the NHS round, but that it is a considerable challenge given the state that we found it in 15 months ago. I urge her to seek a debate on these matters, so that local communities can raise their own specific concerns, which are real and tangible. The Government have very optimistic plans for what can happen with regard to services. It is important that people are treated close to home and indeed, in some cases, at home. That is a considerable challenge, but it is one that we intend to meet.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I welcome the Leader of the House to his place. Last weekend, I had the pleasure of attending the 100-year anniversary of the Midland Red Coalville bus garage, which showcased some fantastic buses through history for people to enjoy. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Leicester Transport Heritage Trust, the vehicle owners, Coalville Heritage Society, Snibston Heritage Trust and the district and local councils for their hard work in showcasing their buses and putting on this amazing event? Will he also recognise the work of local volunteers and their contribution to our local communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
As yesterday’s debate highlighted, the whole House cares deeply about bus services and their role in our local communities. This sounds like a fantastic event to celebrate an impressive anniversary and a great deal of hard work to organise it. I am happy to pay tribute to everyone concerned and delighted to hear about the event’s success. It might have been for the anniversary of the Midland Red Coalville bus garage, but it is about celebrating buses and volunteers as well.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The forced adoption scandal has outraged people in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and up and down the country. This week I heard from Karen Constantine, who gave birth aged 15 in the late 1970s. She was forced out of education in north Staffordshire and into a mother and baby home in Birmingham, and was pushed to give up her child. Although she did not give up her child and fought really hard against others who tried to force who to, other women were not so fortunate. Will the Leader of the House join me in calling on local authorities to preserve and protect all adoption records, so that mothers are able to get the justice they deserve and find their children? Can I also urge him to do all he can to get a formal apology from the Dispatch Box to those women, who so desperately deserve justice?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter and for raising Karen’s case. As he points out, others were less fortunate than Karen. However, these are remarkably distressing and life-changing situations. Such abhorrent practices should never have taken place, and our deepest sympathies are with those affected. We take these matters extremely seriously and continue to engage with those impacted to provide support. We are also improving access to adoption records, including by asking adoption agencies to preserve records for at least 100 years, and I will ensure that the Education Secretary hears about my hon. Friend’s concerns.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
That concludes business questions. I thank the Leader of the House for his time.
Points of Order
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You rightly expect the Executive to provide timely information to this House. On 13 August I wrote to the Secretaries of State for Defence, for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and for Business and Trade to ask for important information about the legality of F-35 exports. We want that information ahead of a ministerial appearance before the Business and Trade Sub-Committee on Economic Security, Arms and Export Controls on Monday.
This is important, because the Al-Haq judgment handed down by the courts on 30 June made it very clear that under our constitution, the acutely sensitive and political issue of the legality of exports is a matter for the Executive—who are democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately the electorate—and not for the courts. We have not had that information yet, and the hearing is on Monday. What steps can you advise me to take to get the information that the Committee needs?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for Ministers’ replies to correspondence, but all hon. Members should be entitled to expect a timely reply when they write to any member of the Government, particularly when they are asking for information on behalf of a Select Committee on which the House has conferred formal powers to seek information and to hold the Government to account. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted the right hon. Member’s comments, and I hope that the Business and Trade Committee will be provided with all the information it requires as soon as possible.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following the decision in February 2010, our national flag—the Union flag or Union Jack—must fly from the Victoria Tower every day of the year, but in summer a much larger flag is flown; in winter only a small flag is flown. Can you please ask Mr Speaker to raise with the House authorities why the larger summer flag has been removed and replaced by the smaller flag? When I last checked, British summer time does not end until 26 October, so surely the larger Union Jack should fly at least until that date. May I also say that 26 October is also Essex Day, so maybe we can fly the flag of Essex as well?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of the flag flying from the Victoria Tower. I will ensure that his request is raised with both Mr Speaker and the House authorities and that he receives a response.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My mind is filled with the horrendous images of the assassination yesterday of Charlie Kirk: an American, a conservative, a Christian, a family man—gunned down. He had attracted the following of many millions of young Americans and had a growing online presence in our country, especially after he spoke at the Oxford Union last month.
I absolutely believe in free speech, but we all understand that there are limits to free speech: incitement, constant personal vilification, the use of horrendous historical images. This is not a left/right issue. It is not a left/right debate. I think it is incumbent upon all of us—whichever side of the divide we are on, however passionately we feel—to behave with personal responsibility, and I mourn the loss of my friend.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. It serves as a timely reminder of the need for respect in this place and in our politics. While it is not a matter for the Chair, he gives the House an important opportunity to offer our condolences and to express our horror at the events in the USA yesterday.
Regional Transport Inequality
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Catherine Atkinson, who will speak for about 15 minutes.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered regional transport inequality.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. It was originally due to take place on the first day back from the summer recess, but there was not time because so many people wanted to speak. I am grateful to those in attendance today.
The importance of transport is completely understandable. Whether for travel to work and to healthcare appointments, meeting family and friends, or getting goods to the businesses that need them, transport keeps our country running, keeps life moving and keeps us all connected. This Labour Government are committed to opening up opportunities across our country, so it is important to address the historic and long-standing inequalities between regions when it comes to transport.
Those of us who had the chance to go on holiday in the UK during our hot summer, which already seems quite a long time ago, have returned better acquainted with the transport infrastructure in each other’s constituencies—those who heard, “Are we there yet?” on repeat from the back seat are perhaps too acquainted. One of the benefits of being on the Transport Committee —as well as having esteemed colleagues, a number of whom are here today—is that every trip can be an unofficial fact-finding trip. We can compare, sometimes enviously, the newest tram extension, charging network or bus lane.
Colleagues across the country are advocating for transport projects their constituencies. When we are successful in securing transport investment, that change brings people together, cuts costs for our businesses and allows people to access new opportunities, but when transport breaks down or gets cut, constituents suffer the consequences, often daily. One example in my constituency is the Darley Abbey Mills bridge, which was found to be unsafe and was shut, leaving people and businesses cut off and isolated. A temporary bridge was put in three years ago, but thanks to the new East Midlands Mayor, Claire Ward, funding has been secured to progress towards a business case for building a permanent bridge.
One of the reasons that I was so keen to be on the Transport Committee was that transport is essential to economic growth and decarbonisation. The connectivity that transport brings is equally important up and down the country, but the amount of investment that regions get for transport has historically been miles apart. Transport is the most unequally distributed of areas of spending, including education and health.
There are many colleagues here from the east midlands, which has the lowest transport expenditure per head of all the regions and nations in the United Kingdom. In 2023-24, it was £368 per person—just a quarter of the amount for London, and about half the average for England. If the east midlands had been allocated the UK average in the five years between 2019 and 2024, we would have received an additional £10 billion. To ensure prosperity reaches all corners of our country, more equal investment is vital, so I welcome the direction of travel in the spending review, including the £15.6 billion of investment in local transport projects for England’s city regions over the next five years—more than double the previous capital spending rates. That includes £2 billion of funding secured by our excellent East Midlands Mayor, Claire Ward.
For years, there have been concerns that the UK Green Book—the Treasury’s official guidance for appraising public investments—is skewing how areas of need are identified. There has been an over-concentration of investment in high-GDP areas, neglecting the potential of other regions, which creates a vicious cycle. I welcome the Chancellor’s review, and I look forward to the new Green Book next year.
To secure the transformational change that we need, this Labour Government are investing in areas that have been neglected and forgotten. Speaking of neglect, when it comes to potholes and the need to better maintain and improve our roads, this Government have increased capital funding to £24 billion over three years. That is particularly important for Derbyshire, which, according to the RAC, had the worst potholes in the country. With the better buses Bill, the Government have recognised the importance of bus travel.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent introductory speech on regional inequalities in transport. Buses are incredibly important in my constituency, and they need not only investment but support. Newcastle is yet to receive real-time bus information of the type that has been enjoyed in London for more than a decade, which makes transport more reliable and therefore more used. Does she agree that we need to ensure that the technology that supports these important services is also more equally distributed across the country?
Catherine Atkinson
I think we can all agree that the better the technology and the real-time information that is needed, the more people will be encouraged to use our buses. We absolutely need to encourage more people to use our buses. Over the 15 years up to 2023, we saw a massive loss of bus services. Where the cuts hit has varied, but hardest hit was the east midlands region where we lost 60% of our bus services. The Transport Committee highlighted that decline in our report on buses that was published over the summer. We must not forget on whom bus investment impacts the most: the young, the elderly, those on low incomes and the disabled.
Hon. Members will be shocked that I have got this far into my speech without mentioning trains, because I talk about rail quite a lot, which is entirely understandable as a Derby MP. Derby will be the home of Great British Railways. It is the city at the centre of the largest cluster of rail companies in Europe, and arguably globally. It is the city that a few weeks ago hosted the Greatest Gathering—the world’s largest ever gathering of historical and modern rail vehicles, which was described as a “Glastonbury for trains”—to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the modern railway. However, despite this rich rail heritage in the region, there are just over 100 rail stations for 5 million people. The region has the lowest proportion of people living within a 15 to 20-minute walk of a rail station in England, and about three quarters of those stations are served by just one train or fewer per hour. The capital of rail will be the region with the lowest train station usage per head in England.
Our midlands main line that runs through the east midlands is the only main line route in England that is not yet fully electrified. It is electrified to Wigston, south of Leicester. East Midlands Railway will be putting on new bi-mode trains by the end of the year, so those living alongside the route up to Wigston will benefit and the 9 million passengers who use the line will get that far using electrified tracks. After Wigston, however, the trains will revert to diesel, and the rest of the densely populated line will continue to be exposed to more noise and tens of thousands of tonnes of CO2 every year. Hundreds of people have written to me supporting the call for electrification.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions that constituents have written to her, but does she acknowledge that in addition more than 30 MPs have been working together to advocate for electrification, because of the great benefits she has described?
Catherine Atkinson
I am grateful for the support that my hon. Friend, alongside many colleagues, has shown for electrification and the benefits that it can bring. It would be a fitting celebration of 200 years of the modern railway to continue the electrification of the midland main line, which would bring jobs, skills and hundreds of millions of pounds in economic benefits particularly to the east midlands.
I love my region, and like so many in this Chamber I know my region’s strengths and can imagine the possibilities if investment were genuinely equitably distributed around our country. If our regional transport was more equal, it would create more prosperity, economic growth, social equality, regional development and carbon reduction as well as better air quality. Our transport infrastructure is the country’s circulatory system: it connects and enriches wherever it reaches. If someone’s circulation is not great, they feel the cold a little more in their fingers, as I well know. If it is restricted more, their arms and legs get fatigue, numbness and pain. In the extreme, it eventually leads to organ failure. That is where we had been heading for far too long, but over the last year the Government have been getting the blood pumping again.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Catherine Atkinson
I am just about to finish.
If the UK is a body, Derby is geographically at its heart and is asking to have the same chance as everywhere else to be connected. We need to maintain our change of direction to reduce the inequality in the spend per person on transport, stay on track towards the reduction, and ultimately the elimination, of regional transport inequality, and deliver fair funding for transport.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. There is an immediate four-minute time limit.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
In just one year, this Labour Government have already failed rural Britain on transport. They have scrapped the £2 bus fare cap, pushing up costs for working people; they have wasted £250 million in the process of nationalising South Western Railway, while my commuters are still stuck with cancelled peak services; and they continue to pour billions of pounds into London, while communities such as Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere and Liphook in my constituency are left behind. My constituency is just 40 miles from London, yet the difference in connectivity is stark. London enjoys a world-class system—well, when it is not being held to ransom by greedy tube driver unions, as is the case this week—but Farnham, Haslemere, Bordon and Liphook are treated very differently.
The contrast with London is outrageous. In the capital, there is a bus stop every 400 metres and services run every five to 10 minutes throughout the night. In my constituency, buses are 30 to 90 minutes apart, if they run at all, and many disappear entirely after 7 pm. Students at the University for the Creative Arts in Farnham cannot get to Guildford in the evening. Meanwhile, Londoners can choose from over 100 night bus routes. Whereas passengers in London pay a fixed £1.75 fare, people in rural Surrey and Hampshire pay much more, because Labour hiked the cap.
My constituents will remember that Labour put up their fares, which is why I took action. I convened the Bordon taskforce to bring Stagecoach, local councils and local leaders around the table, and the results speak for themselves. The newly revised No. 18 bus service now runs every 30 minutes on weekdays and Saturdays, and hourly on Sundays, linking Bordon, Whitehill, Farnham and Aldershot. The No. 13 service between Bordon, Alton and Basingstoke has also been strengthened, with six Sunday return journeys. Stagecoach even trialled free travel this June after my push for better value. These are tangible improvements that make life easier for thousands of people, but gaps still remain.
It is extraordinary that there is no bus connection between Bordon and Petersfield—only 11 miles apart—except for a single school service. That is why I am in talks with East Hampshire district council to establish a new route, modelled on the Waverley “hospital hoppa”—a scheme for which I secured funding in Farnham.
Joe Robertson
I agree with the points that my hon. Friend’s is making. The train to my constituency runs through his constituency, and he has referred to it already. Unfortunately, my constituency is reliant on entirely privatised ferry companies in order for us to get there. Does he agree that if this Government’s outlook on transport is to be truly integrated, they need to connect all parts of the United Kingdom and stop focusing only on cities?
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point. He is absolutely right: this Government are focused on metropolitan areas, and constituencies like his and mine, which are rural and semi- rural, are simply left behind. His mention of rail neatly brings me to my points on rail.
Rail tells the same story as buses. Three of my four major towns have train stations, but Bordon, the third largest one, has none, and the lines that do exist are fragmented and unreliable. Only this week, the 7.28 from Farnham to Waterloo was cancelled. Too often, peak-time trains arrive at Haslemere or Liphook with just four coaches. When I challenged South Western Railway on that, I was told that to avoid cancellations nearer London, it reassigned carriages away from my area. I made it clear: my commuters are not second-class citizens, and that needs to change. At South Western’s Farnham depot this summer, I pressed the company directly on the £250 million Arterio fleet, which is meant to relieve overcrowding but is still sitting idle for want of drivers or because of faults. I secured assurances of change, and I will now hold the company to account.
Meanwhile, as I mentioned, the Government wasted £250 million nationalising South Western Railway. That money could have delivered a permanent Bordon-to-Liphook bus link for 1,000 years. Instead, urban areas get Crossrail and trams, while my constituents get cancellations and four-carriage trains. That is clearly not acceptable. Much more help is needed for my constituents. Rural communities such as mine cannot keep being treated as second class. Levelling up, economic growth and net zero—all laudable aims—mean nothing if millions of people in my constituency and the surrounding areas cannot get a bus on a Sunday, or a train with more than four carriages on a Monday morning. That is the reality of Labour’s transport policy: higher fares, wasted money and broken promises. That is unacceptable to my constituents and, I hope, unacceptable to the constituents of every single Member of this House.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this crucial debate.
High-quality, reliable and integrated public transport is often the difference between communities getting ahead or being left behind. Whether that is young people being able to realise their aspirations, older people receiving the healthcare they need, or working people getting home safely after a night shift, those issues not only have practical consequences if left unaddressed but erode trust between our constituents and the Governments they elect.
Lack of transport connectivity impedes the progress that people need and deserve to see in their communities. If we do not fix that, we make it easier for those who turn to pessimistic narratives to talk our country down. Our constituents deserve so much more. The disparity in transport investment between north and south is the result of a model that is built from the top down and the centre out, a model that has at its heart an orthodoxy that is ill-suited to the needs of passengers today, and a model I am proud to say this Government, in partnership with our regional mayors, are beginning to dismantle.
From a much-needed review of the Green Book to increased capital spending in Greater Manchester and other city regions, from the introduction of integrated settlements for combined authorities and a modern industrial strategy to the transformative English devolution Bill, those are all reasons I am proud to be a Greater Manchester Labour parliamentarian. We have a pioneering transport network, where powers devolved nationally are seen and felt on the ground.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about being a Greater Manchester MP, and Newcastle-under-Lyme and our part of Staffordshire are not too far away. I wonder whether she would support my calls for a direct train line from Stoke-on-Trent station to Manchester airport, which would unlock growth and cut costs for families, in particular those seeking to travel. More importantly, it would put our part of the world on the map.
Mrs Blundell
I am sure that is something the Transport Minister has listened to and is looking at.
Greater Manchester has set the agenda when it comes to the promise and opportunity that devolution can galvanise. Through the development and expansion of the Bee Network—an integrated transport system through low fares and simplified ticketing, and an enhanced bus and Metrolink network with plans to integrate heavy rail lines in the future—the Bee Network’s utility goes far beyond getting people from A to B; it is a conduit for employment opportunities, house building and a thriving regional economy. Indeed, Greater Manchester’s productivity growth measured by gross value added in the past decade has outstripped that of every other region, including London. Transport has been central to making that happen.
Despite real success, however, we cannot take future progress for granted. Greater Manchester and other city regions remain just as deserving of our backing today, to ensure that we do not scupper economic growth in the region. We must ensure that the significant projects are moving forward swiftly and efficiently to give people hope for a more connected future, and that includes the trans-Pennine route upgrade and the Manchester-to-Liverpool rail enhancement. Getting that right is integral to transforming public transport and creating networks predicated finally on the needs of local people, rather than on the paternalism of the centre.
My constituents can speak with some experience on this. For decades, passengers living in Heywood and Middleton have been a mere afterthought, with no rail connectivity into Manchester city centre, despite being just a few miles away; bus services that do not align with the lives and aspirations of local people; and an incredibly congested road network.
In the one year that I have been the proud Member of Parliament for Heywood and Middleton North, with central Government working in lockstep with our combined authority, we have secured funding to ensure that the tram will now connect Heywood to Manchester city centre. That is thanks to the £2.5 billion of funding allocated to Greater Manchester by our Labour Chancellor in the form of transport for city regions funding, enabling the mayor and his team to plan for the longer term. It also means that local leaders, in concert with the combined authority, are working to deliver a mayoral development corporation in Middleton, with the strong possibility of a new Metrolink service there too.
This is the difference that devolution can make, and in Greater Manchester we have shown what we are capable of. But we cannot be complacent. Expertise in town and transport planning must be further developed in our regions, and our bank of knowledge must deepen. Funding cycles should become yet more assured across the country, enabling our local and regional leaders to have the confidence to innovate. Fundamentally, we must formalise and codify engagement between the Department and mayoralties, and not just ahead of a fiscal event but consistently, so that we can build robust transport networks that support the needs of local people.
Regional transport inequalities do not have to spell out a foregone conclusion; we just need to find the political conviction to confront them. Each town, city and village has within it people who are capable of reaching the sum of their ambitions. We just need to be unrelenting in building the transport system to get them there.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I would like to highlight the deep inequalities in transport spending across our country and to speak specifically about the railways in the south-west. Per head of population, our region receives significantly less investment in transport than the average. In fact, the south-west region receives the second lowest funding in the country after the east midlands, as we heard from the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson)—only we do not have the prospect of electrification to look forward to on our main line, probably ever.
According to the House of Commons Library, transport spending in 2023-24 was £429 per person in the south-west, compared with £1,313 per person in London, £729 in the north-west and £706 in the west midlands. That is not levelling up; it is levelling down. This matters on a daily basis for my constituents in Newton Abbot and for communities across Devon and the south-west. Our transport links are essential to our economy, tourism, trade and everyday life, but all too often they are neglected.
We all remember when storms tore through our sea wall at Dawlish in 2014, cutting the south-west off from the rest of the country. The cliffs blocked the line for eight weeks, costing the south-west economy some £1.2 billion. The Dawlish rail resilience programme was split into five phases, with the last being the most critical. That vital phase has not been funded. The Government have rejected all solutions put forward by Network Rail so far, and now we do not even have the funding to develop an acceptable alternative. Every winter storm puts our connection with the rest of the UK at risk, and the Government are not taking this seriously. I urge the Government to give Network Rail the parameters they will accept and clear funding to design a solution. Lack of a solution could cost another £1.2 billion if, or when, the cliffs fail again.
Accessibility is another area where we are falling short. Too many railway stations in the south-west still lack step-free access. I would particularly like to see better access at Teignmouth station. Disabled passengers are forced to choose their journeys based not on where they want to go but on which stations they are able to use. That is not acceptable in this day and age.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to Teignmouth station. Despite its large size, my constituency does not have a single mainline train station, but our closest station, Bodmin Parkway, also has severe accessibility challenges. It has been put on the list for accessibility upgrades, but that could happen as late as 2032. Will he join me in calling on the Minister to make those upgrades as quickly as possible, so that our constituents do not miss out?
Martin Wrigley
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
When we had the railway station defences rebuilt at Dawlish, we did get the benefit of a lift. Teignmouth still does not have that. Before the lift was put in, disabled passengers were put on what is called a barrow crossing—they were literally put on a trolley and wheeled across the railway lines. That is just not acceptable.
I say this clearly: the south-west deserves its fair share. We need fairer transport spending, proper disabled access at every station and a full commitment to complete the resilience work that will protect our region’s lifeline rail route. I will keep pressing the House and this Government until the south-west gets the fair share it deserves.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for bringing forward this important debate. She spoke with passion about the subject.
The south-east can be described as leafy and rich, with Kent being the garden of England, but parts of that garden have been left unnurtured, untended and left behind. Transport inequality can be framed as a north-south divide. In my constituency, there is a north-south divide where people living in the north of the constituency have a lower life expectancy of over a decade. But both the urban and rural communities have been left behind.
When I spoke with young people during the campaign and more recently, they told me that transport is their No. 1 issue. It is about connectivity and getting across Gravesham, because there are no buses on a Sunday that can take them to town to meet their friends, and there are no buses that can take them after school if they want to stay and do extracurricular activities. A mum recently contacted me about her 16-year-old who was excited to start at Northfleet technology college, which specialises in engineering. They chose that college because of the bus route, the 305, but that has now been scrapped. We see this up and down our country: bus routes are there one day and scrapped the next. The new bus route means nearly an hour’s journey with a 20-minute walk. On top of that, a pass costs £640 for that privilege. The Kent freedom pass, which is run by Kent county council—previously Tory but now Reform-led—used to cost £50. Now it is over £550 a year and rising.
Families are being priced out, and although I helped to secure options to pay in monthly instalments, the cost remains out of reach for many. In urban areas of my constituency, reliability is a major concern. The cliff collapse at Galley Hill in the neighbouring constituency is having a major impact on the reliability of buses.
Under the Tories’ Ebbsfleet Development Corporation, millions of pounds have gone to shiny, fast-track routes. However, they serve the new developments while existing communities have lost their services altogether. The people of Northfleet lost their bus route. They were promised a physical connection between Northfleet station and Ebbsfleet International—a place that has some of the highest levels of deprivation—but that has been placed on hold indefinitely, meaning that new housing developments see that investment while those who really could do with that opportunity have been left behind. That is a two-tier public transport system, and it is not fair.
In Gravesham we see bus companies competing in a relatively small area for similar routes, undercutting each other and making timetable choices based on profit, not where people actually want to go. I am incredibly confident that the new bus services Bill will enable local people to make the routes better for themselves.
I must mention the ferry—bring back the Tilbury-Gravesend ferry—because it is not only about getting across the borough but getting to Essex, supporting our businesses as a place for growth.
Joe Robertson
The hon. Member mentions ferries. Perhaps she will show a little sympathy to me and my constituents, because we are entirely reliant on ferries that are unregulated and privatised, so neither the local authority nor the Government have any say over those services, whereas her local authority does have a say over her ferries. She might want to reflect on the role of Government in all modes of transport across the UK.
Dr Sullivan
The hon. Member and I share a passion for ferries. My ferry no longer runs, so despite having a local government agency that could intervene and supply a ferry, it let go of that contract. I will continue to bang that drum, because ferries are an incredibly important mode of transport for so many people, especially his constituents on the Isle of Wight.
The Government want to see transport as a gateway to opportunity, which I fully support, not the barrier that it is today and has been for many years. We must unleash community power and agency to bring voice to the people of Gravesham, especially the young people, who deserve the right to opportunity via buses and boats.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for introducing this really important debate. In my maiden speech over a year ago, in a railways debate, I spoke about the state of the railways in my constituency and the need to open a station—Devizes Gateway—to bring back a service to the town lost since the days of Beeching. Despite efforts in the name of levelling up, any progress made to tackle regional inequality in transport has been modest and inconsistent. I represent many small towns and villages that rarely benefit from national policy initiatives and all too often have to rely on private cars to travel longer distances to services, schools and jobs.
A more equal distribution of transport funds could drastically improve the lives of people in my constituency, and thousands of others up and down the country. One academic study found that a fifth of workers had turned down a job because of poor bus services. Another found that 40% of those looking for a job said that the lack of personal transport or inadequate public transport were key barriers to their getting a job.
Wiltshire is in a challenging position when it comes to rail travel. We have railways, but many do not benefit from the services, which all too often carry people and freight across the county but do not stop at the few stations in the county. Local services range from unreliable to non-existent. Nowhere is that mismatch felt more strongly than in Devizes, a town at the geographical and cultural heart of Wiltshire, with its historic centre, independent businesses and nearby world heritage sites. The town’s marketplace stands just two and a half miles from a major railway line, but in order to access the network passengers must travel by road 12 miles to Chippenham or 23 miles to Swindon. Melksham, a fast-growing industrial town, fares little better. With only one train every two hours during most of the day, locals cannot rely on it for work and school and many are not even aware of it.
Major improvements to Wiltshire’s rail services can be made with only minor infrastructure upgrades. Network Rail’s 2024 Wiltshire rail strategy sets out the compelling case for building the Devizes Gateway station, reconnecting 30,000 people living in and around the town to the railway and bringing more visitors to that special part of Wiltshire.
I am also delighted to be supporting the Bath and Wiltshire metro proposal, which would deliver many of the improvements we need locally, including for Melksham. A group of industry experts is meeting in Bath as I speak, to discuss how we can leverage existing infrastructure to regenerate our communities. Where good transport leads, high-quality housing, jobs and economic opportunity will follow.
The Secretary of State offered kind and encouraging words in Transport questions this morning. However, following the meeting in Bath today, it would be enormously useful if the Rail Minister would agree to a meeting with me and the participants.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
For rural areas such as South Norfolk, transport links are a lifeline. So I am delighted that this Government are doing what previous Governments failed to do: investing in South Norfolk’s infrastructure. Already I have secured a £200 million investment to upgrade the Thickthorn junction, shaving valuable, lifesaving minutes off journeys for ambulances to access the Norfolk and Norwich hospital, which will also benefit the constituency of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) directly. I have also secured £2.6 million for key cycle and footpath access across Norfolk, including the Hethersett to Norwich research park cycle route. But there is more to do.
Today I want to touch on three points: first, rural road safety; secondly, bus services in South Norfolk; and thirdly—the Minister will not be surprised to hear me mention this again—Wymondham train station.
On my first point, I am currently running a constituency-wide survey on rural road safety in South Norfolk. Once the survey has concluded, I will share my findings with Norfolk county council, the police and crime commissioner for Norfolk and the Roads Minister. What is already clear, however, is that Norfolk roads are simply not fit for purpose. They are unsafe and covered with potholes, despite our Labour Government increasing Norfolk county council’s budget for pothole repairs to £56 million.
On bus services, the situation is just as frustrating. For disabled and less mobile residents of estates like the Hampdens in Costessey, bus services are in effect non-existent. The whole of the Hampdens estate is without bus services—they deserve better than this enforced isolation.
I now turn to Wymondham train station. As the Department already knows from my many, many lobbying attempts, platform 2 southbound from Wymondham has no step-free access—it is a Victorian train station that is celebrating its 180th birthday—so anyone with a mobility issue wanting to travel south from Wymondham must first travel all the way north to Norwich, then turn around and travel all the way back down. That is completely inefficient, isolating and unjust.
Once again, the primary victims of poor transport provision are elderly and disabled people. Accessibility upgrades to Wymondham station are being considered by the Access for All scheme. I realise that the Minister will not be able to comment in any detail about Wymondham station, but I can think of no better way to prove the Government’s dedication to tackle regional transport inequality than to make it accessible for all.
Viewers of the BBC’s “Politics East” would expect all politicians from East Anglia to want to talk about another aspect of rail use: the Ely and Haughley junction upgrade. I will continue to lobby on this cross-party issue across the whole of East Anglia. The upgrade would shave off valuable minutes and increase freight haulage to Felixstowe, which would be a huge economic boost for our region, and I would get more services to Wymondham and Spooner Row, which would be a win for everyone. Again, I put that on the Minister’s to-do list.
To sum up: we need to hold Norfolk county council to account for failing to fix our roads, we need to continue making progress to improve access to bus services, and Wymondham station must finally be made accessible to all.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on heritage rail, I must start by noting that we are celebrating Railway 200 on 27 September.
The railways brought wealth, new ideas and vitality to communities across the UK. They were and are the vehicle of growth. Our many heritage railways, including 10 in my constituency, continue to marry technologies old and new, and to bring so much happiness to so many people, but the great little trains of Wales are now charitable or private railways. Wales’s public rail network has been the last stop on the line for investment: a legacy that continues to impact the lives of people and communities across our nation. The Network Rail Wales route, which accounts for 11% of the UK’s rail network, received—wait for it—1% of the enhancement budget between 2011 and 2016.
The Welsh Government previously estimated that Wales could be missing out on up to £8 billion in rail investment between 2001 and 2029; hon. Members will note that that spans a number of Governments here in Westminster. The funding deficit leads to inadequate public transport infrastructure, which has far-reaching consequences, particularly for those who have no access to cars and those who live in post-industrial and rural areas. It limits people’s ability to connect with friends and family and creates barriers to accessing education and employment opportunities.
In Wales, we want to improve our productivity, and we want the means to do it. The spring statement in June offered only a token gesture towards addressing the deep-rooted funding disparities that Wales faces. For example, the Government’s suggestion that the £445 million of rail investment—over 10 years—will compensate for the historical underfunding of the Welsh network or the multibillion-pound injustice of Wales’s exclusion from HS2 funding is simply not credible. Where are the reinforcements against climate change? Where is the electrification of our lines?
Let us not forget that the current Secretary of State for Wales acknowledged in opposition that Wales’s fair share from HS2 should be at least £4.6 billion—so we have received a tenth of what our own Welsh Secretary of State once felt was fair. The spring statement also included the Government’s review of the Green Book, aimed at improving investment outside London and the south-east of England. Yet on examining its contents, I was disappointed but not surprised to find no commitment to reforming the way in which Welsh rail is funded. This inequality remains unaddressed.
The Government’s decision to classify the Oxford to Cambridge railway as a project that benefits Wales is a stark example of the kind of accounting manipulation—massaging—that deprives Wales of rightful Barnett consequential funding, just as we saw with HS2 under the Conservatives. Indeed, earlier this year, the Secretary of State for Wales acknowledged in writing that Welsh rail has suffered significant under-investment. Yet there has been no pledge to bring spending in Wales in line with per capita investment levels in England.
I urge the Government to move beyond rhetoric and take decisive action. Let us begin by devolving powers over heavy rail to Wales, ending the ability for the outdated Barnett funding formula to be manipulated to Wales’s detriment while also granting Wales meaningful control over rail transport investment, just as Scotland and Northern Ireland already have.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in a really important debate on regional transport inequality. For too long, communities in the north-east have suffered the effects of chronic underinvestment in transport and the flawed legacy of privatisation. What should be a public service has instead become a patchwork system that too often fails local people.
On the railways, the proposed LNER timetable risks cutting vital stops at Durham. For many that would mean unnecessary changes at York or Newcastle. For older people, disabled passengers and those travelling with children, that creates real barriers and makes our railways less accessible at a time when they should be opening up.
Buses tell a similar story. In Brandon, Ushaw Moor, Waterhouses and Newton Hall, people depend on services from Arriva and Go North East, yet complaints reach my inbox every week. The X20 from Langley Park to Sunderland and the 43 from Esh Winning to Durham are both unreliable, and in some villages buses simply do not run at all on Sundays or bank holidays. Too often, our area is left with the oldest buses, prone to breaking down, while the newest vehicles serve the routes in Newcastle and Sunderland. Although funding for new bus stops is welcome, my constituents ask what good they are when the services to go with them are not reliable.
There are workforce challenges too. A shortage of engineers causes delays, when our further education colleges could be supported to provide apprenticeships and skills. Locating a depot in Consett, where bad weather frequently disrupts operations, has only added to problems. Another issue is that our drivers in the region are paid less than colleagues in the north-west by the exact same companies—hardly a recipe for recruitment or retention.
All that reflects the wider picture of years of underinvestment and inequality. Had the north received the same per person transport spending as London since 2009, we would have had £140 billion more—enough to transform the system. Instead, nearly a fifth of rural bus routes have vanished in just five years, deepening isolation for many.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is nothing more isolating than not being able to get somewhere? My constituent Elishia Ingham tried to get her mobility scooter on to a bus service but was rejected entry on to the bus because there was not enough space. Does my hon. Friend agree that even though bus companies do not have to allow that by law, they might increasingly consider the needs of disabled travellers?
Mary Kelly Foy
I could not agree more. Although we may improve our bus services and the types of modern buses we have, they are not accessible in all areas, and that is a huge inequality.
The Government’s Bus Services (No. 2) Bill is a chance to put this right. With franchising, fair pay and investment in modern vehicles, we can build a system that works for passengers, supports jobs and meets our climate goals. Reliable and affordable public transport should not be a luxury; it is the foundation of a fair economy and connected communities. My constituents in the City of Durham deserve no less. They deserve a transport service that serves local people, not profit, and Ministers must act to deliver it.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I was listening to Radio 4 yesterday evening, and I was hearing about transport problems in London. Let’s face it: when we hear about transport problems in London, we know exactly what they mean, but pity also the poor people in the provinces who rarely come to London but have to hear all about London’s daily problems. In Devon, the struggle with our rail infrastructure is not just an occasional disruption; it is an everyday reality. Every year, there are around 50 million rail journeys to, from or within the south-west of England, yet according to the Office of Rail and Road, between January and March this year, only 67% of South Western Railway services ran on time, meaning that one in three trains arrived late.
Those figures were collected even before the disruption on South Western Railway over the summer, when speeds were reduced because of the hot, dry weather caused by the “soil moisture deficit”. A journey from Honiton to London, which should take a little over three hours, was dragged out to nearly four. Services from Axminster, Whimple and Feniton to Exeter were reduced to just one every two hours. That is not a service that people can rely on for work, for getting to college or for family life, and with hotter summers set to become more frequent, we need a lasting solution.
Even in normal times, the line is fragile. It depends on a long single-track section, which means that if one train is late, other trains are delayed, too. Trains back up at passing points, delays ripple down the line, and at busy times South Western Railway has to cut—or it has been cutting, at least—carriage numbers in half, leaving people crammed in.
One solution would involve increasing rail capacity along the line between Axminster and Exeter. At its heart, there would be a new 3-mile section of dual track near Whimple and Cranbrook. That single improvement would make a huge difference. With the double track in place, South Western Railway could run an additional hourly shuttle service between Axminster and Exeter, which would give Honiton and Axminster two trains every hour to Exeter and would mean that Whimple and Feniton would get a reliable hourly service. People would have better onward connections from Exeter St Davids to Plymouth, Barnstaple, Bristol, Birmingham and beyond.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
My hon. Friend makes a really interesting point about dualling of line. I have been campaigning in my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough to dual the line between Knaresborough and York for the exact same reasons and benefits that my hon. Friend is describing. Does he agree that, if this Government want to get on with the job of growth, going further and faster on investing in dualling lines like ours would be a way to do it?
Richard Foord
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He points to how it is much more affordable simply to dual a piece of track than it is to invest in new railway lines, as we talked about a lot in the last Parliament.
For students studying at Exeter college, for workers heading into Exeter and for businesses trading across the south-west, such a solution would be transformative. It would make the railway more resilient. When there are delays, whether they are because of flooding, autumn leaves or dry clay embankments, trains could pass more easily. With the Government planning around 20,000 new homes along the line between Axminster and Exeter, demand on this stretch of railway will only increase.
Finally, we cannot ignore the rolling stock—the trains themselves. The diesel fleet is nearly 40 years old. Reliability is failing and spare parts are running out. We need Government decisions on new trains—battery, electric or hybrid—so that by the early 2030s we might have a modern, clean, reliable fleet. Rural and coastal communities such as Honiton and Sidmouth must not be left behind. South Western Railway is doing what it can. Since I asked the Rail Minister a question this morning at Transport questions, South Western Railway has announced replacement buses from Axminster to Exeter, and between Feniton, Whimple and Exeter. But that is a sticking plaster. What we really need is investment that would allow it to run reliable trains, not just replacement bus services. People in the south-west pay many of the same taxes as those in London, but face long delays, overcrowding and fewer trains. It is time for the Government to demonstrate that attention to transport in the south-west is just as necessary as that in London.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. With an immediate three-minute limit, I call Andrew Cooper.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will do my best to indulge you on the fly.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this debate. Transport is not just about going from one place to another; it is about enabling progress. It opens doors to education, employment and enterprise, while also keeping us connected to the people and communities that matter most. But for many communities, particularly across the north, transport has not been a catalyst for opportunity, but a source of disadvantage.
Deep-rooted inequalities in regional infrastructure have left countless towns and cities disconnected, limiting access to jobs, education and essential services. The consequences of this divide are tangible, affecting lives, livelihoods and the ability of entire regions to thrive. That is because transport investment in the UK has been starkly unequal for decades. While London and the south-east have benefited from sustained strategic funding, many towns and cities across the north have been left behind, with ageing infrastructure, underfunded networks and, crucially, missed opportunities for growth. The numbers speak for themselves. Historically, per capita transport spending in London has dwarfed that of the north. Indeed, analysis shows that had the north received the same level of transport infrastructure investment per person as London between 2010 and 2020, it would have gained an additional £66 billion, funding it has ultimately missed out on due to regional disparities in infrastructure investment.
In my local area, inadequate transport infrastructure remains one of the most significant barriers to unlocking the full potential of Northwich, Winsford and Middlewich. It is a major obstacle to attracting new businesses, creating jobs and driving investment. But I hope that change is coming thanks to this Labour Government. The recent reforms to the Treasury’s Green Book represent a turning point. The updated Green Book places greater emphasis on regional equity, and on the long-term social and economic benefits of investment. It recognises that value is not just measured in pounds and pence, but measured in lives improved, communities connected and futures transformed. It is a chance to rebalance our economy, invest in the infrastructure that powers productivity, and ensure that no matter where someone lives—whether it be Middlewich or Manchester, Winsford or Warrington—they have access to the same opportunities as someone living in London or the south-east.
The Government have begun this policy with action: with real, visible investment in northern transport, from rail upgrades and new bus routes to road building schemes, such as the Middlewich eastern bypass in my constituency. I am proud to say it was this Labour Government who delivered the investment for this vital project—although I suspect the former Minister approved it just to stop me camping outside her office and badgering her in the Tea Room. I am grateful for her support, but her successor should know that this now means my lobbying powers are free to be directed to other noble causes, such as improvements to the Winnington bridge and step-free access at Northwich station
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for bringing this really important debate to the House.
Growth goes where growth is, but when transport is inefficient, access to opportunity is limited. Leigh and Atherton, once thriving industrial hubs, now sit between Manchester and Liverpool, alongside towns such as St Helens, Warrington, Wigan and Salford, yet we remain locked in outdated transport systems. Roads built around our mills and factories are now clogged with ever-increasing traffic. This is not just a local issue. The gridlock we face is a shared burden and a shared injustice. Leigh ranks in the top 1% nationally for transport related social exclusion. In my constituency, over 40,000 people—37% of residents—face a high risk of exclusion due to poor transport; that is twice the north-west average, and nearly five times that of Greater Manchester. Poor connectivity and an over- reliance on cars are isolating our most vulnerable older people, disabled residents and low-income families. People are being trapped in cycles of poverty and missed opportunity.
I have spoken to residents who set off three hours early to make a hospital appointment. Others turn down college places or job offers simply because they cannot afford a car, and opportunity is out of reach without one. That should not be the case, and it does not have to be. We must invest in accessible, sustainable transport—walking, cycling, buses and trains—across every region, not just where the growth is.
Greater Manchester is a shining example of the first stages of the transformative impact that transport devolution can deliver. Over £30 million is being invested in safer, cleaner transport through the Bee Network. Services such as the V1 and V2 buses in Leigh and Atherton are vital, and the planned new railway station in Golborne is a huge step forward. But we must go further. Without reliable and inclusive transport, access to jobs, education and healthcare remains a postcode lottery. I welcome the discussions to expand Metrolink to areas such as Salford Crescent, Wigan and Leigh. Those investments must continue.
There is also the proposal to connect our two great regions, spearheaded by Greater Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham, and Liverpool City Region Mayor, Steve Rotheram. With the Greater Manchester economy growing faster than the UK’s as a whole, after their recent comments I say to the leadership of Reform, who are not in their seats, that we have proven what ambition backed with investment can achieve for our region. It is transport infrastructure that is driving that success. We on this side of the House will not let short-sighted politics stall the north’s momentum.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), for securing this vital debate. In Derby, like many other parts of the country, transport is the glue that holds our community together, but Derby is also a city of makers. We have a unique transport manufacturing heritage to be proud of, and a future to be excited about.
If we are talking about investment in our public transport, however, it is a totally different story. While Derby powers our supply chain, the east midlands has been left lagging behind when it comes to funding our transport infrastructure. Under successive Governments, our region has sat consistently at the back of the queue for investment. In 2023-24, that meant that transport spending in the east midlands was just 54% of the UK average—shockingly, the lowest of any UK region or nation, as we heard earlier. That is not just a number. It is delays, lost opportunities and frustration for people just trying to go about their day to day.
Ask anyone in our community and they will say that they have been stuck on the same congested roads for years, and they have watched vital bus services disappear, as our region has faced the consequences of the deepest bus cuts in the country since 2008. Understandably, people are absolutely fed up. That is why I am proud that this Labour Government, along with our fantastic East Midlands Mayor, Claire Ward, are wasting no time turning the page. With a record £2 billion secured earlier this year to tackle congestion and improve connectivity across the east midlands, we are finally starting to put things right.
That is not all. Whether it is moving forward on upgrades to the A38 to end Derby’s traffic gridlock, or the introduction of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, protecting thousands of miles of lifeline routes across our region, progress is being made. There is still lots more to do to put decades of under-investment behind us. Securing projects such as the electrification of the midlands main line would supercharge our region, creating 5,000 jobs, reducing journey times and improving reliability, as well as unlocking over £400 million worth of economic benefit for the region.
To transform our transport infrastructure, we need sustained, long-term funding in our region that, at the very minimum, matches the UK average. I look forward to seeing that delivered through action and investment from a Government who back Derby and the east midlands.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I would like to talk about the importance of the impact of both austerity and covid on entrenching the regional transport inequalities we have heard so much about today. I will also talk about the importance of our making the most of our existing infrastructure, which has ended up crumbling and neglected after the previous 14 years, and emphasise the importance of improving services and restoring those battered by austerity and covid.
This issue is particularly important in coastal communities. I am proud to sit next to my co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on coastal communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). Despite the geographical differences between our two constituencies, we share a concern about the connectivity challenges in our coastal communities, and we know that many other places are experiencing the same problems because, as much as coastal communities have many assets, they are fundamentally at the end of the line. They are therefore—I say this advisedly to those currently in the Chamber—most exposed and vulnerable to the populism and dark forces we have seen around us recently.
When we think about all that, we understand the need to connect people to opportunities for growth and to break down the barriers to opportunity—two of our key missions as a country. On that great strategic point, I urge anyone from Stagecoach and Kent county council who is listening to restore the No. 9 bus between Ramsgate and Canterbury for precisely that reason. One of our hospitals is there, as are two of our universities and the further education colleges. I know children, young people and adults whose opportunities have been limited and cut back because that No. 9 bus service no longer exists.
Let me talk about the impact of covid, particularly in respect of the crumbling and neglected infrastructure we have as a consequence. Ashford International train station has been international in name only since the covid pandemic, and Eurostar’s expansion plans do not include the restoration of international rail services to Kent. Cutting the length of train journeys from Kent to Paris and Brussels by two hours would greatly improve the opportunities for us as a community and, indeed, for growth. The Good Growth Foundation has pointed out that this would improve growth by £2.4 billion across five years. Unlike other so-called affluent parts of the south- east, places like mine really need that economic growth.
On existing infrastructure, I have one last message for the Minister about Ramsgate port: it is important to restore passenger ferries, at least, to a place that is desperately in need of that kind of connectivity.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), who talked about the impact of covid on transport. Many of my constituents across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages rely on the cross-city line to get to Birmingham for work, for social activities—to visit the theatre or go for a night out—and for many other reasons. Unfortunately, during the pandemic the service on the line was cut from four trains an hour to just two. That was understandable at the time, given the circumstances, but years have passed and those trains are still not back.
The cross-city line is the busiest commuter train line in the country outside of London. In the year before covid, a million journeys started at Lichfield City, going towards Birmingham New Street. Lichfield is a city of 35,000 people and a million journeys began at that train station. It is a busy line—it is important infrastructure. This debate is about regional transport inequality; the idea that on a line that busy that served anywhere in the south-east or London the service would be halved and nothing done about it for years is absolutely laughable. But because it is in the west midlands, the services have not come back.
The villain in this piece is just how busy New Street is. It is over capacity; we cannot get any more trains in or out. That is why I am so glad to have campaigned to get the midland rail hub project funded and to have co-ordinated dozens of Back-Bench MPs to support the campaign. That will improve the capacity at New Street, meaning that we can get our trains back on the city line. It also means that 50 stations across a number of regions will get to see improvements in their services. That is a fantastic example of this Government investing in the projects that we need to close some of the transport inequality gaps, and I thank the Minister for that.
As I have a minute left, and given that those improvements are coming, let me say this. I have a line from Lichfield to Burton that passes by the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire. It would make a brilliant place for a passenger service, so that everybody from around the country can get to the National Memorial Arboretum to enjoy the fantastic facility that it is and take part in remembrance all year round, not just in November.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I strongly believe that a regional geography is the right scale to make substantial public transport improvements. That is why I back this Government’s devolution agenda as the right approach to improving transport. The real inequality of the future will not be north versus south or urban versus rural, but between those areas that have well-respected, ambitious mayors and those that do not. For the sake of passengers, I hope that the Government move swiftly to fill in the gaps on the devo map, even if there is not complete consensus.
Inequality in transport is already linked to some extent to governance. In the past, larger areas had passenger transport executives, and that gives them a head start, as more power heads to strategic authorities. I still believe that the Government could go further to encourage the creation of more executive bodies to co-ordinate transport regionally.
I also remain concerned about the highways-transport split. I very much welcome clause 25 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which will allow mayoral combined authorities to take on civil enforcement of traffic contraventions, but we could go further. Fundamentally, the same organisation needs to be responsible for the bus, the bus lane and the bus stop.
We also need to think differently about geography. From the Victorian radial rail network through to modern motorways, there has for too long been an assumption that all roads and rails should lead to London, but we cannot just think north to south; it must be east to west too. That is why I warmly welcome the £2.5 billion commitment to East West Rail to rebalance decades of under-investment in cross-country links. I will continue to call for the expansion of the Luton-Dunstable busway to Leighton Buzzard and on to Bletchley, linking it into East West Rail.
The Minister will be delighted to know that my final question is a train question, rather than a bus question. I am keen to hear from him about plans for Great British Railways within regions. Does he believe that the current Network Rail regions are the right ones to build on as we move to GBR, or does he believe there are other opportunities and shapes other than triangles?
We must always see transport as a driver of growth. In order to build thriving networks, we need a relentless focus on growing passenger numbers, which we can all do, as we know that September is Catch the Bus Month.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
We know that when it comes to transport inequality, as we have just heard, the people who are left behind most are younger people, disabled people, people on low incomes and older people. Madam Deputy Speaker, I note that when you were the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, you called for an older people’s commissioner. In this respect, that could provide real value.
In the time available to me, I will major in as many transport forms as possible. Yesterday I spoke about buses. In Bournemouth, we are crying out for a better No. 33 bus, the reinstatement of the bus route in and to Throop, and a bus to the airport that is better and goes more frequently. We need a stronger provision of electric vehicle charging infrastructure; it is typically concentrated in more affluent areas, and where it is concentrated in public areas it does not work. When it comes to trains, I am campaigning for an accessible Pokesdown station and faster trains to London.
I want to talk particularly about the problems that people experience locally with accessing driving tests. The Labour Government have committed to 10,000 additional driving tests, and we have four additional instructors in Poole, but people in Bournemouth East have to travel to Poole to take their test, because their centre was closed in 2019. Operators are using bots to sweep up months-worth of test dates and sell them to parents and learners at a high profit. That is not fair, and it is an example of inequality. I have written to the Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency, but it is nowhere to be seen on this issue. I want this Government to be on the side of learners and to tackle the driving test backlog.
I welcome the fact that we have £1.1 million in funding coming to Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council for the improvement of transport infrastructure, and that we have an extra £2 million to invest on potholes. I particularly want to make the case, for the first time in this Chamber, for the resurrection of a tram network in Bournemouth, which I think is really important. [Interruption.] I can hear murmurs of assent from my hon. Friends. Everyone loves a tram. Trams foster economic, social and cultural growth around them. In Bournemouth, which has joined two other towns to create a super-city region, we are falling behind in economic growth opportunities because we do not have the interconnectedness we need.
I was going to say more, but I will just briefly say that if we can have faster trains to London, accessible stations, the potholes in our roads filled, better bus services, more driving tests and a tram network which, because of its permanence, attracts businesses, organisations and people to move into our areas—those areas are already thriving, but could thrive so much more—Bournemouth would no longer be left behind; Bournemouth would thrive. It is a fantastic, beautiful town, which I am so proud to represent, and with the elimination of our transport inequalities, there would be no limit to the success we could achieve.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
The perception many people have of Kent is one of prosperity because of our close proximity to London, but the reality is more complicated. In my constituency, we have widespread inequalities, and communities feel overlooked and disconnected, as is all too evident in the way our transport network operates.
Nowhere has that been more evident than in the decision taken by Eurostar in 2020 to stop the international rail service calling at Ashford International. My hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) highlighted the importance of international connectivity to the south-east for its economic benefits. The decision has left the international section of the station, which cost about £80 million of taxpayers’ money, sitting idle, for over five years so far. This autumn, the Office of Rail and Road is due to make a decision about whether new providers of international rail will have access to the international depot at Temple Mills in east London. As the ORR comes to its decision, I ask the Minister whether the Government will give a clear indication that they will favour operators who commit to return such services to Ashford.
The London focus of our transport network means that, while there are good services between Ashford and London, there is not the same provision of services for my constituents looking to travel across Kent or make local journeys that do not involve the capital. This disproportionately affects those who do not have access to a car such as young people, elderly residents, the disabled and lower-income households. It limits their access to work opportunities, healthcare appointments and local amenities. In particular, I have been contacted by many constituents since I was elected who have complained about the poor condition of local bus services. That especially affects the residents of Hawkinge and the smaller villages, such as the constituent whose son is disabled and is unable to find a job because the bus from his village starts too late in the morning, or the older constituents who are unable to visit theatres in Canterbury because the last bus runs before the end of the performance.
Those are just a couple of the many examples I could cite showing why my constituency, and Kent as a whole, is crying out for properly supported bus routes. Having these routes is vital to breaking down barriers to opportunity and unlocking economic growth in our communities. I welcome the fact that, when Labour’s Bus Services (No. 2) Bill is passed into law, it will play a major role in reforming our broken bus system. I hope that the administration at Kent county council will take full advantage of the powers the Bill will give it to deliver the improvement in bus services that my constituents deserve.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this debate. She knows my constituency well, and will be familiar with many of the issues that I will raise.
Erewash is at the geographic and, dare I say, emotional heart of the east midlands— the halfway point between Derby and Nottingham. Long Eaton, which I represent, was scarcely on the map before the railways, and Ilkeston, like the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), used to have its own tram. Those places are defined by industry and are inherently linked to public transportation, but by the middle of the 20th century, that legacy had been whittled away as all focus moved towards the car.
For 50 years, Ilkeston did not have a train station at all, but after years of cross-party campaigning, its new station opened in 2017. However, lots of people in Ilkeston tell me that the station has been a missed opportunity. Services are once per hour, meaning that it is not as attractive to commuters as it could be. Ilkeston is in Derbyshire, but passengers cannot even get a train to Derby from the station.
I am pleased, though, to hear discussion about the Maid Marian line again. That line would restore the link from Nottinghamshire to the Erewash valley line, perhaps enabling those new services connecting Mansfield and Derby to call at Ilkeston. At present, although the Erewash valley line bears my constituency’s name, it does not carry any local passenger services. If it were brought into more frequent use, maybe we could one day reopen the Stapleford and Sandiacre station. If we are dreaming, perhaps one day we could even bring back Draycott and Breaston station, too.
In many ways, Long Eaton was fortunate to keep its train station after the 1960s. The station has frequent services to many destinations, but there are still things that it notably lacks. The ramps up to the platform are very steep, and the lifts work only when the station is staffed, which presents real difficulties for my disabled constituents. The platform is too short, which can cause havoc for longer trains as only some doors can open.
Finally, let me address buses. The 21 bus used to link Ilkeston, Cotmanhay and Kirk Hallam directly with the Queen’s medical centre in Nottingham, one of our local major hospitals. Before the covid pandemic, the service was slashed to just once per hour, and afterwards it was slashed altogether. Now there are no direct buses from Ilkeston to the QMC, and for anyone trying to reach the hospital from Kirk Hallam by bus, it is a two-hour trip with at least two changes. It means getting a bus all the way into Derby before taking another bus, in the opposite direction, to Nottingham. It is madness.
Samantha Niblett
I am very familiar with my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I know that he was campaigning for good transport links way before he became an MP. On access to bus services, smaller villages such as Egginton in my South Derbyshire constituency are not served by a bus service at all. Does he agree that that truly ensures regional inequality across our country?
Adam Thompson
I agree completely with my hon. Friend. Indeed, for years the east midlands has languished, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North said in her opening remarks, on the bottom few rungs of the table for regional transport funding. I am glad that times are changing, however. The Treasury’s £2 billion commitment to transport in the east midlands earlier this year was bigger than I and colleagues in the region could ever have dreamed. I am so excited to see what transformation that investment will bring, and I will fight every day to ensure that Erewash sees the benefits of it.
If we are to have long-term change, the east midlands cannot rely on one-off awards, however. We need consistent investment, comprehensive planning reform, overhauled and empowered local government, and, in particular, changes to the Treasury rules to end the flat refusal to spend outside London and the greater south-east. Those are all positive prospects brought forward by this Government, and I look forward to seeing them become law.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. It might be helpful if I indicate that I will come to the Front Benchers at five minutes past 3. On a three-minute time limit, there is very little time for interventions.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Since I was elected last July, I have become closely acquainted with the long-distance London Paddington to Penzance line, which a number of my colleagues have mentioned. There was a big storm in 2014, and we were properly cut off for eight weeks; we could not get in or out of Cornwall by rail, because there is only one way to do so. Since then, an awful lot has been done to improve the resilience of the line, but phase 5 will be vital to strengthening the vulnerable coastal section and maintaining connectivity for Cornwall.
Cornwall sees a huge population increase in the summer, with about 4 million visitors, but we lack reliable year-round connections, which constrains our economy and restricts growth, as well as creating social isolation. Many of our students must travel for over an hour on public transport to further education providers, and travelling between their apprenticeships and colleges is often impossible, restricting their prospects.
As a result of our 2015 devolution deal, Cornwall council obtained greater transport powers, such as franchising and partnership agreements with local bus providers, which has helped and led to an increase in bus patronage. Cornwall was the first rural area in England to introduce smart ticketing, but that came at a cost: the council subsidises 50% of the public transport network, and it costs us an awful lot of money.
Under the previous Tory Government, the south-west had some of the lowest identifiable expenditure on public transport, at just £429 per head—the second lowest after the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson). I welcome the Government’s focus on long-term investment in transport infrastructure, including the fourfold increase in local transport grants. The funding for potholes will be hugely important in Cornwall, which has more than 4,600 miles of small roads.
The investment will be crucial for Cornwall’s economic growth. Cornwall’s chamber of commerce has said that transport connectivity is the top priority for the businesses it represents, because our transport links really hold us back. We used to receive EU funding of up to £1 billion, much of which was ploughed into transport because we did not have the funding from elsewhere. We have branch lines that would not exist had it not been for that money, but the funding has dried up now that the shared prosperity fund has finished, so we need the investment to continue.
Electrifying the main line would really help. Currently, there is a branch line passenger service that runs from Truro to Falmouth. There was a freight rail line at the end of it, so just 150 yards would open up so much for new industries such as critical minerals and would enable aggregates to be moved around. We have an airport that desperately needs a new public service obligation. Investment in transport infrastructure in Cornwall is essential for our economic growth and success in the future.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I am glad to be speaking in this debate, because far too many of my constituents are being held back by our transport system. On rail, Rugeley Trent Valley, just over the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson)—he is no longer in his place—is a striking example of what we are here to discuss. Two of the station’s three platforms can be reached only by a steep footbridge, meaning that wheelchair users, parents with prams and people with limited mobility are effectively barred from getting to Birmingham and Stafford. One constituent told me that his friend, who has mobility issues, literally had to crawl up and down the stairs to reach their connecting train.
West Midlands Railway fully supports installing lifts, but such major upgrades fall under Network Rail’s Access for All programme, for which demand is huge and funding is heavily oversubscribed. With more than 2,500 stations competing, Network Rail prioritises based on passenger numbers and the proximity of the next available accessible station. That means Rugeley loses out to larger hubs nearby, such as Stafford. Although Rugeley has been shortlisted in the past, other stations have scored higher under the system. The reality is that the next allocation of Access for All funding is still a distant prospect. In the meantime, passengers are offered so-called mitigations, such as going forward to the next accessible station and being sent back again, or being provided with road transport at the operator’s discretion. For many, that is simply not a viable or dignified option.
Josh Newbury
Given your warning, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not give way.
Accessibility upgrades such as lifts, ramps and reliable step-free routes must not be treated as optional extras in towns such as mine. They are essential to dignity, inclusion and fairness.
On buses, Cannock Chase shows why change is long overdue. We are one of the most car-dependent parts of the country, yet many still rely on buses. Over the years we have lost routes into Birmingham and the Black Country, and services after 7 pm and at weekends are rare. In my part of the world, we see stark evidence of a public service run for private profit and paid for in growing inequality. Elderly residents tell me that they cannot reach appointments, parents struggle to get children to school, and workers have to turn down shifts.
Nationally, bus services in the most deprived areas of England have been cut 10 times more than in the least deprived. Some communities have been cut off altogether, such as Slitting Mill, just outside Rugeley, which has no service at all, despite once having a direct bus all the way to Wolverhampton.
The Government’s Bus Services (No. 2) Bill—I was immensely proud to serve on the Bill Committee and to support it last night—will arrest and begin to reverse the long-term decline that we have seen for far too long. Whether it is the last bus that never comes or the platform that cannot be reached, my constituents know what regional transport inequality looks like. I welcome the Labour Government’s determination to put fairness and accessibility at the heart of transport policy. I will keep pressing to ensure that my constituents get the share of investment they deserve.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
To grow our economy, we need good connectivity. In coastal communities such as Scarborough and Whitby, we are struck in the slow lane. Scarborough, with its heritage, culture and captivating coastline, is a popular tourist destination, attracting 3.9 million visitors last year. The train from Scarborough to York is an essential transport link for visitors as well as commuters, but with only one service an hour, opportunity and growth are being choked off.
We need a twice-hourly service. This proposal is backed by York and North Yorkshire Mayor David Skaith, local businesses, my constituents and Lord Blunkett, who listed the service increase as one of his rail priorities in his report, “Yorkshire’s Plan for Rail”, published this year. Scarborough’s wonderful Stephen Joseph theatre has supported calls for a twice-hourly service, stating that audience members leave performances early to catch their train. Rather like its latest production, “Noises Off”, this is a farce.
We have businesses in Scarborough and nearby Seamer that are looking to attract more employees, but with such an irregular service, these opportunities are simply out of reach for many people. We have enough platforms and enough demand for a more regular rail service. The operator, TransPennine Express, says that one of the barriers to providing a twice-hourly service is a shortage of drivers. It insists that it must train its own drivers on its own routes. I would be grateful if the Minister could address the issue of train drivers in his closing remarks, and say whether he is exploring new ways to ensure that the local need for drivers is met.
I welcome the news that York and North Yorkshire combined authority will receive £94 million in local transport grant capital funding over the next four years. However, the combined authority, which covers a huge geographical area, is not part of the transport for city regions, so its settlement is not nearly as large as that of most combined authorities.
Alison Hume
No, I am afraid I have to carry on.
Unless we equip our first Labour rural metro mayor in York and North Yorkshire with the economic firepower to deliver better buses and trains, we not only limit the opportunity for towns like Scarborough to contribute to economic growth, but risk failing to break down barriers to opportunity in coastal communities.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
When we talk about regional transport inequality, the east midlands, where I was born and have lived most of my life, comes to mind as one of the clearest examples of such inequality, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) has said. Over the past five years, per-head transport spend in the east midlands has fallen to just 54% of the UK average—the lowest of any region or nation. As has already been said, had we simply received the English average, we would have had £7 billion more for our buses, roads and railways.
Rail funding in the east midlands is particularly unequal, at £175 per head in 2023-2024—barely 40% of the English average, and a third of what the west midlands received. These are not just abstract figures; they affect daily life. They mean high car dependency, low levels of bus usage, and a sparse and unreliable rail network. Three quarters of our stations are served by only one train per hour or fewer. This is what chronic under-investment looks like on the ground for my constituents.
As has been mentioned, there have recently been positive commitments, which I welcome, including the £2 billion allocated to our East Midlands Mayor, Claire Ward. But we have to be honest: with huge sums being spent elsewhere on HS2, the trans-Pennine upgrade, East West Rail and the lower Thames crossing—to name but a few fantastic projects—the money committed to the east midlands will not address the long-standing imbalances. Without purposeful intervention, I fear that the east midlands’ relative position will simply worsen.
So what needs to change? First, we need funding parity. I would like to see a transparent path towards bringing transport spend in the east midlands up to the English average, including on rail, where the gap is deepest. Secondly, we need certainty. We need a long-term, multi-year pipeline for road, rail, bus, station and active travel investments, rather than piecemeal one-off projects, so that local authorities and industry can plan properly. Thirdly, I would like to see housing growth matched by transport capacity. My constituency is delivering the housing that this Government want to see, and it is important that the transport is there as well.
Finally, I must mention midland main line electrification. The economic case is overwhelming: it would unlock £400 million-worth of benefits and 5,000 jobs. In contrast, keeping the scheme under review risks £40 million to £70 million in additional costs. My ask today is therefore straightforward: please, Minister, look at that scheme again.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) on securing this important debate to highlight the disparity in the effectiveness and adequacy of transport between different regions.
I would like to speak about my constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle and to consider how specific issues affect travel in remote coastal areas such as Cornwall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) has mentioned, particularly in relation to home-to-school transport. Because of Cornwall’s geography, being at the end of a long peninsula, it is characterised by remote communities, limited transport infrastructure and a high proportion of small settlements, which means that delivering services is inherently more expensive.
The recently closed fair funding review consulted on updating the system of distribution, including assessing local authorities’ experiences of delivering multiple services, such as home-to-school transport. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth again highlighted, the south-west ranks in the bottom half of regional transport expenditure rankings in 2023-24, yet Cornwall faces distinct geographical challenges. It covers a very large area with a dispersed population, which results in longer school journeys, as many pupils live far from their nearest school. There are also limited public transport options in rural areas, necessitating dedicated school transport. These place-based characteristics are compounded by pressures on the special educational needs and disabilities system, with a rising number of pupils requiring specialist transport. Yet the funding formula does not fully reflect the complexity and cost of providing the service.
Roads in remote coastal and rural areas are more vulnerable to weather-related disruption, meaning transport services require extra contingency planning and resilience funding. Seasonal pressures exacerbate these challenges too, with visitors and seasonal workers increasing congestion and wear on infrastructure, adding to maintenance costs and planning complexity.
When he gets to his feet, I hope the Minister will be able to address some of the particular issues affecting remote coastal areas such as Cornwall, and I would appreciate a further discussion with him on this matter, particularly given Cornwall’s distinct devolution complications.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I was quite tempted to stand up this afternoon and just say the word “pothole” over and over again for three solid minutes, as the peculiarity of such an approach might really bring home to the Minister, who I know has been doing his best on these matters, quite how strongly my constituents feel about the state of their roads.
The Government did give Cheshire East several million pounds more in this year’s Budget to deal with road maintenance backlogs than in recent years, which was very much appreciated by my constituents. However, the reality is that 14 years of chronic underfunding has left my roads in a catastrophic state. I cannot emphasise enough how dark, dangerous and worrying rural roads are—the number of young people who die on the roads in my constituency is absolutely horrific. Similarly, I cannot emphasise enough that we need separate funding for significant safety upgrades, as well as a dramatic increase to the road maintenance pot as soon as the Government are able to do so.
There is another matter concerning roads in my constituent that I want to draw attention to. Gritting might sound like a trivial thing to those living in an urban area, but gritting in rural areas is absolutely critical. Our roads get a lower level of use, and the result is that they freeze and stay frozen for longer periods of time.
One impact of my local authority having had so many financial challenges over the past 14 years has been reductions in gritting. There are schools in my rural areas that have no pavements outside them, and the roads in front of them are completely and utterly ungritted. When those children are dropped off at school, they are put into a road—alongside cars—which has not been gritted at all. Headteachers do their best to mitigate the associated risks by not demanding that parents bring their children in on time, so the lack of safety features not only puts children at risk, but undermines their education.
Let me contrast that with London, where automatic number plate recognition cameras help to shut roads off completely at specific times of day. I find it staggering that we have such a complete contrast in treatment. Of course, I want children in London to be safe; this is not about taking things away from London schools, but it is very much about children in my constituency, as well as older people and others, having the same access and safety as everyone else.
Briefly, given that I have only 30 seconds left, I want to touch on Northern Rail and the complete lack of Sunday services in my constituency. The strikes have been going on for a year, and we desperately need the issue to be resolved. Sandbach station rail accessibility, including the lack of an accessible lift at the station, is a huge issue. I echo points made by colleagues about the importance of funding such things properly. Lastly, there has been a 67% reduction in buses in my local area over the past 15 years. We must improve on that desperate situation.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I will do my best to speak at high speed, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I want to say a few words about my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood): she was an outstanding Minister and the Department’s loss is the Whips Office’s gain. She will be much missed on the Transport Front Bench.
I am grateful, too, to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this debate. She and I represent constituencies in the squeezed midlands—regions home to 10 million people that have historically been denied a fair share of funding and political attention. As has been noted already, the east midlands receives the lowest transport funding per head of any region, although the west midlands held that unhappy status until recently. The rail line between Birmingham and Nottingham is slower, mile for mile, than that between Manchester and Leeds. The west midlands has the lowest share of public transport journeys of any English region, followed by the east midlands. That fuels congestion, road safety problems and potholes.
Birmingham’s roads are a special case. We have one of the last private finance initiative contracts in the country. When originally issued, local government austerity and the high inflation of the early 2020s were not foreseen. The previous Government tried to withdraw support for the PFI contract without a clear plan, which was ruled unlawful. I know that the new Minister will be looking at that closely, and I look forward to working with him to get a fair deal for Birmingham.
Most public transport journeys are by bus and half the industry’s income now comes from public funding, yet public accountability lags behind. This summer, National Express announced major changes to the X20 and 61 routes. People in Allens Cross and parts of the New Frankley estate lost their direct connection to Birmingham, and some older residents no longer have direct bus access to the Queen Elizabeth hospital. I am grateful to the hundreds of people who signed petitions, including one that I organised. I have met National Express and Transport for West Midlands, and I hope that we can find a way forward.
Significant investment has been announced for commuter rail. I have spoken frequently in this House about rebuilding Kings Norton station as part of a midlands rail hub. In the interest of time, I will only say how grateful I am that Ministers listened; I hope that we can make progress on restoring that service’s frequency.
Finally, we must be ambitious. Birmingham Corporation Tramways once ran services to my constituency. The original 1984 vision for a revitalised metro included a loop serving Northfield, Longbridge, Frankley and Rubery. That vision was right, and I hope that we can find funding for a feasibility study for a south Birmingham extension.
Regional transport inequality hinders economic growth and denies opportunities to my constituents. I am glad that the House has had the chance to debate this issue. I think this is my stop, so I will.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his timekeeping and the speed with which he included all that. That brings us to the Front Benchers, remembering that we would like to leave some time for the Member who introduced the debate to wind up. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I was all too conscious at Transport questions this morning not only to ensure that I did not, after last night’s scolding, repeat the heresy of “you” or “yours”, Madam Deputy Speaker, but to keep my questions brief. Consequently, I did not have time to put on the record—for the third time in less than a year—a formal welcome on behalf of my party to the new shadow Transport Secretary. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) is no longer in the Chamber, I formally congratulate him on his elevation.
As former Transport Minister, the right hon. Gentleman knows all about the transformative effect of transport, having only recently hopped aboard the overnight shuttle from Durham to Basildon. On that tortuous journey from the north of England to the south-east, he would have glimpsed the huge inequalities in transport provision across our country. Be it trains or buses, roads or air travel, where people live or their business is situated has a massive effect on their mobility. Mobility—the ability to move from A to Z and all points in between—is key to a modern economy and a cohesive society.
The statistics paint a stark picture of, to coin a phrase, a two-tier system. Last year, for example, transport spending in London was over £1,300 per head, compared with under £400 per head in the east midlands. New research from Transport for the North reveals that over 11 million people in England face a high risk of social exclusion specifically because of inadequate transport systems. That represents a 14% increase—an extra 2 million people—since 2019. In the north-east, well over 30% of residents face a high risk of transport-related social exclusion, compared with below 3% in London. And who are the excluded? It will come as no surprise that, as Transport for the North has highlighted, it is disproportionately low-income households, unpaid carers, the old and the disabled. The very people our transport system should be helping the most are the ones facing its greatest barriers.
It is not just the north of England suffering from these inequalities. Minehead in Somerset, for example, is virtually cut off. The railway station closed in 1971, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) tells me that the No. 28 bus appears to run on a whim. In Stratford-upon-Avon, Stagecoach has stopped running buses in the evening and at weekends, and there is no direct train service between the home of Shakespeare and London, undermining the town’s tourist and cultural economy. Transport is, of course, key to our tourist industry. That is why in Cornwall, the new Lib Dem council has cancelled the previous Tory administration’s plans to sell off Newquay airport, but it now needs more help than is currently being offered by the Government to make the critical investment the airport so badly needs.
Investment in transport is key. Even in London, where Transport for London is the envy of the rest of the country, more investment is needed. Repeated disruption on the District line is caused by some of the infrastructure being up to 130 years old, according to TfL. It sounds grim, but as my constituents are getting tired of hearing me say, we in Wimbledon and the rest of London do not know how lucky we are. Just imagine living in a region where services are sparse or non-existent, bus routes are cut, stations have been closed and the few trains running are routinely delayed.
I am addressing my remarks to the Minister, for whom I have high regard and no little sympathy, because the problems with regional transport inequalities are clearly not of his making, nor his Government’s, but of the past Tory Administration’s. Take buses, for example, where deregulation allowed private operators to cream off the profitable routes and abandon the rest. Between 2015 and 2023, over 1 billion passenger journeys were lost. In the north-west alone, bus routes were reduced from nearly 3,500 in 2015 to half that number in 2024.
Sadly, however, the problem still continues. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) in the south-east of England tells me that three bus services have been cancelled since last summer. In the south-west and north-east, 56% of small towns are now identified as transport deserts or at risk of becoming so.
I do not doubt the Government’s good intentions, evidenced by the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, but in some respects, things are getting worse. The Government’s decision to increase the bus fare cap from £2 to £3, for example, will only accelerate the decline in bus usage, hitting those who are already struggling the most. The Minister will rightly point to the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill and its many excellent provisions but, as with the soon-to-be-published rail Bill, no amount of legislation will solve the issue of regional transport inequality without the necessary investment. As we saw with High Speed 2 and, more recently, the spending review, those moneys are not forthcoming.
The electrification of the midland main line from London to Sheffield has now been cancelled, while at Dawlish, the critical work to protect the vital Paddington to Penzance main line from the sea has been put on hold despite the very real risks to regional connectivity. The same is true of our road network, where, for example, the promised widening of the A12, which would have supported the creation of 55,000 new homes in the Chelmsford area, has been cancelled.
As the Minister is fond of telling me, there is no magic money tree, which is why the only way to address regional transport inequality is to grow the economy—a growth that is impeded by the very inequality that growth would help to address. That is why the pump must be primed with more investment in our transport system and a far more ambitious approach to growth, which can be achieved not by wishing on a star or by the PM tying himself in knots with his red lines over Europe but by boldly re-engaging with the EU and thereby completing the virtuous circle of an integrated transport system driven by and driving a dynamic and growing economy.
I end by thanking the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this important debate and all Members for their excellent contributions.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I join the Liberal Democrat spokesperson in thanking the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing the debate. It gives us an opportunity to talk about the chasm between the Government’s grand promises and the grim reality for passengers, businesses and communities, as has been ably demonstrated by many of the contributions from Back Benchers. I do not have time to do justice to all those who have made contributions: I will leave that task to the Minister. I will move quickly on to roads and the Government’s record on roads, which has come in for some criticism today.
The infrastructure spending review that the Conservatives were responsible for in the run-up to the last election was the road investment strategy 2, which ran from 2020 to 2025. That was some £24 billion of investment, delivering major upgrades, unlocking infrastructure to enable 186,000 new homes for our constituents, improving freeport and airport links, and improving safety with 151 refuge areas built on smart motorways. We now move to 2025-30, with RIS3, which is Labour’s opportunity to outshine us. Has it done so? Absolutely not. RIS3 is marked by the killing of key enhancements, which I will come to, and instead of action we have targets here and consultations there, but it is very light on delivery.
We have a Government of review and policy papers, and that speaks to a wider truth about the Government. It is led by a lawyer Prime Minister who values process over political judgment—just think about his approach to sacking our ambassador to Washington. The Prime Minister’s original defence was that the process was followed: there was no political judgment. We can see that in the transport policy too.
What we need is not process. We do not need further targets here and consultations there: we need action. We need action on the A12 improvements—a £1.2 billion project. The scheme had been signed off, the housing had been cleared and businesses had been relocated, but it was scrapped without warning by this Government. The A12 is a core artery for Essex and South Suffolk. What about the regional inequality of that region?
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
My hon. Friend said the magic word: “Essex”. Does he support the Transport for London (Extension of Concessions) Bill that I have tabled? TfL runs to Shenfield, Reading, Epping, Watford, Cheshunt and Amersham, way beyond the boundaries of Greater London. The Bill would require TfL to enable any local authority that is served by a TfL route or by a route to which a TfL concessionary scheme applies to opt in to the concessionary fare scheme, including the freedom pass for our old age pensioners.
Jerome Mayhew
I am aware that my hon. Friend’s Bill does not make a call on the public purse, at least on the Treasury, and it is for local authorities to opt into the scheme should they wish to. It sounds like a very exciting project and one that should be developed further.
I mentioned the A12 in East Anglia, but there is also the A47 near Great Yarmouth. The Conservatives’ RIS2 included dualling to North Tuddenham, which is going on at the moment—I declare an interest as it is in my constituency—as is the dualling of the Brundall to Blofield stretch of the A47. Labour came into power and cancelled all further improvements.
Ben Goldsborough
The shadow Minister talks about the A47, which runs through my constituency. Would he agree that the £200 million being spent on the improvement of the Thickthorn junction in our area will make a huge difference, compared to the £50 million wasted by Norfolk county council, run by his party, on a road that has not had an inch of tarmac laid?
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention gives me the opportunity to raise the proverbial eyebrow at his claiming credit for securing £200 million for the Thickthorn roundabout when that has been in process for many years before he was elected. As for the £50 million he mentions, I think he means the western link road, which would be a huge improvement. At the moment we have the equivalent of the M25 for Norwich, but it is missing one section of 3.9 miles. The Conservatives are squarely behind finishing it: I am surprised to hear that Labour does not support the residents of Norwich in a similar way.
I will move on to what Labour has done. It has cancelled the further improvements on the A47, particularly at the other end towards Peterborough. That is just another example of where East Anglia has been ignored by Labour. Buses are the most popular form of public transport and the most important one in areas of high deprivation. They are particularly important for poorer members of society, the young, elderly and disabled. The Conservatives recognise that—we recognise that price matters—so the last Government introduced the £2 bus fare cap, and our manifesto commitment at the last election was to maintain it throughout the course of this Parliament because we recognised how popular and useful it was in increasing bus ridership. When Labour came to power, it had a choice: it could back passengers or it could back the unions. One of its first—shameful—acts in government was to give a 15% pay rise to ASLEF train drivers, who are already the best paid in Europe, paid for by a 50% increase in bus fares for passengers around the country. That speaks to a wider truth: when it comes to it, Labour is the party of the unions and not of the people.
Laurence Turner
Does the shadow Minister agree with his predecessor—the last Conservative Rail Minister, Huw Merriman—who said this:
“Whilst it’s legitimate to debate the terms of the deal, the demonisation of train drivers and those onboard and at stations, who carry out a difficult and skilled job for the safety of passengers, is completely unfair. These people work hard and should be shown more respect.”?
Jerome Mayhew
I have no problem with the unions making demands—after all, they are representing the interests of their members. What I complain about is the Government giving way to them at the expense of the general public.
On trains, we have got the cancelled projects as well. The midland main line electrification has been cancelled, which has led to lay-offs and the loss of expertise. It is also causing problems for the procurement of new bi-mode trains, because we no longer have any certainty as to whether the line will be electrified. At Dawlish, the Conservative Government completed phases 1 to 4 of the improvements and reinforcement of the line. Phase 5 is all that remains. What have the Government done? They have kicked it into the long grass, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for which I give him credit.
Back in East Anglia, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) highlighted the need for the Ely junction and Haughley junction projects in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk to be advanced, yet they have been ignored by the Government.
Jerome Mayhew
I will not, because I am running out of time. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
What is the big plan? It is one of nationalisation for railways. We must look at the Government’s motive—what do they think it is going to do? It is not about unifying track and train, because that was already in the Williams-Shapps review; that was going to happen without nationalisation. Is it about reducing fares? If so, it is backfiring, because nationalised train companies’ fares are rising above inflation. Is it about increasing efficiency? One would hope so, but through the Government’s nationalisation process they are decapitating the management teams that drive efficiency in the individual rail companies.
Is it about increasing passenger numbers? The inconvenient truth for Labour is that under privatisation passenger ridership on the railway doubled, because the companies were incentivised to chase ridership. That was driven by increased open access routes, yet the Government have opposed every single application for open access since the election. Is it to save money? If so, they are not doing a very good job. On South Western Railway—one of the first to be nationalised since the election—they wasted £250 million on infrastructure overspend with the rolling stock leasing companies due to Government negotiating incompetence.
The truth is that the Government are doing it because it is an article of Labour faith—faith in the big state—and also a key demand of the unions. How has it gone for them? As we have heard, ASLEF has already got a 15% pay rise, and the RMT is striking now. Next time, when GBR is finished, that strike will be national.
The Government are one year in. We have heard in the debate of cancelled scheme after cancelled scheme. We have also heard that prices have increased and that money has been diverted from passengers to union pay. That has done nothing for regional inequality, save for the industrial action that is spreading from London and engulfing the rest of the country. It is why passengers are so disappointed in Labour. They deserve better.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I welcome today’s debate on regional transport inequality, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this time. I have 10 minutes to address the many excellent contributions made this afternoon, so Members must forgive my reluctance to entertain many interventions.
For decades, this country has faced a growing deficit of opportunity fuelled by the poor connectivity that has come to define too many communities. I have experienced at first hand the frustration felt by millions of people every day. Growing up in the north-east, I could wait hours for a bus that would never arrive, so I understand that missed shifts, missed lessons and missed appointments all lead to missed opportunities for hard-working families. Poor transport has deepened divides, isolated communities and eroded quality of life, all while stifling growth, hindering productivity and deterring investment. In my own region, Leeds is one of the largest European cities without a mass transit system. We are shamefully behind the curve, with people and businesses suffering as a result—but it does not have to be that way.
This Government are turning the page on decades of decline, ending short-sighted Whitehall-centric decision making and unlocking talent, ambition and potential right across the country. We are seizing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change the way that things are done and building a stronger transport network that works for everyone, whoever they are and wherever they come from.
Later this year, we will set out that vision in our integrated national transport strategy. We will champion transport that is designed, built and run with people in mind, recognising that different places face different challenges and need different ways to solve them. The strategy will aim to make transport safer, more reliable and more accessible, helping everyone to feel more confident and able to use the network. We will encourage housing, healthcare and other services to work with transport, trying to tackle regional inequality in all its forms.
We know, however, that politicians in Westminster cannot fully grasp the reality of life in Warrington, Wolverhampton or Woking. That is why our Bus Services (No. 2) Bill puts power in the hands of local leaders, with the freedom to choose the approach that best serves their community. We recognise that a one-size-fits-all formula just will not work, so we are funding franchising pilots to better understand all the options on the table. The Bill also calls time on the plague of violence against women and girls and antisocial behaviour with training and enforcement measures to help make journeys safer for everyone.
We are backing those steps with landmark levels of investment. This year alone, £1 billion will help improve bus services and keep fares affordable. We will extend the £3 bus fare, which will put more money in passengers’ pockets, making bus travel a viable option for more communities, while improving access to jobs, education and healthcare where it is needed most.
We are also giving city mayors £15.6 billion to support wider local transport projects, including mass transit in Leeds, a metro extension in the north-east and so much more. To ensure that our towns, villages and rural areas, particularly outside London, are no longer left behind, we are not only committing £2 billion to help them tackle their unique challenges, but just last week we confirmed an extra £104 million in resource funding for local authorities, showing that they can better design, decide and deliver ambitious local transport projects.
Martin Wrigley
I am delighted with all the investment in cities with mayors; that is fantastic. However, in Dawlish, in Devon, we are once again left behind. Is that purely because we do not have a city mayor?
Simon Lightwood
As I just mentioned, we have committed £2 billion to helping those outside city areas and last week committed £104 million for resource funding across the country outside city areas.
Although we are eager for local leaders to take the reins, there is still an important part for central Government to play in tackling transport inequality, particularly on our roads and railways. We are investing billions to fix historical gaps in the network, reconnecting long-forgotten areas and tackling regional disparities head on. From major projects such as the TransPennine route upgrade, East West Rail and HS2 to improving motorways in Cumbria, Greater Manchester and the midlands, or funding to maintain and improve the road network, our mission to address inequality sits at the heart of everything we do.
Simon Lightwood
I am going to make progress.
We are also delivering new train stations in the south-west and in Yorkshire, creating brand new rail links across the midlands, and backing road schemes to better connect and grow communities. Not only will those measures improve people’s everyday journeys, they will also create jobs, power growth and unlock new homes for families.
Last week, we announced that we are simplifying fares and expanding digital ticketing trials to make rail more accessible and affordable, with new digital trials now live in the east midlands and launching later this month in Yorkshire. Passengers can sign up to take part and benefit from automatic best-value fares, making rail travel simpler, smarter and more flexible.
Our commitment to investing is clear, but we are also working behind the scenes to ensure that every penny is well spent. We are reviewing the Green Book to give a fair hearing to all parts of the country. We have plans to recruit 300 new planners into the public sector by 2026, supporting local authorities and implementing new planning policies to enhance housing supply, leveraging private investment to bolster public funding and forging a faster and more efficient planning system.
I am pleased to see a strong contingent of Members from the east midlands in this debate, and I am glad that they recognise, like me, the importance of improving transport links to drive growth across the country and tackle regional inequalities. We recognise that transport spending has historically not been evenly distributed across the country. We are taking action to drive up prosperity and living standards across the UK, including addressing any imbalances where appropriate. That is not just the case for the east midlands. We are investing across the whole country, from enabling mass transit in West Yorkshire to reopening the Bristol and Portishead line in the south-west.
We are providing the East Midlands combined county authority with over £2 billion through the transport for city regions fund, with the east midlands receiving over £450 million from the local transport grant and the integrated transport block. I am very pleased to see that Mayor Claire Ward intends to use some of that £2 billion of funding to progress the case for a permanent bridge at Darley Abbey. That means that the east midlands will receive significantly more local transport spending per head than the England average in the coming years— £561 per person against an average of £398. We are investing in the region, including delivering improvements to the east coast main line and progressing the A38 Derby junctions scheme, which will improve safety, reduce delays and support house building. We are also committed to delivering the A46 Newark bypass, subject to planning consent.
I recognise the frustration that hon. Members and their constituents feel about the electrification of the midland main line, but we have had to prioritise our funding on schemes that will make the greatest difference for passengers and economic growth as soon as possible. Further electrification of the midland main line has been paused but will be kept under review as part of our pipeline for future funding. The new trains, however, will increase seat capacity and will mark a step change in passenger experience.
Members have advocated passionately for other schemes in their local areas. While I cannot address every scheme that was raised in this debate, we will always need to prioritise the funding that we have available. My officials will continue to work with their counterparts in local government and with other stakeholders to better understand local needs and potential pipelines.
I will now turn to specific contributions made in the debate.
Simon Lightwood
No—I have a lot to get through.
I welcome the many contributions from across the House on issues with bus services in Members’ constituencies. The Government know how important good, reliable and frequent bus services are to local communities, and that is why we are investing £1 billion this year to support and improve services and giving local leaders more powers to improve services through the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill.
While I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), he not only seems to have forgotten the 14 years in which his party had the opportunity to improve bus services in regional constituencies but he also forgot to mention that his Government gave £26 million to the Conservative-controlled county councils that cover that constituency.
However, in rural areas and places with poor public transport, driving is not a luxury; it is a lifeline. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency continues to work hard to combat the unscrupulous practice of reselling tests across the country. In July, we announced over 50 new road and rail schemes, many of which will benefit the constituencies of Members who have spoken in this debate. That includes the midlands rail hub, which we are backing with £123 million and which will create links to more than 50 locations. It also includes the Middlewich Road scheme, the A38 Derby junctions work, transformed rail services across Manchester and new stations in the south-west. We are addressing under-investment in Welsh rail infrastructure with a 10-year funding package of £445 million to meet its long-term connectivity needs and to help kickstart Welsh economic growth.
Turning to the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), I will admit that the previous Government did allocate £27 billion for the road investment strategy 2, but that was revised down to £23 billion. From my calculations, RIS3 represents a £3 billion increase compared with the funding for RIS2.
Simon Lightwood
I will bring my remarks to a close because Madam Deputy Speaker is growing impatient.
I am here today not just as the Minister for Local Transport, but as someone who knows what it is like to live in an underserved community, who has stood in the rain waiting for buses that never arrived, and who has seen at first hand the impact of poor connections, so I could not be more intent on delivering real change where it is needed most. Our plan for English devolution will shift even more power away from Whitehall. Our industrial strategy will drive investment and growth in all regions, and our infrastructure strategy will boost living standards across the UK.
This issue transcends departmental silos. Since last July, we have worked tirelessly to restore confidence and certainty. We are looking after the pennies and the pounds to improve lives and livelihoods across Britain, and I will continue to tackle the shameful deficit of opportunity that plagues this country. We will continue delivering our plan for change until we get the job done.
Catherine Atkinson
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate. I thank my many colleagues who spoke passionately and persuasively for better transport options for their regions, but also raised fantastic examples of new investment. The number of contributions shows how important transport equality is, and it is hugely heartening to hear the progress being made by this Government, backed by actual funding. I thank the Minister for his response. When it comes to regional transport equality, some of us may sit behind the Minister and echo my children’s oft-used refrain, “Are we nearly there yet?” but now we have a Government who have us driving in the right direction, on track to unlock the economic potential across the whole country.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered regional transport inequality.
Suicide Prevention
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Lee Pitcher, who will speak for around 15 minutes.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered suicide prevention.
Before I begin, I want to share for the benefit of anyone watching or anyone in this Chamber who may ever need it that help is available: 24/7 crisis mental health support can be accessed by calling NHS 111 and selecting option 2, or by calling the Samaritans, whose badge I proudly wear today, on 116 123. I cannot thank the Backbench Business Committee enough for granting this debate in the main Chamber. The Committee’s recognition of just how important it is for this issue to be heard here is in itself hugely symbolic.
Let me start with the worker who was on stand-by, who in the early hours of the morning was called to deal with the death of a man from suicide, who was found in the trees, alone on some open land. That worker, having dealt with the immediate response, then reflected and thought about the true impact of managing that situation. He failed to sleep for the rest of the week, and never once slept well again when on his stand-by duties.
To the family of John, he was a massive West Ham fan who loved Motörhead and the genius of Pink Floyd. His mum, who found him that day, experienced that thing no parents should ever have to endure: their baby, who they once cradled, leaving this world before them.
That worker on stand-by, that cousin of John, that is me. We got that call about John as we prepared to go to another family member’s funeral—that chilling call that no one ever wants to receive. John had decided he could no longer go on living with his demons, and felt that the only way to gain peace was to end his life. Right now, as we speak today, there are many other Johns out there making a similar choice. Like our John, they will be someone’s son, dad, brother, uncle, cousin, friend or colleague.
From that day on, we vowed as a family that the best thing we could do in John’s memory was to ensure that we helped show people a different path, so that that dreaded call could never happen to anyone else. Whether it is by raising funds through marathons, maximising our use of social media to highlight support or, for me, securing this debate, we are all doing everything we can for John. While none of this can bring John back to his gorgeous sister Jacqui, who is watching this in Australia, or to my auntie and uncle, there will be some comfort that his personal fight may prevent others’ pain in the future.
Today, using the privilege of being elected to this place, I will use my voice to try to make a difference. I have shared my story, because I want everyone to remember how common, unfortunately, these situations are; so many of us will tragically get that heartbreaking call about a family member, friend or colleague at some stage in our lives. I am also sharing this because, just by raising the subject in this place, we give suicide prevention a national platform, from which we can strive to share best practice and find new ways to take action to make a difference and save lives.
Compared with other leading causes of death, suicide remains poorly understood. The stigma that still clings to it stops people reaching out and isolates the families left behind. Breaking that stigma requires us to talk openly and honestly in places such as this Chamber. As I am sure you agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are not many subjects on which simply having a debate has the potential to save lives, but today we have that opportunity, and my hope is that hon. Members will use it as a chance to shift perceptions and push back stigma, and perhaps it will be heard by someone who needs it.
On 10 September every year we mark World Suicide Prevention Day. It is a chance to remember those we have lost, to stand with those who are struggling and to commit to doing all we can to reduce the number of lives lost. This year’s theme, set by the Samaritans, is interrupting suicidal thoughts, and that is what we must do in this Chamber—interrupt the silence, interrupt the stigma and push for change.
The statistics are stark. In 2023, 7,055 people across the UK lost their lives to suicide. It remains the leading cause of death for men under 50 and for men and women aged 20 to 34, and suicide among teenage girls and young women has nearly doubled in recent years. In Doncaster, where I live, suicide rates are above the national average; 121 lives were lost between 2021 and 2023. In the same period in North Lincolnshire, in which the Isle of Axholme lies, 41 lives were lost. Every life lost is a tragedy, but what those numbers do not show is the ripple effect. Every statistic represents a family and network of friends, colleagues and acquaintances who are all affected. Suicide may often happen alone, but it never happens in isolation.
However, suicide is not inevitable; it is preventable. Before I speak about the asks I have of the Minister and the Government, let me touch on the importance of mental health and building resilience in early life. Mental health problems often start to develop in our teenage years, and even if they do not reach crisis point until much later in life, we need to do something, which is why we cannot leave these conversations until it is too late. We need to start talking to children about mental health from an early age. This has to be done carefully and in an age-appropriate way, but just as we teach our children about eating well and staying active to look after their physical health, we should be helping them to build resilience and wellbeing for their mental health, whether that is through mindfulness, by learning how to manage stress or by knowing where to turn if they need help.
Just as importantly, we need to teach young people—again, at an appropriate time—that seeking help with suicidal thoughts is not a weakness and is not something they need to face alone. It is a medical issue and it needs medical intervention and support. There should be no more shame in reaching out for mental health support than there is in getting a prescription for insulin or picking up an inhaler.
If we can make those lessons part of growing up, we can give the next generation a far stronger chance of living a healthy, hopeful life. That is why it is so important that this Government are committed to putting a mental health professional in every school, helping to build that early resilience and understanding. That help is already in place for nearly 1 million pupils, and it will be there for every child during this Parliament. At this stage, I want to give a shout out for With Me in Mind for the amazing work it does in my area.
I will concentrate on three key areas where I would like the Government to take action. The first area is mandatory suicide prevention training for first responders and better mental health awareness across frontline services. Our police, fire and ambulance services are amazing, and their crews are often the first to respond when someone is in a suicidal crisis. In the year up to March 2025, fire and rescue services were called to more than 3,100 suicide attempts. East Midlands ambulance service alone responded to more than 20,000 incidents in 2024, and the North East ambulance service responded to more than 21,000 incidents—three times the number from just four years before.
The fact is that training on this matter is just not consistent, and we have an opportunity to do more. We know that training works. Evaluation shows that with suicide prevention knowledge, confidence and attitudes improve significantly after training. GPs who complete training are 20% more likely to identify people at risk. Equipping first responders with the skills to spot the signs, start a compassionate conversation and make an intervention will save lives.
The second area is better research into demographic gaps in suicide deaths. We know that the risks are not evenly shared; men are three times more likely to die by suicide than women, and men in deprived areas are five times more likely to do so. Too often, men are told to man up or tough it out, and they are less likely to seek help, confide or access services until it is too late. However, this is about not just how men are taught to act, but how people react to men seeking help. Research shows that nine in 10 men who died by suicide had been in touch with a statutory service in the year before their death, whether it was at A&E, through primary care or even through the criminal justice system, yet too many opportunities to help are missed. If we are serious about tackling the biggest killers, as the Government have promised, we need a clear, evidence-based programme of research into how suicide risk presents in men and how services can respond more effectively. Without that, the mental health strategy risks failing the very group it needs to help the most.
This is not just about a gender gap. People in the most deprived areas are twice as likely to die by suicide. Autistic people face three times the risk of their peers. Gay and bisexual adults face twice the risk. For trans people, the risk of a suicide attempt is four and a half times higher, and for trans youth the risk is nearly six times higher. There are huge differences in death by suicide across ethnic groups, across regions and between different kinds of employment and educational background. These differences need to be studied and understood, just as we would for any disease that affected different demographics in different areas. By studying the different demographics affected, we can learn about the causes, risk factors, preventive or protective factors and paths to recovery.
The third area is a rapid and ambitious roll-out of mental health hubs after next year’s pilots. These hubs could be transformative—local, community-based and accessible without referral or appointment. That is exactly the kind of frictionless support we need to offer. When someone is suicidal, every barrier is a potential barrier too far. No wrong doors, no delays—if someone asks for help, the system must help them. Alongside that, we must support the voluntary and community organisations that are already saving lives every single day, such as Samaritans, Mind, Andy’s Man Club, James’ Place, Men’s Sheds and local groups such as the Jackson Hope Foundation and the Shed on the Isle in my constituency. They provide the human connection that prevents suicide, but they are too often left to rely on their own fundraising. If we are serious about prevention, Government must partner with them, not leave them struggling for survival.
The Government have committed in their manifesto to tackling the biggest killers, including suicide, and to delivering the suicide prevention strategy. I urge Ministers to go faster and further; for some people listening today, time is already running short. Prevention is not just better than cure; for suicide, it is the only chance that some people will ever get. As I said, the theme for World Suicide Prevention Day is interrupting suicidal thoughts. It is the responsibility of each and every one of us to interrupt with training, with research, with services that open doors in every community. Suicide is not inevitable; it is preventable. With the right action, we can and we will save lives.
On Monday, I will be carrying the baton of hope, taking part in a relay across my constituency alongside many others to raise funds and awareness for suicide prevention. That baton is a symbol—a physical icon of mental health. It is a reminder that hope can be carried, shared and passed on to the next person. Our task in this House is to ensure that hope is met with action, so that fewer families face the grief of losing a loved one and more people find the support they need to live.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
As colleagues can see, over 10 Members are hoping to speak. We need to begin winding up by 4.30 pm, to let the Front Benchers contribute, so unfortunately I will have to set a time limit of four minutes to ensure that everyone can get in. I call Liz Twist, who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for securing this important debate just one day after World Suicide Prevention Day, and for speaking so movingly about his personal experience.
It does not take much scratching below the surface to find out that many of us here in Parliament and across our constituencies have been affected by suicide. An estimated 7,055 suicides were registered in the UK in 2023. Suicide remains the leading cause of death in people under 35, and of men under 50, and each suicide ripples out, affecting family, friends, work colleagues and social groups, leading to an increased risk of suicide in them. It is now some 25 years since my husband Charlie took his own life, and I still see those ripples affecting so many people who knew and loved him. We cannot say it too often: every one of those lives lost to suicide was not a number but a real person, and every life lost to suicide is a tragedy.
As a result of my work over a number of years with the APPG for suicide and self-harm prevention, I have got to know many wonderful organisations, very many of them inspired and run by those with their own experiences of loss, working hard to prevent suicide and to help those families and friends who have lost people to suicide. That includes organisations such as If U Care Share, Body & Soul, Gambling with Lives, Silence of Suicide, SoBs, 3 Dads Walking, Jami, Baton of Hope, James’ Place, The Martin Gallier Project, and the Speak Their Name quilts project, with quilts from the UK on display in Parliament when we return in October, and with the Baton of Hope ending its trip in Westminster the previous Friday. There are so many people who I could name, and I apologise for not naming them, but I see and hear them. I thank them for their work.
I am pleased to have worked with the British Standards Institution over the past 18 months, which will shortly publish suicide prevention guidelines for employers and launch them in this place. There is no single community in this country that is not affected by suicide. But it is also true that some are more affected than others. Deaths of this nature are both a cause and a consequence of health and economic inequalities. In the north-east, our suicide rates have consistently remained higher than the national average, and they have risen steadily over the past decade.
There was so much more that I was going to say, but I will move on to my asks of the Government. I am proud of the work that the Government have carried out so far, from expanding mental health support teams in schools to implementing online harms legislation. But going forward we need to have mechanisms in place to assess public mental health need at a local and national level, tackle emerging issues and support well-evidenced public health interventions to prevent suicides.
I would also like to talk about the online harms that people face. The Government have started to take action, but it is developing all the time. I hope that we can continue to take strong action in that region, and continue to improve the national suicide prevention strategy.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for securing this debate and for his incredibly powerful remarks a few moments ago.
Suicide is one of the most pressing public health challenges we face. Behind every statistic is a devastated family, a community shaken and lives changed forever. There are between 650 and 850 deaths to suicide in Scotland every year. My local authority area of North Lanarkshire experiences between 40 and 62 annually. While Parliament rightly debates this national issue and seeks a national response, I want to highlight the work being done in my own community.
Several years ago, the spotlight fell on my area where, despite there being a drop in deaths by suicide in Scotland, communities in Coatbridge and Bellshill and across north Lanarkshire were experiencing near record highs. North Lanarkshire council, working alongside partners in health education, sport and the voluntary sector, have put suicide prevention at the heart of their wellbeing agenda. The suicide prevention strategy is a model of how public services, anchor organisations and grassroots groups can come together, promote early intervention, raise awareness and ensure that support is available at the right time and in the right place. We know that men between the ages of 34 and 54 are the group with the highest risk of completing suicide.
I am proud of the way my community has specifically used sport as a force for change. For many years there was a great partnership with local public services and all of Lanarkshire’s professional football teams. I was involved in that prior to my election to this place. I was told a story in the weeks after that partnership launched that has always remained with me. One of our clubs got a phone call to their main office on a Monday morning from a man who had walked through the turnstiles two days prior for the 3 pm kick-off on the Saturday afternoon. He was clear that it would be his last game, as he was planning to complete suicide that very night. As the game progressed, he noticed the new signage erected around the stadium on suicide prevention. He took a note of the number on the billboard and, in an act of immense bravery, he made a call. His subsequent call on the Monday to the club was to say that going to the game on the Saturday had saved his life.
Just yesterday, the annual North Lanarkshire suicide prevention football tournament took place. It is not only a competition; it is a statement. It is a statement that through sport, camaraderie and community, we can break down stigma, start conversations and let people know that help is there. I am also proud to be wearing the bespoke tartan of Samaritans Scotland, a new tartan to recognise Suicide Prevention Day. I pay tribute to them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme did, and to all those who work so diligently to support my constituents at such a challenging time in their lives.
But suicide prevention still requires national leadership. There are too many still dying, too many stories being cut short, too many chapters not written, too many experiences lost and too many families enduring life sentences of heartbreak. We must ensure that mental health services are properly resourced, that schools and employers are equipped to support those at risk, and that public authorities are given the funding and flexibility to expand the work they are already doing so well. Above all, we must send a clear message from this House that suicide is preventable, that no one should suffer in silence and that help is always at hand.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) on securing this debate and speaking so powerfully.
Last Friday, we had the honour of welcoming the Baton of Hope to Bathgate, Blackburn, Armadale and Linlithgow as it made its way across West Lothian. The county was Scotland’s only stop as the baton travelled the United Kingdom, carrying a message of hope and purpose. The Baton of Hope is, as we have heard, a powerful symbol in the national conversation about suicide prevention. I must give my personal, heartfelt thanks to Donna from Neil’s Hugs Foundation for working so hard to bring the baton to our home. For Donna, the Baton of Hope and Neil’s Hugs Foundation are a beacon of light in the darkest times. Living with the loss of her son, Donna has dedicated her time and love to give others the compassion they need. She does it with an open heart and open arms, wrapping everyone she meets in the biggest hug.
The Baton of Hope’s presence in our community was more than ceremonial; it was a rallying cry and a reminder that hope is not abstract. It is built, carried and passed on by people and a great many community organisations that I have been fortunate to meet. Last week we had the opening of the Bathgate Men’s Shed, led by Alan, which is a lifeline for men facing isolation during retirement or mental health challenges. The entire shed movement is a brilliant example of how workshops are places of camaraderie, purpose and healing.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the inspiring work of everyone involved in Andy’s Man Club across the country, with a special mention of Sandy, who told me about its work in Bathgate. Such organisations—there are too many to mention—often have the reach that health services and local government simply do not. They also do vital prevention work in local communities to keep people mentally well. They are not only transforming lives, but very often saving lives. For example, organisations such as SMILE, led by the inspirational Declan, support children and young people affected by poor mental health. Their counselling, advocacy, outreach and community-building efforts are nothing short of heroic, especially when we consider that they receive no specific funding for the soaring number of referrals from medical services. Another local organisation, EnvironMentalHealth CIC—with June Dickson at the helm—provides lifesaving mental health first aid training in local communities. It meets people where they are with empathy, dignity and understanding. Although we are thankful for the hard work of many organisations, such as those I have mentioned today, we cannot continue to rely on the good will of volunteers and charities to plug the gaps in our mental health system, which is stretched beyond breaking point in Scotland.
The Baton of Hope passed through my constituency, but we cannot let it pass us by in this Chamber today or tomorrow. We must carry it forward with action and political will to ensure that no one in Scotland or the rest of the UK waits until it is too late for the help that they desperately need.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for securing today’s vital debate. This issue is particularly personal for me, and I have been open about it in the House before. I was 11 when my mum first tried to take her own life, and I am so grateful to the Samaritans, whose badge I wear with pride, because it was they who saved her that first time. She was eventually diagnosed with bipolar disorder and finally got the support and medication she needed, and I am so thankful that she is around today to be the brilliant mum that she is—I know she is watching this right now.
In my 30s, I went through a tough time. Had it not been for my wonderful daughter, I would have liked to switch my “on” button off. I am not alone, because one in four people will have suicidal thoughts, and one in 13 will attempt to take their own life over the course of their life. Forty-five is the age at which a woman is most likely to take her own life, often influenced by hormonal changes ahead of menopause. I am a 45-year-old menopausal woman, so that sobering fact hits hard, and I am grateful for hormone replacement therapy. We need to ensure that more women are able to access the right support when they are going through these changes.
But as Members have said today, suicide does not just affect women. Veterans of all genders living with PTSD have a heightened risk of suicide after serving their country. There was a disturbing increase in suicides by farmers between 2022 and 2023, with more feared because of changes to inheritance tax rules. Suicide is the biggest killer of people under 35 and the biggest killer of men under 50, and we know that there is a significant crisis in men’s mental health. Nationally, there are a lot of organisations that aim to support men with their mental health, such as Andy’s Man Club and men’s sheds. Luckily, in my constituency of South Derbyshire, ManClub was set up last year after a local chef, Craig Riley, tragically died by suicide. Joe Ward, one of the founders and a friend of Craig’s, lives in Melbourne and now helps to run weekly meetings on Monday evenings at Melbourne Assembly Rooms, where men can talk openly without fear of judgment.
This Saturday, the Baton of Hope, a suicide prevention charity, will be touring through Derbyshire. It was started by two fathers whose sons tragically died by suicide. One of those fathers, Mike McCarthy, along with others affected or bereaved by suicide, will be stopping by Elvaston Castle in South Derbyshire on their tour, and I wish them all the best. I cannot wait to meet them in Parliament in December with my fellow Derbyshire MPs.
I want to live in a society in which no one ever feels like suicide is their only option. People deserve holistic and accessible mental health support through access to medication and/or affordable therapies. That is why I am so glad that the Government are fixing our precious NHS. But this is about so much more than healthcare and treating people with mental health issues; it is about preventing them from feeling suicidal in the first place—and so much of that comes from a greater sense of security, and hopefulness instead of hopelessness. Hope is so much easier to have when people have a secure home, good, well-paid jobs, a sense of purpose and a united feeling of community. I know that this Government desperately want to ensure that everyone has that, and that they are striving really hard to deliver it.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), and I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), on her powerful speech.
I welcome the conversation that we, as a country, are having about mental health, because every community has a story where lives have been lost, and my constituency is no different. Helena Markey went to my school, de Ferrers, and was in the year below me. I still remember her smile, which would light up any room. On 10 September 2015, she passed away after jumping into the path of a vehicle. She was just 17. It shocked our school community. It shocked our local community. A young life with so much potential and so much to give to the world was taken away from us. Weeks before Helena died, she received her exam feedback and was considering her options for year 13. She became very distressed about the results and would later go on to take her own life. Helena’s parents were completely unaware of just how upset she had become.
I have been working with Helena’s incredible parents, Glen and Sharron Markey, since my election, and have been supporting them on their Smile4Helena campaign, which aims to change the Department for Education’s guidance to schools to ensure that they notify parents if a pupil becomes distressed during their results feedback. Glen and Sharron believe that just a simple phone call to them about Helena’s distress would have meant that they could have gone and picked her up from school, and that would have saved her life; they could have talked her through that situation and got through it together. We are seeking a meeting with the new Schools Minister to ensure that what happened to Helena does not happen to any other young person. I would be grateful if the Minister could use his good offices to assist with that.
The key to mental health support is talking and being open with each other about the challenges that we all face. It is about not just the investment that we need in mental health crisis services, but front-loading that into preventive support. That is why I believe that the Government’s plan for mental health hubs, and the increase in the number of mental health counsellors, are so important.
Locally, there are so many people who support others to open up about their mental health, including the Sexual Abuse Rape Advice Centre or Sarac, Burton YMCA, Burton and District Mind, BAC O’Connor and those, like Andy’s Man Club, that are looking to set up in Burton and Uttoxeter. I pay tribute to all those organisations; they save lives every single day, even if they do not know it.
We owe it to Helena, her family and every young person in this country to do better—to create a culture where no one suffers in silence, where families are kept informed and where the right support is there at the right time. I ask the Minister to reaffirm our shared commitment to building a system that catches young people before they fall, because behind every statistic is a life, a family and a future. If by making changes we can prevent just one more family from experiencing the heartbreak that happened to the Markeys, then it will be worth it.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for securing the debate, and I congratulate him on his very touching speech. The clear message coming from the House today is that suicides are preventable. Defeating stigma is essential, and the more that we can raise this issue in Parliament, the more we can do to help remove that stigma.
This Government inherited a mental health crisis. More than a million people who are in need of mental health support are not getting the care that they so desperately require. The suicide rate is now higher than it has been at any time in the 21st century. The pledge by Ministers to ensure that mental health gets the same attention and focus as physical health is an important one. It was talked about for 14 years when the Conservative party was in power, but there was little progress. I genuinely hope that under this Government things will finally change. With that in mind, will my hon. Friend the Minister update the House on the progress being made to tackle mental health waiting lists? Research from Rethink Mental Illness has shown that 12 times as many people have to wait 18 months or more for mental health treatment compared with the wait for treatment for physical health.
It is necessary to discuss mental health provision in this debate; after all, the link between suicide and mental illness is well established.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we should also look at the impact on people’s mental health of online gambling, which is responsible for between 117 and 496 suicides a year—figures repeated in our Health and Social Care Committee report? My constituent Jack lost his son Arthur to gambling-related suicide aged only 19, after only six months. It is a tragic situation. Does my hon. Friend agree that gambling should be seen as a public health issue, that in future it should be regulated not by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport but by the Department of Health and Social Care, and that the DHSC should launch a public health strategy to tackle gambling as a cause of suicide?
Sojan Joseph
I agree with my hon. Friend that not all suicides are linked solely to mental health. I was about to say that various social issues need to be tackled as well. It is it is important that we do not see suicide prevention solely through the prism of mental health. Indeed, many of those who die by suicide have either had no contact with mental health services or shown no signs of mental ill health. It is also important to point out that not everyone who dies by suicide has a diagnosed mental illness. For those at risk of suicide, a complex range of individual, relationship, community or societal factors can be at play.
As the suicide prevention strategy makes clear, common risk factors that are linked to suicide include physical illness, financial difficulty and economic adversity, gambling, alcohol and drug misuse, social isolation and loneliness, and domestic abuse. Although addressing suicide prevention can include mental health, the strategy emphasises that it also goes well beyond these issues. If we see suicide prevention just as a mental health issue, those people in our communities who may not meet the criteria for a mental health diagnosis but are still in acute distress can end up being forgotten. Perceiving suicide just as a mental health issue also puts the responsibility mainly on mental health services, when in reality local authorities, employers, schools, the criminal justice system and wider society all have roles to play. When we talk about suicide prevention, we should therefore also talk about early intervention in schools, universities, places of work and community groups.
It is worth mentioning the great work done by charities—many names have already been mentioned. I congratulate the recently opened Ashford Safe Haven, which is based at William Harvey hospital. It offers a walk-in service every evening for people who are in crisis or feel they are heading towards crisis. A few months ago, I visited the safe haven and met some of the staff to hear about the support they provide and how they help to create staying well and crisis plans, as well as supporting people to access other services and organisations that may be useful to them. It is a great resource for people in our community and I hope that the East Kent hospitals trust is successful in its bid for funding for a round-the-clock walk-in service. Working with suicide prevention charities can complement the services offered by the NHS and bridge gaps in provision. We should also ensure that the health system becomes more effective in signposting the services that are offered by suicide prevention charities.
While I will always lobby for meaningful change in the mental health system, I also know that talking about suicide prevention just as another issue for our mental health services risks narrowing the conversation and excluding others who might need help. I hope that today’s debate has helped to make it easier for those watching who might need help now or in the future to get the right help at the right time.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) on securing this debate. I will focus my contribution on the suicide risks during the perinatal period, which is the period from pregnancy through to the year after a child’s birth.
I have spoken in the House before about the tragic death of my wonderful friend Sophie, who took her own life four years ago, leaving behind her husband and her three little girls aged six, three and just 10 weeks old. I have been feeling the sadness of her death again this week, looking at the photos of her youngest now setting off to primary school for the first time, beaming with pride, and I know Sophie would have been so proud too.
I still vividly recall the shock of the moment I learned that she had died when the message came through from her husband. It was only after we lost her that I learned just what a risk there is of suicide in this period of life. One in four people experience some form of post-natal depression or anxiety, which is still poorly recognised as an issue generally, and it is something I campaign on. The vast majority go on to recover, but for some people it is very serious, and for some it is so unbearable that they end their lives. The leading cause of death for women in that period from six weeks to a year after the birth of their child is suicide.
The Maternal Mental Health Alliance has delved into the data and found some more alarming details—in particular, the persistent social, economic and racial inequalities in who dies and who survives. Women in the most deprived areas have much higher rates of death. Black women are more than twice as likely to die as white women, and women of Asian and mixed ethnic backgrounds also face elevated risks.
With these risks and Sophie’s death in mind, I want to offer three reflections. The first is that we are all vulnerable—each and every one of us. Of the women who die by suicide, nearly half have known mental health problems, but the rest do not. It is a time when the social pressures are really great. People expect you to be revelling in the joy of the new baby, but the reality for many is that there are challenges in caring for the baby: not enough sleep, not enough company, feelings of loneliness, failure and guilt, and the loss of the sense of self—the old you that you knew before having children, which you fear is gone forever. This can make it a very difficult period for many women, including people who have not struggled with their mental health before. It is so important that we are all cognisant of this in ourselves and others around us.
My second reflection is that we all carry a responsibility to each other. I still look back on Sophie’s death and blame myself; I ask whether I could have done more. As Paul Doble, a fascinating therapist working in my constituency of Aylesbury, recently put it to me, the reality is that we cannot prevent every suicide, but we must never be afraid to try. The real question is how we support people better when they are suicidal, knowing that our compassion, care and presence may not remove every risk but can make life more bearable, and our question may be the one that interrupts their suicidal thoughts and leads them to different choices. Again, that is something we must all be cognisant of.
My third point is that the Government have to keep taking suicide risk and suicide prevention really seriously, as I know they do. I hope we will hear more on the suicide prevention strategy from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who I welcome to his place. We know that the care a suicidal person receives can make a big difference. We have some fantastic specialist perinatal mental health services, but I have heard from so many women who cannot access them. Suicide risk needs to be assessed in all the routine maternity care a woman receives, and support given if necessary. The same is true of so many other parts of the NHS and other public services, where action can make the difference between life and death. The role of public health interventions in this—for example, social and emotional learning programmes in schools—is crucial, too.
Conscious of time, I will end it there, but I hope that this World Suicide Prevention Day is a turning point in saving lives and tackling this immense challenge in our society.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for securing this very important debate.
May 1997 is etched on my memory for two very different reasons: first, the elation of 1 May and the election of the first Labour Government in 18 years, and then, just a few weeks later, the death by suicide of a good friend.
This debate is not just personal to me but is of great importance for far too many of my constituents. According to Department of Health and Social Care statistics, Cumberland has the second highest suicide rate in England. Over one in five adults in Carlisle have been diagnosed with depression, placing us sixth highest in England and Wales. My constituency is home to a large rural and farming population, and we know that rural isolation is a major contributor to poor mental health and suicide risk. I pay particular tribute to the work of the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Organisation, which provides tailored mental health support to our farming communities. I also highlight the work of field nurses across the rural north—specialist nurses who visit auction marts to support farmers, their staff andtheir families with their physical and mental health.
Support groups are also making a huge difference. Andy’s Man Club, which has been mentioned, opened in Carlisle earlier this year, and has already welcomed more than 2,000 men who are seeking support and find the meetings a safe place to talk and share their experiences. I recognise the work of Mal Craghill in Brampton, to the north-east of the city of Carlisle. Until merging his Brampton Mentalk group with Andy’s Man Club last month, Mal ran the club for over two years. His leadership and honesty have helped so many men to feel less alone. I thank him for his work.
Carlisle Happy Mums offers peer support for women experiencing post-natal depression, anxiety and other mental health challenges. Its work is compassionate, community driven and essential. Those are just a few of the excellent organisations that help our communities and the people in them to access the support that they need. We owe them all our sincere thanks.
Suicide prevention must be a whole-of-society effort. That message was carried by the Baton of Hope when it came to my constituency last Sunday. I welcome the steps that the Government are taking to overhaul the Mental Health Act through the Mental Health Bill, and to invest in mental health in schools, with nearly 1 million young people gaining access to support this year. Those are important reforms, and I hope that they will be matched by continued investment in the community-based services that I have touched on.
On occasions like this, I feel that our House and this Chamber are at their best. It is incumbent on us all to unite to ensure that, no matter where someone lives—be it in a community that is prospering or one facing hardship, or in a city, in a village or on a farm—they are able to access the support that they need, when they need it.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
It is an honour to take part in the debate, which was so powerfully opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher). I am grateful to colleagues for ensuring that suicide prevention remains at the top of our agenda.
As others have mentioned, yesterday was World Suicide Prevention Day, so this debate is timely. Suicide is one of the biggest killers in this country. As other Members have touched on so well, behind every statistic is a friend, a mum, a cousin, a husband—each one loved by friends and family. Over the summer recess, I visited Bracknell Samaritans, where I saw for myself the extraordinary work that it does as part of a successful and growing national network. Its volunteers are there for people at their darkest moments, and we should never underestimate the number of lives that they save. I thank them for everything that they do in Bracknell and beyond.
Last year, I had the privilege of chairing a roundtable on autism and suicide prevention, organised by Autism Action. It shone a light on the disproportionate effect that suicide has on those with autism. According to the National Autistic Society, 66% of autistic adults have experienced suicidal thoughts—nine times higher than for the general population. The society also reports that as much as 11% of people who die by suicide have either an autism diagnosis or autism traits. Those figures are shocking and demand action. The insights and voices of autistic people and their families, which I heard at the roundtable and in further conversations, have been invaluable in shaping my understanding of the scale of the challenge and the need for action.
Recent research from Autism Action, the University of Cambridge and Bournemouth University—the largest study of autism and suicide to date—provides further insight. Almost 1,400 autistic people took part. The study identified loneliness, hopelessness and feelings of failure as key drivers of suicidal thoughts; many reported difficulties in getting the support they needed, long waiting times for diagnosis and a lack of post-diagnostic help. Our national strategies do recognise autistic people as a priority group, but there is more to do to ensure that recognition translates into practical action. An updated suicide prevention strategy should specifically address the needs of autistic people, and the next autism strategy should explicitly consider suicidality, with the two approaches working hand in hand, rather than separately.
While there is more to be done nationally to address mental health issues, I am proud that local organisations in Bracknell are already leading the way: Walks for Wellbeing and Sandhurst Health Walks; Youthline and Create Hope; Stepping Stones Recovery College; Sandhurst counselling service, which, I am very happy to say, is back up and running after a difficult year; Andy’s Man Club and the Crowthorne and Wokingham Without men’s shed; and, of course, Bracknell Samaritans. These groups are lifelines, and they deserve recognition and support for the critical services they provide. I am pleased to say I have met each of them and can personally vouch for the hard work they do in our community.
I want to end with a message to anyone watching or listening today who may be struggling: help is available. Whether by calling the Samaritans on 116 123, through local services in Bracknell Forest or through friends, family and community, there are people ready to listen and to help. Please reach out.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for securing this debate on what I think we can all agree is a critical national public health issue. It is a timely debate given yesterday’s World Suicide Prevention Day, promoted by the wonderful Samaritans, who do so much good work, and whose badge I am proud to be wearing today.
Figures from the House of Commons Library highlight the previous long-term decline in suicides up to the year 2000 has seen some reversal in recent years, with 2023 seeing the highest number since 1999. It is right, therefore, that when the Government committed in our manifesto last year to a renewed drive to tackle the biggest killers, suicide was included. The recently published 10-year health plan sets out how the Government intend to put into practice the aim of transforming our mental health system so that support is available when people need it. I very much welcome the commitment to a cross-Government approach to suicide prevention, which mirrors the successful strategies that I have seen in my time in local government.
I have been pleased, since my election last year, to have been able to work with an excellent charity that has been mentioned by others, Gambling with Lives, to highlight the troubling link between gambling and suicide, with the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities estimating that there are up to 500 gambling-related suicides each year. I agree with both Gambling for Lives and my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) that the responsibility for gambling should be transferred to the Department of Health and Social Care, and that there should be investigation of all gambling- related suicides and lessons learned from every case so that we can prevent future deaths. At present, coroners do not always correctly identify the link between gambling and suicide, and that needs to change. I hope that Ministers will give full consideration to both those calls.
Local suicide prevention strategies have a crucial role to play. In my previous life, I was cabinet member for health on Lambeth council. We launched our own local suicide prevention strategy with the aim of bringing down the numbers of suicides, which saw the council target support at the groups identified by evidence as the most at risk: older men, the LGBTQ+ community, and a range of others. We rolled out suicide prevention training to everyone, free of charge, so that all residents were able to access it, but aimed the support particularly, as others have said, at key organisations in touch with at-risk groups in the borough. The training was all about how to have effective, potentially lifesaving conversations with people in a safe way, and we saw great take-up. Crucially, the council also launched a borough-wide mental health campaign aimed at supporting people on their mental health journey and at providing advice and wellbeing information on how to access services at the right time. That period saw a decline in the number of suicides, which I hope will continue.
In my constituency, I pay tribute to the newly constituted Dartford Safe Haven—a little like the Ashford Safe Haven mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph)—which, working closely with GPs, provides a walk-in service, out of hours, with the crisis support that so many need. I also pay tribute to North Kent Mind, which supplements local mental health services, providing vital additional help for those with mental health support needs. Let us all commit to making suicide prevention a successful national mission.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for securing it and for making his opening remarks in such an amazing way. We heard the devastating numbers and the personal experience of the impact that suicide has had on our communities and on ourselves. These people were important to us and, I hope, by discussing this difficult subject not only can we offer comfort and support, but provide the hope that we can put in place improvements to prevent someone else from taking their own life.
I want to speak about two friends: my childhood friend who lost her dad to suicide when we were just in our teens; and one who made the decision to take his own life just a couple of months ago. It was not until my friend’s funeral in July that I reflected that while those suicides were more than three decades apart, the similarities between the two men who made that decision were stark. They were both men in their early 50s, successful and running their own businesses. They were amazing family men who were well respected in their work and in their social circles. Yet they still both made that ultimate decision to take their own lives, leaving those left behind to unpack their grief and sorrow with the overriding question: “Why?”
In the face of such loss, we often search for answers—something to help us make sense of the silence and the unanswered questions. While no single explanation can ever truly account for an individual’s decision, patterns begin to emerge when we look more closely at the broader picture. We can look at age and gender, and the risk of suicide is highest among men aged between 45 and 54. It is three times more common among men than women—a gap that only continues to grow. We can look regionally too. Between 2021 and 2023, the east midlands had a suicide rate of 11.3 deaths per 100,000 people, placing us above the national average and making us the fifth highest of the English regions. We also need to look nationally, and we have to create some hope.
Local authorities develop strategies to prevent suicide, but the funding for voluntary services has, sadly, gone awry in recent years. We need the much more important national debate. We can look at the limits of existing mental health support and the reality that nearly a third of people who die by suicide are in contact with mental health services in the 12 months leading up to their death.
Those are of course important insights, but they are just insights, just statistics. We have to search for answers to this difficult question. Although we might never know why someone decides to take their own life, what matters is what we do with the information that we do know. We know that we have to build resilience for young people in schools, teaching our young people how to promote good mental health and wellbeing in themselves. We need to equip people with the language to talk about how they feel, the confidence to ask for help, and the tools to support themselves and each other through the inevitable challenges in their life. We can also look to our local organisations, such as the Leg Up Project in my constituency. Its core philosophy is about building resilience, and tackling loneliness and isolation.
The Government’s commitment to transform mental health service with 24/7 neighbourhood mental health centres is a fantastic start, but it will mean nothing if we are not giving people the tools that they need to communicate to get themselves there in the first place. Prevention of deaths by suicide will come from continued conversations, a growing understanding of the mental health landscape and hearing the voices of those whom we have lost and those of us struggling now—those voices are the ones that truly matter.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the Front Benchers, and I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Dr Danny Chambers. We have three doctors on the Front Benches.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I always say that real doctors treat more than one species.
I thank the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for securing the debate and speaking so emotively, as so many hon. Members have today. I know from personal experience of talking about loss due to suicide in this Chamber that the pain never goes away, no matter how long ago it was. I particularly commend the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) for speaking about such a recent bereavement, which is a very difficult thing to do.
Other hon. Members have mentioned that only one in four people who take their own lives are known to clinical mental health services. That is why the charities and community organisations are so important. I recently visited the Winchester branch of the Samaritans, and I met Wayne Fletcher, the director. It was so impressive and inspiring to see the number of volunteers involved in making sure that there is 24-hour access for someone who needs help in the darkest and loneliest times; in the middle of the night and early in the morning, someone can pick up the phone and a volunteer will be waiting to speak to someone. It is incredible.
Other hon. Members have mentioned the Men’s Shed. Two weeks ago, I visited the Men’s Shed in Alresford. Its lease is up, so we will work with the town council to find it a new location. The connection, the friendship, the sense of purpose and the mentorship are vital, and it becomes a lifesaving community.
I had a message from a fellow vet in Winchester, Alison Moores. She said that her 15-year-old son, Sam, took his own life earlier this year. She told me:
“At the weekend I went with three of his school friends and their mums to Sam’s grave. Seeing 16-year-olds crying at the grave of their best friend was heartbreaking. The loss of my son is so horrific I can’t even begin to describe it. We have raised over £30,000 for Papyrus but they still need more. I hope we’ve made a difference in saving another child’s life.”
We know that charity fundraising is harder than ever in the current economic climate, and that all three of the organisations I have mentioned, plus others, rely on the generosity of the public and the people who are working so hard to fundraise for them.
I would like to ask, in the most constructive way possible and with no party-political agenda—because I know all hon. Members care deeply about this issue and that the Minister has a genuine commitment to suicide prevention—about the Government’s decision to end the voluntary community and social enterprise suicide prevention grant. That funding supports organisations such as Samaritans, Papyrus and the Men’s Sheds, which all play a vital role in reaching people who may never come into contact with mental health services. Is there any scope, through cross-party pressure or engagement with Treasury colleagues, to look again at how we can sustain support for those lifesaving organisations at a time when suicides are at a 25-year high?
I finish by paying tribute to Archie Pond, a 19-year-old constituent of mine who took his own life last year. Last month, I met his father, Martyn, who has been relentlessly fundraising for Young Minds. I am always so impressed that someone can turn that sort of heartbreak into something so positive.
One of my core team is a retired clinical psychologist, Peter Wilcock, who helped so much before the general election and has done so especially since I was made the mental health spokesperson. I put on record my thanks to him for his efforts and his invaluable expertise on this subject.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher). He honours John by securing the debate. All hon. Members who have spoken have honoured respectively the people they held so dear, in the most powerful way possible by turning personal grief into public purpose. I therefore thank them all for giving their time to speak.
There was a TikTok video that went viral. It opens with a young woman energetically and innocently asking:
“Be honest: who do you call whenever you’re at your lowest? Who’s that one person?”
The stitched video replies come in, with men answering. The replies are harrowing and insightful:
“Nobody. I’m a man. No one cares.”
“Not a single soul.”
“Nobody.”
“No one, cause I am all alone.”
“I think I speak for a lot of people when I say I don’t call anyone.”
“Nobody. I’m a guy—no one gives a s***”
“Speaking for the guys, literally no one.”
“You all call someone?”
“There’s no one. Nobody who cares.”
“No one. I’m a man. No one cares.”
“Not a single person. I wouldn’t turn to a single person on this earth as they will use it against me.”
“I wouldn’t call anyone.”
“What—we can call somebody?”
That small insight from a seemingly jokey platform hits on what we—the House and wider society—must look at to try to understand why men feel they are not valued. Why do they feel they cannot call someone? Why do they fear doing so will be used against them? Why do they fear asking for help? Many hide in plain sight, struggling and battling until it is too late. After all, we know from the Samaritans that about two thirds of suicide victims are not known to mental health services.
Hon. Members may wonder why I am choosing to focus my comments on men when the latest data from the Office for National Statistics shows that suicide rates are at their highest level since 1999. As we have heard, men account for three quarters of all suicides in the UK. The latest paper by the Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys puts that in stark light. It showed that more men under 50 die in the UK due to suicide than for any other reason; 14 men every day die by suicide in the UK; 74% of all suicides are male; three times as many men die by suicide every year than die in a vehicle accident; and by 2023, over 90,000 men in England and Wales had died by suicide this century. That is enough to fill Wembley stadium.
There is so much to do in this area. I want to highlight the focus and progress of the previous Government. Through the NHS long-term plan, an additional £57 million was provided by the former Conservative Government between 2019-20 and 2023-24 to fund suicide prevention and bereavement services in every local authority. My former colleague Sajid Javid, who was touched tragically by the experience of losing his own brother to suicide, was instrumental in starting the development of the suicide prevention strategy, which was published in 2023. Key initiatives included the development of a new nationwide, near real-time suspected suicide surveillance system that aimed to provide early detection and timely action to address changes in suicide rates. The strategy in its entirety set out over 100 actions to make progress across Government Departments, the NHS, the voluntary sector and national partners.
In 2021, the previous Government also announced £150 million of funding for crisis mental health facilities and patient safety in mental health units. In January 2023, it was announced that £7 million of funding would be allocated to new mental health ambulances, with £143 million going towards 150 new projects, including schemes providing alternatives to A&E. That is welcome, but the stats show that, even with all that focus, the trend is worsening.
Despite all that work and prioritisation of funding, we have yet to hear anything substantial from this Government about what they are doing on suicide prevention. As we know from one example, training can make a difference. Samaritans reports from its rail team that, for every one life lost, it is estimated that six lives are saved by interventions made thanks to the training given to National Rail and rail operating staff. That is proof that things can be done.
Just yesterday it was World Suicide Prevention Day and the Prime Minister was asked twice about the topic. In response he said, first:
“May I also thank those dealing with suicide prevention? Probably everybody in this House knows someone who has taken their life. It touches all of us and we must do everything we can, together, to prevent suicide.”—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 862.]
Secondly, he said:
“I think that suicide prevention matters to everybody in this House. I will reaffirm our commitment and I will work across the House with all Members to deal with suicide prevention.”—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 868.]
Those are positive, warm words from the Prime Minister, which we are all pleased to hear. However, I think that we, across this House and among the public, would be interested in hearing the tangible actions taken by this Government after one year in office. Will the Minister provide an update on what direct, practical steps this Government are taking on suicide prevention, including the implementation of the recommendations in the strategy? What points—for example, disparities in the difference across ethnicities and races in the UK—are being addressed?
I know that the Government have been consulting on a wide range of issues, particularly when it comes to men’s health and the men’s health strategy. I have been shining a light on those issues since I was elected in 2019, so I thank the Government for taking that important step forward. I understand that the Government are due to publish the mental health strategy and I commend them for that. Indeed, I note than in an Adjournment debate earlier this year, the Minister for Care stated:
“In November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care brought together leading campaigners, experts and the Premier League to gather ideas and inform our strategy and our 10-year health plan. We take suicide prevention extremely seriously, because every suicide is a tragedy that has a devastating and enduring impact on families, friends and communities.”—[Official Report, 24 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 757.]
His Majesty’s Opposition welcome that step forward, but in looking at the 10-year plan, I note that suicide is mentioned only three times. I think that everyone here hopes to see it feature heavily in the upcoming men’s health strategy. Will the Minister provide an update on timescales for the strategy and how it will consider suicide prevention?
Will the Government look at the prospect of a Minister for men and boys if the evidence points in that direction? We have a Minister for Women, as we believe that women have different problems across society. By that very logic, men and boys have different needs too. If we are to go down the route of segregating policies on sex, there appears to be a compelling argument to have a men’s Minister to work across Departments. That cannot be starker if we consider that for every woman who dies by suicide in the UK three men die.
Another achievement by the previous Government was the launch of the suicide prevention grant fund, as we have heard, providing £10 million to 79 organisations between August 2023 and March 2025. In my constituency, the charity First Step Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland received £76,845 and the grant was used to improve specialist counselling work in prisons and to build on pilot projects. It is therefore a regret that the suicide prevention grant came to an end in March 2025 and has yet to be renewed or replaced. In response to a written question in April, the Minister for Care stated:
“There are currently no plans to run another grant fund.”
Will the Minister explain the basis behind the decision earlier this year not to renew or replace the suicide prevention grant fund, and what alternative provision, if any, is being provided?
Liz Twist
I thank the shadow Minister for his comments. There is no question but that we all want to work together to achieve the best outcome. May I remind him, however, that the £10 million voluntary services grant was a one-off grant and that the last Government failed to renew the funding—the £57.1 million that was mentioned—for local authorities’ prevention work?
Dr Evans
I thank the hon. Lady for all the work she does with the APPG. I am looking holistically at the different parts of what we are trying to do in this space. I have already outlined all the funding that the previous Government put in, and I will come on to some of the other problems, such as the national insurance rise, because she will know that they will have a devastating impact.
At the time, the Minister also stated:
“We will be evaluating the impact of the fund, and the services that have been provided by the grant-funded organisations. Learning from this evaluation will help to inform…the Government’s mission to reduce the lives lost to suicide.”
Could the Minister provide further details about that evaluation, such as when it will be completed and whether the Government would reconsider their decision to end the grant funding if the results show that it has had a positive impact in supporting suicide prevention?
Charities were not exempted from the increase in employer national insurance contributions in the Budget. That has significantly hampered their financial situation. We just have to listen to what the Samaritans said in response to the spending review last year:
“The reality is that funding for suicide prevention has dwindled down to next to nothing. To deliver our life-saving work, charities are reliant on donations—on the generosity of the public. And this is even more precarious at a time when many people across the country are facing economic hardship.”
I point that out not to score political points, but to draw attention to the fact that the Labour Government need to set a direction and plan to deal with the leading killer of men and women under the age of 30.
In closing, I want to recognise that yesterday was World Suicide Prevention Day. Every year, 720,000 people across the world take their own lives. The theme this year was, “Changing the Narrative on Suicide”. It calls on us all to challenge harmful myths, reduce stigma and foster open, compassionate conversations about suicide. That leads me to where I started: if men do not know their value, if they do not know they have someone to confide in and if they do not truly believe that we care, we will not break the cycle, we will not make a difference and, ultimately, we will not save lives. That is the challenge laid before society, this House and, ultimately, this Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I believe we have a new Minister, Dr Zubir Ahmed—congratulations on the promotion and welcome to the Dispatch Box. Just in case you need to know, we have been touched by young male suicide in my constituency of Sussex Weald, so I will be listening closely to your response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
It is an honour to respond on behalf of my hon. Friend the Mental Health Minister and the Government on this uniquely emotive topic that impacts every community. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for giving us the opportunity to have this debate the day after World Suicide Prevention Day. I know that the whole House will join me in thanking him for channelling a deep amount of personal pain and sorrow into such a constructive debate. His family and constituents should be rightly proud.
I also want to commend all hon. Friends and hon. Members for their contributions, many of which have also come from a position of personal pain and experience. Often in our society it is the doctors and nurses who are perceived to be the lifesaver, but I am confident that every hon. Member who has taken part in the debate is a lifesaver, and their constituents should be rightly proud of all of them.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) spoke about the mental health fund, and I would be delighted to set up a meeting with him and my colleague the Mental Health Minister to talk further about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) asked for a meeting with his constituent Helena’s parents, and I would also be delighted to arrange that. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), in his usual forensic manner, asked a number of questions that I hope I will address in my speech, but I am sure he will be forthcoming if there are any shortcomings in my answers.
The Government stood on a manifesto commitment to tackle the biggest killers, and suicide remains the leading cause of death for young people in this country. Every life lost to suicide is one too many. That is why our men’s health strategy, our plan for change and our 10-year health plan have given a renewed focus on prevention. Our aim is to get the NHS, Government Departments, academia and the private sector to intertwine like never before in a call to action.
Let me briefly set out the different strands of the work. First, we will target high-risk groups, including children and young people, middle-aged men and people known to have a history of self-harm. Secondly, we will expand the offer of our mental health emergency departments as part of our 10-year plan. Thirdly, we will imbibe a greater sense of responsibility and responsiveness in the digital and media sectors.
Too often people in crisis find themselves terrified and vulnerable in places that are least equipped to help them—for example, traditional A&E departments, facing long waits and often inadequate support. That is why we are committed to expanding mental health emergency departments. We are investing up to £120 million to bring the number of mental health emergency departments up to 85, while piloting an innovative model of mental health care for people with serious mental health needs. That will mean that people in their darkest moments can access immediate specialist care in safe and dignified spaces.
Given that only one third of people who die by suicide are in contact with mental health services, we are also working to make support easier to find and easier to navigate. Our shift from hospital to neighbourhood care in the 10-year plan is a big part of that, as is NHS England’s recently published “Staying Safe from Suicide” guidance, which is for all mental health practitioners to follow. It removes any uncertainty about the approach that they should take, moves them away from tick-box checklists and puts each patient and their individual circumstances at the centre of their care. Today, I can update the House that NHS England is launching an e-learning module as a practical resource to support the implementation of the guidance.
The whole country was horrified by the excellent portrayal of the issues currently affecting young men in the television show “Adolescence”. It is a work of fiction, but it shone a searing light on many of the struggles that young people face, including social isolation—ironically, in an age of social media and connectivity. That is why this Government are taking action by equipping a generation of young people with the tools to manage their mental health. By the end of this Parliament, every school in England will have access to a mental health support team.
But as we safeguard our children in schools, we cannot remain blind to the poisonous environment that children are exposed to online. As a father, I know that this is something that keeps every parent up at night. That is why we are promoting online safety and ensuring responsible media representations of issues relating to suicide and self-harm. Under the Government’s Online Safety Act, all in-scope services are now required to protect their users from illegal content, including illegal suicide and self-harm content. Beyond that, the strongest protections in the Act are for children who are now also protected from legal but harmful suicide and self-harm content.
We have seen too many tragic stories of children being bombarded with that content, often with fatal consequences. The onus is now on tech firms to recognise that that material has no place on their platforms or in our society. Ofcom is continuing to implement this regime, and it has recently published proposals regarding additional steps that should be taken to ensure that such content is not promoted in an algorithmic fashion, but we know that legislation is not enough.
I will now turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme about first responder training. First responders play an important part in preventing suicides, as they are often the first port of call for someone in distress and experiencing suicidal ideation. We will work closely with first responders, including the police and ambulance staff, to support suicide prevention efforts. Sometimes the first response to someone experiencing distress is provided by Government frontline services. That is why the suicide prevention strategy includes the training of frontline staff in some Departments. The Ministry of Justice is rolling out mandatory suicide awareness training to prison staff, and Department for Work and Pensions frontline staff are receiving mandatory training. The NHS is committed to ensuring that all healthcare professionals receive the necessary mental health training to meet the need of patients.
I will now turn to the question of neighbourhood mental health services. The international evidence base is robust, and we are currently testing the extent of the benefits of the model here. There will be an external evaluation of these pilots to determine their impact, particularly in terms of patient experience, access, reductions in pressure on existing services, and economic impact. We will follow the evidence and make an assessment for future roll-out.
I will now turn to the research into gender differences in suicide. We agree that research is hugely beneficial for making good-quality policy. That is why the ambitions outlined in the suicide prevention strategy for England cover five years and includes research on national trends and suicide rates in specific groups. We will continue to look for ways to improve our national real-time suspected suicide surveillance system so that we can pick up on these trends and act on them faster. We will draw on experts from our advisory groups and listen to people with lived experience to help us understand why we see some of these patterns and what can be done to address them.
I want to end by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme for bringing forward this debate. I also thank all other colleagues who have contributed to it, but I want particularly to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for her tireless campaigning since she was elected to this place eight years ago. In her maiden speech, she stood on the Opposition Benches and spoke very movingly about her husband. She then gave this House a call to arms, saying:
“I do not ask for sympathy; I ask for your support”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 907.]
She may not remember, but the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), was sitting behind her on that day. He is delighted, as I am, that we are now in a position to be able to answer that call.
Lee Pitcher
We have felt a very different kind of emotion in the Chamber this afternoon, compared with what we normally feel. The stories that have been shared have been stripped back, quite raw and very emotional. It really brings home to me the extent of the risk we are talking about here.
Let me thank all hon. Members for their contributions and for their honesty. I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. These kinds of debates are never easy, but what I have heard just shows the depth of commitment across the House to tackling suicide. What also gives me hope are the amazing organisations and volunteers who are out there every day trying to support our most vulnerable when they need it the most.
Suicide is a huge problem. We all know that there are no quick or easy solutions, and every one of us came here to challenge things like this and to make a difference. What we have heard today gives me renewed hope that change is possible. If we get it right, we can make a massive difference that will save lives. So, to use the phrase used earlier today by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), we do hear you, we do see you and we want to be here for you.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered suicide prevention.
No Limits Community Café and Hub closure
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I wish to present a petition from my constituent Anna Todd concerning the provision of inclusive community spaces in Newton Abbot, which has gained hundreds of signatures. Changes to Access to Work, retail rates relief and employer national insurance contributions have seen the closure of Newton Abbot’s No Limits Café, and Dawlish Gardens Trust has had to stop helping people with learning disabilities into work. The petitioners therefore request
“that the House of Commons urge the Government to protect existing community support hubs and ensure long-term resource allocation and recognition of their role in mental health, wellbeing, and inclusion.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of the residents of the Newton Abbot constituency,
Declares that the No Limits Community Café and Hub in Newton Abbot, Devon was a vital, inclusive space for disabled and neurodivergent people, providing community, support, and social connection; further declares that the No Limits Community Café and Hub was a beacon of hope, employing 18 local people and creating a warm, inclusive environment for its participants, staff, and visitors; it was a place where people who often face barriers to employment gained confidence, learnt valuable skills, and become part of a supportive community; notes the petition on Change.org on the same issue of closure of the No Limits Community Café and Hub in Newton Abbot, Devon that gathered 573 additional signatures.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to protect existing community support hubs and ensure long-term resource allocation and recognition of their role in mental health, wellbeing, and inclusion.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003110]
Male Chick Culling
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
I declare an interest: earlier this week, I hosted the “Ban Hatch and Dispatch” event in Parliament with the Vegetarian Society, as well as hosting a drop-in event the previous week. It was important to hear presentations from industry experts about the innovative and effective in-ovo testing laboratories in Europe, which offer a vision of what we could have here in the UK. I will be hosting a further event on 4 November and I encourage colleagues to attend. I am keenly awaiting the publication of the animal welfare strategy this autumn, and I hope that this topic will be discussed in it.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this animal cruelty to the attention of the House. Considering the advances that have been made in determining the sex of chicks before they hatch, does she agree that there is absolutely no excuse for commercial egg producers to be routinely culling animals on such a massive scale?
Irene Campbell
I agree what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) said, and I will go on to say more about that.
Most people will not have heard of hatch and dispatch, which is a process of culling male chicks a few hours after they are born because they are not capable of laying eggs and do not grow fat enough to breed for meat. It is estimated that 6.5 billion newly hatched male chicks are culled globally every year, around 45 million of which are in the UK. Legally, live chicks can be killed using maceration, exposure to insert gas, or cervical dislocation, where no other method is available. In the 21st century, surely it is not acceptable that such a cruel practice takes place, when alternatives exist, as I will go on to describe.
In July 2023, the then Government’s Animal Welfare Committee released a report, “Opinion on chick culling alternatives”, which called to ban male chick culling and imports from systems that still use culling. The Committee advised that any future welfare labelling scheme should say whether the production system culled male chicks or used in-ovo technology, as well as calling for financial support for the introduction of new technologies and for wildlife rehabilitation projects, which are reliant on culled chicks for food.
In-ovo technology can determine the sex of a chick while it is in the egg, meaning that only female eggs will hatch and avoid the cruel cull. Research has shown that chick embryos can feel pain from around day 13 of egg incubation, so most in-ovo sexing systems operate between days eight and 12 of incubation. While some methods take small fluid samples, there are also non-invasive techniques, such as spectroscopy and hormone detection.
There is also significant progress in many other countries. Male chick culling is banned in Germany, France and Austria, while countries such as Italy have passed bans that will take effect in the future, and many other countries, including the United States and the Netherlands, among others, have adopted in-ovo technology voluntarily or through retail-led initiatives. I hope people here will agree that it is time that the UK catches up and introduces a ban on this cruel practice.
Almost 90% of eggs consumed in the UK are produced in the UK; that is a figure of about 12 billion eggs per year, out of the 13.6 billion that are consumed in total, so about 2 billion eggs a year are imported.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way—she is passionate about animal welfare. She mentions in-ovo technology identifying the sex of chicks. Similar technology has worked well in the dairy industry, where semen can be sexed before a cow is artificially inseminated, to ensure we have female cows rather than a surplus of male cows that end up getting culled at a young age. That is a successful programme in the dairy industry that could be replicated in the poultry industry.
Irene Campbell
I fully agree with what the hon. Member said and I think that is a good example to follow.
Two major hatcheries dominate the UK’s laying-hen sector. If we were able to introduce in-ovo sexing technology in just two hatcheries, we would be able to eradicate the vast majority of male chick culling in the UK’s commercial egg industry, so surely that is worth considering.
The public are vastly in favour of that as well. A poll by the Vegetarian Society in May found that 76% of respondents supported banning male chick culling even if it would result in a price increase of 1p per egg. In Westminster, over 30 MPs and peers from different parties signed a joint letter to the former Minister calling for a ban on male chick culling.
What would happen to eggs that are deemed to be male? The immediate answer would be to merge them with other hatchery biproducts used for energy generation, fertiliser or animal feeds. However, experts are also investigating the possibility that the eggs could be used to feed exotic animals in captivity. They could potentially be a high-value product as by day 12 the chick embryos have nails, beaks and bones, as well as not being sentient yet.
On a personal note, as a vegan for many years I find this whole discussion difficult, but it is important to highlight that currently culled chicks are being used as animal feed for captive raptors. However, animal by-products from slaughterhouses could be the best alternative, as this would be a circular and low-impact approach that would ultimately reduce the number of animals killed. Experts recommend that this should be a short-term solution, with long-term research focusing on cultivated meat, cultivated casting and even 3D-printed whole-prey alternatives.
The culling of live male chicks is a cruel and outdated practice. There is strong public support on this issue and wide international precedent. As with many others, I keenly await the animal welfare strategy this autumn, and I hope that the banning of the culling of male chicks will be a key aim of the strategy. It is important that a road map with a timeline is introduced to phase out this cruel practice and that male chick culling and imports are a thing of the past.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for securing this debate. She raised this issue in a Westminster Hall debate on animal welfare standards in farming in June, and I am grateful to her for giving us the opportunity to focus on the subject in more detail today. I fully recognise that there is strong public feeling on the routine culling of male chicks, as highlighted by the breadth of support that the Vegetarian Society’s “Ban Hatch & Dispatch” campaign has attracted. My hon. Friend has spoken passionately on the subject this evening.
As a nation, we are rightly proud of the high animal welfare standards that underpin our high-quality British produce. This Government want to build on and maintain our world-leading record on animal health and welfare, and we are absolutely committed to ensuring that animals receive the care, respect and protection that they deserve. I completely understand that the culling of day-old chicks is a process that many, including someone not far away from this Dispatch Box, may find incomprehensible and wasteful.
I assure my hon. Friend that all farm animals are protected by comprehensive and robust animal health and welfare legislation, including when they are killed. Regulations set out strict requirements to protect the welfare of animals at the time of killing, which includes male chicks in the egg production sector. As she pointed out, the permitted killing methods for chicks, such as gas stunning, are based on scientific research and assessment to ensure that the birds are spared any avoidable pain, distress or suffering. All laying hen hatcheries in the UK use argon gas mixtures as their stunning method. That is a much more humane method than other gases, such as carbon dioxide, which is routinely used in several European countries and elsewhere in the world.
However, as has been commented by the Animal Welfare Committee—an expert committee advising the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments on animal welfare issues—the routine killing of chicks is principally an ethical issue, rather than a welfare problem, because it does not lead to direct welfare harms. Of course, that does not mean that we should not work to see if we can move away from it in the future as quickly as is practical and possible. Being able to do that relies on viable alternatives being developed; my hon. Friend talked about some of those in her remarks.
The Animal Welfare Committee reviewed the alternatives to culling newly hatched chicks and published its independent opinion on this issue last year. In its report, the committee recommended that chick culling should be banned as soon as reliable, accurate technologies were available. It also highlighted that several consequences would arise from such a ban, and as such it would be crucial to learn from those countries that have already committed to move away from the culling of male chicks.
My hon. Friend mentioned that Germany, France and other European states have banned the culling of male chicks, but some European states have encountered issues following a ban. In some cases, in countries where there is a ban in place—Germany, for example—male chicks are merely transported to other member states prior to being killed, which is not the welfare gain one would want to get from such a ban. Any ban on the culling of male chicks needs to allow for the rearing and processing of those male birds that hatch despite the use of in-ovo sexing technology.
Another issue flagged in the Animal Welfare Committee’s report is the fact that male chicks provide a whole food source for exotic animals and raptors.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on securing the debate and outlining so eloquently the case for this cause, which I support. Given that we use many male chick carcases for animal feed, pet food and places like bird of prey centres, and we import far more than we use, does the Minister agree that we need to find a solution to meet that need, if we are, as I hope, to eventually move to in-ovo sexing in hatcheries?
Dame Angela Eagle
I agree that when a supply chain, however difficult, is established and we try to move away from it, there can be unintended consequences. We have to look at the whole series of issues along that chain, so that we do not end up in a situation that has lower welfare outcomes than the one we started with. I assure my hon. Friend that the Department is well aware of that, and we will not move in any way if we would end up in a worse welfare situation than the one we started with, but he makes a perfectly good point.
As I was about to say, another issue flagged in the Animal Welfare Committee’s report is the fact that male chicks provide a whole food source for exotic animals, and we would have to replace that.
In recent years, there has been phenomenal global progress in the development of technologies that could help to end routine culling of male chicks by identifying or determining embryo sex before hatching, and it appears that this is going on in the dairy industry as well. There is clearly a lot of scientific work going on to see what we can do to get away from the current situation in our livestock supply chains. Several new methods and systems have appeared, and many refinements in existing systems have continued, since the publication of the Animal Welfare Committee’s report on this subject.
We welcome the UK egg industry’s interest in the development of day-zero sexing technology, which enables eggs to be sexed prior to the start of their incubation. Such a commercial system offers many benefits, including economic and sustainability savings by directly freeing up hatchery space, in addition to providing an ethical solution to the culling of chicks.
In Germany, one alternative is the rearing of male layer chicks for meat production, also known as brother hens. Due to their slower growth rate, rearing brother hens requires a greater input of feed and a longer rearing phase to produce a smaller bird with less desirable body composition, making it more challenging to rear them commercially at scale in the UK. There is a lack of published research on the welfare of brother hens, but animal welfare concerns have been linked to this practice. In particular, managing aggression and high mortality within all-male flocks can be problematic, often accentuated by housing inappropriate to the birds’ behavioural needs.
Aside from in-ovo sexing technology and rearing of brother hens, I was pleased to hear about an initiative to assess the viability of dual-purpose poultry breeds in the UK—that is, breeds that can be used for laying and meat. Clearly, they are not as specialist as the different breeds currently used for the laying of eggs and for meat, but since they are dual purpose, they do not result in the mass culling of males in the laying industry. The initiative was awarded funding earlier this year as part of DEFRA’s farming innovation programme.
Using birds that can serve both as egg layers and meat producers could offer an alternative to chick culling, but it is different meat—they grow and turn out differently than UK consumers are perhaps used to. It is also thought that dual breeds bring other animal welfare benefits, as hens of dual-purpose breeds have lower incidences of keel bone fractures, and some breeds show less injurious pecking behaviour than found in commercial laying hen breeds. The males of dual breeds have better walking ability, lower levels of pododermatitis and better feather cover than fast-growing meat chicken breeds.
In addition to the animal health and welfare benefits, the project is also looking at the sustainability benefits of dual breeds. Dual breeds have lower protein requirements, and a German trial found that locally grown beans were a suitable alternative to very high- protein soya. If this approach to chicken breeding can be made viable, become popular and be accepted by UK consumers—those three things all have to work—it may deliver sustainability benefits. Bringing value to male layer chicks is of key importance, and I look forward to hearing the outcome of this research and whether dual-purpose breeds might offer a more ethical and sustainable approach than our current one.
This Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans in a generation to improve animal welfare, and that is exactly what we are going to do. Our farm animal welfare policy is backed by a robust evidence base, and is supported and shaped by input from our many excellent stakeholder and expert advice groups. I look forward to speaking to hon. Members about this in more detail soon. Although, as I said earlier, this is principally an ethical rather than animal welfare issue, that does not mean that we should not be trying, very robustly, to address it. I look forward to seeing progress in this area over the next period.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That was incredibly educational.
Question put and agreed to.
Pension Schemes Bill (Seventh sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Ms Lewell. As we come to the first clauses dealing with superfunds, I start by setting out the background. Superfunds provide a route for employers to secure the liabilities of closed defined-benefit schemes that are unable to afford insurance buy-out. Their purpose is to better protect members from potential losses in the event of employer insolvency, and to release employers to focus on and invest in their core business, helping to drive economic growth. Superfunds already operate within the framework of pensions legislation and the interim guidance issued by the Pensions Regulator. That interim regime has enabled us to learn what works well, but it is now time to put the regulatory framework for superfunds on a permanent footing.
Clause 51 provides an overview of part 3 of the Bill and sets out the structure and content of the legislative framework for superfunds. Clause 52 defines a superfund scheme as a
“trust-based occupational pension scheme”
that is
“not supported by a substantive employer covenant”
but by a “capital buffer” made of private capital instead. Clause 53 sets out that superfund sections are to be treated as separate schemes, meaning that any potential failure would be contained within that section. Clause 54 prohibits unauthorised superfund activities.
Clause 55 allows the Pensions Regulator to authorise superfunds if it is satisfied that they are likely to meet the ongoing requirements set out in chapters 4 and 5 of the Bill. It will enable the regulator to assess the superfund’s organisation, staff, plans, policies and procedures to ensure that it has robust governance and continuity arrangements. Clause 56 makes it clear that the Pensions Regulator must make an authorisation decision within six months of receiving a completed application, with the potential to extend that period by up to three months. The new legislative regime will protect scheme members and enhance the confidence of stakeholders and market participants.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
The Opposition support the clauses and welcome the action to legislate formally for defined-benefit superfunds. Securing this in a legislative framework will give trustees and sponsors greater confidence when considering this new consolidation option for defined-benefit schemes. The measures build on the consultation conducted under the previous Government, as well as the intention that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), laid out in his 2023 Mansion House speech.
Superfunds are capital-backed consolidators that allow defined-benefit schemes to shift liabilities away from the sponsoring employer, thereby enhancing the security of members’ benefits. By transferring pension obligations to a superfund, companies can reduce long-term liabilities and refocus on core operations, while maintaining strong protection for retirees. Superfunds offer a new endgame strategy for DB schemes unable to secure an insurance buy-out, helping to safeguard member benefits in underfunded or marginal schemes. These measures all seem reasonable, and as I said, this work started under the previous Government, so we wholeheartedly support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 52 to 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57
Prohibition of unapproved superfund transfers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Torsten Bell
Chapter 3 sets out the criteria for approving superfund transfers. The clause protects the integrity of the superfund regime that we are aiming to put in place through the Bill by making it clear that the penalty for committing an unauthorised superfund transfer may be a fine, imprisonment for up to two years, or both. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Approval of superfund transfers
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 268, in clause 58, page 67, line 34, leave out subsection (a) and insert—
“(a) that, as at the date of the application, the financial position of the ceding scheme is—
(i) not strong enough to enable the trustees to arrange an insurer buy-out, or
(ii) not affordable for the next 36 months following an assessment, certified by the scheme actuary, of all funding options to become strong enough;”.
This amendment expands the onboarding condition to give an alternative to a single day snapshot of a scheme’s funding position.
The Bill tests a scheme’s funding position on a single snapshot day. We feel that is too rigid and could unfairly exclude schemes. A scheme might just miss the mark on that day, even though funding prospects over the next three years are realistic and affordable. The amendment would allow actuaries to certify affordability over a 36-month horizon, providing a fairer and more flexible test. It would protect members by ensuring viable schemes are not shut out, while still requiring strong actuarial oversight. That is especially important in an environment where economic conditions and markets can move significantly and take scheme funding positions with them.
Schemes have not always enjoyed the present funding levels, and today’s surplus is tomorrow’s deficit. We should have regard to that fact and approach the legislation in a manner that reflects it. In the assessment over a longer time period, the trustees would also be able to consider and respond to the situation in relation to dividends, changing investment strategies and expected scheme contributions, among other key factors. In summary, the purpose of the amendment is not to block the superfund option for schemes, but rather to ensure that the legislative framework is set squarely on the basis of protecting DB scheme member benefits and the security and soundness of the pensions system.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
We have discussed other parts of the regime—for example, new entrants and their ability to scale up, and the longer-term prospects for that—which were perhaps a bit more flexible than this part. Although I am not entirely convinced that the exact wording of the amendment provides the best way to go about it, if the Minister gives some reassurance and a commitment to consider the possibility of not just taking a snapshot day, and to look at the potential ability to scale up or grow, I would be more comfortable with the legislation than I am currently.
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Members for Torbay and for Horsham for the amendment. It is sensible to discuss one of the key questions in the design of superfunds policy. My main reassurance is that this exact option, or options in this space, were part of the extensive consultation on superfunds. That is important to understand. They were in the consultation, and a wide range of views were expressed in the responses, many of them pointing to the clear practical difficulties of providing the legislative test to assess whether a scheme could afford an insurance buy-out in future, as opposed to its exact position at the time of the assessment.
For reasons I will come on to, that does not mean that it is not important to look ahead to whether a scheme is likely to be able to buy out in the future, but we have taken the view, following the consultation, that that should not be the test on the face of the Bill. That is because, when it comes to projections looking ahead, both the cost of an insurance buy-out and the scheme funding levels can fluctuate significantly. Forecasts ask for more judgment to be exercised compared with an assessment of what the buy-out market is offering at the time it is carried out. It is about the current funding levels. Clause 58 already states that schemes can transfer a superfund only when they are currently unable to secure members’ benefits with an insurer.
I will offer two elements of reassurance to the hon. Member for Horsham. First, we need to be clear about the role of the legislation, which is as I just set out, and the role of the trustees, who are the ones who would approve a transfer to a superfund. Trustees will absolutely be looking ahead and thinking about the kinds of issue that the hon. Member highlighted. Do they wish to see a superfund transfer or a buy-out transfer in future? Is it plausible that they would get one? They will be relying on the guidance of the TPR and the clear intent in the legislation, which is that superfunds will provide an additional option, not replace the core approach of most defined-benefit schemes’ goal, which is an insurance buy-out. I therefore do not support putting the proposed test on the face of the Bill. Also, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North pointed out, there are issues with the drafting of the amendment, which requires trustees in legislation to do what they will, in practice, be doing anyway.
The second point of reassurance I can offer is that the Bill sets out a power to substitute another condition to replace this condition, if needed. We will consult the industry to assess what, if any, further requirements might be added to satisfy members before the regime comes into effect. I hope that on that basis, the hon. Member will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
John Milne
I thank the Minister for his reassurance, but urge him to keep this in mind. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move amendment 277, in clause 58, page 67, line 34, leave out from “application” to end of line 36 and insert
“the Trustees agree, after due consideration, that it is the best option for their fund’s members;”.
This amendment would prevent a fund from having to carry out an insurance buy-out option.
The amendment asks a reasonable question about the duties of the trustees, and the possibility that they will be overwritten by the legislation and taken away from trustees. I would appreciate some reassurance from the Minister on whether the trustees will still have a duty to act in the best interests of scheme members once the legislation goes through, and whether the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Tamworth would make things better for trustees, with them better able to act in the best interests of pension scheme members.
Torsten Bell
I will answer the hon. Lady’s question directly, and then come to the amendment more broadly. The best way to think about this amendment is that it asks us to remove one of the core framings of the superfund regime, which is that it is not replacing buy-out, where that is available, to trustees. The amendment enables trustees to do what they like, including moving to a superfund even if they could have moved to an insurance buy-out. That is not the policy intention of this Government, nor was it the policy intention of the previous Government. It also does not align with most of the responses to the consultation.
As I said earlier, the job of the legislation is to provide clarity regarding the overall framework, which is that superfunds exist for those schemes that are not able to afford an insurance buy-out. Within that, it is for trustees to make wider judgments, as they do all the time. Directly to the hon. Lady’s question, trustees’ duties to take the decisions that deliver the best outcomes for their members, as a short hand, is totally unaffected by this. This is just a constraint on what the superfund regime is there for, and not because we do not want to see arbitrage between an insurance regulatory regime and a superfund’s regulatory regime. I hope that provides some clarity.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Torsten Bell
I beg to move amendment 215, in clause 58, page 68, line 1, at beginning insert
“that it is reasonable to expect”.
This amendment adjusts the onboarding condition in relation to the capital adequacy threshold. The Regulator now needs to be satisfied, as at the time it decides the application, that it is reasonable to expect that the threshold will be met immediately following the superfund transfer (rather than that the threshold definitely will be met at that time).
Torsten Bell
Amendment 215 simply clarifies the policy intent behind the clause. It reflects the reality that pension schemes’ funding is fluid and difficult to predict. Amendment 216 makes the clause clearer and ensures consistency with amendment 215. Amendment 217 introduces a power to enable the Government to consult industry and the regulator on an appropriate timeframe in which to assess whether the technical provision threshold has been met. Amendment 218 is consequential to amendment 217.
Amendment 219 allows the Secretary of State to make special provisions to modify or disapply the onboarding conditions, which we have just been discussing, in subsection (2) in the instance of a merger, division or restructuring of superfund sections. Amendments 220 and 221 set out parliamentary procedures for the powers introduced by amendments 217 and 219 respectively. I hope that hon. Members feel able to accept these amendments.
Amendment 215 agreed to.
Amendments made: 216, in clause 58, page 68, line 3, leave out
“there is a very high likelihood”
and insert
“it is reasonable to expect”.
This amendment adjusts the onboarding condition in relation to the technical provisions threshold for consistency with the change made by Amendment 215.
Amendment 217, in clause 58, page 68, line 5, leave out from “period” to end of line and insert
“specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;”.
This amendment allows for regulations to set the period by reference to which the onboarding condition relating to the technical provisions threshold is assessed.
Amendment 218, in clause 58, page 68, line 22, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 217.
Amendment 219, in clause 58, page 68, line 32, at end insert—
“(5A) The Secretary of State may by regulations modify subsection (2) in its application to a superfund transfer of a kind described in section 53(3) (merger of sections etc).”
This amendment allows for regulations to make special provision about how the onboarding conditions apply (or do not apply) in relation to a superfund transfer within clause 53(3) (under which a restructuring of sections within a superfund can itself be treated as a superfund transfer).
Amendment 220, in clause 58, page 68, line 42, at end insert—
“(7A) Regulations under subsection (2)(d) are subject to the negative procedure.”
This amendment provides for negative parliamentary procedure to apply to regulations made by virtue of subsection (2)(d) as amended by Amendment 217.
Amendment 221, in clause 58, page 68, line 43, at end insert—
“(8A) Regulations under subsection (5A) are subject to the negative procedure.”—(Torsten Bell.)
This amendment provides for negative parliamentary procedure to apply to regulations made by virtue of the provision inserted by Amendment 219.
Torsten Bell
This is an important clause whose role is to set out the criteria for the Pensions Regulator to approve each transfer to a superfund, having dealt with the authorisation of superfunds separately. Those include that the superfund has been authorised by the regulator and that the ceding employer scheme has no active members; we are talking about closed defined-benefit schemes.
The clause also sets out onboarding conditions, which are designed to ensure that members’ benefits are well protected. Superfunds are secure, but not as secure as an insurance buy-out. Schemes with sufficient funds to buy out benefits with an insurer may therefore not enter a superfund. Other onboarding conditions require that the trustees of the ceding scheme make the assessment in the interests of scheme members that the transfer to a superfund will make it more likely that the members’ benefits will be paid in full, and that the capital adequacy threshold is met—which is the main answer to the earlier question from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. Those and other measures, alongside a known and up-front capital buffer, will ensure that there is a very high probability that members’ benefits will be paid.
Affirmative regulation-making powers will allow greater specificity about the onboarding conditions, including the financial metrics of the capital adequacy threshold and the information that must be provided to the regulator to satisfy the onboarding conditions. I commend clause 58 to the Committee.
Kirsty Blackman
I have a quick question, which may also be relevant to other clauses that we discussed earlier, but which I did not bring up at that point. It is about the consistency of consultations and regulations from the Department for Work and Pensions and the Financial Conduct Authority, particularly when consultations are taking place and there are scheme members and prospective pensioners who expect their pension to work in the same way as others and do not have a clue what the arrangements are—for example, whether it is regulated by the FCA or anyone else. Can we still expect parity of service and clarity?
I am aware that the different structures may require slightly different regulations. I want reassurance from the Minister on ensuring that scheme members see a consistent level of service that makes sense in the regulatory frameworks. I also want reassurance that larger organisations running different types of scheme can easily work within and respond to both types of consultation because there is enough consistency applicable across different regulatory mechanisms, within the constraints of the law and depending on the scheme type. I have been asked by insurance and pension industry professionals to raise that with the Minister, and any reassurance that he can give would be appreciated.
Torsten Bell
The first reassurance I can give is that this part of the Bill requires only one regulatory framework, because it all sits within the Pensions Regulator and within the defined benefit part of the landscape, as I am aware the hon. Member for Aberdeen North knows.
On the hon. Member’s wider point, which is relevant to many parts of the Bill, I absolutely agree and will offer a two-part reassurance—we will also come to a new clause later that directly gets at this issue. I entirely agree that having two regulatory regimes is no excuse for having different consumer experiences across the two halves of the regime. To address that, I have made sure that the Bill supports the same outcomes, and have stress tested that considerably, but also made it clear that, as a Government policy agenda, our goal is that that should be the case, full stop, including in some areas where it has not been historically. That is absolutely what we need to keep working towards. We should all have that in our heads.
When it comes to the regulations, it is also our clear intention that the FCA and TPR should be working very closely together, as we discussed with the value for money regulations, for example.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 58, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59
Special provision for certain schemes coming out of assessment period
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Torsten Bell
Just to clarify, there is significant support from the industry for clause 59 in general terms. This is in part because of the successful rescue of the Debenhams pension scheme out of the Pension Protection Fund assessment—it had not entered the PPF; had it done so, there would have been a significant cut in members’ benefits—by the currently sole operating superfund, Clara Pensions. PPF assessment following employer insolvency is designed to ensure that member benefits are protected. Some schemes that come out of PPF assessment are too well funded to stay in the PPF, because they could achieve better member outcomes than might be offered by the PPF.
The clause amends the onboarding conditions in these instances, to allow trustees of a scheme in PPF assessment to seek to secure their liabilities with a superfund at less than full benefits, but more than would otherwise have been secured through a buy-out that was available, given the level of their assets at that point. Based on the evidence from the PPF’s purple book, we anticipate that, on average, five in 10 so-called PPF-plus schemes could benefit each year. Trustees can continue to buy out the level of benefits that the scheme can afford with an insurer, but this clause provides them with the option of entering a superfund, where they consider doing so to be in the interest of members.
Clause 60 specifies that an application must be made in the manner and form specified by the Pensions Regulator. The approval process enables the regulator to protect schemes and their members during the application process, and aligns with the regulator’s systems and processes and its experience with other authorisation and supervisory regimes. I commend clauses 59 and 60 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 59 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61
Governance and structure
Torsten Bell
One of the new features of a superfund regime is that there is a responsible body for the superfund that carries out key parts of its operations. Clause 61 sets out a clear framework of policies and procedures that the responsible body of a superfund must ensure is in place, so that the pension scheme is managed and administered effectively and members’ benefits are protected.
The clause will operate alongside the requirements for an effective system of governance and internal controls, which the scheme trustees are already subject to under the Pensions Act 2004. It places an overarching obligation on the responsible body to ensure that the appropriate governance-related policies and procedures are in place across the operating model of the superfund as a whole, to ensure that the responsible body upholds the same standards as scheme trustees in the interests of scheme members. This is in recognition of the greater potential for conflicts of interest than would be seen in a traditional defined-benefit scheme.
The clause further requires the responsible body to ensure that the superfund meets prescribed conditions as to its structure, including but not limited to its compliance with tax legislation. The detailed structural requirements for superfunds will be set out in regulations, following consultation and in response to innovations in the market.
Clause 62 sets out the management documents that must be prepared and maintained as part of the ongoing requirements for an authorised superfund. The documents include a business plan, a governance manual, a continuity strategy, and a fees and expenses policy. That suite of documentation is designed to ensure the good management of superfunds, and it builds on the requirements and learnings from other authorisation regimes, such as master trusts and collective defined-contribution schemes.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 61 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 63
Duty to monitor financial thresholds
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 64 stand part.
Government amendment 222.
Clauses 65 to 68 stand part.
Torsten Bell
This group of clauses introduces requirements for superfunds that concern funding and investment. Clause 63 places a duty on the responsible body of a superfund to protect members’ benefits by having robust policies and procedures in place to monitor the financial thresholds.
Clause 64 defines those financial thresholds, which are key components of the regulatory regime and follow the example of the Solvency II supervisory ladder of interventions, tailored to the unique characteristics of superfunds. That means that there is a series of clear and known consequences, both positive and negative, that could happen in superfunds as a direct response to changes to their funding levels. The financial thresholds are designed to protect the security of members’ benefits. When certain thresholds are breached, there are mandatory actions that must be taken to protect members.
Government amendment 222 is minor and technical, and seeks to provide certainty and clarity to the operators and administrators of superfunds that they can use the buffer funds both to invest the buffer in the hopes of generating growth, and to pay expenses, fees and—importantly, for the Treasury half of my job—any taxes that are owed.
Clause 65 requires that arrangements must be made to transfer capital buffer assets to the scheme’s trustees in specific circumstances. That is the important protection, because it is the capital buffer that provides the equivalent of the employer covenant protection that we see in traditional defined-benefit schemes. The release of the buffer to the trustees as part of an approved response plan—which we will come to in clause 81—is fundamental to the protection of members’ benefits.
Clause 66 ensures that the capital buffer cannot be released to anyone other than the scheme’s trustees, except where the liabilities of the scheme have been satisfied, or where the release is a permitted profit extraction. It is important that permitted profit extraction takes place only when the security of the scheme has been materially improved, above the superfund’s initial capital adequacy requirements, which are obviously significant.
Clause 67 requires the responsible body of the superfund to have an investment strategy for the capital buffer, prepared in accordance with any requirements specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Clause 68 requires the responsible body of the superfund to appoint an appropriately qualified, independent person to verify the valuations of the capital buffer at least once a year.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 65
Capital buffer: compulsory release to trustees
Amendment made: 222, in clause 65, page 73, line 2, leave out “for market value consideration” and insert
“—
“(a) in the ordinary course of the investment of the capital buffer, or
(b) in payment of fees, expenses, taxes or other charges incurred (in each case) in connection with the management or administration of the capital buffer”.—(Torsten Bell.)
This amendment clarifies the circumstances in which the capital buffer is regarded as “released” for the purposes of Part 3.
Clause 65, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 66 to 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
Key functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Torsten Bell
This series of clauses sets out requirements for the approval or certification of key superfund personnel. Trustees and actuaries, among others, are already held to account by strict codes of practice and legislative frameworks. These provisions seek to ensure that those working within the responsible bodies of superfunds are also held to an appropriately high standard of conduct.
Clause 69 requires a superfund to have at least one individual responsible for each key administrative function. Clause 70 requires approval from the regulator for individuals looking to hold a key function. This is to ensure that the individual appointed to the role is suitable. A fit and proper test will be conducted to confirm that the named individual has the knowledge and experience for the responsibility that they are undertaking.
Clause 71 requires the responsible body of a superfund to conduct due diligence and be satisfied that any individual carrying out work associated with a key function is suitable. The responsible body must issue a certificate to the individual that it is satisfied with their suitability and must maintain a register of all such certificates. This approach intends to echo the responsibility that trustees assume when delegating tasks toward the carrying out of a key function in a pension scheme.
Clause 72 requires the regulator to approve the superfund scheme trustees. Regulations will specify the information and background checks that the regulator should undertake to ensure that the trustees are fit and proper. Members should note that civil penalties apply to any breaches of clauses 70 to 72. I commend clauses 69 to 72 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 69 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 70 to 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 73
Events to be notified to the Regulator
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Torsten Bell
We now come to the clauses relating to information and reporting requirements for superfunds.
Clause 73 requires the trustees of a superfund to notify the Pensions Regulator if certain events occur that might indicate the need for further investigation by the regulator—for example, a material deterioration in the investment performance of the scheme. Clause 74 requires the superfund trustees to regularly update the Pensions Regulator on the financial position of the superfund. This will enable effective monitoring by the regulator. These regular reports are additional to existing valuation and reporting requirements under the existing defined-benefit scheme funding framework.
Clause 75 allows the regulator to request information from the responsible body of a superfund to monitor its compliance with ongoing requirements that the regulator may specify. Similar powers to request such returns exist in the master trust and CDC authorisation regimes. Clause 76 allows the regulator to appoint someone to prepare a report about a suspected breach of the requirements. This provision is similar to both section 71 of the Pensions Act 2004 and the FCA’s arrangements for the procurement of a report by a skilled person. As in the 2004 Act, the responsible body—the “person” issuing a notice—must bear the cost of the report. Clause 77 requires the responsible body of a superfund to provide information to the superfund trustees to enable them to comply with relevant legislation, including their obligations to report under clause 74. This is about making sure that trustees have access to information that the responsible body may hold.
Members should note that civil penalties apply to the responsible body for breaches of clauses 73, 75, 76 and 77. I commend clauses 73 to 77 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 73 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 74 to 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 78
“Event of concern” and “period of concern”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 79 to 81 stand part.
Government amendments 223 and 224
Clauses 82 to 87 stand part.
Torsten Bell
We turn now to chapter 5, which is concerned with “events of concern”—events that require closer regulatory scrutiny. These are events such as breaches of financial thresholds, an unauthorised extraction of capital or a material risk of insolvency. An “event of concern” will result in a “period of concern”, which will end once it has been resolved by the regulator or the superfund winds up.
Clause 78 sets out the list of circumstances in relation to a superfund that give rise to an event of concern. Subsection (4) provides an affirmative power to adjust the period and circumstances of financial thresholds not being met. This is because different risks may emerge as the market evolves and further events of concern may be needed.
Clause 79 requires a relevant person to notify the Pensions Regulator when an event of concern occurs or is likely to occur. Members may find it helpful to note that this provision replicates existing measures for defined-contribution master trusts.
Clause 80 requires the superfund or the trustees to produce a response plan to address the event of concern. The response plan must be approved by the Pensions Regulator. If it is not satisfied that the response plan is sufficient, it can request a new plan. Clause 81 specifies the required content of any response plan.
Government amendment 223 is technical. It ties the direction-making powers of the regulator explicitly to the requirements placed upon a given member of the superfund group or trustee of the superfund scheme in clause 80. Clause 80(1) requires the submission of a response plan to an event of concern, while clause 80(3)(b) requires the revision of any response plan if the regulator is not satisfied. Government amendment 224 clarifies the limits of the regulator’s powers to direct superfunds to take corrective action during the event of concern.
Clause 82 lists the specific powers that will be granted to the Pensions Regulator during periods of concern to ensure the timely and effective resolution of any event of concern. A member of the superfund group must comply with a direction given to them by the regulator.
Clause 83 grants the regulator the power to make a direction to pause only if it is satisfied that doing so is necessary to protect the interests of superfund members. Members should note that this direction-making power is standard and reflects those in the regulator’s master trust and CDC authorisation regimes.
Clause 84 allows the regulator to issue a fixed penalty notice to a person if it considers they have failed to comply with some of these requirements. The penalty must not exceed £100,000.
Clause 85 allows the regulator to issue an escalating penalty notice for failure to comply with a requirement, if it has already issued the person a fixed penalty notice under clause 84 in respect of that failure. The penalty is to be determined according to regulations and must not exceed £20,000 per day.
Clause 86 enables the regulator to withdraw authorisation from a superfund if it considers that the superfund has failed to comply with its ongoing requirements. Superfund pension schemes are defined-benefit occupational pension schemes and will be subject to the employer debt provisions under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995.
Superfunds will include a statutory employer. If that employer becomes insolvent or the scheme enters wind-up, a debt will be triggered from the employer in the normal way under section 75 if the scheme cannot secure member benefits through an insurer buy-out. That is an additional protection that matches how that is carried out in traditional defined-benefit schemes.
Clause 87 enables employer debt to be paid, or partly paid, by funds released from the capital buffer rather than directly by the statutory employer itself.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 78 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 79 to 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 82
Regulator’s direction-making powers during period of concern
Amendments made: 223, in clause 82, page 84, line 9, leave out
“if no response plan has been approved”
and insert
“if a person has failed to comply with section 80(1) or (3)(b) (requirement to propose response plan or revised response plan)”.
This amendment limits the direction-making power in clause 82(1)(c) so that it can only be exercised where a person has failed to produce a response plan or a revised response plan as required by clause 80.
Amendment 224, in clause 82, page 84, line 16, at end insert—
“(1A) A direction under subsection (1)(c) may not require the provision of financial support to the superfund scheme.”—(Torsten Bell.)
This amendment provides that the direction-making power in clause 82(1)(c) cannot be used to require a person to provide financial support to the superfund scheme.
Clause 82, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 83 to 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 88
Power to extend superfunds legislation to similar structures
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Torsten Bell
This is the last grouping that covers the superfund regulatory regime. Clause 88 allows regulations to extend the superfund regime, with or without modification, to structures that share similar characteristics to superfunds. To fall within scope of the power, the structures must hold defined benefit liabilities and not be supported by a substantive employer covenant. The clause could be used, for example, to address schemes that provide benefit security through something other than a capital buffer, such as an insurance product.
Clause 89 is designed to ensure that superfund schemes, despite their special characteristics, fit within the legislative framework applicable to occupational pension schemes. Superfund schemes present particular issues because there is no traditional employer and it will not necessarily be obvious, when the scheme is established, who its eventual members will be. The intention, however, is for them to be regulated as occupational pension schemes and to be structured in a way that works with the relevant legislative frameworks.
Clause 90 makes two specified amendments to legislation in consequence of part 3. The first amendment clarifies how the employer debt legislation will apply where a superfund pension scheme is sectionalised. The second amendment will remove the requirement for a certificate of broad comparability when trustees transfer to a superfund after a scheme comes out of PPF assessment. In such circumstances, trustees will still be required to consider whether the transfer was in the interests of members, and the test in clause 59 will need to be satisfied. This will provide protection for transferring members.
Clause 91 enables transitional provision to be made in relation to a superfund that is already operating under the regulator’s interim regime, which I mentioned earlier. Clause 92 provides definitions for key terms. The Secretary of State may by affirmative regulations amend the definition of “superfund group”. This will provide the flexibility to deal with variation in those group structures and ensure that appropriate entities are captured within the regulatory regime. I commend clauses 88 to 92 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 88 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 89 to 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 93
Alienation or forfeiture of occupational pension
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Torsten Bell
Before a 2022 High Court ruling, it was widely accepted that the Pensions Ombudsman had the status of a competent court, so that a Pensions Ombudsman determination alone would be sufficient for a pension scheme to recoup an overpayment from a member’s pension. The ruling called that into question. Clause 93 simply reinstates the original policy intent that the ombudsman’s determination in pension overpayment dispute cases is sufficient. That is what was debated in Parliament when the ombudsman was established in 1931. Without this legislation, a large additional burden would be imposed on an already stretched county court system.
Turning to clause 94, being diagnosed with life-limiting illness can cause unimaginable suffering for a person and their loved ones. Those nearing the end of their life should be able to access the financial support that they need at that difficult time. I am pleased that we are now able to introduce this clause to amend the definition of terminal illness in the Pension Protection Fund and financial assistance scheme legislation.
Terminal illness is currently defined as where a member’s death from a progressive disease can be reasonably expected within six months. Clause 94 extends that to within 12 months. These new arrangements may enable a few more affected members to claim a payment, but they will mostly enable members to receive payments at an earlier stage of their illness. That small change could make a big impact for affected members at a very difficult time.
Clause 95 covers another aspect of the Pension Protection Fund: its levy. Improved scheme funding of the PPF means that it is far less reliant on the levy than it was previously. For the 2025-26 financial year, the levy has been set at £45 million, its lowest rate. However, the current legislation restricts the PPF board from increasing the levy by more than 25% of the previous year’s levy. That has made it risky for the PPF to reduce the levy significantly, even when it is not needed, because it could take several years to restore it to the previous levels if required. Clause 95 gives the board greater flexibility to adjust the levy by amending the safeguard. The new safeguard will be to prevent the board from charging a levy that is more than the sum of the previous year’s levy and 25% of the previous year’s levy ceiling.
Clause 96 focuses on pensions dashboards. Current legislation does not allow the PPF to provide to pensions dashboards information about the compensation that people can expect, or for the display of that information. The clause expands the scope of pensions dashboards to include information relating to compensation from the PPF and financial assistance from the financial assistance scheme, and it could benefit around 140,000 people. I commend clauses 93 to 96 to the Committee.
Mark Garnier
I will be incredibly brief. We have heard a number of details from the Minister. Clauses 93 to 96 contain what we believe are sensible and welcome amendments that reflect current market and scheme conditions. In particular, the changes related to the Pension Protection Fund are positive. With a strong funding position in many defined benefit schemes recently and the PPF’s healthy reserves exceeding £14 billion, these legislative changes are timely. The industry strongly supports the option for a zero levy, which reduces financial pressure on well-funded schemes. The Opposition wholeheartedly support these clauses.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats welcome the direction of travel. As the shadow Minister identified, the industry has demanded some elements of the clauses, but they are mostly about supporting consumers. The end users of these services should be a key element of what the Bill is about.
Kirsty Blackman
I agree with the point that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson just made. The clauses represent good decisions both for those who work in the industry and for members of the public—people paying into pension schemes and hoping to get an adequate pension when they retire.
I want to comment on a few things included in the clauses. The Work and Pensions Committee report that was published a couple of years ago asked for several of the changes that are being made here, and I appreciate that the Government are now moving towards making a significant number of them in what is the most major piece of pensions legislation we have seen in years. I do appreciate the changes being made.
I am incredibly supportive of the changes to the terminal illness criteria, which create consistency with other Government legislation on the definition of terminal illness. As the Minister said, if this allows more people to access payments earlier and can improve their quality of life when they know how very short their remaining time is, it will be incredibly helpful. It will enable those individuals to access additional payments and funding more easily and quickly, so that they can make the most of the short time they have left. I appreciate that change.
The pensions dashboard changes are sensible, because people will be able to see the widest possible range of things when they log into the dashboard. It will do what it says on the tin, which is to bring everything together in one place, rather than people having to go somewhere else.
Lastly, I do not disagree on the PPF levy changes; I think this is the right decision. However, there is a significant surplus, and there are other things that could have been done with it; we will discuss new clauses 18 and 19 later. I thought the Government’s response to the Work and Pensions Committee report that I mentioned was sensible when it came to the PPF levy changes: “Yes, we agree this needs to be changed and we will look into it.” The response on the pre-1997 lack of uplift for members in the PPF and the FAS was not so helpful. It was more like, “Well, this is an impact on the Government’s balance sheet.” That is genuinely what the Government’s response says.
I am concerned that there are two very different ways of looking at the answers to those questions. In both cases, the answer could have been: “There is a significant surplus. We agree we should do something about it.” Changes could then have been made to support people who are in some cases really struggling to make ends meet, as was mentioned in last Tuesday’s witness session. That could have made a significant difference to their lives. If the Government had committed to allowing or encouraging the PPF to apply an inflationary uplift and provide support—even if they did so in a particularly progressive way, to support folk with the lowest earnings—that would have made the biggest possible difference to people who are genuinely struggling right now.
Torsten Bell
I thank all hon. Members for the consensus around these amendments. We will return to the question of indexation shortly with some of the new clauses. I also want to correct the record. In the exciting debate on the Pensions Ombudsman, I mentioned 1931 but meant 1991. It is not quite as old as I suggested, so I am glad that is now noted.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 93 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 94 to 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 97
Amendments of Pensions Act 2004
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 229, 230, 232, 231 and 233 to 239.
Schedule.
Torsten Bell
Clause 97 introduces the schedule of amendments that are being made to the Pensions Act 2004. These amendments extend the regulatory functions of the Pensions Regulator to include superfunds and other matters in the Bill. Amendments 229 to 239 ensure that a similar effect is achieved in relation to the guided retirement, value for money, scale and asset allocation provisions, and the small pot measures.
I particularly draw Members’ attention to paragraph 16 of the schedule, which amends section 127 of the Pensions Act 2004 to extend the duty of the board of the pension protection scheme to superfund schemes. It is important that members of superfunds receive the same protection as members of other occupational schemes.
Paragraph 18 of the schedule amends section 224 of the Pensions Act 2004 to require that superfunds’ actuarial reports, produced in years between triennial valuations of scheme assets and liabilities, must be sent to the Pensions Regulator. This is an additional requirement for superfunds, which will allow for greater oversight by the regulator of their funding positions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 97 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendments made: 229, in schedule, page 100, line 16, leave out “Part 2 or 3 of” and insert—
“Chapter 1, 2, 3A or 5 of Part 2 of, or any provision of Part 3 of,”.
This amendment confines the application of section 13 to specific Chapters of Part 2. The reference to Chapter 3A is to the Chapter referred to in the explanatory statement to NC15.
Amendment 230, in schedule, page 100, line 27, at end insert—
“(1A) Before paragraph (da) insert—
‘(dza) sections 28A to 28F of the Pensions Act 2008 (scale and asset allocation);’”
This amendment ensures that the powers of the Pensions Regulator to inspect premises conferred by section 73 of the Pensions Act 2004 are exercisable in relation to the Regulator’s functions under the new scale and asset allocation measure inserted in the Pensions Act 2008 by Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Bill.
Amendment 231, in schedule, page 100, line 31, leave out “(value for money)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 232.
Amendment 232, in schedule, page 100, line 31, leave out “Chapter 1” and insert “Chapters 1, 2, 3A and 5”.
This amendment ensures that the powers of the Pensions Regulator to inspect premises conferred by section 73 of the Pensions Act 2004 are exercisable in relation to Chapters 2, 3A and 5 of Part 2 of the Bill. The reference to Chapter 3A is to the Chapter referred to in the explanatory statement to NC15.
Amendment 233, in schedule, page 100, line 32, leave out “(superfunds)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 232.
Amendment 234, in schedule, page 101, line 16, leave out “any” and insert “or by virtue of any”.
This amendment, which relates to Amendment 235, ensures that functions under regulations made under the provisions mentioned in section 80(1)(c) are also captured by that provision.
Amendment 235, in schedule, page 101, leave out line 22 and insert—
“‘Chapter 1, 2, 3A or 5 of Part 2 of, or any provision of Part 3 of, the Pension Schemes Act 2025’”.
This amendment extends the offence in section 80 of the Pensions Act 2004 to false or misleading information provided in connection with the Pensions Regulator’s functions under or by virtue of Chapters 1, 2, 3A or 5 of Part 2 of the Bill. Chapter 3 of Part 2 is already covered, as it amends existing legislation already mentioned in section 80(1)(c). The reference to Chapter 3A is to the Chapter referred to in the explanatory statement to NC15.
Amendment 236, in schedule, page 101, line 25, leave out “any” and insert “or by virtue of any”.
This amendment, which relates to Amendment 237, ensures that functions under regulations made under the provisions mentioned in section 80A(2)(c) are also captured by that provision.
Amendment 237, in schedule, page 101, leave out line 31 and insert—
“‘Chapter 1, 2, 3A or 5 of Part 2 of, or any provision of Part 3 of, the Pension Schemes Act 2025’” —(Torsten Bell.)
This amendment extends the civil penalty provisions in section 8A of the Pensions Act 2008 to false or misleading information provided in connection with the Pensions Regulator’s functions under or by virtue of Chapters 1, 2, 3A or 5 of Part 2 of the Bill. Chapter 3 of Part 2 is already covered, as it amends existing legislation already mentioned in section 80A(2)(c).
Amendment 238, in schedule, page 102, line 10, after “legislation” insert—
“—
(a) after paragraph (d) insert—
‘(ea) Part 1 of the Pensions Act 2008 in relation to the scale requirement in section 28B or the asset allocation requirement in section 28C,’;”
This amendment ensures that the scale and asset allocation provisions in Chapter 3 of Part 2 can be the subject of a Regulator code of practice under section 90 of the Pensions Act 2004.
Amendment 239, in schedule, page 102, line 12, leave out “Part 2 or 3 of” and insert—
“Chapter 1, 2, 3A or 5 of Part 2 of, or any provision of Part 3 of,”.—(Torsten Bell.)
This amendment confines the references in section 90(6) of the Pensions Act 2004 to specific Chapters of Part 2.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
New Clause 11
Sharing of database where FCA makes corresponding rules
“(1) This section applies if the Financial Conduct Authority makes rules, in relation to persons regulated by it, that correspond to value for money regulations.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the use of the database mentioned in section 11(2)(d) for the publication or sharing of information—
(a) that relates to persons to whom the rules made by the Financial Conduct Authority apply, and
(b) that corresponds to metric data,
including provision conferring functions on a person appointed as mentioned in section 11(2)(d).
(3) Regulations under subsection (2) are subject to the negative procedure.”—(Torsten Bell.)
This new clause, intended to be inserted after clause 17, allows for the same value-for-money database to be used for FCA-regulated schemes as for schemes regulated by the Pensions Regulator.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 12
Interpretation of Chapter
‘(1) In this Chapter—
“the appropriate authority” , in relation to the making of regulations, means—
(a) where the only pension schemes to which the regulations apply are FCA-regulated pension schemes, the Treasury;
(b) where the only pension schemes to which the regulations apply are not FCA-regulated pension schemes, the Secretary of State;
(c) in any other case, the Treasury and the Secretary of State acting jointly;
“the appropriate regulator” , in relation to a pension scheme, means—
(a) in relation to an FCA-regulated pension scheme, the FCA;
(b) in relation to any other pension scheme, the Pensions Regulator;
“approved main scale default arrangement” , in relation to a pension scheme, means a main scale default arrangement in respect of which the pension scheme is approved under section 28A or 28B of the Pensions Act 2008;
“consolidating” a non-scale default arrangement into an approved main scale default arrangement means ensuring that any assets held subject to the non-scale default arrangement are instead held subject to the approved main scale default arrangement;
“the FCA” means the Financial Conduct Authority;
“FCA-regulated” , in relation to a pension scheme, has the meaning given in subsection (2);
“main scale default arrangement” , in relation to a pension scheme, has the same meaning as in section 28A and 28B of the Pensions Act 2008;
“money purchase benefits” has the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (see section 181 of that Act);
“non-scale default arrangement” , in relation to a pension scheme, means an arrangement—
(a) which is not an approved main scale default arrangement, and
(b) subject to which assets of the scheme must under the rules of the scheme be held, or may under those rules be held, if the member of the scheme to whom the assets relate does not make a choice as to the arrangement subject to which the assets are to be held;
“operate” , in relation to a default arrangement, has the meaning given in subsection (3);
“pension scheme” has the meaning given by section 1(5) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993;
“the provider” of a pension scheme means—
(a) in relation to an FCA-regulated pension scheme, the person mentioned in subsection (2)(b);
(b) in any other case, the trustees or managers;
“the trustees or managers” , in relation to a pension scheme, means—
(a) in the case of a scheme established under a trust, the trustees of the scheme, and
(b) in any other case, the persons responsible for the management of the scheme.
(2) A pension scheme is “FCA-regulated” if the operation of the scheme—
(a) is carried on in such a way as to be a regulated activity for the purposes of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and
(b) is carried on in the United Kingdom by a person who is in relation to that activity an authorised person under section 19 of that Act.
(3) The provider of a pension scheme “operates” a non-scale default arrangement or main scale default arrangement if any assets held for the purposes of the scheme are held subject to the non-scale default arrangement or main scale default arrangement.’—(Torsten Bell.)
This new clause makes provision about the interpretation of the new Chapter referred to in the explanatory statement to NC15.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 13—Crown application.
Government new clause 14—Amendments of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
Government new clause 15—Regulations restricting creation of new non-scale default arrangements.
Government new clause 16—Regulations about consolidation of non-scale default arrangements.
Government new clause 17—Review in relation to non-scale default arrangements.
Torsten Bell
These new clauses deliver proposals that are contained in the final report of the pension investment review by adding a new chapter in part 2 of the Bill.
Clause 38 set out the requirements for master trusts and group personal pensions to demonstrate that they have sufficient scale, and this new chapter merely supports that delivery. There are too many default arrangements without scale in some schemes, and this fragmentation does not benefit savers. To prevent further fragmentation, new clause 15 allows for regulations to be made to restrict the creation of new non-scale default arrangements. This is not a ban on new default arrangements; there will be circumstances where they will be in savers’ interests. However, any new non-scale default arrangements will need to obtain regulatory approval before they can accept any moneys into them.
We must also deal with the existing fragmentation, and new clause 17 requires a review to be established jointly by the DWP and the Treasury on non-scale default arrangements. This review will look at the scale of the issue and why action has not been taken to consolidate these non-scale default arrangements where it would benefit savers for that to take place.
We anticipate that the review will commence in 2029, once the value for money and contractual overrides are in place. They will provide the tools needed for providers to take action before the review commences. Those tools will help to reduce fragmentation. The FCA and the Pensions Regulator will be required to provide information and assistance to the review. Once the review has been completed, it will be required to publish its findings, and these will inform further steps to support consolidation.
Torsten Bell
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I thank all Members for their patience. The new clause amends part 1 of the Pensions Act 2008. It is essential to address a current gap in the pension system to ensure that employers share timely and accurate data with pension schemes, beyond the current one-off requirement for employers to provide that information to schemes at the point when the employee is enrolled into the scheme.
Improving data records will help to improve member communications and will support pension schemes to operate more efficiently and effectively. Poor data contributes to wasted administration costs because it often requires manual interventions to verify identities and match records, which is especially important to facilitate the small pots framework that we have discussed previously.
Finally, the new clause extends the relevant pre-existing compliance provisions in the Pensions Act 2008 to these new duties, ensuring that the regulator will have suitable enforcement powers. In summary, the new clause supports better governance through improved data quality.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 20 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 22
Additional powers for certain scheme managers
“(1) Scheme regulations may make provision for the purpose of conferring any power or powers falling within subsection (2) or (4) on a specified scheme manager for a scheme for local government workers in England and Wales.
(2) Scheme regulations under this section may make provision conferring on the scheme manager (in relation to carrying out its functions as a scheme manager)—
(a) any specified power or powers of a local authority under Part 6 of the Local Government Act 1972, or
(b) any power or powers corresponding to one or more of the powers of a local authority under that Part.
(3) The power to make provision by virtue of subsection (2) is not exercisable if, or to the extent that, the scheme manager already has the powers of a local authority under Part 6 of the Local Government Act 1972 (otherwise than by virtue of scheme regulations under this section).
(4) Scheme regulations under this section may make provision conferring on the scheme manager (as part of its functions as a scheme manager) power to provide any administrative, professional or technical service for any other person who is a scheme manager for a public service pension scheme.
(5) In subsection (4)—
(a) ‘public service pension scheme’ means a scheme for the payment of pensions and other benefits to or in respect of persons of a description set out in section 1(2) of PSPA 2013, and
(b) ‘scheme manager’ (in the third place it appears) means any person who is, for the purposes of PSPA 2013, a scheme manager for any such scheme.
(6) The power to make provision by virtue of subsection (4) is not exercisable if, or to the extent that, the scheme manager already has the power to provide services referred to in that subsection (otherwise than by virtue of scheme regulations under this section).
(7) Scheme regulations under this section may amend or modify any Act passed before or in the same Session as this Act.
(8) In this section ‘specified’ means specified in scheme regulations under this section.”—(Torsten Bell.)
This new clause enables regulations to confer additional powers specified in subsection (2) or (4) on a specific scheme manager. Most but not all of the scheme managers already have those powers, so the intention is to enable the others to be given any of the powers that they do not already have.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 23
Sections (Validity of certain alterations to salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: subsisting schemes) to (Powers to amend Chapter 1 etc: Great Britain): interpretation and scope
“(1) The following provisions of this section have effect for the purposes of this section and sections (Validity of certain alterations to salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: subsisting schemes) to (Powers to amend Chapter 1 etc: Great Britain).
(2) ‘GB scheme’ means an occupational pension scheme that was a salary-related contracted-out scheme in England and Wales or Scotland; and for this purpose an occupational pension scheme was a salary-related contracted-out scheme in England and Wales or Scotland at any time if the scheme was contracted-out at that time by virtue of satisfying section 9(2) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (as it then had effect).
(3) ‘Scheme actuary’, in relation to a scheme, means—
(a) the person for the time being appointed as actuary for the scheme under section 47 of the Pensions Act 1995 (professional advisers), or
(b) if there is no person so appointed, a fellow of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries appointed by the trustees or managers of the scheme to carry out the functions of the scheme actuary under section (Validity of certain alterations to salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: subsisting schemes).
(4) ‘Section 37(1)’ refers to section 37(1) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (prohibition of alterations to rules of contracted-out schemes in certain circumstances).
(5) ‘Regulation 42’ refers to regulation 42 of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Contracting-out) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/1172) (requirements for alterations to rules of contracted-out schemes).
(6) An alteration purporting to have been made to the rules of a GB scheme is a ‘potentially remediable alteration’ if—
(a) by virtue of section 37(1) and paragraphs (1) and (2) of regulation 42 (as they had effect at the time), the alteration could not be made unless the requirements of paragraph (2)(a), (b) and (c) of regulation 42 (as they then had effect) had been met,
(b) it was treated by the trustees or managers of the scheme, after it was purportedly made, as a valid alteration,
(c) no positive action has been taken by the trustees or managers of the scheme on the basis that they consider the alteration to be void (and so of no legal effect) by reason of non-compliance with the requirements of paragraph (2)(a) and (b) of regulation 42, and
(d) it is not excluded from the scope of remediation under sections (Validity of certain alterations to GB salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: subsisting schemes) and (Validity of certain alterations to GB salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: wound up schemes and other special cases) (see subsection (8)).
(7) In subsection (6)(c) ‘positive action’, in relation to a purported alteration, means—
(a) notifying any members of the scheme in writing to the effect that the trustees or managers consider the alteration to be void (by reason of non-compliance with the requirements of paragraph (2)(a) and (b) of regulation 42) and that the scheme will be administered on the basis that it has no legal effect, or
(b) taking any other step in relation to the administration of the scheme, in consequence of the trustees or managers considering the alteration to be void, which has (or will have) the effect of altering payments to or in respect of members of the scheme.
(8) An alteration purporting to have been made to the rules of a GB scheme is excluded from the scope of remediation under sections (Validity of certain alterations to GB salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: subsisting schemes) and (Validity of certain alterations to GB salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: wound up schemes and other special cases) if any question relating to the validity of the alteration, so far as relating to the requirements of paragraph (2)(a) and (b) of regulation 42—
(a) has been determined by a court before this section comes into force in legal proceedings to which the trustees or managers were a party;
(b) was in issue on or before 5 June 2025 in legal proceedings to which the trustees or managers were a party, but has been settled by agreement between the parties at any time before this section comes into force, or
(c) was in issue on or before 5 June 2025 in legal proceedings to which the trustees or managers were a party, and remains in issue when this section comes into force.”—(Torsten Bell.)
This new clause is intended to form part of a new Chapter 1 in Part 4 to address issues arising from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Virgin Media Ltd v NTL Pension Trustees. This decision called into question the validity of past alterations to salary-related contracted out occupational pension schemes. It appears that a number of schemes were purportedly altered without the prior actuarial confirmation required (under regulation 42(2)(b) of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Contracting-Out) Regulations 1996) being given. In other cases inadequate records mean that the current trustees or managers of some schemes cannot tell whether the necessary confirmation was given. The new Chapter will provide for the retrospective validation of such alterations where certain conditions are met, dealing with Northern Ireland pension schemes separately. The new clause also provides that alterations whose validity was in issue in legal proceedings commenced on or before 5 June 2025 are outside the scope of remediation under the new Chapter. That was the date on which a published ministerial statement indicated that the Government proposed to take retrospective legislative action to address issues arising from the Virgin Media case.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 24—Validity of certain alterations to GB salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: subsisting schemes.
Government new clause 25—Validity of certain alterations to GB salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: wound up schemes and other special cases.
Government new clause 26—Power to amend provisions of Chapter 1 etc: Great Britain.
Government new clause 27—Sections (Validity of certain alterations to NI salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: subsisting schemes) to (Power to amend Chapter 1): interpretation and scope.
Government new clause 28—Validity of certain alterations to NI salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: subsisting schemes.
Government new clause 29—Validity of certain alterations to NI salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: wound up schemes and other special cases.
Government new clause 30—Powers to amend Chapter 1 etc: Northern Ireland.
Torsten Bell
These new clauses are intended to help schemes affected by the implications of the Virgin Media v. NTL pension trustees court judgments, which found that certain benefit changes could be void if a scheme cannot produce actuarial confirmation that they met the requirements at the time. That has created significant uncertainty about affected schemes’ liabilities and funding requirements.
The new clauses apply to private and public sector defined-benefit pension schemes that were contracted out between 1997 and 2016 under the reference scheme test, which imposed certain legal requirements upon them. The new clauses let schemes ask their actuary to confirm retrospectively that a past change to benefits would not have stopped the scheme from meeting these legal requirements at the time, rather than requiring the scheme to produce actuarial confirmation of the same facts at the time that the change was actually made. They will help members and schemes get the certainty they need.
I want to assure the Committee that these new clauses do not change the underpinning standards that were required. They are not a retrospective pardon for benefit changes that did not meet the legal standards within existing schemes. If a scheme did not obtain written confirmation at the time, and cannot obtain retrospective confirmation, the benefit changes can be held to be void, as provided for under current law.
New clause 23 defines the language and parameters of the other clauses of this section of the Bill. New clause 24 gives the trustees or managers of a scheme the power to ask the scheme actuary to confirm that a previous change to benefits would not have stopped the scheme from meeting legal requirements at that time.
New clause 25 introduces an approach for schemes whose liabilities have already been transferred to the Pension Protection Fund or to the financial assistance scheme. Any benefit changes will be deemed to have been made with actuarial confirmation in those cases. This different approach is needed because individual schemes no longer exist when they have entered the PPF, and there is no longer a scheme actuary. The PPF and FAS would also not have the information required on individual schemes to enable an actuary to provide retrospective confirmation. This ensures that the level of compensation or assistance will continue to be paid to members at current levels.
New clause 25 also introduces an explicit provision for wound-up schemes that deems that benefit changes made to the scheme were compliant with the requirement to have confirmation from an actuary. This will make sure that the benefits provided to members, for example through an annuity, will not be incorrect as a result of any historical failure to obtain a written actuarial confirmation.
The legal recourse for members would otherwise be against the former scheme trustees, because they cannot have recourse against the provider of the annuity. However, we think it would be unreasonable for these trustees to be potentially personally liable in a situation where they could not obtain a retrospective actuarial confirmation because the scheme and its records no longer exist.
New clause 26 provides a regulation-making power to provide for specified alterations to be excluded from the scope of the retrospective confirmation route and to make consequential amendments to the legislation. The power is not intended for immediate use but is included to future-proof the legislation. The clause also contains a separate power to amend existing primary legislation. I want to assure the Committee that the power is narrow, enables consequential amendments to be made, and is subject to the affirmative procedure.
New clauses 27 to 30 make mirroring provisions for Northern Ireland, at the request of the Northern Ireland Executive. I commend the new clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 23 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 24
Validity of certain alterations to GB salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: subsisting schemes
“(1) This section applies to any potentially remediable alteration purportedly made to a scheme other than one to which section (Validity of certain alterations to GB salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: wound up schemes and other special cases) applies.
(2) If the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) are met in relation to it, the alteration is to be treated for all purposes as having met the requirements of paragraph (2)(a) and (b) of regulation 42 before it was purportedly made, and so as having always been a valid alteration so far as those requirements are concerned.
(3) The conditions are—
(a) that the trustees or managers of the scheme have made a request in writing to the scheme actuary for the actuary to consider whether or not, on the assumption that it was validly made, the alteration would have prevented the scheme from continuing to satisfy the statutory standard, and
(b) that the scheme actuary has confirmed to the trustees or managers in writing that in the actuary’s opinion it is reasonable to conclude that, on the assumption that it was validly made, the alteration would not have prevented the scheme from continuing to satisfy the statutory standard.
In this subsection ‘the statutory standard’ means the statutory standard for a contracted-out scheme under section 12A of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 as it had effect at the time the alteration was purportedly made.
(4) A scheme actuary who has received a request under subsection (3)(a) in relation to a potentially remediable alteration to a scheme—
(a) may take any professional approach (including making assumptions or relying on presumptions) that is open to the actuary in all the circumstances of the case;
(b) may act on the basis of the information available to the actuary, as long as the actuary considers it sufficient for the purpose of forming an opinion on the subject-matter of the request.
(5) A condition mentioned in subsection (3) may be met by action taken before (as well as action taken after) this section comes into force.
(6) Subsection (7) applies to a scheme if —
(a) there is an assessment period in relation to the scheme within the meaning of Part 2 of the Pensions Act 2004, or
(b) the scheme is operating as a closed scheme under section 153 of that Act.
(7) The powers of the Board of the Pension Protection Fund under section 134 and section 155 of the Pensions Act 2004 to give directions includes power to give a direction to the trustees or managers of the scheme requiring them—
(a) to make a request under subsection (3)(a) above in relation to a potentially remediable alteration to the scheme, and
(b) to take any necessary action to enable or facilitate the making of a decision by the scheme actuary as to whether to give the confirmation described in subsection (3)(b) above in relation to that alteration.”—(Torsten Bell.)
This new clause enables the trustees or managers of a scheme to ask the scheme actuary to consider the position of an alteration when it was (purportedly) made. If the actuary confirms that it is reasonable to conclude that at that time the alteration would not have prevented the scheme from continuing to meet the statutory standard for contracted-out schemes, then the alteration is retrospectively deemed by subsection (2) to have been validly made, so far as the requirements of regulation 42(2)(a) and (b) are concerned.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 25
Validity of certain alterations to GB salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: wound up schemes and other special cases
“(1) This section applies to any potentially remediable alteration purportedly made to the rules of—
(a) a scheme which has been wound up before this section comes into force,
(b) a scheme for which the Board of the Pension Protection Fund has, before this section comes into force, assumed responsibility in accordance with Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Pensions Act 2004 (see section 161 of that Act), or
(c) a scheme which is a qualifying pension scheme for the purposes of regulation 9 of the Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/1986) and in respect of which payments are required to be made under section 286 of the Pensions Act 2004.
(2) The alteration is to be treated for all purposes as having met the requirements of paragraph (2)(a) and (b) of regulation 42 before it was purportedly made and so as having always been a valid alteration so far as those requirements are concerned.”—(Torsten Bell.)
This new clause deals with cases where it would not now be practicable for the confirmation described in NC24(3)(b) to be obtained in relation to a potentially remediable alteration. In such cases the clause retrospectively deems the alteration to have been validly made so far as the requirements of regulation 42(2)(a) and (b) are concerned.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 26
Power to amend provisions of Chapter 1 etc: Great Britain
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend any of sections (Sections (Validity of certain alterations to GB salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: subsisting schemes) to (Powers to amend Chapter 1): interpretation and scope), (Validity of certain alterations to GB salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: subsisting schemes) and (Validity of certain alterations to GB salary-related contracted out pension schemes: wound up schemes and other special cases) for the purpose of providing for purported alterations of any specified description to be outside the scope of remediation under either or both of sections (Validity of certain alterations to salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: subsisting schemes) and (Validity of certain alterations to salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: wound up schemes and other special cases).
(2) In subsection (1) ‘specified’ means specified in the regulations; and a specified description of purported alterations may be framed by reference to features of the alterations or of the schemes purportedly altered by them (or a combination of both).
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the negative procedure.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make incidental, supplementary, consequential or transitional provision in connection with any provision of this Chapter (other than this section and section (Powers to amend Chapter 1 etc: Northern Ireland)).
(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may amend any Act passed before or in the same Session as this Act.
(6) Regulations under subsection (4) are subject to the affirmative procedure if they contain provision made under subsection (5); otherwise they are subject to the negative procedure.”—(Torsten Bell.)
This new clause enables regulations made for England and Wales or Scotland (a) to specify further categories of alterations in respect of which the clauses validating otherwise void alterations do not apply and (b) to make incidental, supplementary, transitional or consequential provision relating to any provision of the new Chapter addressing the validity of alterations to pension schemes.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 27
Sections (Validity of certain alterations to NI salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: subsisting schemes) to (Power to amend Chapter 1): interpretation and scope
“(1) The provisions of this section have effect for the purposes of this section and sections (Validity of certain alterations to NI salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: subsisting schemes) to (Powers to amend Chapter 1 etc: Northern Ireland).
(2) ‘NI scheme’ means an occupational pension scheme that was a salary-related contracted-out scheme in Northern Ireland; and for this purpose an occupational pension scheme was a salary-related contracted-out scheme in Northern Ireland at any time if the scheme was contracted-out at that time by virtue of satisfying section 5(2) of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 (as it then had effect).
(3) ‘Scheme actuary’, in relation to an NI scheme, means—
(a) the person for the time being appointed as actuary for the scheme under Article 47 of the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (SI 1995/3213 (N.I. 22)) (professional advisers), or
(b) if there is no person so appointed, a Fellow of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries appointed by the trustees or managers of the scheme to carry out the functions of the scheme actuary under section (Validity of certain alterations to NI salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: subsisting schemes).
(4) ‘Section 33(1)’ refers to section 33(1) of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 (prohibition of alterations to rules of contracted-out schemes in certain circumstances).
(5) ‘Regulation 42’ refers to regulation 42 of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Contracting-out) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996 (SR 1996 No. 493).
(6) An alteration purporting to have been made to the rules of an NI scheme is a ‘potentially remediable alteration’ if—
(a) by virtue of section 33(1) and paragraphs (1) and (2) of regulation 42 (as they had effect at the time), the alteration could not be made unless the requirements of paragraph (2)(a), (b) and (c) of regulation 42 (as they then had effect) had been met,
(b) it was treated by the trustees or managers of the scheme, after it was purportedly made, as a valid alteration,
(c) no positive action has been taken by the trustees or managers of the scheme on the basis that they consider the alteration to be void (and so of no legal effect) by reason of non-compliance with the requirements of paragraph (2)(a) and (b) of regulation 42, and
(d) it is not excluded from the scope of remediation under section (Validity of certain alterations to NI salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: subsisting schemes) Validity of certain alterations to NI salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: wound up schemes and other special cases) (see subsection (7)).
(7) In subsection (6)(c) ‘positive action’, in relation to a purported alteration, means—
(a) notifying any members of the scheme in writing to the effect that the trustees or managers consider the alteration to be void (by reason of non-compliance with the requirements of paragraph (2)(a) and (b) of regulation 42) and that the scheme will be administered on the basis that it has no legal effect, or
(b) taking any other step in relation to the administration of the scheme, in consequence of the trustees or managers considering the alteration to be void, which has (or will have) the effect of altering payments to or in respect of members of the scheme.
(8) An alteration purporting to have been made to the rules of an NI scheme is excluded from the scope of remediation under sections (Validity of certain alterations to NI salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: subsisting schemes) and (Validity of certain alterations to NI salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: wound up schemes and other special cases) if any question relating to the validity of the alteration, so far as relating to the requirements of paragraph (2)(a) and (b) of regulation 42—
(a) has been determined by a court before this section comes into force in legal proceedings to which the trustees or managers were a party,
(b) was in issue on or before 5 June 2025 in legal proceedings to which the trustees or managers were a party, but has been settled by agreement between the parties at any time before this section comes into force, or
(c) was in issue on or before 5 June 2025 in legal proceedings to which the trustees or managers were a party, and remains in issue when this section comes into force.”—(Torsten Bell.)
This new clause makes provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to NC23. Northern Ireland generally has its own pensions legislation which is separate from the legislation applying to England and Wales and Scotland.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 28
Validity of certain alterations to NI salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: subsisting schemes
“(1) This section applies to any potentially remediable alteration purportedly made to an NI scheme other than one to which section (Validity of certain alterations to NI salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: wound up schemes and other special cases) applies.
(2) If the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) are met in relation to it, the alteration is to be treated for all purposes as having met the requirements of paragraph (2)(a) and (b) of regulation 42 before it was purportedly made, and so as having always been a valid alteration so far as those requirements are concerned.
(3) The conditions are—
(a) that the trustees or managers of the scheme have made a request in writing to the scheme actuary for the actuary to consider whether or not, on the assumption that it was validly made, the alteration would have prevented the scheme from continuing to satisfy the statutory standard, and
(b) that the scheme actuary has confirmed to the trustees or managers in writing that in the actuary’s opinion it is reasonable to conclude that, on the assumption that it was validly made, the alteration would not have prevented the scheme from continuing to satisfy the statutory standard.
In this subsection ‘the statutory standard’ means the statutory standard for a contracted-out scheme under section 8A of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 as it had effect at the time the alteration was purportedly made.
(4) A scheme actuary who has received a request under subsection (3)(a) in relation to a potentially remediable alteration to a scheme—
(a) may take any professional approach (including making assumptions or relying on presumptions) that is open to the actuary in all the circumstances of the case:
(b) may act on the basis of the information available to the actuary, as long as the actuary considers it sufficient for the purpose of forming an opinion on the subject-matter of the request.
(5) A condition mentioned in subsection (3) may be met by action taken before (as well as action taken after) this section comes into force.
(6) Subsection (7) applies to a scheme if —
(a) there is an assessment period in relation to the scheme within the meaning of Chapter 3 of Part 3 of the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 (SI 2005/255 (N.I. 1)) , or
(b) the scheme is operating as a closed scheme under Article 137 of that Order.
(7) The powers of the Board of the Pension Protection Fund under Article 118 and 139 of the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 to give directions include power to give a direction to the trustees or managers of the scheme requiring them—
(a) to make a request under subsection (3)(a) in relation to a potentially remediable alteration to the scheme, and
(b) to take any necessary action to enable or facilitate the making of a decision by the actuary as to whether to give the confirmation described in subsection (3)(b) in relation to that alteration.”—(Torsten Bell.)
This new clause makes provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to NC24.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 29
Validity of certain alterations to NI salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: wound up schemes and other special cases
“(1) This section applies to any potentially remediable alteration purportedly made to the rules of—
(a) a scheme which has been wound up before this section comes into force,
(b) a scheme for which the Board of the Pension Protection Fund has, before this section comes into force, assumed responsibility in accordance with Chapter 3 of Part 3 of the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 (see Article 145 of that Order), or
(c) a scheme which is a qualifying pension scheme for the purposes of regulation 9 of the Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/1986) and in respect of which payments are required to be made under section 286 of the Pensions Act 2004.
(2) The alteration is be treated for all purposes as having met the requirements of paragraph (2)(a) and (b) of regulation 42 before it was purportedly made and so as having always been a valid alteration so far as those requirements are concerned.”—(Torsten Bell.)
This new clause makes provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to NC25.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 30
Powers to amend Chapter 1 etc: Northern Ireland
“(1) A Northern Ireland Department may by regulations amend any of sections (Sections (Validity of certain alterations to NI salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: subsisting schemes) to (Powers to amend Chapter 1 etc: Northern Ireland): interpretation and scope), (Validity of certain alterations to NI salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: subsisting schemes) and (Validity of certain alterations to NI salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: wound up schemes and other special cases) for the purpose of providing for purported alterations of any specified description not to be within the scope of remediation under either or both of sections (Validity of certain alterations to NI salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: subsisting schemes) and (Validity of certain alterations to NI salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: wound up schemes and other special cases).
(2) In subsection (1) ‘specified’ means specified in the regulations; and a specified description of purported alterations may be framed by reference to features of the alterations or of the schemes purportedly altered by them (or a combination of both).
(3) A Northern Ireland Department may by regulations make incidental, supplementary, consequential or transitional provision in connection with any provision of this Chapter (other than section (Powers to amend Chapter 1 etc: Great Britain) and this section).
(4) Regulations made under this section are subject to negative resolution within the meaning given by section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.
(5) The power of a Northern Ireland Department to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).”—(Torsten Bell.)
This new clause enables regulations made for Northern Ireland (a) to specify further categories of alterations in respect of which the clauses validating otherwise void alterations do not apply and (b) to make incidental, supplementary, transitional or consequential provision relating to any provision of the new Chapter addressing the validity of alterations to pension schemes.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 1
Universal Pension Advice Entitlement
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a system to ensure that every individual has a right to receive free, impartial pension advice at prescribed times.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide for individuals to be offered advice—
(a) at or around the age of 40; and
(b) at a prescribed age, not more than six years before the individual's expected retirement age.
(3) The regulations must make provision about—
(a) the content and scope of the free, impartial pension advice, which may include, but is not limited to, guidance on—
(i) pension types (including both defined contribution and defined benefit schemes),
(ii) investment strategies,
(iii) charges,
(iv) consolidation of pension pots, and
(v) retirement income options;
(b) the qualifications, independence, and impartiality requirements for any person or body providing advice;
(c) the means by which individuals are notified of their entitlement to receive the advice and how they may access it;
(d) the roles and responsibilities of pension scheme trustees, managers, and providers in facilitating access to advice;
(e) the sharing member information with prescribed persons or bodies subject to appropriate data protection safeguards.
(4) Regulations under this section may—
(a) make different provision for different descriptions of pension schemes or different descriptions of individuals;
(b) confer functions in connection with the provision or oversight of the advice on—
(i) the Pensions Regulator,
(ii) the Financial Conduct Authority,
(iii) the Money and Pensions Service, or
(iv) other prescribed bodies;
(c) require the provision of funding for the advice service from prescribed sources.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”—(John Milne.)
This new clause makes provision by regulations for everyone to receive free, impartial pension advice at age 40 and again around five years before their expected retirement.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 40—Targeted Advice Access for Under-Saving Cohorts—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to provide enhanced access to pension advice or guidance for cohorts identified as under-saving for retirement.
(2) Regulations may make provision for—
(a) identifying under-saving groups, including but not limited to—
(i) women,
(ii) ethnic minority groups, and
(iii) others affected by long-term pay or pension gaps;
(b) mechanisms to fund and deliver targeted support;
(c) reporting and evaluation requirements to assess take-up and effectiveness.
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause allows for the creation of targeted pension advice or guidance interventions for groups at risk of under-saving for retirement.
New clause 41—Cap on cost of advice for pension holders—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations introduce a cap on the cost recoverable for providing pension advice per pension holder under any scheme operating free or subsidised advice.
(2) The cap may vary depending on—
(a) the value of the pension pot;
(b) the type of pension scheme;
(c) the complexity of advice required.
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause enables the introduction of a cost ceiling for advice provision to members of pension schemes.
New clause 43—Auto-Enrolment into Pension Wise Guidance Sessions—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations requiring that individuals reaching prescribed ages are auto-enrolled into Pension Wise guidance appointments.
(2) The regulations may provide for—
(a) opt-out procedures;
(b) the prescribed ages or pension milestones at which auto-enrolment occurs;
(c) the means by which schemes notify members and facilitate appointments.
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause aims to increase engagement with Pension Wise by auto-enrolling members into guidance sessions at key decision points, with the ability to opt out.
John Milne
We have tabled a number of amendments designed to improve people’s access to advice. As I said in a previous sitting, for me, the biggest missing link in this Bill is the absence of action on pensions advice. Relatively few people are able—or perhaps willing— to access paid advice, and that situation is not likely to change. We have to find another way.
The purpose of new clause 1 is to help people to properly understand their pension options through universal access to free, impartial advice at key life stages. We previously debated how that might be funded—slightly ahead of time—but this is purely about the principle of that advice.
Most people find pensions very complicated. It is hard to persuade people to engage with the issue at a young enough age, and it is even harder for someone to grasp what would constitute an adequate pension many years before they might have to draw on it. The Work and Pensions Committee, of which I am a member, has repeatedly highlighted this issue and examined ways to improve things.
The intention of new clause 1 is to ensure that everyone—not just the financially literate or well advised—can make informed decisions about retirement. Advice would be offered at or around age 40, which is a critical moment for mid-life planning and pension consolidation, and again within six years of expected retirement, to support decisions about drawdowns, annuities and retirement income options. That change is designed to give people confidence and clarity about their pensions, and to avoid poor decisions that would undermine retirement security.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I have read the new clause with interest, and listened carefully, and I am sure that this Committee is united in wanting there to be good advice on pensions. It would help me to better understand the proposal if the hon. Member could describe why he thinks the Money and Pensions Service is not already providing that, and why he thinks there is a gap that would justify this type of measure.
John Milne
I thank the hon. Member for her question. We have to look at performance: over the years, most people—the great majority of people—have not been getting any advice. Those who do tend to be better off because they have more private pensions, so they are obviously far more engaged, but the majority of people, especially now we have many on auto-enrolment, have minimal engagement. There are some very good services on hand—such as Pension Wise advice, which is free; I will come on to that in another measure—but, overall, people are simply not accessing that advice.
We are keeping the wording of the new clause reasonably open to establish the principle. There are many ways to solve the problem, and we will come to some of those in other new clauses. We are hoping to get agreement on the principle, though there are many ways to crack this particular egg.
Moving on to new clause 40, this is about targeted advice access for under-saving cohorts. Its purpose is to put the focus on groups of people who have historically been among the worst served by our current pension system.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Has the hon. Gentleman considered some of the reforms that the FCA is considering, such as the advice guidance boundary review? I understand the thrust of what he is trying to do—to ensure that people get proper pension advice. Hopefully, everyone would agree with that, but I wonder how it fits in with the wider context of the work that the FCA is doing.
John Milne
This is really about trying to place the Minister’s attention on this important issue—we will not press the new clause to a vote. It is about focusing the Minister’s mind on the task at hand. The undersaving groups include, but are not limited to, women, ethnic minority groups and others affected by long-term pay or pension gaps. The new clause would provide mechanisms to fund and deliver targeted support.
New clause 41 is designed to put a cap or ceiling on the amount of free advice accessed by any individual saver. It is a subset of new clause 1. Some individuals have very complicated financial affairs, which threaten to take a disproportionate amount of effort to decipher, in the event that we were to provide free advice. Those individuals will tend to be much better off and with multiple pension pots, which is precisely why they will end up needing more advice. Placing a ceiling on the advice available would ensure that the free advice was targeted only at those who needed it most.
New clause 43 is a potential solution to the information deficit that we are trying to address. It would enable auto-enrolment into Pension Wise as the vehicle for giving advice. We tabled it as a probing amendment to provoke the Minister’s consideration. The purpose of the new clause is to help people properly understand and engage with their pension by auto-enrolment into Pension Wise advice at key stages, with the freedom to opt out. Pension Wise guidance is free, impartial and has very high satisfaction rates—94%—among those who have used it, yet uptake remains strangely low, which is an excellent illustration of exactly why the whole advice area needs urgent attention.
Government data shows that of those who have accessed defined-contribution pension pots, only 14% have done so after receiving Pension Wise advice. That is despite various efforts, including a stronger nudge to encourage taking guidance before pots are accessed. Wake-up packs and other communications have shown limited effectiveness, and the evidence shows that savers will need more than passive information; they need action-oriented support.
If anything, the situation is getting worse. The proportion of pensions accessed after receiving guidance or advice has reduced by around 9 percentage points since 2021-22. Evidence from the DWP’s 2022 research shows that although most people start saving for retirement in their 20s and 30s, many do not start planning for retirement until their 50s. Auto-enrolment into guidance would therefore significantly increase take-up and improve retirement outcomes for many. Defined-contribution scheme members, in particular, often lack clear information about their options; Pension Wise would help fill that gap.
New clause 43 leaves flexibility for the Secretary of State to determine the appropriate ages, processes and notification methods. We recognise that it would be a significant move, and that there would be technical issues to solve. That is why we have tabled it only as a probing new clause, to explore whether the Government will look at trials or further measures to boost guidance uptake. Auto-enrolment into a pension scheme has been a great success, so perhaps the next logical step is auto-enrolment into advice. Why not try it?
Mark Garnier
I am keen to speak to these Liberal Democrat new clauses, because we have a fundamental problem. Research by Pensions UK shows that more than 50% of savers will fail to reach their retirement income targets set by the 2005 Pensions Commission, and closing the gap between what people are saving and what they will need must be a pressing concern of any Government. So, we need the second part of the pensions review to be fast-tracked, with a laser-like focus on pensions adequacy.
This takes me back to when I first became a Member of Parliament some 14 or 15 years ago. The big issue at the time in the independent financial advisers market was the retail distribution review. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) and I held our first Backbench Business debate on the retail distribution review, and it is recorded in Hansard that we predicted this would be a problem as a result—fewer independent financial advisers being available to give advice.
There were three key elements of the retail distribution review. They were very well-intended, and let us not beat about the bush: there were reasons why they were brought about. One of them was intended to raise the professional standards of independent financial advisers, and I think we would all agree that that has to be a good thing. The advisers complained at the time because they did not want to take exams. If they had been in the business for 40 years, why would they feel that they needed to take an exam? But why should they not improve their standards? There were issues to do with lifetime liability—advisers’ taking responsibility beyond seven years for advice that they had given, which was very contentious. Also there was clarity on the models of advice being given.
However, the key element that caused the problems was where independent financial advisers, prior to that moment, were being paid a commission on the product that was being sold, which potentially led to product bias. If a commission was being paid at 2.5% on one product and 1% on another, the independent financial adviser would have a material interest in selling that higher-commission product, even if it was a worse product. That could have been dealt with by having a maximum commission rate on all the products; it could have been set at 100 or 150 basis points, which would have dealt with that problem. We saw this issue in the London stock exchange until 1986, when there were fixed rates of commission, so nobody could undercut another broker by providing cheaper dealing measures. We therefore knew it could work.
The direct result of all this was that when the retail distribution review was brought in by the FCA in January 2013, we saw a massive drop in the 35,000 independent financial advisers. That has since recovered, and we now have around 36,000 advisers. The important point is that a financial adviser who goes out to persuade somebody to take advice on their pension now needs to charge a fee. Before that, to the person receiving the advice, the financial adviser would appear to be doing it for nothing. There would be an agreement, so it would be transparent and they would know exactly what was going on.
However, the point is that now, if I am being asked to put money into a pension fund and I know I am paying the 1.5%, the fact that the commission is coming out of the money going in feels much less restrictive than being sent a bill for £1,500 or £2,000. That is much more difficult to meet, even though it comes to the same point in the end. The result of this is that, whereas about 50% of people used to put money into pensions and receive financial advice, the number is now 9%.
There are an awful lot of newly elected Members of Parliament here. After 10 or 15 years, they will find themselves in a Bill Committee making these points and saying, “We told you this would be a problem. We told you so, yet here we are trying to resolve a problem that we knew was going to happen, and we allowed it to.” I am very cynical about Parliament sometimes, as all Members will be eventually. The important point is that the Liberal Democrat new clauses are an attempt to deal with the problems that we knew would come about. Auto-enrolment is brilliant—we really like auto-enrolment—but there are various things coming in under this Bill. We have to be careful that the things we bring in with the best intentions do not end up creating bigger problems due to unforeseen circumstances.
If the Liberal Democrats pressed new clause 1, we would happily support it, as it is a good amendment. It will be interesting to see if that comes through, but this is something we have to get right. People need to get advice because far too many people are going to go barrelling into their 67th birthday, or whatever it is, and suddenly discover that they have run out of money, and that is not a good place to be.
Kirsty Blackman
I really appreciate the trip down memory lane that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest has taken us on. I wish I had the tenacity to hold on to “I told you so” for 14 years. I am going to say it all the time anyway, even though I will not be able to hold on as long as he has.
Turning to the Liberal Democrats’ new clauses 1, 40 and 43, I am aware that the Government, and the people of these islands, are looking at the sufficiency and adequacy of pensions and ensuring that people can have adequate pensions when they reach retirement age. I appreciate that the review is being undertaken and that work is being done, but this is about an additional way to ensure that people think about that as early as possible. I have a colleague who says “EMILY”, which stands for “Early money is like yeast”, and it is the same in election campaigns as it is in pensions. The earlier people boost their pension fund the more it grows, because of the magic of compound interest.
It is great that we have auto-enrolment at a relatively early age—albeit not early enough—so that people can begin to grow their pension pot. However, I do not think people understand the importance of putting as much money as they can into their pension pot as early as possible, as has been said, particularly when they are in their mid to late 20s and have so many competing interests—trying to get on the housing ladder, or paying for their university debts or for small children, who cost an inordinate amount of money. When people have all those competing interests at the same time, funding their own pension can fall down the list of priorities. However, if they were aware of how important it is to put that funding in as early as possible and how much it would mean to them in retirement, they might make slightly different choices.
There are an awful lot of good things in these new clauses that could be explored. Around 40 is a sensible age at which advice could be provided, as new clause 1 suggests, because that would give people enough time to make some changes. Giving people more advice when they are initially auto-enrolled would also be incredibly sensible. They might not read it then, but they might. The more we can do to provide people with advice, the better, because then they will have the opportunity to take it up.
As the pensions dashboard comes online, that may create a higher level of interest in finding out what everything looks like. Earlier in Committee, I made some points about DC pots and the difficulty in translating that number into what someone’s annuity, or their monthly or weekly payment, looks like, and that only increases and compounds the problem. People do not understand what this means for them in retirement, because it is difficult to do those sums without advice. It is not easy to try to work out, and even if people are given advice at 40, although it may take into account their circumstances at that point, these could drastically change by the time they reach retirement age. They may have a very different level of annuity from that which was suggested, even with the same predicted pension pot growing in the expected way.
On targeted advice for cohorts that are saving less, with the review of adequacy it would help if the Government would commit to ensuring that undersaving groups are strongly considered, so that all the advice and tactics—whether automatic appointments or ensuring that people are given access to the pensions dashboard—are in place for the highest engagement.
Lastly, on the auto-enrolment sessions, I have spoken about how when people hit 50 they are posted a bowel cancer screening test, and when people are of an age for vaccines they are given an appointment and just need to go along. People are posted a letter or sent an email saying, “This is the time and date for your smear test,” and they go along. We recognise that preventive measures are important. People are much more likely to take up that vaccine or smear test and are much more likely to also go to that session if we make it as easy as possible.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Horsham, mentioned the Pension Wise service. It has an incredibly high level of satisfaction. If only any of us on this Committee or our parties had that level of support from our constituents—we would be absolutely dancing to get that level of positivity. The Pension Wise service has that level of positive feedback because people recognise and appreciate the advice. However, that advice is given once, or only after a certain point. My understanding is that a 25-year-old cannot phone, ask for an appointment and get an understanding of where things are looking for them and where that protection is. However, sending people an actual appointment and telling them that this is the time is something. They can then choose to cancel that appointment. Obviously, some people will not turn up; we see some people not turning up for vaccines. It does not stop us sending invitations to those vaccine appointments because we know they increase uptake.
I have heard this Government—or maybe the previous one—complain about increased costs if there is an uptick in the number of appointments. There would obviously be an increase in costs and pressure on the service should more individuals engage. However, more people having a sufficient pension and being able to take informed decisions—pay more, or withdraw their DC pension in a sensible way, rather than just putting it into a bank account, which we have heard is what a significant number do—will save the Government money and contribute to the economy. If we increase the number of people with better access to more money in retirement we will grow the economy. Although there is likely to be spending associated with increasing the provision of advice, it would make such a positive difference to those individuals and the economy that it could not be a bad thing.
I do not know whether today is the time to add the requirement for those appointments. If the Government were willing to consider the possibility of sending out appointment invitations, that would help. I would still support the amendment, but it would help. I know the review is taking place. If the Government committed to considering that as part of the review, that would be helpful—of course, if they could commit to just doing it, that would be better. Doing so would give us all an assurance and understanding that they are not just putting blockers in the way because it is been suggested by somebody else. We would like the Government to seriously consider it. If they are not willing, they should reply to MPs about why it is not possible and why they think it will not increase uptake.
Hon. Members who spoke about the cost of advice are absolutely correct. It is not that people do not want advice—some may not want advice and will not care, others will just take whatever they happen to get when they hit retirement age and some do not have the capacity to understand the advice if they were to seek it out—but some simply cannot afford advice. They do not have the money today to pay for that advice. There is a group of people who cannot pay for advice now because we are in a cost of living crisis. Their electricity bills and so on have gone up and the price of food is still suffering from inflation. Those people may not have a couple of thousand pounds—perhaps significantly more—lying around to pay for that advice. The people who will have the most in retirement are the most likely to grow their pensions further because they are the only ones who can afford the advice. As the hon. Member for Horsham said, we need more people to know about Pension Wise, so that they can get some advice and make good decisions.
I would appreciate it if the Minister would seriously consider all the amendments that have been tabled by the Liberal Democrats.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
New clause 40—Targeted Advice Access for Under-Saving Cohorts—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to provide enhanced access to pension advice or guidance for cohorts identified as under-saving for retirement.
(2) Regulations may make provision for—
(a) identifying under-saving groups, including but not limited to—
(i) women,
(ii) ethnic minority groups, and
(iii) others affected by long-term pay or pension gaps;
(b) mechanisms to fund and deliver targeted support;
(c) reporting and evaluation requirements to assess take-up and effectiveness.
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause allows for the creation of targeted pension advice or guidance interventions for groups at risk of under-saving for retirement.
New clause 41—Cap on cost of advice for pension holders—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations introduce a cap on the cost recoverable for providing pension advice per pension holder under any scheme operating free or subsidised advice.
(2) The cap may vary depending on—
(a) the value of the pension pot;
(b) the type of pension scheme;
(c) the complexity of advice required.
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause enables the introduction of a cost ceiling for advice provision to members of pension schemes.
New clause 43—Auto-Enrolment into Pension Wise Guidance Sessions—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations requiring that individuals reaching prescribed ages are auto-enrolled into Pension Wise guidance appointments.
(2) The regulations may provide for—
(a) opt-out procedures;
(b) the prescribed ages or pension milestones at which auto-enrolment occurs;
(c) the means by which schemes notify members and facilitate appointments.
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause aims to increase engagement with Pension Wise by auto-enrolling members into guidance sessions at key decision points, with the ability to opt out.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
After hearing the untrammelled cynicism of the Opposition, I thought there would be nothing better than to bring some fresh-faced optimism to the debate. I am very grateful to be called, Ms Lewell. I have a couple of brief points to make.
As we heard in the interventions made just before the break, there is unanimity on the need to tackle the incredibly important issue of advice. As the shadow Minister pointed out, levels of advice to pension holders have collapsed, which has profound consequences, particularly for those who need help the most. There is real consensus on the need to address this issue, and the Government are making huge strides to do so, whether that be the introduction of the dashboard or the now renamed Money Wise. As the hon. Member for Horsham mentioned, the Work and Pensions Committee has also looked at this issue, the lesson from which is that this is a horses for courses problem—a complex problem that requires complex, nuanced and sophisticated solutions that target different types of group and use different approaches. That lies at the heart of why I am asking some questions about the new clause.
First, exactly because what we need is a quite sophisticated, multi-pronged and varied policy response, using a quite basic, one-size-fits-all response in statute feels like the wrong way to address the problem. Secondly, as the shadow Minister highlighted, I am somewhat worried about the law of unintended consequences. There is the simple issue of cost. My quick consultation of Google suggests that 378,000 people turn 40 each year and the most basic advice normally costs several thousand pounds, so the bill will not be insubstantial. We may have had a conversation earlier about that, but how the cost might be covered has not really been addressed.
As important is the broader question of capacity. The shadow Minister made an excellent point about how the capacity for retail advice was changed unintentionally by a well-meant measure. If we start looking at what capacity would be needed to offer even a basic standard of advice to over 300,000 more people each year than we are seeing now, we begin to see a problem. We need to do a lot more work on modelling how that advice would actually be provided, what the market would look like and what the second-order effects would be.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, at the heart of which is the question of what work needs to be done to introduce anything along these lines. One would have to look at what the Financial Conduct Authority is doing, the existing service provisions, the costs, and how we smooth out implementation. There are a lot of practical issues with implementing something like this, are there not?
David Pinto-Duschinsky
As ever, my hon. Friend is absolutely right and his intervention goes to a third point: this also feels a bit premature.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, we are in the midst of the incredibly important advice and guidance boundary review. For many of the groups that we want to help, advice might not actually be the right solution, but guidance might be, and we are in the midst of re-tooling that. Similarly, we are in the midst of rolling out dashboards, which will transform the landscape but not fix the problems on their own; we may need to layer new policy initiatives on top. It seems that we are at risk of putting the cart before the horse.
I also add that when I read new clause 1 in detail, I saw that it refers to “advice”. On my reading, that would constrict potential policy responses and force the Government to go down the advice route, rather than provide other services that might be on offer through the advice and guidance boundary review.
The intention is good. I think there is huge consensus on the need to tackle the problem, but the right way to do it is through sophisticated and proper policy making, rather than the blunt instrument of amending primary legislation. For those reasons, I oppose this new clause.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
I thank the proposers of these new clauses. I will take them in the way they were intended—to spark debate.
We have had quite a wide debate and I think there is consensus on the subject, but I want to put a slightly different spin on the problem statement we are talking about. We have come at a lot of the discussion on the new clause as if there is too little advice. I would slightly reframe the question when it comes to pensions, which is that there is too much complexity, and too little advice or guidance. I think that is the right way to think about the problem that we are confronting with the system as a whole.
I will broadly outline our approach to try to tackle that problem statement. The task is to reduce the complexity as well as to increase the guidance and the advice that are available. Having watched the pensions debate over the past 15 years, I have observed that we have too often made pensions more complicated, and then said, “If we only had this advice, it would all be fine.” I do not think that is the right answer. That is a mistake about the nature of the system that we are delivering.
Our job is to reduce the complexity, or to reduce the consequences of it being difficult for people to deal with. That is obviously what a lot of the Bill is trying to do. With small pots, the aim is obviously to reduce complexity. That is what the value for money measures are designed to do. Seen through that lens, they are also aimed at reducing the costs of that complexity. The value for money regime is there to reduce the consequences of it being difficult to engage with and members not choosing their own provider.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
The Minister raises an interesting point. We have talked about a lot of different bits and pieces with complexity and all the rest of it. We have not spoken about when we educate people about money.
In the olden days, when I was a newly elected MP, I was one of the chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for financial education for young people. That was about getting financial education into the curriculum. It is probably now more important than ever that we teach people of school age about the importance of financial planning, including pensions. Can the Minister assure the Committee that he will take up with his colleagues in the Department for Education the changes that could be made to bring this type of education into the curriculum for kids, who are all going to be adults soon?
Torsten Bell
I shall take that up directly with the new Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who I am sure will talk to her colleagues in the Department for Education. I can offer the hon. Member some entirely anecdotal optimism on that issue. Whenever I now do school events in Swansea, I am seeing very high levels of financial engagement. After I have given a very worthy speech, most of the questions are not about how to reduce inequality but instead are about personal financial advice. I think the youth of today are all over it—that is my lived experience.
I have mentioned small pots and value for money. I want to flag two other areas. Dashboards have been mentioned, and they are a very large part of how we provide support. The default pensions solutions are crucial to reducing complexity, and that is probably the biggest measure in the Bill. The need to provide more advice or guidance for people to access their defined-contribution pots is reduced significantly because of the existence of default solutions. We definitely still want people to have access to advice and the ability to opt out of those defaults, but default solutions help significantly. That is why the communication of those default pension solutions, which we discussed quite extensively, is so important for people. That is why that is in the Bill.
We have touched on making more support available. We have universal access for people of any age to free impartial support through MoneyHelper—that is what the Money and Pensions Service is providing—and we have a specific focus on support for over-50s in Pension Wise. Several hon. Members have said, absolutely rightly, that access to financial advice fell in the aftermath of the reforms over a decade ago, but there is some better news on Pension Wise. The 2024 Financial Lives survey showed that of those who accessed a defined-contribution pot within the last four years, 40% had accessed Pension Wise. I think that is probably more than most hon. Members in this debate would expect, though it may not be enough. However, those people had used Pension Wise when heading towards access; they had not used it as a mid-life MOT product, which is a different thing. That 40% was up from 34% in 2020, so some things have gone in the right direction. I am gently noting that, not claiming any credit for it because it predates the election. There is a lot of overlap between what those systems of advice are providing and the measures in new clause 1.
Regarding new clause 40, I absolutely agree on how we think about under-saved groups. The groups identified in the new clause are more or less the same groups of people experiencing financial wellbeing challenges whom MaPS targets, so that is a point of consensus, but I am absolutely open to suggestions of what more we can do to make sure that we are tackling that issue. The Pensions Commission is considering the wider question of adequacy, which is why we are looking at not just average adequacy but the fairness of the system.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Will the Minister give a commitment that the commission will specifically look at groups that are less likely to have a sufficient pension, rather than just looking at an average and increasing that average?
Torsten Bell
I can absolutely give that guarantee, because that is in the terms of reference of the Pensions Commission. I will come back to the wider question of the commission in one second. I will not go into detail, but targeted support is a large part of providing more guidance, and we expect the roll-out of that early next year. There is more coming in that space; we are not relying solely on MaPS.
How should we think about the interaction of dashboards and bigger DC pots? At the moment, for lots of people entering their retirement, their DC pot may be a smaller part of their overall pension income, but as we move forward, it will become the large majority of their income. That will be very visible because of dashboards. One of the reasons MaPS has been reluctant —although I do not want to say “reluctant”—to promise to deliver the kind of automatic enrolment that is being discussed by the Committee is that a lot of planning work is under way to make sure that when dashboards come online, MaPS is ready and set up to deal with the significant increase in demand for help and in engagement that may come from that. The experience of some pension schemes in Australia is that as pension pots become bigger, there is much more demand for support and guidance. We should expect that demand to grow in the years ahead with or without dashboards, but definitely with dashboards and the other measures together.
Kirsty Blackman
When dashboards increase engagement, as we all expect they will, will the Minister report back to the House, or encourage someone to report back to the House, on how much engagement has increased by, so that we all have an awareness of it, rather than it being in stats kept in the background that we do not know about?
Torsten Bell
Absolutely. I think we will want to look at the impact across a range of measures of engagement. Do dashboards help consolidation of pots? Do they encourage people to save more? We also need to be aware of riskier behaviours that dashboards could trigger. We are currently engaged in significant user testing of the system to make sure that we have done what we can to make sure that when people have visibility of their pension pots, they do not adopt behaviours that we do not want.
On the question about the Pensions Commission from the angle of the advice and guidance sector, it is an independent commission so I cannot speak for it. However, I think the commission will have heard the focus of that question, and the length of this debate in Committee.
Turning to the specific question put by the hon. Member for Horsham on what he said was the purpose of this group of new clauses, I assure him that my mind has been entirely focused by him on this issue, and that I will continue to talk to MaPS about what further lessons there are to learn.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply. I take his comments about trying to reduce complexity. That is a wholly good thing for all concerned, not least us. Other contributors asked, how necessary is this? Are there not services already out there, or is this not the direction of travel? Do we really need to take this action now? In answering that, I will turn the Minister’s argument about mandation back at him: if it were not necessary, it would have happened already. That is very much the case. People are not taking advice, and sadly, they are reaching retirement very inadequately prepared for it.
That, indeed, is the other half of this question. This is not just about giving advice on the best way to make use of one’s pension through auto-enrolment or whatever; it is about alerting people at a young enough age—40 or whatever—to the fact that what they have is not going to cut the mustard in any way. It is not going to deliver the standard of lifestyle they want. They still have time at 40 to do something about it, whereas at 50 or 60, they have what they have. I am 65, so my fate is sealed. That needs to be part of any solution.
On underserved cohorts, WASPI women are the classic example—a group of people who were tragically under-informed, who received inadequate letters from the Department for Work and Pensions and so on. That led to terrible distress and is a problem to this day.
Kirsty Blackman
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern, and will he suggest to the Minister, that although it is important for those who will have great big DC pots at some point in the future, because of auto-enrolment, it is also important for people to get advice if they have a mixture of DB and DC pots, or if they have small DC pots that have built up as a result of auto-enrolment? It is not just a future problem, but a problem for people who reach pension age between now and when those big DC pots are the norm.
John Milne
That is a very fair comment—I will not repeat it. Overall, we would like to press new clause 1 to a vote, in order to put it on the record, without necessarily expecting victory.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 2 is about market consolidation, and ensuring that the Minister undertakes to report back so we can see how it is progressing. Clearly, market consolidation will have positive impacts, but there is a law of unforeseen consequences, so it is important to ensure that there is a regular health check on what is happening in the market. It is not only about that law of unintended consequences, but about checking out the opportunity for new entrants to come into the system, and making sure that there are no unexpected barriers. To our mind, it is good practice that one would hope would be undertaken.
The new clause is a probing amendment; we will not be pressing it to a vote, but I look forward to reassurances from the Minister. We are keen to get on the public record what he says in this area, because we know from conversations with the industry that there is some interest in the matter.
Kirsty Blackman
I highlight again that the Regulatory Policy Committee considered the monitoring and evaluation plan in the impact assessment to be weak. It said that although everything would be reviewed around 2030, there were not many other points that the Government had committed to reviewing.
In the new clause, I probably would not have picked a timescale of 12 months after Royal Assent, given the length of the road map and the timings for the introduction of a significant number of things. I appreciate that as the new clause is crafted, it can pick up on problems before they occur. If things are moving towards consolidation in advance of the timelines, the Government should be able to analyse where the prospective issues are. However, the Minister could commit to providing Parliament with a review, and either giving information to the Work and Pensions Committee or making information and statistics publicly available.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Member has spoken passionately about local government schemes, and I have quite a lot of experience of them. Does she agree that they have many regulations that would meet some of the proposals in new clause 2? That might allay some of her concerns and mean that we do not need a Division on the new clause.
Kirsty Blackman
I agree that there is a particularly high level of transparency in regulations around local government pension schemes that is not available in any of the other pension schemes that we are discussing. Because major primary pensions legislation does not happen often—we have a lot of secondary legislation around pensions—this is a real opportunity to ensure that the changes that are made have the desired and intended effect.
I have asked various Governments about post-implementation reviews of legislation, and I have had some interesting responses from Government Departments that did not know which pieces of legislation required a post-implementation review, nor whether they had been done. Part of my concern is that no matter whether the Government change, if there is a change of personnel, there does not appear to be any tracking process in Departments to say when post-implementation reviews will take place or whether they have been done, and there is no feedback process in place either.
Bill Committees that consider legislation have no right to an update on whether that legislation worked, and that makes no sense. If the Government say that a certain tax will take in £10 million over the next three years but nobody tells us whether that worked, how can the Government then expect us to believe that tweaking that tax will take in another £10 million when they cannot tell us how much it took in in the first place? My concern is that post-implementation review processes are not strong enough; there is not enough checking in Government to ensure that reviews take place.
I appreciate that the Minister wants this to work. He wants consolidation to happen and to have the desired positive effects. He does not want the negative effects. This is about commitment to a level of transparency so that we can all see what has and has not worked. It is not a criticism, because we all largely agree on a good chunk of this legislation; it is about all of us understanding what things in the legislation have been more positive or more negative than expected.
John Grady
Is it possible to identify any particular gaps in the competition regime? Chapters 1 and 2 of the Competition Act 1998 cover things like exclusivity arrangements, and so on. There is a regime for market studies, which would also enable this issue to be addressed, and, manifestly, this would be of serious consumer interest under the competition regime. I just wonder what gap new clause 2 addresses in the current regulatory regime.
Kirsty Blackman
My understanding is that new clause 2 calls for a report. It addresses transparency. It is all well and good that stuff on competition regulations is published—I have no idea where it is published. We are asking for a report to the House, which we would all be able to access. I did not write the new clause, but it would be helpful if the Minister agreed to transparency and to review this in good time so that we can make better decisions on future legislation.
Torsten Bell
The first thing to say is that this is focused on scale. We appreciate that the Bill would lead to major changes to the pensions market—the hon. Member for Torbay is absolutely right—and we want to understand and monitor the consolidation and scale process over the coming years. To state the obvious, market changes such the scale measures we are talking about take time, and many of the measures in the Bill will not even be implemented within the 12 months. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not push the amendment to a vote.
I agree on the wider point about the Bill as a whole and the need for strong monitoring and evaluation. I would probably take a slightly different approach from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. The Bill contains a large number of measures, and the right way to monitor their implementation will be different for different parts of the Bill. When it comes to the questions of scale, which are the focus of this amendment, the monitoring—[Interruption.] That is not the response I was looking for. The monitoring is slightly more visible because we are talking about the number of workplace schemes, or at least workplace defaults, that exist.
Let me lay out a bit of what we have in place to monitor. We will be able to monitor scale, charges and, because of the interaction with the value for money regime, returns and asset allocation. Lots of the key success metrics that are meant to come with the scale changes, as well as the delivery of scale itself, will be visible. My honest view is that it is on all of us—obviously, it is particularly on the Government—to pay attention to that as we go.
On the wider question of whether we will consider further, I have already committed to do that and to come back and reflect on Report on how we do that. I put on the record my view that that is a reasonable thing to do, and I will do it, but we need to think about it differently for different parts of the Bill.
Steve Darling
I thank the Minister for putting his thoughts on the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 5
Report on fiduciary duty and discretionary indexation of pre-1997 benefits
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on whether the fiduciary duties of trustees of occupational pension schemes should be amended to permit discretionary indexation of pre-1997 accrued rights, where scheme funding allows.
(2) The report must consider—
(a) the impact of current fiduciary obligations on trustees’ ability to award discretionary increases to pre-1997 pension benefits;
(b) the potential benefits of permitting such discretionary indexation for affected pensioners;
(c) the funding conditions and thresholds under which discretionary indexation could be considered sustainable;
(d) the appropriate level of regulatory oversight and guidance required to ensure that discretionary increases are granted in a fair, transparent, and financially responsible manner;
(e) international approaches to indexation of legacy pension benefits;
(f) the legal and actuarial implications of amending fiduciary duties in this context.
(3) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Pensions Regulator,
(b) the Financial Conduct Authority,
(c) representatives of pension scheme trustees, members, and sponsoring employers, and
(d) such other experts or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Steve Darling.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report on whether the fiduciary duties of trustees of occupational pension schemes should be amended to permit discretionary indexation of pre-1997 accrued rights, where scheme funding allows.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 18—Indexation of pre-1997 benefits—
“(1) Schedule 7 (pension compensation provisions) of the Pensions Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 28(3) leave out ‘so much of’ and ‘as is attributable to post-1997 service’ in each place they occur.
(3) Leave out paragraphs 28(5)(b) and (d), 28(5A) and 28(7).
(4) In paragraph 28(6) leave out definitions of ‘post-1997 service’ and ‘pre-1997 service’.”
This new clause would make indexation of compensation provided through the Financial Assistance Scheme and Personal Protection Funds applicable to both pre-1997 and post-1997 service.
New clause 19—Indexation of pre-1997 benefits for Financial Assistance Scheme members—
“(1) Schedule 2 (determination of annual and initial payments) of the Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 9(2) leave out the first occurrence of ‘so much of the expected pension as is attributable to post-1997 service’ and insert ‘the expected pension’.
(3) In paragraph 9(2) leave out the second occurrence of ‘so much of the expected pension as is, proportionately, attributable to post-1997 service’ and insert ‘the expected pension’.
(4) In paragraph 9(2) leave out the definition of ‘post-1997 service’.
(5) Leave out paragraph 9(3) and insert—
‘Where the qualifying member has pensionable service prior to 6th April 1997 which has not been included in the underlying rate but which their scheme provided for, the scheme manager must determine the annual increase attributable to that service for each year since the date on which the annual payment was first payable and, if that increase has not been paid to the member, reimburse the member for that amount.’”
This new clause would make indexation of compensation provided through the Financial Assistance Scheme applicable to pre-1997 service and reimburse members for the annual increases in payments they should have received in light of this change.
Steve Darling
[Interruption.] I am not quite used to getting interrupted by thunder. Perhaps I should get used to it, with Jennie winning Westminster Dog of the Year, or at least the popular vote. Clearly, it was rigged—I jest.
On a more serious note, we are looking at a cohort of pensioners, the pre-’97 pensioners, who have been left behind without indexation. We heard moving evidence from two gentlemen who shared the challenges that many of those pensioners face, living in higher levels of poverty because of the failure to index.
Our proposal is to ensure that there is a responsibility to explore the possibility of amending the fiduciary duties—something I was not even aware of until I started exploring the Bill—to support the possibility of indexation. I am aware that a more prescriptive new clause has also been tabled. As Liberal Democrats, we sympathise with the aims, but we feel that we need to have confidence that the system has the capacity to pay out. Our proposal is a steady hand on the tiller approach. It is about sense checking and ensuring that there is an ability to support the appropriate levels of indexation. I hope that the Minister will look kindly upon the proposal, as it is the more level-headed approach, with all due respect to Plaid and the SNP.
Kirsty Blackman
I rise to speak in support of the new clause tabled by the Liberal Democrats and new clauses 18 and 19, which were tabled by my wonderful colleague from Plaid, the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies).
The witnesses who came before us last week to speak about the lack of indexation for pre-1997 pensions made an incredibly passionate and powerful case for changing the system. We mentioned earlier the Work and Pensions Committee’s report, which suggested that the Government need to look at this issue seriously. I was quite disappointed by the Government’s response, which did not actually say very much. All it said was that changing the system would have an impact on the Government’s balance sheet. Well, yes, it might have an impact on the Government’s balance sheet, but it would have a significant impact for people who are in this situation through absolutely no fault of their own. They did the right thing all the way along, but the company they were with collapsed and the Pension Protection Fund or the financial assistance scheme has not given them the uplift.
The group of people we are talking about are getting older. They are not young any more. We know that older pensioners are the most likely to be in fuel poverty and to be struggling with the cost of living crisis. They are the ones making the choice about whether to switch on the heating. Given the rate of inflation that we have had in recent years, there is a real argument for utilising a small amount of the PPF’s surplus to provide a level of indexation. The cut-off is very arbitrary; it is just a date that happened to be put in legislation at that time. Were the Government setting up the PPF today, and the compensation schemes for people who lost their pension through no fault of their own, I do not think they would be arguing for not indexing pensions accrued before 1997. That would not be a justifiable position for today’s Government to take.
I am not sure whether the Bill is the right place to do this, but my understanding is that it needs to be done in primary legislation; it cannot be done in secondary legislation. Given what I mentioned earlier about the significant length of time between pieces of primary pension legislation, if the Government do not use the Pension Schemes Bill to address this problem today, on Report or in the House of Lords, when will they? How many more of the pensioners who are suffering from the lack of indexation will have passed away or be pushed into further financial hardship by the time the Government make a decision on this, if they ever intend to?
As I have said, I cannot see a justification for not providing the indexation. We know the PPF levy changes have been put in place because of that surplus, and there is recognition that the surplus exists and has not been invented—the money is there. I understand that the situation is different for the two funds, but particularly with the PPF, I do not understand how any Member of this House, let alone the Government, could argue against making this change to protect pensioners.
It may have an impact on the Government’s balance sheet, but it does not have an impact on the Government’s income, outgoings and ability to spend today. The PPF money cannot be used for anything other than reducing the levy or paying pensions. It is very unusual to have such ringfenced, hypothecated money within the Government’s balance sheet, but this money is ringfenced. The Government cannot decide to spend it on building a new school or funding the NHS. It can be used only for paying the pensions of people whose companies have gone under.
I very much appreciate the hard work of my colleagues in Plaid Cymru on this issue in supporting their constituents, as well as people such as Terry Monk, who gave evidence to us last week along with Mr Sainsbury. Now is the time for the Government to change this to ensure fairness and drag some pensioners out of poverty, so that they have enough money to live on right now during this cost of living crisis.
Mark Garnier
I want to follow on from the two powerful speeches by the Liberal Democrat and SNP spokespeople, the hon. Members for Torbay and for Aberdeen North, in highlighting the fact that this problem is—dare I say it—disappearing over time. This feels slightly similar to the ongoing contaminated blood debate, and it is a similar type of thing. The people who would be compensated for the contaminated blood are, for tragic reasons, disappearing. Indeed, I think there are now 86,000 pensioners who were caught up in this particular problem, and the longer this is kicked down the road, the smaller the problem will become, for obvious reasons.
The principle behind this is absolutely right. It is incredibly important that we as a country, society and community look after all these people. Where people have done the right thing and put money into their pension, but it has not followed through, that is a big problem.
One thing does bother me: I do not want to be too political, but the Government have dug themselves a freshly made £30 billion black hole in the last year. Although the SNP spokesperson is absolutely right that the £12 billion in the PPF is available to spend only on pensions, the problem is that because it appears on the country’s balance sheet, if the money to pay the price for this—I think it is £1.8 billion—came out of that, there would be a £1.8 billion increase on the country’s collective balance sheet. The argument would go that it would then reduce it. At some level, fiscal prudence has to come in to make sure we are not creating a deeper black hole. Because of the change of accounting at the back end of last year, this could turn the Government’s £30 billion fiscal black hole into a £32 billion one, even though that money is earmarked only for pensions.
I would like to hear from the Minister how the Government will resolve that. I would like him to make an undertaking that we will hear something about it on 26 November, and that there will be something in the Budget to resolve this fiscal conundrum. We need to know where the money will come from, and that the Government have set it aside. This is a perfect opportunity to deal with a problem that has been going on since 1997, and that becomes more profound every time the Office for National Statistics announces the rate of inflation. If the Minister gave us that assurance, I would trust him—being an honourable and decent man—that he could make his current boss get something done about this on 26 November.
Torsten Bell
Despite the hon. Member’s kind invitation, and as he well knows, I am not about to start commenting on the Budget—something I have heard him say himself many times over the years in his previous roles.
More seriously, the last 50 years tell us that the question of pension uprating is a big deal and very important. By “uprating”, I mean how pensions keep pace with earnings or prices. Obviously, on the state pension we tend to talk in terms of earnings. It is a big issue. The lesson of the 1980s and 1990s was about rising pensioner poverty at a time when the state pension was not earnings indexed but earnings were growing significantly. That is why we ended up with 30% or 40% pensioner poverty during those years. History tells us that those things are important. History aside, they are also obviously important for individuals, as we heard at the evidence session.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I want to add my voice and the calls of my constituents for that issue to be addressed and tackled. I have been contacted by several constituents, one of whom has lost up to 70% of the value of their occupational pension. I add my voice to those calling for the Government to do what they can to address this issue, which I know the Minister recognises is having a huge impact on many people’s lives.
Roger Sainsbury, among others, raised the issue in the evidence session. He said that he had confidence that the Government would come up to the mark and find a way through the perceived difficulties. I seek reassurance from the Minister on behalf of my constituents that the Government will do all they can to ensure that that is the case.
Torsten Bell
I thank my hon. Friend for his questions. Let me come to the two halves; two different issues are actually being raised in these amendments and I want to make sure that we deal with them separately.
New clause 5 deals with discretionary increases for schemes that have not fallen into the PPF—those with solvent employers. Here, as I said in the surplus discussion, the changes on surplus provide a new route for trustees who do not have the power to make those discretionary increases off their own bat to discuss with employers discretionary increases on pre-1997 pension accruals. It is also clear that we need to understand this issue well. The Pensions Regulator has been engaging in surveys on this issue for exactly that reason and will continue to do so. Overall, my argument is that, for those schemes still operating, we are not going to be in the business of legislating to overwrite scheme rules when it comes to whether schemes had indexation in them pre-1997.
Questions of the PPF and FAS represent an important debate, as we heard last Tuesday—I answered questions about that then, and I will not pain everyone by repeating my answers.
New clauses 18 and 19 would not work. The new clauses as drafted would apply to subsets of the PPF population. Some pensioners would receive indexation, and some would not. The same flaws in the new clauses apply to FAS. We will definitely be opposing the new clauses, but that is without regard to the wider questions, which, as I said, I commented on last Tuesday.
Steve Darling
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am afraid I have a difficulty, Ms Lewell: I am appearing soon in a Westminster Hall debate as a spokesperson, so I will have to go part-way through this debate—accept my sincere apologies for that.
New clause 7 is the beginning of a series of new clauses on pensions injustices. It is intended to probe. I know from fellow MPs that there are significant amounts of casework about people who fall short of being acknowledged as receiving benefits from pensions, such as spouses or partners of different descriptions.
Our world is complicated. I am adopted, and went from having one sibling to nine siblings in total; I have a complicated family. We all have complicated families. Equally, historically, pensions may not have taken account of how people’s lives might have become more complicated, such as with partners and the way that life moves on. We ask the Minister to reflect on that, and see how he may be able to tackle this injustice. I apologise for leaving before we complete the debate on the new clause, Ms Lewell.
Kirsty Blackman
If the new clause is pressed to a vote, I will not take part because it does not impact pensions in Scotland. However, I want to relay to the Committee and the Minister that I have heard a number of heartbreaking stories on this subject; I am aware that it is not the Minister’s fault that such situations have occurred. What has most impacted me is when I have heard the stories of people having to choose not to live with their partners if they are to continue to receive pensions.
Someone’s deceased police officer partner may have died a significant time ago. Finding happiness in a new relationship is a lovely thing, but that person might have to choose between getting the survivor’s pension and living with their new partner. That is a horrific decision that nobody should ever have to make. It would be great if the Minister recognised the issue: that people are being pushed into making difficult choices because of how the schemes have been written. I do not necessarily want the Minister to commit to changing the legislation, as I do not know whether it is within his gift to fix this, but will he recognise that the current situation is unfair? I think that would be a step in the right direction.
John Milne
Further to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay on the new clauses, and as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North commented earlier, pension Bills come along once in a generation, so we are taking this opportunity to bring a number of long-standing issues under scrutiny, hopefully for comment.
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for Torbay, who has just left us, for moving new clause 7. To clarify, it would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into the police pension scheme on these particular issues. I know this will be a matter of cross-party consensus, but the most important thing is to stress the value placed on the contribution of police officers across the country. I see them every day, particularly in the centre of Swansea, and they play a really important role.
The rules providing for the cessation of survivor benefits, where a survivor remarries or cohabits, are typically features of legacy public service pension schemes, and we are discussing the 1987 police pension scheme in this case. Reformed public service pension schemes do not include these challenges, as we have moved away from a system with significant inheritable rights. The same also applies to the new state pension system introduced under the coalition Government, which does not include the same degree of inheritability as the basic state pension did.
I want to take a similar approach to the many issues that will be raised in such calls for reviews. It is really important for me to be clear about why we do not support reviews into these schemes—particularly in this case, where it closed 20 years ago—as I do not want to raise expectations that will not be met. That would be deeply unhelpful to people who have been campaigning on this issue for many years.
In this particular case, there is the principle that we will not retrospectively legislate to change the terms of pensions far in the past, around 20 years ago. I am saying this very gently, but the reality is that my position is shared by most parties in this House. If the coalition Government, made up of a Liberal Democrat Pensions Minister and other Conservative Ministers, had wanted to resolve these issues and take an approach different from the one I am setting out today, they would have done it in a previous Parliament.
The last thing I want to do is give false expectations to people who often face consequences from the terms of these pension schemes—terms I do not support, but that is why they have ceased to be part of modern pension schemes. I do not want to give false certainty that we will start reopening public service pension schemes from decades ago. That would lead to false expectations, and that is the last thing we should be doing.
On that basis, we will not be supporting the new clause, but I understand the case that people have made and why people are raising it in this place. As I say, that is our approach to this issue.
John Milne
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 8
Independent review into pension losses incurred by former employees of AEA Technology
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, commission an independent review into the pension losses incurred by former employees of AEA Technology who—
(a) transferred their accrued pension benefits out of the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) public service scheme to AEA Technology (AEAT) on privatisation in 1996, and
(b) suffered financial losses when AEA Technology went into administration in 2012 and the pension scheme entered the Pension Protection Fund (PPF).
(2) The review must examine—
(a) the extent and causes of pension losses incurred by affected individuals,
(b) the role of Government policy and representations in the transfer of pensions during the privatisation of AEA Technology,
(c) the findings of the Public Accounts Committee and the Work and Pensions Select Committee,
(d) the adequacy of safeguards provided at the time of privatisation,
(e) potential mechanisms for redress or compensation, and
(f) the estimated financial cost of any such mechanisms.
(3) The review must be—
(a) conducted by an independent panel appointed by the Secretary of State, with relevant expertise in pensions, public policy, and administrative justice, and
(b) transparent and consultative, including engagement with affected pensioners and their representatives.
(4) The panel must report its findings and recommendations to the Secretary of State and lay a copy of its final report before Parliament within 12 months of its establishment.
(5) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the publication of the report under subsection (4), lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to that outcome.”—(John Milne.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into the pension losses incurred by former employees of AEA Technology.
Brought up, and read the First time.
John Milne
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into pension losses suffered by former employees of AEA Technology. It focuses on employees who transferred benefits from the UK Atomic Energy Authority to AEA on privatisation in 1996, and who later suffered losses when the company went into administration. Many former employees experienced significant losses due to circumstances beyond their control, and this review would ensure a transparent, evidence-based assessment of what went wrong. It would also hopefully provide a structured way to explore redress or compensation options for affected pensions.
To summarise, the new clause would ensure that lessons were learned and safeguards were strengthened for future privatisations and pension transfers. We move it in the hope that the Minister will put his thoughts on the record, so that campaigners can at least see them—like them or not, they will know where he stands.
Torsten Bell
I reiterate my overall approach to the issues being raised in relation to historical cases, but we all recognise the difficult position that members of this particular scheme found themselves in. Many scheme members who move into the PPF receive a lower pension than they were otherwise expecting, and I think we are all sympathetic.
The hon. Member will be aware that there have been many reviews of this case, including by the Public Accounts Committee, the Work and Pensions Committee and, obviously, the Pensions Ombudsman. The coalition did not act on this particular case, and I do not want to raise expectations that we are going to reopen it now, given the number of reviews that have already taken place.
However, I can offer slightly more reassurance to the hon. Member going forward. He will be aware of changes in policy that mean that, when there are privatisations of the kind that sits behind this challenging case, workers will remain in public service pension schemes. They would not be moved across into another scheme. That is obviously what sits behind anxieties about the transparency of the advice provided in this case. I hope that that offers the hon. Member the kind of reflection that he asked for, but we are not in a position to support the new clause.
John Milne
I thank the Minister for his observations, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
Independent review into state deduction in defined benefit pension schemes
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, commission an independent review into the application and impact of state deduction mechanisms in occupational defined benefit pension schemes.
(2) The review must consider—
(a) the origin, rationale and implementation of state deduction in the Midland Bank Staff Pension Scheme,
(b) the clarity and adequacy of member communications regarding state deduction from inception to present,
(c) the differential impact of state deduction on pensioners with varying salary histories, including an assessment of any disproportionate effects on—
(i) lower-paid staff, and
(ii) women,
(d) comparisons with other occupational pension schemes in the banking and public sectors, and
(e) the legal, administrative, and financial feasibility of modifying or removing state deduction provisions, including potential mechanisms for redress.
(3) The Secretary of State must ensure that the person or body appointed to conduct the review—
(a) is independent of HSBC Bank plc and its associated pension schemes;
(b) possesses relevant expertise in pensions law, occupational pension scheme administration, and equality and fairness in retirement income; and
(c) undertakes appropriate consultation with—
(i) affected scheme members,
(ii) employee representatives,
(iii) pension experts, and
(iv) stakeholder organisations.
(4) The person or body conducting the review must—
(a) submit a report on its findings to the Secretary of State within 12 months of the date the review is commissioned; and
(b) the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament and publish the report in full.
(5) Within three months of laying the report before Parliament, the Secretary of State must publish a written response setting out the Government’s proposed actions, if any, in response to the report’s findings and recommendations.
(6) For the purposes of this section—
‘state deduction’ means any provision within a defined benefit occupational pension scheme that reduces pension entitlements by reference to the member reaching state pension age or by reference to any state pension entitlement;
‘defined benefit pension scheme’ has the meaning given in section 181 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993;
‘Midland Bank Staff Pension Scheme’ includes all associated legacy arrangements and any successor schemes administered by HSBC Bank Pension Trust (UK) Ltd.” —(John Milne.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into clawback provisions in occupational defined benefit pension schemes, in particular, the Midland Bank staff pension scheme.
Brought up, and read the First time.
John Milne
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 9 would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into the application and impact of state deduction mechanisms in occupational defined benefit pension schemes. It focuses specifically on clawback provisions in the Midland bank staff pension scheme and associated legacy arrangements.
We believe that a review is needed because state deduction provisions can reduce members’ pension entitlements, sometimes in ways that are complex or unclear. There are concerns about fairness, transparency and disproportionate impact, particularly on lower-paid staff and women. A review would ensure that members, regulators and Parliament had clarity about the origin, rationale and effect of such provisions.
The review would examine the history and rationale for the deductions, assess the clarity and adequacy of member communications over time, analyse differential impact on pensioners with varying salary histories, and compare state deduction practices with other occupational schemes in banking and the public sectors. It would also consider the legal, administrative and financial feasibility of modifying or removing state deduction provisions. Finally, it would be an independent and consultative process. The clause would ensure transparency and fairness, and it would provide Parliament and Members with clear, evidence-based guidance on the way forward.
Torsten Bell
I am conscious that there was a debate in the main Chamber on this issue before the summer recess, when we were able to go into the issue in much more depth. The debate related to integrated pensions, but in that context people are usually referring to the HSBC historical pension scheme in particular. Without rehearsing everything I have said about our not being in the business of promising to change pension scheme rules, schemes have wide discretion about the nature of their rules and the entitlements that scheme members accrue. It is not for the Government to change those.
The law is very clear that the Government require transparency, just as the hon. Member for Horsham called for, and that includes clear communication of what the entitlement from any given pension scheme is, including issues to do with what is referred to as integrated pensions or clawback pensions. People do have to have received communication that spells that out. The role of the Pensions Ombudsman is to check that that has happened. That is where people can go if they feel that they have not received clear communication about what their scheme entitlements were.
I think we can all understand that if anybody started to receive a pension and was shocked to see a deduction in it when they went over the state pension age, that would be very significant for them. It is the job of the Pension Ombudsman to investigate cases such as that.
John Milne
I thank the Minister and beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 10
Use of electronic mail for direct marketing purposes relating to pensions
“(1) Section 22(3) of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 is deemed to apply to unsolicited electronic communications relating to pensions when the sender is—
(a) a firm authorised to provide Targeted Support under Article 55A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 issuing a Targeted Support communication, or
(b) a qualifying pension scheme, as defined in section 16(1) of the Pensions Act 2008.
(2) Subsection (1) applies when the recipient is—
(a) a customer of the firm under subsection (1)(a), or
(b) a member of the pension scheme under subsection (1)(b).” —(John Milne.)
This new clause would require that the provisions relating to the use of electronic mail for direct marketing purposes under the Privacy and Electronic Communications *(EC Directive) Regulations 2003 would apply to communications from firms providing targeted support on pensions or from qualifying pension schemes.
Brought up, and read the First time.
John Milne
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 10 would require that provisions relating to the use of electronic mail for direct marketing purposes would apply to communications from firms providing targeted support on pensions or from qualifying pension schemes. That matters because pension savers deserve protection from unwanted or misleading marketing, especially when they may be vulnerable to scams. I used to work in direct marketing, so I feel a little bit guilty.
John Milne
Obviously, all mine were absolutely above board. Currently, the privacy and electronic communications regulations do not clearly cover pension-related marketing from schemes or targeted support firms. This new clause seeks to close that loophole. People should be able to trust that communications from their scheme or adviser are genuine and not just spam dressed up as guidance. We would position this as a balance, so that legitimate communications to scheme members remain possible, but only within clear safeguards. In summary, it is a simple consumer protection measure that would protect savers from nuisance emails and potential mis-selling.
Kirsty Blackman
I have a brief comment on the direct marketing purposes. An increasing number of people rely on email communication to get updates on their pension, rather than paper updates. I am aware of a significant number of people of younger generations who are not keen on opening letters that come through their door. They may also not be keen on opening emails, but at least they will be able to search for them, because they will not delete them, and will be able to find out what is in them.
I spoke to somebody the other day who was quite surprised at the low percentage of people who had signed up to use the app for the National Employment Savings Trust. Most of the providers and individuals I have spoken to have seen an increase in the number of people who are keen to use apps or communicate only via electronic communication. The point made by the hon. Member for Horsham is incredibly important. We need to ensure that a balance is in place and that people are provided with the correct and actual updates in a way that they want to receive them, but that they are protected from scams.
David Pinto-Duschinsky
I do not disagree with the hon. Lady, but does she agree that this might be a tiny bit premature, given that there is currently a consultation going on about making changes to these rules? The objective of the new clause is valuable, but maybe putting it in statute is not the right way to go.
Kirsty Blackman
Mr Speaker and previous Speakers have encouraged us as Members not to worry about repetition. Generally, the more we can talk about and highlight issues the better. Part of the point of the new clause is to ensure that the Minister recognises and says from the Front Bench that this is an important issue. Whether or not there is an actual consultation taking place, if we can have that commitment—we will probably ask him for that commitment again and again, given the nature of this place—we would be very happy to receive it.
I agree with the hon. Member for Horsham that the balance is really important. When it comes to guided retirement products, it is key that companies do not worry that the privacy and electronic communications regulations, or any legislation, is going to get in the way of proper communications, but that people are also protected from potential scam communications, and that we are able to crack down on anyone undertaking scams and looking to take significant amounts of money—these are the largest amounts of savings that the vast majority of us will ever have in our lives.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I have a query off the back of the comments of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North.
We heard in the evidence sessions that there is a danger that overdoing the requirements for marketing will get in the way of providing guidance. That came up directly in the response to some of our questions, I think specifically from Legal and General and Aviva. Companies are already in a position where, if they are not careful, offering guidance is considered marketing. Therefore, they do have their hands tied by existing legislation.
I am slightly intrigued why this new clause has been tabled, given that Liberal Democrat colleagues will have also heard that evidence. More work is needed on this issue than just adding a new clause to the Bill; I heard from the hon. Member for Hendon that there is a consultation.
Although I understand the point about protecting vulnerable customers from scamming, I feel the evidence we heard demonstrates that more work is needed, work that is not included in the Bill, to make sure that pension companies are able to advertise in such a way that they can play their part in the guidance process that we have debated at length, and in how people get that financial education.
I understand the premise of the new clause, but we have many more questions to answer on this. If anything, I think we need to be making it easier for pension companies, the legitimate people in the room, to be able to communicate. There could be unintended consequential issues; we are trying to deal with scammers, but we might inadvertently stop people accessing information that we are trying to help them to receive.
Torsten Bell
Let me attempt to offer some words of clarification and then come to what the Government are doing on this issue.
To clarify, pension schemes are covered by the rules on direct marketing already. I think the new clause as drafted would probably have the opposite effect to what the hon. Member for Horsham intends, by carving out pension schemes from the limitations on direct marketing. That would be a loosening of the direct marketing restrictions for pension schemes. There are people in the industry that have been calling for exactly that, so that may be where the new clause is coming from, but I clarify that they are covered; the direct marketing rules prevent pension schemes from behaving in those kinds of ways.
What is the context here? We are obviously aware of concerns that the existing direct marketing rules, which apply to pension schemes, may limit providers’ ability to deliver the new targeted support regime that is being developed by the Government, exactly as the hon. Member for South West Devon has just set out. Under targeted support, FCA-authorised firms will be able to proactively suggest appropriate products or courses of action to customers. That could help people to make decisions about access to their pension, but it obviously needs to be done in the right way.
We have heard the feedback from stakeholders on the interaction between that wish for targeted support and direct marketing rules, which is where most of the debate on this area has been. Because targeted support involves recommending specific courses of action, it could be considered direct marketing. That is the cause of the tension.
There are particular issues for pension providers who administer auto-enrolled members, where the individual has not chosen the pension scheme or engaged with them. As a result of that, they cannot generally satisfy the requirements of what is called the soft opt-in, because the provider has not collected the information from the individual at the point at which they were enrolled—it has gone through the employer.
What are we doing about that? We are examining quite a range of policy options at the moment. That includes legislative change, which can probably be done via secondary legislation. I think that is the right way for us to proceed. When we do that, we need to get the balance between enabling targeted support and making sure that we do not have inappropriate direct marketing within the pension space. I definitely would not want to see a carve-out from all direct marketing rules for the pension sector as a whole, as there are risks that come with that. I hope that gives Members some clarity and an explanation of what the Government are doing to take this issue forward.
John Milne
I thank the Minister for his clarification, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Kirsty Blackman
On a point of order, Ms Lewell, I am aware that I cannot make a speech at this point, but will the Minister write to me on whether he is planning to do anything about pre-1997 indexation of the PPF and FAS? If he writes to me about that, I will be happy not to push new clause 18 to a vote.
Torsten Bell
I suspect that I have already written to the hon. Lady, because she has raised some constituency cases with me, but she can receive another one of those letters.
New Clause 33
Report of defined benefit schemes impact on productivity
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the impact on corporate productivity of defined benefit schemes.
(2) The report must include an assessment of—
(a) investment strategies of defined benefit funds,
(b) the returns on investment of defined benefit funds, and
(c) the impact of investment strategies and returns on productivity.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Mark Garnier.)
This new clause would require the Government to commission a report on the impact on corporate productivity of defined benefit schemes.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 34—Recognition rules for Defined Benefit scheme deficits—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations revise the balance sheet recognition rules for Defined Benefit pension scheme deficits.
(2) Revision of the balance sheet recognition rules under subsection (1) may include allowing the deferment or partial deferment of deficits to future financial years when calculating the balance sheet.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to revise the balance sheet recognition rules for Defined Benefit pension scheme deficits.
New clause 35—Alternative disclosure for long-term deficits—
“(1) When a Defined Benefit pension scheme has a long-term deficit, it shall be permitted to disclose the deficit on an alternative basis, rather than recognising the full deficit as an immediate liability, if a formal recovery plan has been agreed.
(2) For subsection (1) to apply, a formal recovery plan must have been—
(a) agreed by the scheme trustees, and
(b) approved by The Pensions Regulator.
(3) The Pensions Regulator shall issue guidance on the format and content of the alternative disclosure specified in subsection (1).”
This new clause permits DB schemes to disclose a long-term deficit on an alternative basis.
Mark Garnier
When we look at the thrust of the Bill, the mandation measure is all about trying to get pension funds to help to create greater productivity within the UK economy. A couple of days ago, in a very helpful intervention on a speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire, the hon. Member for Hendon made the point that, while we are standing against mandation, we must ask: what are we standing in favour of? How are we trying to get behind the grain of the Bill? These three new clauses respond to that question of what we are doing to ensure that the Bill actually can use pension fund money to promote economic growth, invest into the UK and get better returns for the pensioners.
One of the problems facing defined-benefit pension schemes is that, in response to the outrage over Maxwell and Mirror Group Newspapers pinching money from pension schemes back in the 1980s and 1990s, rules were introduced that were basically designed to ensure that it would not happen again. They were introduced in such a way to ensure that, if a defined-benefit pension scheme were to go into deficit, the deficit would be reflected on the balance sheet of the host company.
We still see that today in some larger companies; I think the British Telecom pension scheme currently has a deficit of £7 billion, and that appears on British Telecom’s balance sheet. That does two fundamental things. First, if a company has a deficit on its balance sheet, that restricts its ability to raise equity or debt to invest into its business, so the host business cannot expand because it has a defined-benefit pension scheme with a deficit attached to it.
A second problem then comes as a result of the Maxwell rules: the trustees of a defined-benefit scheme with a host company will be reluctant to invest that into high-volatility assets. We know that, over a long period of time, the equity market will perform far better than the bond market. The problem is that we can have volatile markets in the short term, which could introduce a deficit in the defined-benefit pension scheme that translates to a deficit on the balance sheet.
For example, if we look at stock market performances from the 1980s to now, we will see a very steady rise in the stock markets over time, which have done particularly well. However, if we go back to 1987 or various other times, such as 2000-01, we will see big stock market crashes that will have appeared on the balance sheets of those defined-benefit pension scheme host companies. As a result, these pension schemes are missing out on the long-term growth to push away the short-term volatility that hits the host company. With these three new clauses, we are trying to get that out of the way so that defined-benefit pension schemes feel more comfortable about investing in higher-growth and therefore higher-volatility assets.
Torsten Bell
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest for tabling the new clauses, and for his impressive consistency; he has spoken to this issue many times not only in this Committee, but elsewhere, and I have heard him. I agree on some of the wider issues he is raising, particularly his reflections on some of the impacts of decisions taken in the late 1990s. Before I come to the more technical responses to the new clauses, the hon. Member’s objective is to see different investment approaches taken by defined-benefit schemes. Many issues that were historically the case have been removed by the passing of time, because they are now closed schemes whose investments are now changing for other reasons, not because of the questions of regulatory pressure in the 1990s and so on. I leave that as an aside.
To give the hon. Member a bit more optimism, based on the Bill, I already have schemes saying to me that they may take different approaches on investments because of the option of a surplus release. That gives a different incentive structure for employers about what they wish to see their pension schemes doing, and for trustees, if there is a sharing of the benefits of upside risk that comes with that. I have had several large employer’s pension schemes raising that issue with me in the recent past. That is to give him some case for optimism to set against the long-term pessimism.
I will turn to the details of the new clauses. New clause 33 would require the Government to produce and lay a report before both Houses of Parliament, with an assessment of the investment strategies of defined-benefit pension schemes and their impact on productivity.
There is already a requirement for defined-benefit schemes to produce much of that information in their triennial valuation and to submit key documents to the Pensions Regulator, including information on investments and changes in asset allocations over time, so the regulator has much of the information already. In addition, multiple reports are already produced annually on defined-benefit schemes and their investments. The purple book is the most obvious example; it is produced by the Pension Protection Fund. I know that everybody here will be an avid reader of it; I promise people that it is reasonably widely read, including in the City.
New clause 34 seeks to change the arrangements for reporting defined-benefit pension scheme liabilities in the employer’s accounts. I am impressed by the wish of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest for us to engage in a Brexit from international financial reporting standards, but he will be unsurprised to learn that the Government are not about to do that. These are globally recognised financial reporting frameworks that allow comparability, and we are not in the business of changing them.
New clause 35 would require the Secretary of State to introduce an alternative basis to disclose schemes’ funding deficits. The Pensions Act 2004 put in place the current regime for valuations. Our view is that that approach has taken some time to implement but it is now well understood and well established, so leaving it in place is by far the best thing that we can do, while also considering in more detail the consequences of other things that drive the choices of pension schemes. On that basis, I encourage the hon. Member for Wyre Forest to withdraw the new clause, and I certainly do not expect to see my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon support it.
Mark Garnier
I am partially reassured by the Minister’s comments, but it really comes down to the kindness of my heart—I would not want the hon. Member for Hendon to be pulled off the Committee and put in an awkward situation. It would be unfortunate to force him to fall out with the Whips so early in his parliamentary career, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 37
Review of impact of this Act
“(1) Within five years of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must carry out a review of the impact of the provisions of this Act on actual and projected retirement incomes.
(2) The review must consider—
(a) the impact of the provisions of this Act on actual and projected retirement incomes, and
(b) whether further measures are needed to ensure that pension scheme members receive an adequate income in retirement.
(3) The Secretary of State must prepare a report of the review and lay a copy of that report before Parliament.”—(Mark Garnier.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare a report on the impact of this Act within 5 years of its passing.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mark Garnier
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Under new clause 37, the review of the impact of the Act would focus on pensions adequacy. The current Government plan to delay the comprehensive consideration of pensions adequacy to future phases of the pensions review. Any resulting reforms from those future evaluations are projected to take several years to develop and implement, and there is widespread concern that without a mandated regular review process, inadequate pension outcomes will persist. Millions of people in the UK therefore risk having insufficient retirement income, particularly lower earners, ethnic minorities, the self-employed and those with interrupted careers.
Automatic enrolment has expanded workplace pension participation and now covers over 88% of eligible employees, but significant savings shortfalls remain. Recent forecasts and analysis warn of a retirement crisis, with many future pensioners expected to have less income than today’s retirees unless action is taken. The Government’s renewed Pensions Commission is due to report in 2027, focusing on the adequacy, fairness and sustainability of the retirement framework, but that report will only come in 2027.
The new clause would create a statutory obligation for the Secretary of State to conduct a full review within five years of the Bill’s passage, focusing on its impact on actual and projected retirement incomes. It would require an assessment of whether current policies and contribution levels are sufficient to ensure adequate retirement incomes. The Secretary of State would have to report the findings to Parliament, increasing accountability and transparency. That would formalise an ongoing review cycle to monitor pension adequacy regularly, preventing the consideration of the issue being indefinitely postponed.
As we all know, pension adequacy is vital to preventing poverty in later life and to ensuring quality of life for retirees. Despite expanded coverage through auto-enrolment, however, many people are still on track to fail to meet retirement income targets. Financial resilience frameworks show disparities in adequacy among lower earners, women and other vulnerable groups, and current retirement income depends on a number of variables, including contribution, sufficiency, investment returns, longevity and state pension level.
The new clause would ensure that the Government take responsibility to monitor and report regularly on pension adequacy outcomes. It would mandate a formal review mechanism, enhancing policy responsiveness and parliamentary oversight. Ultimately, it aims to safeguard millions of future retirees from inadequate incomes, and support a sustainable and fair retirement system.
Torsten Bell
We have now had a few discussions about the case for monitoring and evaluating the Bill and what is going on in the pension landscape more generally. I do not want to repeat everything I have said previously, so I will just address whether this is the right approach or whether it should be done through the Pensions Commission that is under way and looking at most of these issues. My view is that the Pensions Commission is focused on the headline issues that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest has just mentioned. I do not want to confuse that work by having another process consider the same issues at the same time. It is also valuable to have the independence of the commission when doing that.
My main message is that we do not have to wait long, because the Pensions Commission will report in 2027, which is earlier than the five years that we would have to wait for the Secretary of State’s inevitably excellent report as a result of this new clause. We should have faith in Baroness Drake, Ian Cheshire and Nick Pearce to deliver that.
Kirsty Blackman
I am not as au fait with the terms of reference of the review as the Minister. Is it possible that it will say, “We recommend that another review is undertaken in five, 10 or 15 years?” Will it look at whether the review is all we need at this point in time or whether we will need another review in future?
Torsten Bell
I do not want to speak for the commissioners because that would be to prejudge their work. I can tell the hon. Lady what the terms of reference require and they definitely rule out long-grassing in that they require actual recommendations for change to deliver a fair, adequate and sustainable pension system. It would certainly be open to them to say, “Do these things, and we also think that monitoring should be x and y.” That would be for them to say, and as it is an independent commission, I do not want to prejudge that. It definitely cannot be just that; it would have to include recommendations for change.
Mark Garnier
We tabled new clause 37 partly to try to get some reassurance from the Minister. Two years is still quite a long time, as is five, but it is incredibly important that we are on top of what is going on in the pension industry, not least because we do not want any of our constituents to end up with miserable retirements. However, I am marginally reassured by the Minister’s comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 38
Guidance on the roles of the Financial Conduct Authority and the Pensions Regulator
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a joint protocol outlining the roles and responsibilities of the Financial Conduct Authority and the Pensions Regulator regarding their regulatory responsibility of the pension industry.
(2) A protocol established under subsection (1) must include—
(a) an overview of the coordination mechanisms between the two bodies;
(b) a published framework for oversight of hybrid or work-based personal pension schemes;
(c) a requirement for regular joint communications from both bodies to clarify regulatory boundaries for industry stakeholders.”—(Mark Garnier.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mark Garnier
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This will be the last new clause I will be talking to. It looks at the guidance on the roles of the Financial Conduct Authority and the Pensions Regulator. In preparing for this Bill, we spent a lot of time engaging with the industry just a mile and a half up the road. Among the industry there is persistent confusion regarding the division of regulatory responsibility between the Financial Conduct Authority and the Pensions Regulator.
The FCA regulates contract-based pension schemes—personal pensions, group personal pensions and stakeholder pensions—focusing on firm authorisation, conduct and consumer financial advice. TPR regulates trust-based occupational schemes, including defined-benefit and defined-contribution trust schemes, and it targets schemes, governance and employer duties. Overlapping interests exist in hybrid or workplace pension schemes, but unclear boundaries and differing enforcement powers can create regulatory gaps and inconsistencies. That ambiguity causes compliance difficulties for employers, trustees and industry stakeholders, and may ultimately affect pension savers.
The new clause would require the Government to establish a statutory joint protocol between the FCA and TPR, clearly defining and publishing their respective roles and responsibilities. The protocol must outline formal co-ordination mechanisms between the FCA and TPR, include a published framework specifically addressing oversight of hybrid and workplace personal schemes where regulatory remit overlaps, and include a requirement for regular joint communications from both regulators to guide industry and clarify regulatory boundaries. That matters because collaboration between the FCA and TPR ensures comprehensive consumer protection across all pension products.
With pension system complexity increasing—with mega schemes, master trusts and hybrid arrangements—co-ordinated regulation is critical. That will enable both regulators to leverage their strengths—the FCA in consumer conduct and financial advice, and TPR in governance and compliance enforcement. That will help trustees, employers, firms and savers to better understand which regulator to engage to resolve issues and access support.
Industry feedback consistently calls for more precise demarcation to avoid confusion and compliance risks. The Government’s wider reforms and digitisation initiatives, such as pension dashboards, further heighten the need for co-ordination. The new clause would promote regulatory clarity and efficiency through mandated guidance, protecting pension consumers and enabling robust governance across the sector. Clear regulatory pathways will better support pension savers by ensuring consistent standards and enforcement across all types of pension schemes.
Kirsty Blackman
I asked questions earlier about the consultation processes that DWP and the FCA are undertaking and about ensuring consistency in that consultation. This is a similar issue. I like the way that the new clause has been written to ensure that there are protocols so that everybody knows what side of the line they fall on. That can be a particular issue for organisations that have responsibility for both trust-based and contract-based pensions. They may be trying to scale or make efficiencies through investing or having similar default products, even though we are talking about two different types of scheme.
It would be helpful if the Government would commit to ensuring that, where those issues arise, and people are having conversations with the FCA and the Pensions Regulator about what side of the divide they fall on, the Government are keeping a watching brief. If there is regular confusion, the Government should ensure that they clarify the guidance so that people know which side they fall on. Those schemes that are either hybrid or have some sort of umbrella that encapsulates both trust-based and contract-based regulation will then know which side they fall on. They will be able to comply with both regulators, if that is the requirement, or with one of them.
As we said earlier, it is incredibly important that scheme members—current pensioners and prospective pensioners—get an excellent level of service. The vast majority of people do not know, and do not care, whether they are in a trust-based or contract-based pension scheme; all they want is to get as good a pension as possible when they hit retirement. Anything that the Minister can do to ensure that companies have a huge amount of clarity about where they fall, and that scheme members get the best outcomes when they hit retirement, would be helpful.
Torsten Bell
We all agree that we want providers and, most importantly, consumers to operate in this landscape as easily as possible. Particularly in the case of consumers, we do not want them to know the difference between the two. I have been very clear with both regulators that that is the objective, and I have been very clear with both Departments that oversee them that that is what we are doing.
Delivering that in practice requires thinking about how we legislate, and that is what we have done with the Bill to make sure that we are providing exactly the same outcomes through both markets. It is about Government providing clarity to regulators—we are absolutely providing that—and then about how the regulators themselves behave.
I am very alive to the issue that is being raised. There is some good news about the existing arrangements, which need to continue, because they are examples of effective co-ordination between the FCA and TPR. I have seen that through joint working groups, consultations, shared strategies and guidance, and regular joint engagement with stakeholders. The value for money measures in the Bill are probably the most high-profile recent experience of entirely joint working between the FCA, TPR and DWP.
The wider collaboration is underpinned by what is called the joint regulatory strategy and a formal memorandum of understanding that sets out how the two regulators should co-operate, share information and manage areas of overlap. I think that that basically achieves the objectives that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest set out, even if it is provided not by the Secretary of State but by a memorandum of understanding between the two organisations. I can absolutely reassure him and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North that I am very focused on this issue.
Mark Garnier
I am highly reassured by the Minister’s words. The important point is to ensure that if the bodies are to work together and do this, we need to keep them held to account on it. The Financial Conduct Authority was set up as an independent regulator and reports back to such things as the Treasury Committee. Presumably, TPR reports back to the Work and Pensions Committee. Already we can see a potential problem there, because separate Select Committees are doing the investigation. That is an important point, but I am confident that the Minister and his civil servants are aware of the problem and will be resolutely super sharp-focused on this issue to ensure that we have regulatory clarity. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 39
Section 38: commencement
“(1) The provisions in section 38 shall not come into force except in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”—(John Milne.)
This new clause would require that the provisions in clause 38 could only be enacted once agreed through secondary legislation.
Brought up, and read the First time.
John Milne
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Overall, this Bill has wide cross-party support, as evidenced by the fact that we have been rattling through it at such a pace. However, the power of mandation is undoubtedly the most controversial aspect. To be briefly Shakespearean: to mandate or not to mandate, that is the question.
The new clause would require that the provisions in clause 38—the mandation powers—be enacted only through secondary legislation. It is an attempt to square the circle between two competing views. The Liberal Democrats have concerns about the implications of mandation, frankly, as has much of the pensions industry. For example, Pensions UK, which is a signatory of the Mansion House accords, has stated:
“We believe that the best way of ensuring good returns for members is for investments to be undertaken on a voluntary, not a mandatory basis. We also note powers being taken to specify required investment capability for schemes, and to direct LGPS funds to merge with specific pools. All of these powers will require careful scrutiny.”
Similarly, the Society of Pension Professionals has said:
“The SPP does not support the reserve power to mandate investment in private market assets and recommends its removal from the legislation. The mandation power creates significant uncertainty, including questions about legal accountability for investment underperformance and how eligible assets will be defined. The threat of mandation risks distorting market pricing and could reduce public trust in pensions, as savers may fear that financial returns are no longer the top priority.”
The Minister has stated on a number of occasions that mandation should not be necessary, that he does not expect to have to use it and that the Mansion House accord demonstrates the industry’s willingness to act voluntarily. The obvious response is that if that really is the case, and that UK private markets truly offer the best option for pension savers while meeting the fiduciary duties, the industry should not need any prodding and mandation will not be required. The Minister’s response on previous occasions, and no doubt today, has been to observe the history and point out that thus far, the industry has been slow to make that change.
We recognise that the Minister is wholly committed to the path of giving himself mandation powers, whatever we or anyone else says. Indeed, he sees it as core to the legislation. For that reason, we have proposed the new clause as a halfway house. The power would be put on the books, but it would require secondary legislation to be enacted. It would give the Minister the ability to have access to mandation powers at short notice if he deemed it necessary, without needing primary legislation, but in the meantime, it does not hang over the industry like a sword of Damocles. It may seem just a psychological difference, but psychology matters, and there are other advantages.
Somewhat counterintuitively, sometimes having too much of a stick can be a problem in itself. The Minister would be under pressure to use the stick for the sake of consistency in every case where any company went slightly over the limit or was under the limit, even when he might prefer to take a softer, more conciliatory approach. We therefore see this new clause as a way to help the Minister exercise the powers he needs, but without stepping too heavily on industry’s toes. As he has said, he does not believe that he will ever need to exercise the power, so let us keep it at arm’s length.
Torsten Bell
I will resist the temptation to relitigate the entire argument about clause 38, which we discussed at some length on Tuesday. I entirely agree with the thrust of the new clause, which is that there should be scrutiny of the use of any such powers—that includes the scale measures, not just asset allocation.
I can offer the hon. Member for Horsham some reassurance, because the Bill already provides that all significant regulations made under clause 38, including the ones he is referring to, are always subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. That is the effect of the changes made to section 143 of the Pensions Act 2008 by clause 38(15). That should give him a lot of reassurance. It is true that the new clause could put a further vote in the system, but the effect is the same. I have bad news about Governments with majorities: whether they are asked to vote once or twice, the outcome will look quite similar.
For the sake of transparency, I should flag that there are some much less significant measures in clause 38 that are subject to the negative resolution procedure. I will spell them out: regulations made that require regulatory authorities to report information relating to asset allocation to the Secretary of State, regulations made in respect of new information provisions, and regulations made in respect of the regulator’s power to issue a risk notice. The negative procedure is never used for the major aspects of clause 38, which, as the hon. Gentleman set out, is a central part of the Bill. I hope that reassures him that Parliament would have to support any measures to bring in the regulations that will underpin clause 38. As I have said ad nauseam, we intend to bring into effect the scale parts of clause 38, but do not anticipate the need to use the reserve power elements.
John Milne
I thank the Minister for his clarification. I emphasise that the new clause is as much for industry’s comfort as Parliament’s; nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 44
Administration levy
“(1) The Pensions Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 116 (grants), leave out from ‘expenses’ to end of section.
(3) Omit section 117 (administration levy).
(4) In section 173(3) (Pension Protection Fund), before subsection (3)(a) insert—
‘(aa) any sums required to meet expenses incurred by the Board in connection with the operation or discontinuance of the Pension Protection Fund,’
(5) In section 188(3) (Fraud Compensation Fund), before subsection (3)(a) insert—
‘(aa) sums required to meet expenses incurred by the Board in connection with the operation or discontinuance of the Fraud Compensation Fund,’.” —(John Milne.)
This new clause abolishes the administration levy and provides for the expenses of the PPF and the FCF to be met out of their general funds. It would enable FCF expenses to be covered by the FCF levy.
Brought up, and read the First time.
John Milne
I beg to move, That the clause be read a second time.
This new clause would abolish the administration levy, which allows the Pension Protection Fund and Fraud Compensation Fund to meet their expenses from their respective general funds. PPF administration costs could instead be recovered from the wider protection fund, while FCF administration costs could be met from the FCF fund, funded through the FCF levy. The levy has in any case been suspended from 2023 to 2025. Many in the industry expected that this would lead to full abolition, especially given the clear recommendation from the DWP review in 2022.
The Society of Pension Professionals, which originally composed this amendment, remains a strong supporter, and its view is widely shared across the pension sector. Discussions with the PPF indicate that it has no objection to this proposal and would be content for its administration costs to be met from general reserves. Given industry support and PPF agreement, we feel that the Government should implement this change without any further delay.
The levy raises only a relatively small amount, but it adds unnecessary complexity and confusion to scheme finances and risks undermining broader reforms, especially efforts to reduce the risk-based levy to zero, which have been widely welcomed.
Overall, this amendment provides the Government with the necessary powers to eliminate an outdated levy, which would streamline pension scheme funding. It is a small but meaningful reform that aligns with wider pension reforms that are all aimed at reducing red tape, simplifying funding and ensuring efficient use of scheme resources.
Torsten Bell
I am grateful to the hon. Member for the new clause. I acknowledge the concerns surrounding the abolition of the Pension Protection Fund admin levy. This is not a new issue; it has obviously been raised significantly by parts of the industry. I broadly support the intent of the new clause. It provides for the expenses of the PPF board and the Fraud Compensation Fund to be met by the PPF levy and the Fraud Compensation Fund levy, instead of the PPF administrative levy. The amendment to section 116 of the Pensions Act 2004 is unworkable as it is currently drafted, but more importantly, I give the hon. Member our assurance that we intend to lay amendments at a later stage that will achieve the same aim. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw the new clause.
John Milne
I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 45
Transfer of British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme investment reserve to members
“(1) Within 3 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the transfer of the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme investment reserve to members of the scheme.
(2) Those regulations must include—
(a) a timetable for transferring the total of the investment reserve to members of the scheme, and
(b) plans for commissioning an independent review into how future surplus will be shared.
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”—(Kirsty Blackman.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set out in regulations a timetable for transferring the whole of the BCSSS investment reserve to members and committing to review how future surplus will be shared.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 45 is about the transfer of the British Coal staff superannuation schemes’ investment reserves to members. I am aware of what the Minister said earlier about the various schemes where there have been unfairnesses and the fact that the Government generally do not make commitments about trying to overcome some of the unfairnesses in historical schemes. However, exactly those kinds of changes were made to miners’ scheme in the autumn Budget last year—the investment reserves were transferred to members and changes were made in relation to the future surplus—yet that has not happened for those who were in the British Coal staff superannuation scheme.
I will not push the new clause to a vote, although my Plaid Cymru colleagues might do so on Report. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that he is aware that although the miners’ scheme has been changed, there is still an issue with the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, and that the Government are keeping that under review and considering what they can do to ensure that the surplus is transferred to members.
John Milne
Any changes to the BCSSS pension scheme rules require Government action; trustees can only act within their current rules.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), who has been working hard to raise his constituents’ voices in relation to this urgent issue, and for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). This is another one of those cases where time is not on the side of the claimants. We believe that six members are dying every day in relation to illnesses contracted from mining. Time is literally running out for members, so this is an urgent issue.
Torsten Bell
I am grateful for this new clause, which was tabled by one of my neighbours in south Wales, the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies). It is obviously an important issue for many ex-mineworkers and for families across Great Britain. It is basically straightforward: I want to reassure the Committee that the Government have been discussing the transfer with the scheme trustees for many months. Those discussions are actively under way. We expect to be able to make an announcement about the way forward in reasonably short order.
I am glad that the new clause will not be pushed to a vote—because if anything, it would risk slowing down the implementation of an agreed outcome—and I totally appreciate the point that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North has made. Any proposal for change will need to be consulted on with the scheme’s trustees on behalf of their members, but that will be coming forward. I hope that provides the Committee with the reassurance it is looking for.
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate the reassurances that the Minister has given me. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 46
Trustees: independence
“(1) The Pensions Act 1995 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 29 (Persons disqualified for being trustees), after subsection (d) insert—
‘(da) he has a personal or financial interest in the pension scheme, except for member nominated trustees.’”—(John Milne.)
This new clause makes pension scheme trustees truly independent of the sponsoring companies so that they can protect scheme members’ interests without any conflict of interest.
Brought up, and read the First time.
John Milne
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would have the effect of making pension scheme trustees truly independent of the sponsoring companies so that they can protect scheme members’ interests without any conflict of interest. Trustees should act solely in the best interests of their members, not those of the sponsoring employer.
Currently, conflicts of interest can arise where company-appointed trustees also have personal or financial ties to the scheme sponsor. The new clause seeks to strengthen independence, excluding conflicting trustees while still allowing member-nominated trustees. Members deserve trustees who are free to challenge employers and prioritise pensions over corporate interests. Having strong, independent trustees means stronger protection for savers’ retirement security.
Torsten Bell
I will remark briefly on the new clause. To state the obvious, the quality and independence of trustees is an integral part of our trust-based pensions system. It is very important, and it is right for the hon. Member to highlight it. Within those schemes, there are a range of trustee models. I would not want to put a blanket regime in place within the currently varied landscape. I want to give the hon. Member some different reassurance on this point. We are committed to strengthening scheme governance, including for some of the issues that he has raised. I have already announced my intention to consult later this autumn on measures to improve the governance of trust-based schemes. That work will consider again some of the exact issues that he raises. That is the right way forward, because there are lots of strengths to our current system. The quality of our trustees, their independence and everything they bring to their role are all valuable, but it is important that we maintain that as the best it can possibly be. I hope that the hon. Member will enjoy the consultation later this year.
John Milne
I thank the Minister for his encouragement. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 47
Report on Pension Scheme Eligibility and Access
“(1) The Secretary of State shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report into the operation of occupational pension schemes where certain categories of employees have been excluded on the basis of job classification or employment start date.
(2) The report must examine the case of employees and former employees of Fife Joinery Manufacturing (a subsidiary of Velux), including—
(a) whether affected workers were provided with opportunity to join existing pension schemes,
(b) the adequacy of record-keeping and employer accountability, and
(c) potential remedies to ensure equal access to workplace pensions.”—(John Milne.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the Velux Pensions case.
Brought up, and read the First time.
John Milne
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the Velux pensions case. It would require him to report within 12 months on how occupational pension schemes exclude certain employees based on job classification or their start date. The report would specifically
“examine…employees and former employees of Fife Joinery Manufacturing (a subsidiary of Velux)”.
It would review whether affected workers were genuinely offered the chance to join the pension scheme. The report would assess
“the adequacy of record-keeping and employer accountability”
and explore possible
“remedies to ensure equal access to workplace pensions.”
The measure addresses concerns from shop-floor employees who joined before 1998 and were denied pension access despite repeatedly asking for it. The workers dispute claims that they declined pension membership and say they were told that they were not eligible. Attempts to engage Fife Joinery Manufacturing management have been unsuccessful. Workers have been advised to consider approaching the ombudsman, although none has done so yet. The new clause would hold the Government accountable to investigate and push for fairness and transparency. It is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife and my Liberal Democrat colleagues.
To summarise, the new clause is a key step to ensure fairness and equality in workplace pension access and to prevent similar exclusions in the future.
Torsten Bell
I am grateful to the hon. Member, as always, for raising those specific issues in this debate. It has been a good opportunity to raise such cases, as he regularly does.
The hon. Member will be totally unsurprised that the Government cannot support the new clause, because it is the Pensions Regulator’s role to regulate occupational pension schemes and, as he mentioned, it is the Pensions Ombudsman’s job to investigate individual complaints from members. We do not want the Government to step over the top of those organisations. I encourage those who think that they have a case to approach the ombudsman, if they have not already—given the hon. Member’s remarks, it sounds like they have not done so. I should add that I am not aware of the details of that individual case.
To be clear, if individuals have concerns about their workplace pension scheme that relate to their employer and the running of the scheme, they should take the issue to the Pensions Regulator, which will investigate. Individuals who think that they should have been a member of a pension scheme can also go to the Pensions Ombudsman, if that makes sense. Depending on the nature of an individual’s complaint, two routes are available. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.
John Milne
I thank the Minister for his words. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 98
Regulations: general
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 99 stand part.
Government amendment 241.
Clause 100 stand part.
Torsten Bell
Clause 98 is a standard provision setting out how regulation-making powers in the Bill may be used. It confirms that all regulations will be made by statutory instrument and allows them to be tailored to different situations and scheme types. The clause ensures that the Bill can work effectively in practice.
Clause 99 sets out how regulations under the Bill will be scrutinised by Parliament, using either the affirmative or negative procedures—we were discussing a particular case relating to clause 38 just now. The clause also allows that regulations that would otherwise be subject to the negative procedure can be made as part of a joint package of regulations under the affirmative procedure.
Government amendment 241 is a technical amendment. The new provisions in chapter 1 of part 4 about changes to Northern Ireland salary-related, contracted-out pension schemes apply specifically to schemes in Northern Ireland. The rest of the provisions in chapter 1 apply to schemes in England, Wales and Scotland. Clause 100 is a standard legislative provision confirming the territorial extent of the measures in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 98 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 100
Extent
Amendment made: 241, in clause 100, page 98, leave out line 10 and insert—
“( ) Subject as follows, this Act extends to England and Wales and Scotland only.
(1A) Sections (Validity of certain alterations to NI salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: subsisting schemes) to (Powers to amend Chapter 1 etc : Northern Ireland) extend to Northern Ireland only.”—(Torsten Bell.)
This amendment secures that the new clauses inserted by NC28 to NC30 extend to Northern Ireland only. Northern Ireland has its own pensions legislation, but in view of the retrospective provisions in those new Clauses it is considered appropriate to include material in the Bill for Northern Ireland corresponding to the new clauses inserted by NC23 to NC26.
Clause 100, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 101
Commencement
Mark Garnier
I beg to move amendment 255, in clause 101, page 98, line 22, leave out “Chapters 1 and 2” and insert “Chapter 1”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 256, in clause 101, page 98, line 23, at end insert—
“(aa) Chapter 2 comes into force six months after Chapter 4 comes into force.”
Government amendments 225 to 228, 242 and 243.
Amendment 263, in clause 101, page 99, line 5, at end insert—
“(d) section [Administration levy] comes into force on 1 April 2026.”
This amendment is consequential on NC44 and would ensure the amendment to abolish the PPF administration levy should come into force on 1 April 2026 (at the start of the 2026/27 levy year).
Clause stand part.
Clause 102 stand part.
Mark Garnier
Amendments 255 and 256 relate to the value-for-money framework timeline that we discussed when we considered clause 41 on Tuesday and are related to Conservative amendment 257, which was withdrawn. When we considered amendment 278, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Tamworth, the Minister committed to consider the matter on Report, so I will not press those amendments today.
This is, however, because I think it is the last time that I will speak in this Committee—or I hope it will be—a good opportunity to thank everyone. I say a huge thank you to everyone who has worked incredibly hard: the Clerks; you, Ms Lewell, and your fellow Chairs; and all the DWP officials who have supported the Minister who, frankly, with his not inconsiderable inexperience and youth, has done a magnificent job of working in his first Bill Committee. I think we can all agree that he has a terrific future in front of him as an individual who can get stuck into really quite dry, anodyne Bills. Of course, I also thank the members of my office staff, who have worked extraordinarily hard. I had not quite realised how difficult it is to be in opposition and up against the might of the Government, but my office staff have done very well, so I thank them all very much indeed.
Kirsty Blackman
I would similarly like to offer thanks, particularly to Hansard colleagues and the other House staff who have had to put up with us. This has been a particularly well-natured Bill Committee. I appreciate that the Whip had to change during it, and I do appreciate the fact that both Government Whips had to carry the Committee a little to make sure that everything worked. I am not going to agree with how young the Minister is, although I do agree that all the Front Benchers who have spoken, as well as all the Back Benchers who have spoken, have done an excellent job. It is nice to be part of a Committee that is cross-party in that we agree on a lot of positives in the Bill, and we have also disagreed very agreeably throughout.
Unfortunately, I do not have much in the way of staff members to thank, because this has been a one-woman band. However, I very much appreciate the hard work that everybody has put in to make sure that we can ask the Government lots of questions on the Bill so that the Government can do their best to answer us, even if we do disagree with the answer sometimes.
John Milne
I feel I ought also to thank everyone, and the Minister especially for a superb performance. I think we can all agree that this is a very good Bill, with lots of really good things in it. I am particularly interested in the investment side of it, with the greater resources to invest in UK plc, which we certainly do need.
Sadly, I expect the Bill will not receive the publicity that many do—it has not been in the headlines so far—and that is a pity. Much more trivial and ephemeral stuff, frankly, gets all the headlines, while something that is interesting and dynamic, like the measures in this Bill, will probably be displaced by the latest resignation.
Torsten Bell
I thank all Opposition Members for those reflections. I will come to my own after I have dealt with the remaining clauses and amendments—we must finish the job.
On the Opposition amendments, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest for his words. I am firmly committed to writing to both him and my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, which I shall do before Report. I am glad that the hon. Member will not press his amendments on that basis.
Amendments 225, 227 and 228 address the timing of the implementation of the provisions introduced by clause 38. Amendments 225 and 227 make it clear that the relevant master trusts and GPPs will not have to comply with the scale requirement until 2030. That is a point of clarification. In response to industry concerns, elements of the provision, such as the transition pathway, can be commenced and become operable prior to the scale requirement itself being active. We are responding to those concerns, and the amendment achieves exactly that. Amendment 228 provides clarification on the asset allocation elements of clause 38 by making it clear that those requirements will fall away if not brought into force by the end of 2035. Amendment 226 provides for the commencement of new chapter 3A, which will be inserted by new clauses 12 to 17.
On amendment 263, we have just discussed the PPF admin levy question. Given what we have just discussed about new clause 44, I ask the hon. Member for Torbay not to press the amendment.
Government amendment 242 introduces a commencement provision for the new chapter 1 of part 4 of the Bill on the validity of certain alterations to salary-related contracted-out pension schemes for both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This measure means that two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent, effective pension schemes will be able to use a confirmation from their actuary obtained under this part of the Bill to validate a previous change to benefits—this is the Virgin Media discussion we had earlier today. Two months after the Bill becomes law, a previous change to benefits under an effective pension scheme will be considered valid if the scheme actually confirms that it met the legal requirements at the time of the change. This measure means that this part of the Bill will come into force two months after the Act receives Royal Assent and is a necessary accompaniment to new clauses 23 to 30.
Turning to the clauses, clause 101 is a standard commencement provision that details the timetable for bringing the Bill’s measures into operation and allowing transitional and saving provisions to ensure orderly implementation. Clause 102 is crucial, because it gives the Bill its short title. I commend those clauses to the Committee.
I will finish by adding my support to the comments made by all hon. Members about the proceedings of this Committee. I thank all hon. Members from all parties for their support—broadly—and also for their scrutiny, which is an important part of everything we do in this place. The Bill is important, but the debate around it is also important, both so that the legislation can be improved and in its own right. Such debate makes sure that issues are brought to the attention of the House and are on the record. I also thank this Chair, as well as several others, including those who have stood in at short notice at various phases of the Bill’s consideration. I am particularly grateful to one individual, and I am also grateful to the Clerks for all their work.
Most of all, I put on record my thanks to all the civil servants in the Department for Work and Pensions, His Majesty’s Treasury, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Pensions Regulator. Many of them have been working on the content of this Bill for many years, far longer than I have been Pensions Minister and, as many hon. Members have kindly reminded me, far longer than I may end up being the Pensions Minister, given the high attrition rate over the past 15 years in modern British politics. I thank them for the warning, and will take it in the way it was hopefully intended.
To be slightly worthy at the end of my speech, it is probably true that pensions legislation does not get the attention it deserves, but looking back over the 20th century, nothing was more important to the progress that this country and others made in delivering leisure in retirement. That very big win was delivered not only by productivity growth, but by Government decisions and collective decisions made by unions and their employers. The Bill goes further in that regard and, on that basis, it deserves all the coverage it gets.
Mark Garnier
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 225, in clause 101, page 98, line 24, leave out “after 31 December 2029”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 227, means that relevant Master Trusts and group personal pensions will not have to comply with the scale requirement until after 2030, but that Chapter 3 of Part 2 (including provision relating to the scale requirement, such as the application can otherwise be brought into force at any time in accordance with regulations.
Amendment 226, in clause 101, page 98, line 25, at end insert—
“(ba) Chapter 3A comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State and the Treasury jointly may by regulations appoint;”.
This amendment provides for commencement by regulations of the new Chapter referred to in the explanatory statement to NC15.
Amendment 227, in clause 101, page 98, line 30, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) Regulations under subsection (4)(b) may not provide for the following to come into force before 1 January 2030—
(a) section 38(4), in respect of the insertion of Condition 1 in section 20(1A) of the Pensions Act 2008 (Master Trusts to be subject to scale requirement);
(b) section 38(8), in respect of the insertion of section 26(7A) of that Act (group personal pension schemes to be subject to scale requirement)
(but nothing in this subsection prevents section 38 from being brought into force before that date in respect of the insertion in that Act of other provision related to that mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)).”
This amendment ensures that schemes will not be legally subject to the scale requirement before 1 January 2030. It allows, however, for provision relating to that requirement (e.g., provision around applications for approval) to be commenced before that date in anticipation of the requirement itself taking effect.
Amendment 228, in clause 101, page 98, line 34, at end insert—
“(5A) If section 38 has not been brought into force before the end of 2035 in respect of the insertion of—
(a) Condition 2 in section 20(1A) of the Pensions Act 2008 (asset allocation requirement: Master Trusts), and
(b) subsection (7B) in section 26 of the Pensions Act 2008 (asset allocation requirement: group personal pension schemes),
section 38 is repealed at the end of that year in respect of the insertion of those provisions.”
This amendment transposes and clarifies the provision currently in clause 38(16). It provides for the key provisions imposing the asset allocation requirement to fall away if they are not brought into force before the end of 2035.
Amendment 242, in clause 101, page 98, line 37, at beginning insert—
“( ) Chapter 1 of Part 4 comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
( ) Chapter 2 of”.
This amendment provides for the commencement of the new Chapter relating to the consequences of the Virgin Media case .
Amendment 243, in clause 101, page 99, line 5, after “section 96” insert
“and (Information to be given to pension schemes by employers)”.—(Torsten Bell.)
This amendment provides for the commencement of NC20.
Clause 101, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I also thank all hon. Members, Committee Clerks and officials, and our Doorkeeper team.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
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
Backbench Business
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
Non-surgical Aesthetic and Cosmetic Treatments
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered regulations for non-surgical aesthetic and cosmetic treatments.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. We are witnessing an emerging public health crisis. The cosmetic and aesthetic treatment industry is expanding rapidly, yet our laws have utterly failed to keep pace. In 2023 alone, around 7.7 million people in the UK underwent treatments and procedures, ranging from botox injections to facelifts. Every single cosmetic and aesthetic treatment or procedure is currently under-regulated, both surgical and non-surgical alike. Each year, more people undergo these treatments, and each year, more are left vulnerable to devastating complications because of a systematic failure in our legal system.
The statistics paint an indisputable picture. Without raising the baseline minimum level of clinical standards, millions across the country will continue to suffer, and some will pay with their lives. We live in a time when beauty standards are set at impossible heights. Every single day, people of all ages are bombarded, whether through social media, advertising, magazines, or messages telling them how they should look. Young women in particular are relentlessly targeted with new beauty trends, each one more unattainable than the last. Failure to follow them leaves many feeling ugly and unworthy in their own skin, but let us be clear: they are not ugly, unworthy or imperfect.
More and more people are victims of a culture that thrives on selling unattainable beauty standards. One day, you are too fat; the next, you are too skinny. Your lips are too thin, then suddenly they are too thick. Your forehead is too wrinkly. Your nose is too pointed. The list goes on and on. There is always something to make someone feel that they are not enough. The impact is undeniable. In 2020, a parliamentary report found that 61% of adults and 66% of children in the UK had negative body image.
What do people do? Many turn to cosmetic and aesthetic treatments, searching for confidence in a system that profits increasingly from their insecurity, but these so-called beauty standards do not just lightly shape how people perceive themselves; they create shame, pressure and, for some, a devastating impact on their mental health. A parliamentary report in 2022 revealed the scale of the problem: 80% of people said that negative views about their body had harmed their mental health.
As confirmed by the Mental Health Foundation, the two disorders most closely linked to poor body image are eating disorders and body dysmorphic disorder—the number of diagnoses for which are on the rise. Currently, an estimated 1.25 million people in the UK are living with an eating disorder. Between 2015 and 2021, hospital admissions for eating disorders rose by 84%, and over half of those admitted were aged 25 or younger. Body dysmorphic disorder, despite stigma and under-diagnosis, is thought to affect over 1 million people in the UK, and the true figure is almost certainly far higher. Most shocking of all, one in eight people experience suicidal thoughts and feelings because of body image concerns.
This is a crisis. More and more people across the country are suffering, and many are developing life-threating health conditions. However, the truth is that something can be done. The Mental Health Foundation found that 21% of adults said that advertising images had caused them body image concerns, and 40% of teenagers said the same about social media. Yet, right now, the cosmetic and aesthetic industry is free to advertise however it wants. Businesses can digitally alter images beyond recognition and present them as reality, and social media influencers are allowed to push cosmetic treatments straight at young people.
Currently, the Advertising Standards Authority and the Committee of Advertising Practice restrict the use of enhancements that make an image misleading and restrict cosmetic advertising from being targeted at under-18s, but that is evidently not enough. We need tougher regulations—tougher protections for young people on social media and tougher rules to stop the public being misled. The answer? Requiring all images and videos used in advertising on every platform to display a clear symbol showing if they have been digitally altered or enhanced.
That idea was first put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) in a private Member’s Bill, the Digitally Altered Body Images Bill, which sadly did not make it through all its parliamentary stages before the Dissolution of the last Parliament. That requirement, alongside stricter enforcement of the advertising ban for under-18s, would protect young people from harmful online content, expose the false promises of cowboy practitioners and help people finally see the reality behind the images.
Of course, advertising regulation changes are not the only changes that this industry is in desperate need of. Right now in the UK, anyone can perform non-surgical cosmetic and aesthetic treatments and anyone on the General Medical Council register can carry out surgical cosmetic and aesthetic procedures. We live in a regulated society, leading to a misconception on the part of many people that the industry is already regulated. After all, the rest of the medical sector is, so why would it not be? Many genuinely believe that the practitioners they visit have a medical background. They may see official-looking certificates on the wall, and they presume that the training claimed to have been completed is of the same rigorous standard as nurses and doctors go through.
The reality is that I could sign up to an online course, complete roughly 10 hours of coursework, attend two days of in-person training and call myself qualified to perform fat dissolution or botox injections. I could sign up to another course, watch a series of “specialist” videos and then be “qualified” to inject lip and dermal fillers. How on earth does watching a few videos or attending a two-day course qualify anyone to perform treatments that carry serious risks, including blindness, tissue necrosis, paralysis and even death?
If I were having a simple blood test, I would expect a nurse trained in phlebotomy to handle the needle. If I needed my appendix removed, I would expect a general surgeon to perform the operation. If I were having needles put into my face or my nose operated on, I would expect the person holding the needle or scalpel to have the medical qualifications required by the NHS, meaning specialist training and Care Quality Commission registration.
Today’s debate is about non-surgical treatments, but let us be clear: surgical procedures are also in desperate need of regulation. After my meeting with the Royal College of Surgeons, it is evident that we must tighten the rules on who is allowed to perform cosmetic and aesthetic operations, and we must amend the health and social care legislation, expanding the powers of the Secretary of State to introduce regulations on operations and making “surgeon” a protected title. I would welcome the chance to meet the Minister to discuss this further, because we must not allow non-surgical treatments to be regulated while surgical procedures are left behind.
There must be one overarching framework that encompasses all cosmetic and aesthetic treatments and procedures, and at the heart of that new framework must be a minimum baseline standard of practitioner training. The absence of such a standard has allowed low-quality, unsafe so-called clinics to spring up across the country. They decay our high streets, feed the black market with untested medication purchases and make access to dangerous treatments easier than any others in the medical sector.
These cheap, unregulated clinics, run by anyone who fancies giving aesthetics a go, are putting people’s health at serious risk. They buy cheap products that may never have been properly safety tested in order to undercut professionals with bargain prices, and it works. Young people in particular are increasingly drawn in. The clinics do not offer consultations involving discussion of alternatives or risks. They do not offer cooling-off periods. They do not adhere to safe environment standards to prevent infection. In far too many cases, someone can walk in off the street and undergo treatment on the spot, performed on a living room sofa.
What happens if something goes wrong during the treatment or afterwards? For many people, it does. In 2023, the Government-approved register for medical aesthetic treatments, Save Face, received more than 3,000 reports of complications and adverse outcomes. In July 2025, an ITV investigation revealed that more than 50% of women who had undergone non-surgical cosmetic procedures required medical assistance afterwards, with 15% requiring emergency support. Save Face confirmed that those findings matched its patient records. This demonstrates exactly what happens when unqualified practitioners are allowed to continue unchecked. People are suffering serious health complications. Many are left traumatised, and countless others never seek help at all, out of shame and stigma.
When help is required, it often falls to the NHS to provide corrective care, which costs time and money. There is currently no exact data on the costs. However, an NHS Scotland study found that over five years the average cost of correcting botched procedures and surgeries was £9,327. To put that into perspective, a study in The European Journal of Health Economics reported that the average cost of treating breast cancer is £9,450.
What do we want the Government to do? This is not a party political issue and not just a health crisis; it is an economic one, too, and is entirely avoidable. That is why regulations adopting a traffic-light system that categorises every treatment and procedure with a minimum baseline of standards is imperative: green for non-prescription treatments; amber for treatments involving prescribed medicines or that penetrate the skin; and red for surgical procedures requiring anaesthesia.
There must be clear rules. All treatments across the three categories must be performed by CQC-approved professionals, with at least professional indemnity and public liability insurance in a sterile, fit-for-purpose clinical environment. Any treatment involving prescription-only medications, such as botox or certain hormone replacement therapies for weight loss, must be performed only by a prescriber or a regulated professional with the prescriber on site at all times during the treatment.
All treatments involving injectables must be performed only by a medical professional registered with the relevant professional body, such as the Nursing and Midwifery Council or the GMC. Every consultation must include a discussion of all alternative options and potential side effects, followed by a mandatory cooling-off period before the procedure may go ahead. During this time individuals should feel under no obligation to commit, and any deposit paid should be fully refundable.
Every surgical operation currently required to be performed by anyone on the GMC register must be performed by a specialist surgeon. The United Kingdom is home to one of the best healthcare systems in the world, yet in this area we are falling dangerously short and it is time to put that right. This is not about banning or shutting down businesses, but instead must be viewed as introducing protections for patients, practitioners and public health. The Government’s announcement in July pledging to regulate was a welcome step forward, but real concerns remain about the timeframe. This cannot be a two or three-year project. The industry is growing far too fast for that and patients are suffering too frequently, with the NHS and society already paying too high a price. We need urgency and clarity, along with a firm timeframe.
Right now, because of failures in the law, the industry is instead risking lives. It preys on the vulnerable, particularly the young. It burdens the NHS and leaves countless people traumatised for life. That is the choice before us. We can allow the crisis to continue unchecked, or we can act with the urgency and courage needed to protect the public. Every day of delay is another life put at risk, and we cannot allow that to continue.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Sir Desmond. I welcome this debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing it. I agree with much of what he said, especially the issues about negative body image and the harm being done. I welcome the Government action that was announced recently. The announcement on 5 August of the forthcoming consultation and crackdown on unsafe cosmetic procedures is very welcome. The last Government did not do enough in this area, despite my pushing on one particular area of it, so I am glad that this Government are taking action. I look forward to hearing more about those actions from the Minister.
I am here because in 2022 my constituent, Jan Spivey, came to my surgery with a lot to say. She was one of those surgery appointments where someone bursts into the room. She had so much to say that I had to encourage her to take a moment to sit down. She had been campaigning for a very long time on the Poly Implant Prothèse breast implant scandal, something that I have been raising ever since on behalf of Jan, who has been so affected by this personally, and on behalf of all the women across the UK. Up to 47,000 women have been affected by the scandal. It has really opened up to me the dreadful issues of surgical and non-surgical cosmetic treatments that need to be addressed. I welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Bromsgrove about how this is about cosmetic and non-cosmetic surgery. If we do not tackle one and get the regulation right for one side of it, we will not get it right for both sides, and they are really important.
The company Poly Implant Prothèse, or PIP, was founded in France. It began distributing breast implants made from non-medical silicone, and it was later found that what had been put into the breast implants was basically mattress filler. The implants were far more likely to rupture and lead to long-term health conditions: they were found to have a 500% higher risk of rupturing or leaking and a direct link to a rare form of cancer.
In 2010, PIP pre-emptively liquidated, but between 2001 and 2010, 400,000 people globally and 47,000 people in the UK received PIP breast implants. Many of those in the UK probably received them through implant surgery in another country. In 2011, following the death of a woman from the rare cancer, the French Government recommended that 30,000 women in France seek the removal of their breast implants, and removals were carried out. A criminal trial was held, and the founder of PIP was sent to prison for four years.
In 2022, my constituent Jan came to talk to me about the health issues that she had faced as a result of these implants. She said that doctors were not listening to her. That is a pattern for both non-cosmetic and cosmetic treatments: going to the doctor, being told, “You’re an older woman; it’s menopause”—for younger women it might be ME or something else—and being written off. That is why we are discussing this matter today: for a long time women with these issues have not been listened to.
There is an accountability gap. Many of the private healthcare providers that implanted those breast implants declared themselves bankrupt but then restarted, in the same premises under a similar name. There is also a data gap, because there is no good register of who received these implants. That is also the case with many other non-cosmetic treatments. Who is receiving these treatments and who is doing them? We need to know.
In 2023, I secured a debate in the House to discuss this matter, but I felt that it was pushed aside by the responding Minister. The Minister agreed to produce implant cards with more information about the risks of having an implant put in, but did not agree to tell all the affected women what might be happening in their own bodies and why they were experiencing so many health issues—that it might be because of breast implants—or to remove them and solve the issue.
The PIP scandal is not an isolated event; it is part of a broader, systemic failure in the regulation of medical devices. Both the UK and global systems have long-standing structural weaknesses that create recurring cycles. That is why I am glad that this debate has been secured and the matter brought to the attention of the Minister. There is inadequate pre-market oversight, excessive commercial secrecy, under-researched women’s health impacts, regulatory capture, financial conflicts and poor post-market surveillance. Who are the women affected? Where are they? What is happening to them? Patient compensation mechanisms are weak, and as I have said, women are routinely not taken seriously when they raise these issues.
The key asks from the PIP campaigners are for the Minister to work with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which has absolutely failed them in this instance, and the NHS to recognise and publicise the risks associated with PIP breast implants. If there is a link between breast implants and health issues, the data should be easy to find. The Minister should urge the NHS to collect data to establish how many people have received these implants and how many have had them removed, and to proactively contact everyone affected through their GPs to give them advice. The Government should also conduct a review into the risks associated with PIP breast implants.
I welcome the fact that the Women and Equalities Committee has begun an inquiry into this matter. I hope that the Minister will look closely at the outcomes of that inquiry—I am sure she will. I would welcome the Minister meeting me and PIP campaigners—I am sure that she will find Jan as inspiring and informative as I have—to discuss what actions can be taken to right this injustice and improve the health of thousands of women.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am sure that when Jan Spivey went to see her MP, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), it was a meeting between two enthusiastic people—not just the one. It is lovely to see the hon. Lady here, having stepped away from the Northern Ireland Office, to make a contribution in today’s Backbench Business debate. This always says a lot about the individual person, and I am very encouraged to see her here. She is a friend, of course, but none the less we are very pleased to be together.
I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for highlighting this issue. As he rightly says—indeed, as everyone in this debate will say—it is of great importance, given the increasing usage of non-surgical procedures. We have all read the terrible stories of procedures gone wrong. Most of those that I am aware of are of people who went overseas. One person went to Turkey for a hair transplant—to be facetious, I probably need one very badly, but there is very little donor area around the sides of my head to help. Joking aside, people go abroad to have surgical cosmetic changes made, such as butt lifts, which I understand caused the death of one person, lip lifts, which have left some people disfigured, or breast enhancements, which unfortunately have also led to some deaths. I have tabled questions on this very issue, asking the Government to consider legislation to ensure that there is a system, a regulation or a methodology applied for those who go overseas for these procedures. There must be controls; there must be insurance; there must be a way for those procedures to happen in a safe and secure way. So many disasters have taken place, and unfortunately deaths as well.
In my Strangford constituency, so great is the concern that my local council, Ards and North Down borough council, has put up guidance on making clear choices. The council does not have responsibility for this matter—it is the Department of Health’s responsibility—but the fact that it has done that in my area tells me that the councillors have been contacted by their constituents about these issues and that they feel it is important to put up the signage with guidance on making choices. In Northern Ireland, our local councils have no responsibility for health, so the fact that the council has stepped in shows the depth of concern felt locally.
In 2022, Ards and North Down borough council, in conjunction with other councils in Northern Ireland, wrote to the Department of Health to ask for better regulation of cosmetic treatments in Northern Ireland and for a licensing scheme for non-surgical cosmetic procedures to be introduced. All those councils recognise a need to do something above and beyond what has already been done. In the absence of a licensing scheme, they strongly advise anyone thinking of having a cosmetic treatment to read the advice they have put up on the website, which lists the important considerations.
That is great for those who have considered procedures and are looking for a safe way of getting them, and for those who are trying to find the cheapest solution— I hate to say it, but more often than not, people are driven by the cost factor. That is why they go to Turkey, where these procedures are cheaper. Is there regulation? No, there is not. Should there be? Yes, there should. Those are some of the things we need to see. If there is no regulation and no built-in protection, there is a clear danger.
I am pleased, as always, to see the Minister in her place. She and I are often in the same debates; I am always one of those with questions, and she is always very helpful in trying to respond to our requests, so I look forward to her answers later on. I am also pleased to see her retaining her position in the Health and Social Care Department; that tells us all that she is a safe pair of hands, and the Government and the Prime Minister recognise that.
In 2023 alone, an estimated 7.7 million people underwent cosmetic and aesthetic procedures ranging from botox to chemical peels, fat dissolution and facelifts. They are all unregulated, and all of them can go wrong, leaving irreparable damage. That is what we need to make people aware of at all stages.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this important debate. This year, in June alone, 28 people in the north-east were left with cases of botulism from botched and unregulated botox injections. That is one of the reasons why the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, which I chair, will be holding an inquiry later this year into hair products and unregulated beauty procedures. We follow this debate with interest.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady has just reinforced the need for this debate that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and others have put forward. These procedures need to be regulated and legislated for. Rules that people can rely on for coverage and security need to be formed and put in place.
As we know, the Government-approved register for medical aesthetic treatments received more than 3,000 reports of complications or adverse outcomes linked to cosmetic procedures; 48% involved women aged between 18 and 25. I believe that is only the tip of the iceberg.
When I read this point in my research, I said to myself, “My goodness, in Northern Ireland, under-18s are allowed to access non-surgical procedures.” Children who need parental consent for a filling at the dentist do not need consent to go for lip injectables. They then have no recourse. Really? I say with great respect, Sir Desmond, that it seems idiotic that we have requirements for a dental procedure, as we should have, but nothing for cosmetic procedures or similar. It again poses a question, and we look to the Minister for a helpful response. This simply has to stop.
I know that the Government and the Minister are absolutely of the same mindset as those of us here, and have every intention of bringing in legislation. I wish to ensure that there is UK-wide legislation. My request, as always—the Minister probably knew this was coming before I got to my feet—is to ensure that we in Northern Ireland are encouraged to have similar legislation. I know councils have taken the initiative and have been to the Health Minister and Department in Northern Ireland to ensure that this happens, but a start made here could provide the initiative and the fillip needed to ensure that Northern Ireland follows quickly. If we are not legislating for the devolved Administrations, they too must have the information and the capacity to introduce legislation similar to that we hope to see here.
Further, we need to do this on a quicker timescale. I was never blessed with much patience, but I have gained it as an elected representative. I know the very procedures that we hope to push along take time, but some urgency in this matter is important. The campaign group Save Face, a register of accredited practitioners and clinics, received 136 complaints in Northern Ireland last year about injectable complications. These people have been disfigured; some may remain like that for years, and some of the effects will last for life. To have no regulation in this field seems absolutely crazy to me. It is difficult to understand why we regulate—rightly so—the fostering of animals by animal shelters and yet allow poison to be injected into a 16-year-old’s face by any Tom, Dick or Harry. My goodness. Can you believe it? It is incomprehensible.
We need to work on this issue at some pace across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I look to the Minister to ensure that regulation is introduced as a matter of urgency. I think everyone today will speak from the same Bible or hymn book, if that is the way to put it; we will all push for the same things. I am very keen to hear the Minister give us some answers on how we can prevent these life-changing consequences of a botched job from ever happening again.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing an important debate.
Cosmetic surgery can be affirming and often makes people’s lives better. Although I have some concerns about some of the beauty standards that it reinforces, as has already been mentioned, I recognise that it can transform the lives of many people, but we need to do more to make sure that it is properly regulated.
In my previous life at the General Medical Council, I remember there being concerns about how this issue was looked at. Increasingly, however, lower-level procedures are being carried out by entirely unqualified practitioners, as has been mentioned, and that is simply not safe.
We clearly need to regulate clinics in the UK, but we have also seen the rise of cosmetic surgery abroad. While that may seem cheaper, there is a real cost to “Turkey teeth”; too often, people are coming home with serious complications that the NHS then has to put right. In the four years to 2022, 324 people needed corrective operations after work carried out abroad, most often after trips to Turkey, the Czech Republic and Lithuania. The British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons— I will not use the acronym—reports that UK hospital admissions for those cases have almost doubled since 2020, with Turkey linked to eight in 10 of them. In one year, complications from cosmetic surgery carried out abroad cost the NHS about £1.7 million. That is equivalent to about £15,000 for each of those procedures; we heard earlier that it costs about £9,500 for UK-based surgery.
Behind those numbers are real tragedies. In 2019 alone, 25 British citizens lost their life after cosmetic surgery abroad. The Department of Health and Social Care is working with TikTok and clinicians to warn people of the dangers by urging them to speak to a UK doctor first, avoid package deals and check credentials. It is also licensing high-risk non-surgical treatments so that only qualified people can perform them. Those are crucial steps towards raising awareness, but consumers need to make wise decisions.
We also need to have an honest conversation about fairness. If someone chooses to have an elective procedure abroad and it goes wrong, is it right for the taxpayer to automatically pick up the bill? What responsibility do patients have? More importantly, what responsibility do the unscrupulous companies that offer such package deals have? It is a real risk.
What matters is that no one is sold a dream that ends up with painful complications in a hospital bed abroad. We must do more to ensure that people understand the risks that come with the procedures, and to ensure that people are fully informed to safely make the right decisions.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate.
With every cosmetic or surgical procedure, there are always risks, so we need our practitioners to be fully trained and experienced in the work that they do. When we think of cosmetics, we think of products that we might find on the high street, which are well tested, and sold or marketed by well-known and trusted brands. When somebody takes the next step of getting a cosmetic procedure, they need to be able to trust their practitioners in the same way that they trust those brands.
The risk of complications increases significantly, however, when the individual carrying out the procedure is not sufficiently knowledgeable or trained, and is not using regulated products or carrying out the procedure in suitable premises. That appears straightforward, but we have been waiting for some time for regulation. We also need to consider how we provide appropriate information to people who wish to receive the procedures. Normally, a licensed practitioner gives effective and clear advice.
The desire and pursuit for a perfect result is also growing, so it is perhaps no surprise that complications are increasing. Over six weeks in the summer, 38 cases of botulism were recorded in the east, east midlands and north-east. According to the UK Health Security Agency, the evidence so far suggests that all the clinics involved in those cases had used unlicensed, botox-like products. It is incredibly important to remember that such situations are not just about “botched” botox, where the results are not as expected due to an error in placement; they can cause serious medical complications. People are essentially being poisoned.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
As well as botox, I would also like to talk about the dangers of fillers. A patient in my constituency, Alice Webb, lost her life due to a procedure called a Brazilian butt lift. We owe it to her, as a Government and as a Parliament, to prevent that happening again and to protect people in this country.
Amanda Hack
The case that my hon. Friend mentions is the reason that we are all here. The pursuit of beauty enhancement should not risk somebody’s life, so regulation is very important.
The most recent cases recorded in the east midlands involve reports of patients experiencing difficulty in swallowing, slurred speech and breathing difficulties requiring respiratory support. Given there have been 38 incidents in just a few weeks, we can imagine the countless cases across the country over the last few years. That is why regulation is crucial. I am pleased that our Government are beginning to act and have confirmed the introduction of a licensing scheme, and that, according to Ministers, that is just the beginning. I am sure that the Minister will talk more about the regulation.
I wonder whether we need to break away from the term “cosmetic”. Having a cosmetic procedure is so much more than using a favourite moisturiser or serum; it is a serious procedure that should be carried out by a qualified individual. When I speak to salons in my constituency that provide these procedures, they want to see regulation in place because they are proud of the work that they do for people and of their clients’ results. They want to make sure that people have good experiences rather than the negative ones that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) mentioned.
Licensing will be important to ensure the consistency of standards and to protect individuals from the potentially harmful physical, emotional and psychological impacts of poorly performed non-surgical cosmetic procedures. I would like to hear from the Minister how the regulation and enforcement will happen. Will support be given to the local authorities asked to undertake that work?
I also look forward to the report by the Women and Equalities Committee on its current inquiry into the health impacts of breast implants and other cosmetic procedures. After the regulations are passed, I will write to each salon in my constituency to update them of the changes and hopefully reassure them that their skills and professional qualifications are not being pushed aside by unlicensed practitioners who take advantage of vulnerable people.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond, and to take part in a debate where all the contributions have been so thoughtful. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing the debate and making an excellent speech about not only regulation, but the wider issues of negative body image, advertising, eating disorders and other medical conditions that we should consider as part of this debate.
As we have heard, non-surgical aesthetic and cosmetic treatments have become increasingly popular, including, but not restricted to, lip fillers, injectables, thread lifts, semi-permanent make up, laser treatments, piercing and tattoos. While there is a registration scheme in England for some treatments, such as epilation, tattooing, piercings, semi-permanent make up and acupuncture, some of the riskier and newer types of procedure are not within the scope of the current regulatory regime.
People paying for a procedure need to be confident that the person carrying out that procedure is appropriately qualified. Currently, there is no single system to ensure that that is the case. Distressing reports of lives shattered by botched cosmetic treatments—tragic cases such as that of Alice Webb, whose buttock augmentation procedure, as we have heard, was carried out by someone with no surgical qualifications—must drive meaningful change in how we approach aesthetic and cosmetic treatments.
It is crucial that anyone carrying out invasive treatment is properly licensed and meets high standards of safety. There are too many instances where that is not the case. I was horrified to read in The Guardian a story about a lady in Leeds who booked into a clinic to get something called an endolift procedure, a laser treatment that works by inserting a thin micro-optical wire deep into the skin layer and is used to boost collagen and melt little pockets of fat. She had visited the clinic before for other cosmetic treatments and thought that she was in safe hands, but she was not. After paying £100 for what looked like a good deal, she was administered a counterfeit version of the procedure, which normally costs around £2,000. It has left her with intense facial bruising and she describes herself as “maimed”.
The BBC reported on another horrifying case of a lady in Hull, who arranged more than 30 separate treatments at a clinic, including a breast filler procedure and facial fillers. She thought she had done her due diligence by checking the clinic’s reputation; its website claimed it had
“won Best Aesthetics Clinic in Yorkshire in 2022 at the England Business Awards”
and referred to the man who saw her as a doctor. He was actually a former tattoo artist who had bought an honorary doctorate in business consultancy on the internet. After multiple facial procedures, her face kept swelling, with this apparent doctor claiming that it was from an insect bite and urging her to continue. Eventually she needed hospital treatment, with plastic surgeons confirming that she had undergone botched procedures and suffered a subsequent infection, leading to the difficulties she was experiencing. More than two years later, she claims that she sees “a gargoyle” when looking at herself, and lives in a “nightmare every single day”.
Multiple other complaints have been made about the same clinic, all from people who were under the impression that the clinical director was a licensed medical professional. It is unacceptable that this could have happened. There is no mandatory licensing for those providing potentially dangerous treatments such as dermal fillers and botulinum toxin, as we have heard, while highly risky treatments such as the Brazilian butt lift are frequently administered by individuals with little or no training.
While a small handful of areas across England have introduced their own licensing schemes, including London, Nottingham and Essex, other under-resourced local authorities rely on a fragmented hodgepodge of byelaws, statutes and tangential regulations to try to regulate practitioners in their area. Many lack the resources to provide effective regulation. Can the Minister reassure us in her closing remarks that, if local authorities are to carry out any new scheme, they will be adequately resourced to do so?
Loopholes remain even for surgical procedures. For instance, any doctor on the GMC register can legally perform cosmetic surgery in the private sector, regardless of whether they have the relevant surgical training. Complex procedures such as liposuction are being performed by non-surgeons and potentially in non-clinical environments. That is without doubt a huge risk to patient safety. As things stand, not only are consumers being placed at risk of life-changing difficulties, but the NHS—and therefore the taxpayer—is footing the bill to pick up the pieces when things go wrong.
I have heard it asserted that any standardised regulation or licensing is somehow an impediment to people’s choice and self-expression, but I am sure that a lack of safety is not a crucial part of the appeal of getting these procedures done. If we do not act now, many more people will face unwanted, irreversible, life-changing and even life-threatening consequences.
It is notable that 90% of people working in the industry who were surveyed in 2020 support a new licensing regime. They know, as do the public, that no one benefits from the current arrangement other than those who want to cut corners and ignore their duty of care to clients. The Liberal Democrats therefore support organisations such as the Royal College of Surgeons in calling for a licensing scheme for non-surgical cosmetic procedures, such as lip filling and liquid enhancements. It is astonishing that one is not already in place.
The last Government consulted on a mandatory licensing scheme for non-surgical cosmetic procedures, but it has never been implemented. Minimum standards of safety, including training and premises that are clinically safe, are simple, basic steps that can make a huge difference. I welcome the Government’s announcement that they will be consulting on bringing forward new legislation to tackle this issue. We urge them to do so as soon as possible, and they will have our support to ensure a robust and speedy implementation of regulations.
In closing, I also draw the Minister’s attention to the issue of data collection on cosmetic procedures. There is no systematic collection of data on treatments and their outcome, even for the most invasive treatments. That makes it incredibly hard—or even impossible—for consumers or the Government to assess the risks associated with cosmetic procedures or what licensing changes might be needed. I urge the Minister to address this issue as the consultation progresses. As I have said, the Government will have our support in introducing a suitable licensing regime.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important and increasingly pressing issue. I also thank the hon. Members for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) and for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), who all made important contributions.
A report by the British Beauty Council showed that spending on non-surgical cosmetic treatments totalled £10.1 billion last year. That includes the 900,000 botox injections that are performed in the UK each year, and other non-surgical procedures, which continue to grow exponentially in popularity. We are not talking about a minor issue here; this is a multibillion-pound industry, which is snowballing at breakneck pace.
Yet this sector remains dangerously unregulated. Although there are training standards, such as the national occupational standards for practitioners in beauty aesthetics, there is no legislative framework to require all practitioners to meet those standards. As a result, some practitioners are not only unlicensed, but unqualified and inadequately insured to perform the procedures they are performing. We cannot sit back and allow patients of these procedures to entrust their safety to unlicensed cowboys profiting from the lack of regulation. It is time to call an end to this wild west free-for-all, and give patients in this industry, and the responsible operators, the protection they need and deserve.
To that end, I am delighted that the previous Government kick-started this process, first by banning cosmetic fillers for under-18s in England under the Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Act 2021. That was followed by the Health and Care Act 2022, which gave Ministers the power to tighten regulations by introducing a new licensing regime. The current Government are slowly and finally getting into gear on that scheme, but when do they expect to implement this protection as a matter of public safety? What steps will be taken to raise awareness of new regulations to improve public confidence in the non-surgical cosmetic sector as these measures are introduced?
Of the 27,462 procedures performed and recorded by the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons in 2024, approximately 93% were performed on women. Young women aged 18 to 25 years old also made up 48% of the 3,000 complaints to Save Face, a Government-approved register of medical aesthetic practitioners. That means that the Government’s failure to get on and implement regulations in this sector is disproportionately affecting a vulnerable group to a significant degree.
Furthermore, the governing voice in this area is social media, again, disproportionately placing the burden of risk on younger people. Researchers at the University of Edinburgh interviewed female Instagram users aged 18 to 30. All of them had undergone, or hoped to undergo, cosmetic surgery, and all of them looked to Instagram influencers for information about cosmetic procedures. With nine in 10 children owning a mobile phone by the time they reach 11, and 75% of eight to 17-year-olds having their own social media account, there is a real danger that our children and grandchildren could be exposed to cosmetic surgery at a young age, unaware of the risks of a cheap bodily enhancement.
Mental health struggles and body image challenges are unfortunately well documented, with almost 850,000 children accessing NHS mental health services in June 2025, and two in three children feeling negative or very negative about their body image, according to a survey commissioned by the Women and Equalities Committee from 2020. Social media, combined with heightened self-scrutiny on video calls since the pandemic, has sadly cast the way in which young people view themselves in an increasingly negative light. As such, the cosmetic surgery “boom”—as termed by the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, following a 102% rise in procedures in 2022—is alarming but unsurprising.
A failed procedure can have potentially life-threatening repercussions, and an unlicensed practitioner’s lack of training, skills and experience significantly increases the risk of failure. We owe it to the livelihoods of patients, who are predominantly young women, to improve the safety of non-surgical cosmetic procedures as much as we can. Governments are there not to stifle growth and innovation—the kind that creates jobs, rewards entrepreneurship and helps businesses to grow—but to protect the interests of British citizens in times of need. This is one of those times. The safety, and even the lives, of consumers are at risk if we do not act.
With that in mind, will the Government commit to swiftly implementing a licensing framework to combat such life-threatening risks? Furthermore, the problem in this area is precisely that unlicensed practitioners carrying out procedures are operating under the radar. How do the Government intend to support local authorities to actively and effectively enforce the licensing framework, to ensure that such practitioners are prevented from operating on patients in backroom shadows?
The number of complaints from patients with failed non-surgical cosmetic procedures shows no sign of plateauing. Again, I refer to the figures from Save Face, which received almost 3,000 complaints in 2022, 35% more than in 2020. Complaints about dermal fillers—treatments to add volume, typically to smooth out wrinkles or enhance facial definition—made up almost 70% of that figure.
As we debate this matter today, let us remember the enormity of the influence we are privileged to have. When they go wrong, cosmetic procedures can be life-changing for all the wrong reasons. I urge the Government to accelerate the licensing framework for non-surgical cosmetic procedures and treatments—therefore requiring practitioners to be licensed, qualified and insured—for the sake of public safety and the sake of saving lives.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing today’s debate on this important issue, and other Members for their contributions. This is an area of significant interest to colleagues, and indeed the public.
I think this may the first time the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) has spoken formally for the Opposition, so I congratulate her on that, and I wish her colleague, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), well. She made the point that we had been slow. Let me make the point gently back to her that this is an issue I inherited and that, as people will know if they have read Lord Darzi’s report—if they have not, I really commend it to them—both the breadth and the depth of the inheritance for me and my colleague, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, is sometimes beyond description.
I was therefore determined to make progress on this issue, and was absolutely delighted to be able to announce in August that we will, as a Government, step in to regulate in this space. As colleagues will know, doing a press round on an August morning is often not the highlight of everyone’s day, but I was humbled by the responses from families, journalists and campaigners—those women who have shared their stories over many years. I pay tribute to many of them, particularly lots of young women journalists who have taken those stories and told them so powerfully.
The response to that announcement, and the interaction with journalists, was humbling. Indeed, it was a pleasure to make those announcements in my home city of Bristol, where some surgeons have been campaigning on this issue for 20 years, and for them to see what has happened and that the Government are prepared to move in. We are really aware of this issue, and I thank hon. Members for the cross-party support for us moving in this area. We have all seen those troubling headlines about the devastating consequences of unsafe cosmetic practices, and all our inboxes have been inundated by constituents who rightly expect us to make things safer. I am grateful to those who have shared their stories about what can go wrong and who have pushed for action.
I have particular concern for parents who are worried by what their children see on social media, as we have heard this afternoon: young women and girls who are made to feel unhappy in their own bodies by what they see online and feel the need to go through risky and unregulated procedures to ease their concerns. Also as we have heard this afternoon, people think the industry is regulated and are shocked to find out that it is not
The Government of course back small businesses. We recognise the benefits that the industry brings to people and communities. I am also mindful that the sector is full of female entrepreneurship. It is an industry led by women, largely for women, and is a success story to be celebrated, especially in the face of fierce competition from medical tourism. Getting a cosmetic procedure can be a very positive experience—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) and others. The sector is growing to meet a demand, as more and more people seek to take advantage of the increasing availability and affordability of cosmetic treatments. That is a good thing, but for too long the sector has been left with little in the way of safeguards. We need to balance the priority of public safety without stifling creativity and innovation.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) made some excellent points. She visits salons to talk to women—there might also be an occasional man running one of those salons, and we want to work with them, too. She talks to them so that she is informed. I encourage her and others to keep sharing views from the frontline, because people want to do a good job and we are keen to hear from them.
So what are we doing? First, we will prioritise developing legal restrictions on high-risk cosmetic procedures, as we outlined in last month’s response to the consultation. I urge anyone listening to this debate to look at “The licensing of non-surgical cosmetic procedures in England”. High-risk procedures include the so-called liquid Brazilian butt lift, which tragically led to the death of Alice Webb in September last year. Her Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), has been talking to me about these issues since he became a Member.
Bringing the restricted high-risk procedures into the Care Quality Commission’s scope of registration will mean procedures being performed only by suitably qualified, regulated healthcare professionals working for providers who are registered with the CQC. We will come down like a ton of bricks on providers who flout the rules, with tough enforcement from the CQC.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove raised a really important point about qualifications. He is right that it is currently far too easy for someone with minimal or no training to set themselves up as a practitioner. We will introduce a local authority licensing scheme in England for lower-risk cosmetic procedures such as botox and lip fillers. This was widely supported by many people who responded to the 2023 consultation started by the last Government on the scope of licensing. That consultation received over 11,800 responses. Licensing will ensure consistency of standards and allow action to be taken against practitioners who fail to comply with the requirements. All practitioners will be required to meet rigorous safety training and insurance standards.
Local authorities will run and enforce the scheme, under which it will be an offence for anyone to carry out specific non-surgical procedures without a licence. I understand the excellent points made by many Members about local authorities. It will be an offence for anyone to carry out procedures without a licence. If the rules are breached, businesses risk fines or financial penalties. Detailed proposals will be set out in the consultation in the new year, which will seek views from local authorities on suitable enforcement powers and costs. Many hon. Members here who are experienced in local authorities know that we need to do that carefully with them. We also understand that that will add to local government’s workload, so we will work with them closely to understand what support, training and resources are required as we try to strike the right balance and ensure that councils have enough time to prepare and implement proposals safely across England and to swiftly protect public safety. That will be an ongoing discussion as we go through the next stage of the process.
Licensing will allow people to be confident that the practitioner they choose to perform their procedure has the skills to do so safely. For those in the sector who do the right thing, as so many do, this will protect their businesses and position them as trusted providers in a regulated market.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove also warns about so-called lower-risk procedures falling through the gap. I can assure him and other hon. Members present that we will work closely with all our partners on where we should set the bar to make ensure that the measures we introduce to protect the public encompass all necessary procedures, and that all legislative safeguards are proportionate and informed by a careful evaluation of risk. As I said, we will prioritise action against the highest-risk procedures first. We look forward to setting out the changes in a detailed public consultation early next year.
In terms of the impact of regulation, I want to make it clear that this is not about stopping people from getting treatments altogether; it is about preventing the cowboys, the crooks and the chancers from exploiting people. We want to support legitimate and safe businesses to continue to provide treatments while, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, saving taxpayers from footing the bill when things go wrong.
I began my remarks by talking about societal pressures and the influence of social media. Children and young people can be particularly vulnerable to concerns around body image. The Advertising Standards Authority places a particular emphasis on protecting young and vulnerable people. In 2022, new rules came into effect across all media, including social media, banning ads for cosmetic procedures being directed at under-18s.
To meet the challenges of regulating online, the ASA has rebalanced its regulation away from reactive complaints casework and towards proactive tech-assisted gathering, monitoring and enforcement, using artificial intelligence to proactively search for problematic adds and ensure that children are not being influenced by inappropriate and irresponsible marketing.
Choosing to go through a cosmetic procedure is a serious decision, which requires a level of maturity to undertake an informed consideration of the risks and benefits. That is why many procedures should never be performed on children who are still developing physically and emotionally. In England, it is already illegal to give botox or fillers for cosmetic reasons to under-18s unless it is done by a qualified healthcare professional and approved by a GMC-registered doctor. We want to extend this level of protection, and will be introducing further age restrictions on a range of cosmetic procedures.
This is a UK-wide issue, and it is good to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his place. I thank him for his kind words. I can assure him and others that we are working closely with the devolved Governments to understand and share information on approaches being taken across the country. We are pleased that Scotland is also considering similar information, and I have been really encouraged, in my conversations with officials, to learn about the relationship between our officials and the shared learning that is going on with colleagues in Scotland. This is a really complex area and it is changing all the time, with new things coming on board.
The changes we make will affect livelihoods, and it is essential that we get the balance right, given that we know that people are at risk and the sector is expanding. Government action must be proportionate to protect public safety without restricting the legitimate activities of those businesses. We want to collect data, gather more evidence and give businesses their say through the public consultation. That will take time, but we will leave no stone unturned and work tirelessly with expert partners and people across the sector. The proposals will be taken forward through secondary legislation, and therefore subject to parliamentary process in the usual way before legal restrictions or licensing regulations can be introduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) raised an issue around implants. She has been a fantastic campaigner for her constituent, Jan Spivey. I know that she has been in touch with my hon. Friend about that, and has played a key role in ensuring that this issue, along with others, received due parliamentary attention in previous Parliaments when women raised the issue. I myself am due to appear before the Women and Equalities Committee, which has an interest in this issue and PIP. We will certainly want to work with them and await the outcome of their review, to see whether any further work is needed in that area.
I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove for raising such a vital issue and all hon. Members for their contribution. Due to different things happening in London, many parliamentarians who would have liked to be here this afternoon cannot. The hon. Gentleman did excellently by getting in early after the announcement.
It is our duty in this place to protect people like Alice Webb from unqualified practitioners who cut corners, while backing British businesses that do the right thing. This is something we take seriously. Colleagues will want to hold us to account as we deliver, and I give hon. Members my commitment that we want to work with colleagues as we develop these regulations. We want to get them right, and that will take time. This is complex, as people understand. I look forward to working with colleagues to make this a success.
Bradley Thomas
I am grateful to hon. Members from across the House for attending. First and foremost in my mind remain Jan, Alice and anyone who has had a treatment that has gone wrong or, in Alice’s case sadly, been fatal.
I put on record my thanks to a constituent of mine, Nicky Robinson, who first brought this issue to my attention, around 12 months ago. Nicky is a CQC-accredited nurse and practitioner. She summed it up to me when she visited my surgery and said, “This is not about banning; this is about raising the baseline clinical standard, not just to protect patients but to protect the industry as a whole.” That is the fundamental point we have to bear in mind. We do not want to be in a society that prevents people from having treatments; we want to enable people to have whatever treatments they want in as safe a way as possible.
Let me acknowledge a few contributions from hon. Members. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) talked about Jan and the crisis that has taken place with regard to implants. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the importance of ensuring that any regulations apply throughout the United Kingdom, not just in England. The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) talked about the cost to the NHS. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) talked about confidence in practitioners and highlighted the horrific cases of botulism in the midlands and the north-east. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) emphasised the fact that most in the industry want there to be a standard that protects them, so that they can be confident that people who come to see them are not questioning whether the procedure will be conducted in a clinically safe way.
I am grateful to the Minister for responding. This is one topic that will not go away; it is only going to be on the increase, particularly as societal concerns around body image are exacerbated by the continued use of social media. When the Government introduce a regime around these treatments, it is critical that we work closely with local authorities, so that they have the confidence to administer it properly, with a baseline level of consistency across the country. We must be careful not to place burdens on local authorities that they cannot or do not have the confidence to enforce.
As the Government consult on this issue in the new year, the whole industry will be holding their feet to the fire. Although they have to go through a period of consultation, I encourage the Minister and the Government to work at the utmost pace to get whatever baseline level of clinical standard in place as swiftly as possible, so that we can give confidence not just to industry but to society at large.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered regulations for non-surgical aesthetic and cosmetic treatments.
Consumer Affairs
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered consumer affairs.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. You will be familiar with the expression “knowing the price of everything, but the value of nothing”. Perhaps that was yesteryear, or possibly yesterday, but today I want to say this. UK consumers are now living in a land of confusion; nothing is what it seems. In fact, a staggering 82% of the British public feel that they are paying more but getting less. Products are not what they were, and services are not all they seem. Prices are not even the same between the same company’s stores—and whether in store or online, the advent of new technologies, such as algorithmic pricing, brings further opacity.
Let me turn to a simple item. Every day, so many individuals get a meal deal, and they might get a bag of crisps in that meal deal. I opened up one of those bags of crisps just the other day and I found 20 crisps in a bag of crisps that cost a pound. That filled just 40% of the volume of the bag. When I put in for the debate, I said to colleagues in the Chamber, “When did you last try to book a flight? Don’t tell me: when you went on the portal, you looked up the flight and it said, ‘Just two flights remaining!’” Everyone just smiled at me. They knew exactly what I was talking about. We are just about to check out on that flight and, woah, the price has just increased. Products are packaged so that we cannot see or gauge the contents. Labelling is deliberately so opaque that we are not aware of the true contents.
Today, I will argue that British consumers are getting a raw deal. They feel they are being ripped off—they know it. How many times have I listened to supermarket chief executives saying that the consumer wants choice, while at the same time those companies make any choice comparison virtually impossible? I am not even talking apples and oranges; I am talking about comparing oranges with oranges or apples with apples. It is all produce that would be bought by weight, but it is often sold by quantity instead, and the sizes vary. Some things are priced per kilo; others, in adjacent baskets, are sold per 100 grams. Mental maths is needed, but why?
We have not even got to quality. Elsewhere we see products that are wrapped and labelled, so we cannot see the entire contents, as they are partially masked, and there are products that shrink and shrivel in size from one year to the next. Brands are happy to exclaim when they promote something with 10% or 20% extra free, but they never tell us when they have shrunk the product by 10%, 20% or 30% or when they have made changes to the quality of the ingredients. Of course we have regulators, but if we ask any consumer, they will tell us that nobody is standing up for them. For years, we have lived in Rip-off Britain, and it is time that the Government appointed a consumer champion.
In the time I have, I want to focus on the grocery sector, supermarkets and other retailers’ variable, opaque or misleading pricing strategies, and other sectors too. I will also consider the practice of dynamic and algorithmic pricing and subscription traps, before turning to the regulatory landscape. I could also talk about water bills, insurance premiums and so many other sectors, but let me start with groceries, because of course they are one of the main constituents of every household’s cost of living.
In June 2025 in a survey by Which?, 94% of people cited the price of their food shop as the reason for their cost of living increasing. According to the same research organisation, trust in the food and grocery sector has fallen to the lowest level in 12 years. The Food Standards Agency said in its research that 91% of consumers were concerned about food prices.
We are talking about products packaged so that we cannot see their contents and labelling deliberately so opaque that we are not aware of the contents. Other constituents complain about shrinkflation. Indeed, a Which? survey in 2023 found that a huge 77% of shoppers have noticed shrinkflation in their shops—products getting smaller while the price creeps up or even rockets. Fast-moving consumer goods are an obvious area. You cannot imagine the years when I was growing up, Dame Siobhain, but back then a Mars Bar was pretty sizeable. If we look at one today, and it is the same with a bar of Dairy Milk, the size is a fraction of what it was.
Matt Western
There are other products available, Dame Siobhain, but I will not give an entire list of them. Whatever someone’s guilty pleasure is, though, the products that they have grown up with and loved are not what they were.
Even tubes of toothpaste in boxes, despite appearing to be a similar size to the product bought a few months ago or a couple of years ago—whenever it was—have been reduced in size from 100 ml to 75 ml. Pats of butter were 250 grams when I was growing up. Then they were reduced to 225 grams and now they are 180 grams. Then there are packets of digestive biscuits; I think we are all familiar with those. I will not go into particular brands, but they were recently reduced in size from 433 grams to 400 grams, with no indication that they had been reduced, other than a discreet numeric tucked away on the packaging, where it cannot be found. Whatever the product, the same applies.
Of course, nearly all of us rely on supermarkets for our groceries, but we are not happy. In 2023, Which? conducted a survey of more than 2,000 UK adults and found that two thirds of them felt that supermarkets were ripping people off through the prices in their convenience stores, which are often more expensive than the larger stores and rarely stock budget items at all.
Every year for four years in my constituency of Warwick and Leamington, I have been buying a basket of products in a supermarket’s in-town store and its out-of-town store, in order to compare the prices. The two stores are owned by the same company: it happens to be Tesco, but I have also just done it for Sainsbury’s as well. I wanted to see what the discrepancies were by buying the mainstream, everyday products that households depend on. I am sure that I could also talk about Morrisons, Aldi, Asda or whatever supermarket it may be; I do not mean to simply identify the two supermarkets that I mentioned before.
I buy the products within an hour of each other on the same day, so that no one can say, “Oh well, it was a different day,” or, “It was a different delivery,” or whatever it might be. I also do my own market research. The price discrepancies are shocking and appear arbitrary. The worst case was a bottle of wine that was 60% more expensive in the Tesco Metro store versus Tesco’s own superstore. That is incredible but true.
There are other examples. Sainsbury’s sells the identical bleach in its express store for a 38% mark-up on the price in its main store, and it adds a premium of up to 11% for basic items such as cornflakes, eggs and biscuits. As I say, Tesco was no better, as it charged an additional 39% for apples in its Metro store and 27% more for bananas. At £3.20, a pat of butter was 64% more expensive in the express store in the heart of Leamington, right in the centre of the town, than in the superstore, which is not a mile away, where it was £1.95.
I will leave you with one key fact, Dame Siobhain. As I said, 94% of people recognise that groceries are a major driver of their cost of living inflation. I wanted to look at the same basket, going back in time. In 2021, the basket that I bought then cost £28. Four years on— today—it costs £38, which is £10 more expensive from a base of £28. These findings from the last four years are substantiated by Which? research. It found that three quarters—75%—of consumers said that they find the price of convenience store food too expensive compared with the price in larger supermarkets, and nearly half—45%—struggle to find affordable food in convenience stores.
On the Business and Trade Committee, we recently held an inquiry into this issue and we asked retailers about these price differentials. They cited the different cost base for their operations. I used to work in business; I worked in a corporate for 24 years. Of course, I appreciate that there is a different cost base, but the same logic could be applied to a rural store or a small town store versus a major town store, or we could compare a different cost base between the north of the country and the south of the country, or between different regions.
I appreciate that rents and labour costs vary, as do disposable incomes and weekly expenditure. When we put that to the supermarkets, Sainsbury’s said it charges
“a slight premium to reflect the increased cost”.
That “slight premium” is on average 8%, but I gave the example of 60% for a bottle of wine and the huge mark-up of 64% on a pat of butter. These are everyday products. I do not buy the supermarkets’ argument. First, they never used to differentiate between stores decades ago; there was a national price. Secondly, there is a big social injustice here. More often than not, those stores are the only choice for the elderly and infirm, or for students and others who do not have easy access to good public transport or affordable private mobility. One constituent wrote to me last week and said:
“I am someone who is affected by the inflated price of food and goods in Tesco Metro, The Parade, Leamington Spa. This is my local shop which is the easiest one for me to access. I consider it wrong that I have to pay more than if I shopped at the big superstore in Warwick. I am a pensioner on a limited income so every penny counts.”
Let me look further into opaque pricing. The Competition and Markets Authority in 2023 found that supermarkets allow “unhelpful inconsistencies”. I suggest that it is incredibly helpful for the big retailers, who confuse and perhaps manipulate consumers. I recognise that the Price Marking Order 2004 has recently been updated to address some of these problems, and the CMA and trading standards should take necessary enforcement action when they are presented with evidence of misleading pricing practices. As I understand it, from next April we will see improved industry practices, so that comparisons are much easier and enforcement action is taken against businesses that are not compliant. These big brands are built on trust, but they have all the power versus the consumer.
It is not just groceries or supermarkets; in any shop, products may be plastered with “was” and “now” labels, claiming discounts. The same Which? investigation in June this year uncovered questionable and dodgy pricing tactics at Sports Direct that it alleges may break the law. Researchers analysed the prices of 160 different products sold on the Sports Direct website and found examples where the savings suggested by the higher reference point—the recommended retail price—did not appear genuine. For 58 of the 160 products, Which? found no retailer selling them at or above the Sports Direct reference price. Under existing consumer law, Sports Direct could therefore be involved, as I understand it, in misleading actions.
Elsewhere, Which? found electronics retailers using sneaky “was…now” pricing practices that mislead shoppers by exaggerating discounts. In an analysis of televisions sold by major UK retailers, more than half—56% of cases —had a “was” price that was not the most recent price charged before the promotion, which can create the illusion of bigger discounts than in reality. As a result of those misleading pricing strategies, Which? researchers found that 84% of consumers do not trust these claims.
It is not just about products; it is in the services sector as well. Turning to tickets and bookings, dynamic pricing exploits consumers. There is pressure at checkout and no transparency about what is happening, be it trains, hotels, airlines or gigs. I mentioned flights earlier, and talked about the “two seats left”. Airlines argue that what they are doing is in keeping with demand, but I argue that they seek to confuse consumers.
How many of us, maybe in the last few months, have tried to book a summer holiday? We think we have booked the luggage and x, y, z, but it is not clear. We are pressured into buying more luggage capacity and into additional expenditure. The same applies to hotels, which always have “three rooms left”. We start the process and then the price changes at checkout. It has happened to me, and I am sure to everyone who is watching this debate. The most egregious examples have been flight tickets to major football matches. Back in 2019, a flight to Madrid was typically £50. As soon as the champions league final was announced, it surged to £750 to £1,000 for a seat. Fans rightly described that as shameless greed.
The same applies to tickets for gigs. There was a huge public outcry at the seedy scam, just last summer, that was Oasis and Ticketmaster. Ticketmaster also came before the Select Committee. Which? saw evidence that fans were shown one ticket price when they were queuing for tickets, only to have that price taken away at the last second and replaced with a far higher, unexpected ticket price when the page reloaded. However, the consumer was committed; they had spent an hour or longer on the system, and the system knew it. We could say, “Computer says yes”, but at twice the price or more. In one example, the cost of standing tickets, originally advertised to the consumer for £148.50, surged to £337.50 each due to in-demand pricing. That meant that four standing tickets could cost an eye-watering £1,400, once service and order-processing fees were included.
I turn to subscription traps. We have all been stuck in unwanted subscriptions, and I am happy that the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 has given new rights to consumers. Too many are trapped in subscriptions, and it will help to ease that burden. I am proud that the Labour Government are being proactive, with a consultation on subscriptions that closed in February. I ask the Minister, however, what assessment has the Department made of the responses thus far? I urge him to do all he can to back consumers against unscrupulous firms that use those subscription models.
Why does all this matter? Products on the shelves are being deliberately presented in a misleading way. It is becoming a wild west for consumers, and I fear that things will only get worse with real-time pricing changes, for example, through electronic price labels on shelves. Ultimately, there is a power imbalance between big brands and consumers, because the brands and retailers have the data. I would argue that they are profiteering while vulnerable people are being exploited; trust is at a record low. It seems that the CMA is not doing enough for consumers and trading standards are under-resourced.
I will talk briefly about some recommendations that are both simple and complex. There are specific reforms that we can introduce, and they are championed, for example, by Which?. They include a new ban on using dynamic pricing to increase a price once a transaction has begun. The Government could also make life easier for consumers by ensuring that shops display clear and consistent unit pricing to allow people to make a more informed choice. Greater responsibility could be moved to national regulators for the most complex businesses operating nationally. Strategic regional and national hubs could be created with a critical mass of resources and expertise to tackle local crime and to proactively address consumer harms.
Trains and train tickets are another example. A constituent wrote that there should
“be limits introduced on maximum pricing—for example for people going to work, it is just stupid pricing and is pricing people out of commuting.”
His dad used to travel from Leamington to London every day for work in the ’80s and ’90s, but that is no longer affordable. He suggests scrapping peak fares on nationalised trains, and it is interesting that in recent days, Scotland appears to have announced that it is looking to do that.
I also ask the Minister to consider banning dynamic pricing in certain sectors where the market conditions lead to time pressure and a power imbalance. Perhaps more simply, I ask for trading standards to be given more funding and more officers to investigate. The CMA needs to use its power to investigate with vigour, so it also needs additional resourcing. There are clear laws in place to prevent consumers from being ripped off in this way, and the CMA and trading standards should take the necessary enforcement action when they are presented with evidence of misleading pricing practices, but we need someone on the side of consumers to call out rip-offs, scams and basic profiteering. I want to introduce the idea of a consumer champion who has the power to call out those rip-offs and to stand up on behalf of consumers against big business.
In conclusion, I want to see a Government who are more on the side of the consumers. Of course we need successful businesses, but there is such a big power imbalance right now and it is only going to get worse. Unscrupulous firms are profiteering while consumers are getting ripped off and do not trust businesses. We need to bring order back to a chaotic market, so consumers have more information and are more empowered. We need to rebalance the asymmetry that exists between consumers and businesses. The Government should urgently look at what legislative reforms they can introduce to provide greater protections for consumers, because constituents all too often get a raw deal while firms profiteer.
We must make change, and we could make it quickly. We need to stand up more for consumers by saying no to clear profiteering, the shrinking of basic elements, price gouging and dodgy pricing strategies, and yes to transparent prices, fair markets and the trusted brands that we all used to know and love. We need someone to stand up and be on the consumer’s side. We need a consumer champion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I can see they are doing so, which is good.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. It has been a while since you chaired Westminster Hall; it is always a pleasure to see you and I wish you well. I thank the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for leading the debate; he is right to highlight all the issues, as well as the examples in relation to his shopping.
I am a diabetic, so I should not be having chocolate, but the odd time that I do, I notice that there are fewer M&M’s in the bag and that a Flake is shorter, smaller and thinner than it was. That probably applies to all the others too, because the price of chocolate and other ingredients has risen. I understand the logic: to keep products at the same price, what is in the bag needs to be restricted.
That is an example of where consumer rights can come into play. Consumer rights are incredibly important, and I have no doubt that we have all had complaints from constituents in some capacity or other involving purchases. It is good to be here to discuss the issue and to make people aware of their rights.
I welcome the Minister to his place and wish him well in all he does. His appointment is a recognition of his ability and interest in the Chamber and outside. He and I share many of the same interests, including human rights and religious persecution. His new role is different from that, but I congratulate him on it.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington referred to flights. I will be getting a flight—hopefully tonight—from London City to Belfast City. It happened to be the cheapest flight, which is the reason why we took it. We usually go from Heathrow. There are occasions when there are only two places left and the price is £640—that happens. Believe it or not, a flight that could be £200, £300 or £400 on one day, could be £640 on another day. We have no choice, because if we do not fly home, we will not get home—the options are very limited.
What about everybody else? One time I made a complaint and asked an urgent question in the Chamber on it. We all turned up for a flight at Belfast City airport, but it had been cancelled three weeks previously. Guess what: it was still showing on the board, we were cleared through security, and we had the boarding passes, but it was a non-existent flight. It was only when we got to the other side that we suddenly found out there was no flight and there had not been a flight for three weeks.
To be fair to British Airways, it reimbursed everyone on that flight. Even though the flight was showing on the board, I found out that it had been cancelled from a disabled guy who was taken through by assistance personnel. When he got through to the far side, he said, “Jim, this flight’s not on, you know.” I said, “What do you mean—it’s on the board?” He said, “No, it was cancelled three weeks ago.” Again, this was a case where consumer rights came into play. To be fair to British Airways, I had a meeting with the chief executive, who recognised the problem and the reason for it. He made sure that every one of the passengers that day was reimbursed or got another flight in lieu.
In Northern Ireland, we have Consumerline, where people can seek advice and report any issues that they have. I have to say that my office and I have a great working relationship with it. We have been in touch regarding faulty goods, scams, service issues and unfair contract matters.
Another notable organisation back home is the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, which is mainly for issues relating to energy, water, transport or postal services. The list of issues that comes before us as MPs is ginormous. The Consumer Council has also been crucial in providing support for parking fines, which have become an increasingly massive issue in my constituency. Indeed, not a week goes by that we do not have one or perhaps two parking ticket issues—it could be that someone has parked in a disabled section that is not marked, or perhaps there is no sign on the road.
We have to make sure that if a parking ticket is handed out, it is done within the legislation. For instance, when people park at a shopping centre in an area for certain people, or in a private car park, the law is often not clear, and there is an element of greyness. On many such occasions, we have contested parking fines and won, simply because the law is unclear. The ordinary man or woman who finds themselves with a parking ticket probably says, “Oh, I’ll just pay it,” but sometimes, they do not have to. There are occasions when they should make contact with the Consumer Council or Consumerline and check their rights.
I want to highlight a consumer rights issue that I have been dealing with in my office. I was approached by a young couple who had just purchased their first home—they called it their forever home—at the start of 2024. As hon. Members can imagine, they had saved for years—I know them personally—and paid a significant amount for their new build home. They were fortunate, probably, in this day and age to have a good deposit to get them on their way, but to this day, they are still having issues in relation to their snag list. Some 20 months later, minor issues are still unresolved.
Again, the Consumer Council and Consumerline have been very proactive and helpful in trying to sort those matters out. That matters, because after all the avenues have been exhausted, if the issues are still unresolved, the only route to go down is a legal one, which would add more cost for that young couple who just want to enjoy the home that they worked and saved so hard to purchase.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington has previously raised the importance of transparency in pricing, especially online, and he mentioned it today as well. He is absolutely right. For example, with hotel or flight bookings, the add-ons are often left until the very end, and are not transparent. We see these offers of flights to, for example, Cyprus for £59, and then we find that there is an extra cost for baggage. If we want an aisle seat, that is another £20. Before we know it, that £59 has become £159. Those add-ons are an issue for consumer affairs. Those questions are asked in my office every week, as I suspect they are asked in the office of the hon. Member and other hon. Members. Prices are never included in one figure, which can leave the consumer extremely confused.
As I have noticed myself over the last few years, there is no doubt that goods and services are getting much more expensive. The hon. Member mentioned the issue of chocolate as an example; I have found that there are fewer peanuts in the bag. I love nuts, and Brazil nuts in particular, but I have noticed that they are getting smaller—perhaps the crop has not been good, but I suspect that is not the reason. It is because they are chopping them in half and into quarters, and there are fewer of them in the bag than there used to be. I can understand the logic behind it—it is to keep the cost the same, by reducing the amount in the bag—but that is an issue for consumer affairs. Is there somewhere people can go to? They need to have some contact and the ability to speak to support when they have a question to ask.
To conclude, organisations such as the Consumer Council are there for a reason. It is great that they are in place to support consumers, especially when large amounts of money have been paid. It is a bit of an initiation for the Minister today, but I look forward to what he will tell us. I hope that he will commit to ensuring that the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are protected, and that more will be done across these nations collectively so that people get value for money and decent services. It is what they pay for and what they deserve.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing this important debate. I extend my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) on his elevation to His Majesty’s Government. It is an honour and a privilege to be a Government Minister, but there are obligations and responsibilities too. I have some asks for him, which I will come to at the end. I am sure he will listen to them and take action. I should declare an interest as a leaseholder, as I will touch on some leasehold issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington talked about a Mars bar, which took me back to my youth. I do not know what size a Mars bar was then, because we had it sliced up and shared between us. I could be getting into a bit of a “Monty Python” story, but perhaps if I had kept to that my figure would be less robust than it is today, so maybe there is an argument for that.
My hon. Friend also touched on the poverty premium. Some people are able to buy things cheaper because of where they can go to buy them. The point about differential pricing is an interesting one, and I would add that loyalty card pricing is a real concern now. It is effectively exchanging data for a discount: we can pay extra if we do not have a shop’s loyalty card. If we have a smartphone, we can jump outside, get wi-fi or a signal and perhaps download one, but we are giving away our data in order to get a discount, and the difference in price is quite extraordinary. There is a lot going with respect to pricing, and my hon. Friend addressed it particularly well. He quoted Which? a lot, and I pay tribute to it for its relentless work in standing up for consumers.
I want to talk about protecting consumers, including in financial services, and how innovation can support the consumer. Importantly, it is not all about regulation, but I will touch on that too. The Treasury Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing and whose core membership is in the room today, has been looking at a number of these issues. Obviously, there is a lot of discussion of them. The Chancellor has been clear in her Mansion House speeches about making sure the financial services sector is able to help facilitate growth. We all absolutely support that, but we need to be careful to get the balance right. The regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, has to regulate against harm while, as its secondary objective, facilitating growth. There can be a tension there.
There is an onus on us in Parliament—I am sure the Minister will have something to say about this—to make sure that our constituents are protected, and we must understand that there are different grades of understanding, particularly in the financial services area. We need to help, support and educate people, but we should recognise that there are people who will always be vulnerable and others who can be vulnerable to certain types of schemes.
The Committee has looked at finfluencers, the people who pop up on our social media feed and tell us, as they stand by their Porsche or villa with a swimming pool, how they have done very well and are going to share their tips. Of course, a number of them tip over into giving advice rather than guidance on financial services, which is a very dangerous area that the Committee is looking at. It is a challenging area to deal with. The FCA has told us that Meta—I should call it out—has not been ready to take things down very quickly when it has been alerted to them. If a major regulator like the FCA has challenges getting a major internet provider to deal with these things, then that is a really big battle.
That is a huge challenge, not just for the Government, but globally, because a lot of these people are not even based in the UK. I would be interested to know the Minister’s thinking on how we deal with that legally, even with the Online Safety Act 2023, which does not really cover a lot of this. I am not suggesting for a minute that he or the Government have a solution, because it is a very challenging problem to solve, but I am interested in what the Government are looking at.
We also have artificial intelligence coming into the financial services sector. There are examples of people who have put models into four different AI systems and come up with what is quite good guidance but very close to advice. One that I came across recently actually recommended investing in a particular named company. This is a very interesting and challenging area to regulate and, again, the Treasury Committee is looking at AI in financial services. There is an awful lot of potential, but there is a lot of risk as well. I know that it is a core area for the Department for Business and Trade to consider, along with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. I am interested to hear the Minister’s thinking on how the Government will make sure, as best they can, that they are a step ahead in protecting consumers against the risk involved.
Of course, consumers in financial services have a lot to lose. It is always said, “Don’t invest what you can’t afford to lose,” but if we are to encourage people to invest more, as the Chancellor is keen to do, we need to make sure that people really understand that and protect them from losses, which would be very damaging for many of our constituents—certainly the poorest, and even those on modest incomes who would not have the money to lose.
The FCA has also proposed allowing contactless payments to be unlimited. During covid, we saw the contactless limit go up, and it is often even higher on mobile phones. Many of us will have lost a card and only found out because something has gone out of the account. I pay tribute to my bank; I will not name it—it would, perhaps, be unfair for me, as Chair of the Treasury Committee, to pick one out just because of my own consumer moment—but it was very quick off the mark in realising that there had been some fraud. The payments were only very small amounts, but they were outside my normal pattern of purchases. The bank rang me and went through the security processes thoroughly to make sure that the card was stopped and I was reimbursed. The banks are doing a lot of work, but the challenge of increasing freedoms is that on the other side there is the risk of fraud, so thinking about how consumers will be protected is important.
Not long ago, the Treasury Committee published our report on access to cash. We held a very illuminating set of hearings. We highlighted in our report that, with fewer places accepting cash, certain groups, such as older people, those on lower incomes who use cash for budgeting, those with certain disabilities and those in domestic abuse situations, often have nowhere that they can buy things. Dame Siobhain, I think it was you who coined the phrase “the poverty premium”. Some big businesses, and others, will not accept cash. That means that the poorest, who budget with cash, have to travel further. Sometimes they will not be able to buy in their neighbourhood, have not really got the means to travel and have to pay the higher prices of the shops that will still take cash.
I should say that the Association of Convenience Stores is clear that it wants to see cash accepted, and many such stores do. As a point of principle, I sometimes go into the big supermarkets with cash and say, “Where can I queue?” There is often a longer queue for the machine that accepts cash, and it marks out those who only use cash. Mostly, they are not in my situation—I could pay with a card or a phone. They pay with cash because that is how they budget, and they do not want to risk spending more than they have got.
We know the challenges with paying in cash for electricity. There has been some progress in making sure that bills are equalised between those paying on a meter and in cash, but that has taken many years. I have been in this place for 20 years and, dare I say it, Dame Siobhain —it is hard to imagine—you have been here longer than me, and we know that that was a very big battle to fight.
One of the other things about getting consumer affairs right is that if consumers are supported, confident and protected, that hopefully means they have more confidence to buy. We saw the good news that consumer spending was up this July, but it has been a very challenging time for the economy. This Government inherited a really big set of challenges from the last Government, thanks to the Budget of September 2022. There were world events as well, but that dented consumer spending and raised mortgage rates, meaning that people have less money to spend.
I want to touch on the regulation of e-bikes, which is about protecting consumers. According to the London Fire Brigade, e-bikes are one of the major emerging causes of fires. One of my fire stations, in Shoreditch, has been holding what might be called amnesties. Delivery drivers will often buy an extra battery online in order to boost the range of their bike, because of course they make money on the number of deliveries that they make. They have been invited into the fire station to have them checked, and a number have been found to be dangerous. In particular for someone living in shared accommodation in London, if the battery in the bike in the hallway—which might be their livelihood—catches fire, it can be devastating. It can lead to loss of property and loss of life. It is really important that we give some thought to the regulation of e-bikes and batteries.
I have many issues with Lime bikes, which I will not go into now, but one of the things that legitimate e-bike providers, whether for sale or hire, would agree with me on—we do not agree on everything—is the need for proper regulation of e-bike batteries. We need to make sure that online sellers do not get away with selling dodgy batteries and that there are better checks in place. The Minister may not be able to give me a detailed answer right now—he has only been in the job three or four days, so I do not expect a full answer—but if he is not able to answer some of my points, it would be helpful if he could write to me. I have many constituents who are very concerned about these issues.
Utilities is a big area of concern. I have the privilege—I should state for the record that I am speaking with irony—of being a Thames Water customer, as are my constituents. We have seen the challenges there. I am sure the new Secretary of State will be as robust as the last in trying to tackle that. We have had a poor service, with burst water mains and our bills just going up all the time. That does not feel good for consumers. We need to make sure that the Government are given all power to their elbow in trying to tackle the water companies.
One thing that is very specific to the Minister’s Department is the licensing review. Again, that affects a lot of businesses in my area. It is partly about regulation, but it aims to equalise the price of licences at a lower level nationally. This is a very specific point, and I will be writing to the Minister or the Secretary of State on about it, but the London Local Authorities Act enables inner-London boroughs in particular—it affects them most—to charge a certain rate for licence fees for businesses. Hackney has the fastest-growing economy in London, according to the Office for National Statistics and the Greater London Authority, and many of its businesses require licensed premises. Equalising the rate at a lower level will reduce the council’s capacity to enforce licensed premises.
As it is now, licensees pay a fee, and they know that the bad licensed premises will also be inspected—there will be regular review points. That works well, because the good providers are very concerned that the bad providers should not get away with it. If the fee is equalised at a lower level, Hackney council stands to lose up to half a million pounds a year in fees, and will have no ability to carry out the enforcement work as proactively as it does.
We have a high density of licensed premises in Shoreditch and in Dalston, which I have had the privilege of representing since last year. Providers on those strips are very keen to have good enforcement. One licensee said to me, “Every morning I wake up and check my phone in case anything happened the night before,” because they know the responsibility of being a good licensee; it is really important to protect their customers, and also the sector as a whole, because people flock to my constituency to use these premises. If the council is unable to enforce on bad behaviour by licensees, that will damage the sector—and, I contend, damage the growth that is happening in Hackney.
Hackney South and Shoreditch is only half an hour away, so if the Minister or one of his team wanted to visit, or to bring officials in for an explanation from the council, I would very much welcome them. I hope that this issue will be considered. We certainly do not disagree with removing regulation or easing the path for businesses, but if we throw out the baby with the bathwater, we could end up with worse than we started with.
Insurance is another big issue for consumers. It seems incomprehensible to many people how much insurance premiums have gone up. Again, the Treasury Committee called in the insurance companies and raised some of the challenges with them. I will not go through that in detail—not least because most hon. Members in the Chamber were in the room when we had them in—but the costs for leaseholders seem to be going up, and there is a real issue about support for leaseholders, particularly in respect of transparency and accountability for service charges.
As I mentioned, I am a leaseholder myself. We get several long spreadsheets of information about how money is allocated, but it is very difficult to judge whether we are being charged a fair amount, whether that is for window cleaning, general cleaning or insurance. Obviously, since the tragedy of Grenfell, insurance for a block will be not just for the flat and the floor concerned, but for the whole building, and that has caused premiums to shoot up, but they have gone up by an incredible amount given the actual rate of tragic incidents—the reality has not matched the cost of the potential liability—so that is a big area of work.
That is also affecting consumer spending. Many of my constituents are first-time homeowners, who bought their dream homes as leaseholders. Some are shared owners, and they are in the worst of all worlds; they pay a mortgage on one portion and rent on the other, but they have responsibility for the whole thing, including all of the service charges and any remediation works that need to take place—I will leave cladding aside for a moment, but other works may need to take place—and then they are trapped, because the service charge and mortgage have gone up, and sometimes their rent has too, and they are unable to sell. Many are very much trapped in that situation.
On consumer affairs, I must of course mention the issue of cladding. Many of my constituents are still waiting for the first bit of work to be done; all they have had is a slight investigation to determine that the cladding needs to be removed. Sometimes it is only a small amount, but because of the risk-based approach, those with the least cladding are sometimes at the back of the queue. In many cases, scaffolding has not even gone up. We are in 2025. The tragedy of Grenfell happened in 2017, and by 2018 it was very clear what the problems were: a failure of regulation over many generations, which has led to a real problem. That is one of the biggest consumer scandals of a generation.
I know that it is not in the Minister’s Department, but we now have the Building Safety Regulator. My constituents and I are impatient for work to happen as fast as possible. We need to step up not just the number of skilled people to do the work, but—the trade deals done by the Minister’s Department may help with this—the supply chains, so that the necessary materials are available alongside the skills. There is so much more that I could say on this—I have repeated it endlessly in the House—but people are trapped. They have lost faith in the housing system. They feel, quite rightly and understandably, that they were sold the dream and bought a home in good faith, and now they are living the nightmare and trapped. Often, they want to move to a bigger property but are unable to do so because they cannot sell theirs. There is an awful lot to be done there.
More widely, there are options with regulation: we can have regulation that is very heavy-handed and protects people but can be a burden on businesses, but we can also have self-management. We saw that the regulation of building safety went way too far in one direction. Regulations were removed incrementally, so that no one knew who was responsible for certain things and proper checks were not done. We need to get the balance right. Self-regulation can work very well, but there needs to be a robust and, in a way, fearsome regime to make sure that it is audited. There is no point in saying to a sector, “Self-regulate,” if that is not double-checked and triple-checked at some point, so that the sector knows that the heavy hand of the regulator, whoever it may be, can come down heavily on it. If the Government are moving away from regulation—as we are certainly seeing in financial services—or trying to loosen it a bit, we need to make sure that we watch very closely, protect the consumer along the way, and get key assurances in place.
This is an important debate, and there is so much more that I could talk about. I started with Mars bars and ended with building safety, which shows the gamut of important issues that matter to consumers. We need to make sure that they are protected from the worst harm while innovation in things like fintech can give people more choice—that is also important.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing this important debate. What we have heard from hon. Members has been extremely wide-ranging. I will focus the vast majority of my speech on ticket touting and scalping. However, I want to reflect on what we have heard from hon. Members on shrinkflation and on how important it is to allow the public to understand the true price of goods. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that, and also on the challenge of the Tesco Metro in the town centre having significantly higher prices than the out-of-town supermarkets. That is a significant issue in my constituency of Torbay. It is perverse that those who are poorest have to pay more because they are least able to jump in a car, and very often do not own a car, so have little choice but to use the Tesco Metro, or a similar shop, in the town centre. I would like some reflections from the Minister on that.
We also heard about e-bikes. It would be welcome to hear the Minister talk about regulations around e-bikes. The problem is not just e-bikes catching fire but the irresponsible ownership of them, and the fact that there is no age limit on their ownership. I spoke to a police officer earlier this week, and that was one of the challenges she faced. In addition, often those using e-bikes are up to no good, so greater regulation around e-bikes and some words from the Minister would be extremely welcome.
I will move on to the main meat of my speech. Concerts are an extremely enriching part of our lives. In my youth, I may have gone to a Deep Purple or AC/DC concert, but my guilty pleasure was going to “Abba Voyage” not that long ago. This is my only pun: we are seeing dirty deeds done not so dirt cheap to our consumers. Surge pricing and hidden costs are absolutely shameful.
Concerts are a way of driving tourism. I would not have gone to Leipzig a couple of years ago had it not been one of the few venues that I could easily get to to see one of my favourite bands, Goran Bregović and his Wedding and Funeral Orchestra. In my constituency of Torbay we have Electric Bay, an outstanding festival that was headlined by Fatboy Slim this summer on the Saturday night. Taxi drivers and those in the hospitality industry told me that the bay was buzzing, and that it was better than a bank holiday weekend. However, there are opportunities for ticket touts to come into play for these types of festivals.
One of my staff was impacted by ticket touting on Ticketmaster for the Oasis concert—there is no accounting for taste—which the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington mentioned. He spent hours online and saw the ticket go from £135 to more than £300—the surge pricing that we believe is wicked. On the secondary market, we saw that same ticket go up to £6,000. It is utterly shameful. I am aware that Ticketmaster sometimes labels tickets as if they are platinum when they are actually the same as standard tickets. Regulation is needed in these areas. To stop this, we need to take some inspiration from Ireland, where there are limits of 10% increases and surge pricing is banned in both primary and secondary markets. We need to allow true fans to sell on the tickets they are no longer able to take advantage of, but limit the additional handling fees to a reasonable level and ban surging.
Concerts are an outstanding way of enhancing one’s sense of wellbeing, relaxing and, probably most importantly, developing a sense of community. However, we need to ensure that people are protected when buying tickets, because we all need a bit of light relief in the challenging world that we all live in now.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition in this interesting debate; I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing it. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) on his appointment. I look forward to potentially confronting him, but sometimes agreeing with him, at the Dispatch Box on numerous occasions.
It has been an interesting debate. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington is right to raise concerns about a range of different challenges with pricing practices. Consumers often find them confusing and frustrating, and sometimes find themselves completely out of pocket, which is a very annoying feeling. I think we can all agree that transparency and fairness need to be at the heart of our consumer markets. My particular pet peeves, quite a few of which were listed by the hon. Member, include subscription traps—they have definitely got me quite a few times—and the meal deal where I think I have the elements right but have not, and end up paying more than I should. Unclear sizes is another issue. There are also the three-for-two offers where we do not buy the right three things but do not realise that until we are in the queue for the checkout. The one thing that I think is probably a good thing, though, is the shrinkflation of the Mars Bar; we probably need to welcome that as a sign of human progress.
We have also heard some really interesting contributions this afternoon from the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). I have the honour of serving on the Treasury Committee, which is chaired by the hon. Lady, and today she outlined many of the different ways in which consumers can encounter challenges in the financial sector. The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) also made a very interesting speech.
The one thing that I want to pick up on in my remarks is flexible or variable pricing, because the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington outlined some of the drawbacks of such pricing, and how we can feel—particularly if we have to use the railway at peak times—how unfair it is. However, I will just caution colleagues against throwing the baby out with the bathwater regarding flexible pricing, because the flipside of it is that it allows businesses to offer much cheaper prices when demand is low. Consequently, it helps consumers to access goods and services at a price they can afford that they might otherwise miss, and it enables venues to fill their seats, airlines to fill their planes and retailers to manage their stocks efficiently. So long as flexible pricing is transparent, there are benefits for consumers and businesses.
Key to consumers getting good prices is creating good competition in markets and keeping inflation down but, frankly, both those things are being exacerbated by the Government’s current economic approach, particularly inflation, because last year’s Halloween Budget included the tax hikes, the increased national insurance contributions and the reduced business rates relief that are pricing a lot of small businesses out of the market. Those are the very businesses that drive competition, and that can keep prices down. Without them, consumers face fewer choices and therefore higher costs.
I will give an example from the night-time economy. According to the Night Time Industries Association, we have seen a worrying decline in venues across the UK. Recent research has revealed that over a quarter of our towns and cities that had a nightclub before the pandemic now have none, and that 16% of our towns and cities across this country have lost all their late-night venues entirely.
We will hear from the Minister about the Government’s plans to cap ticket resales. Those plans risk making things worse. Capping resale profits at 10% might sound like a fair idea, but in practice it risks harming small venues and up-and-coming artists. It places additional costs on already stretched businesses, and opens the door to the black market and scams. We have seen this play out. We can learn from the state of Victoria in Australia, where a 10% profit cap on ticket resellers did not stop tickets from being sold above the price cap; it just resulted in a spike in the number of scammers, and tickets only being available to international buyers. So, the Minister might want to ask his team about that situation.
We have also seen that in Ireland, a 10% tax on ticket resellers caused an increase in scams. And last year, at the wonderful Paris Olympics, viagogo was banned. Because viagogo is a ticket resale company, that meant that there were empty seats at many Olympic events. So, the ban deprived fans of spontaneous access to the Olympics, and athletes of full audiences.
I urge the Minister to be wary of unintended consequences and to look closely at the proposals. The Government’s approach, as we understand it, risks penalising fans, artists and venues alike. This issue is not just about ticket touts; it is about ensuring a vibrant cultural sector, in which people can access live events safely and affordably. Regulation, if it is done badly, risks moving all of this activity underground.
I wholeheartedly endorse what the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington said about keeping consumers informed, making sure that information is clear and ensuring that consumers are not misled. Let us support competition; let us enable a thriving small business sector and not stifle it; and let us back businesses that make our economy dynamic, diverse and responsive to consumer needs.
In summary, I agree that we need to be vigilant about unfair practices, but we must also be pragmatic. The best protection for consumers is thriving, competitive markets, not ones burdened by excessive regulation and shrinking opportunity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
It is a pleasure to serve in my first debate as a Minister under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing this debate. I would have felt cheated had the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) not been at my first outing as a Minister. He mentioned that perhaps this work was different from the work that we had done together previously on human rights. I think there is a lot of overlap, because on human rights we are asking for people to be treated with dignity and to be treated fairly under the law, and I think it is the same with consumer protection. What there is also in common is that when those rights are not respected, that causes enormous anger, so I think there is considerable overlap.
This has been a fantastic debate, with many different issues raised. I will refer to as many of them as possible. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). I had hoped, as a matter of professional pride, to get through the whole debate without the ministerial get-out of “I will write to you about that”, but she asked me to write to her, so I thank her for saving me.
The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch made similar points about ensuring that innovation is balanced with consumer protection. I am quite encouraged, in my first few days in this job, by the approach of the leadership of the CMA as a watchdog. It is very clear that it will bare its teeth at the most egregious abuses of consumers, but where having a lighter touch and some guidance would be better, it is doing that, so that the innovation that was mentioned is not lost.
I am looking forward to working on the licensing review—particularly because it means I get invited to a night out in Hackney. We will add that to the diary pile in the office. My hon. Friend gave the example of Meta and asked about acting quickly online. I think the CMA now has the online interface orders, which allow it to quickly ask companies to change or to take down content. We are looking forward to seeing how that operates in practice.
My hon. Friend and a couple of other Members mentioned algorithms and AI. I am really interested in how AI functions here. There was a case in Atlantic City in which there was some suggestion that algorithms were being used to fix hotel prices and operate a cartel, but human beings were involved in that decision making. One of the interesting questions is how we regulate things when AI might be making decisions to breach consumer law, without a human being involved in that.
To come to some of the issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, it will come as a shock, in a debate talking about the size of Mars bars, that I am no stranger to the confectionery aisle. [Laughter.] In case Hansard did not pick that up, everyone cried, “No!” there. My ire, when a Back Bencher, was actually directed towards the changing size and shape of Easter eggs from last year to this year.
My hon. Friend was right to mention the changes to the price marking order that are coming in in April and which will require consistency in unit pricing, so that people, when making consumer decisions, are able to compare different goods. We are also putting in place more clarity for consumers on multi-buys and things like that, but we need to keep an eye on this. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to monitor it, and that he will make that case very strongly in years to come. In relation to his point about a consumer champion, I think that my ministerial colleague who will be primarily responsible for consumer affairs will hope to feel that that is their role, but I will take the suggestion to the Department.
Many Members spoke about concerns around variable pricing models, such as dynamic and algorithmic pricing, and a broader sense of a lack of transparency in pricing. It is a frontier for regulation—things move very quickly—but we do believe that it is our job to ensure that consumers have protection so that they can easily and accurately compare prices.
As the shadow Minister for business, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, rightly said, pricing flexibility, when used responsibly, can be good for consumers and business. It can manage demand, improve access and support innovation. We all love a bargain; we all love the January sales. We like discounts for different groups, but against that evolving backdrop, the Government are actively engaging with regulators, industry and our watchdogs. The CMA’s dynamic pricing project is a recent example of that work.
We will strengthen the law where necessary to uphold transparency, as evidenced by the recently implemented ban on drip pricing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington referred to as a particular bugbear, to ensure that the price presented at the start of the shopping process is the price that consumers pay at the checkout. The principle that underlines that, and that underpins consumer law, is that consumers must know the price that they will pay, and can make an informed decision about whether that price is right for them. Where that is not the case, the Government and our watchdogs will look to take action.
Dynamic and algorithmic pricing have been spoken about, and they are a growing concern for many Members’ constituents. We know that changing prices in response to demand is an essential part of any market economy, but it needs to be done responsibly and within consumer law. It should not be the case that businesses use technology to rapidly change prices in a way that misleads customers or is otherwise unfair, resulting in them overpaying. That would be wrong in any circumstances, but particularly when so many of our constituents are struggling to make ends meet.
Let me be clear: when consumers are misled or pressured into paying a higher price, that is unlawful. The law, including the recently introduced Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, requires that businesses provide clear, up-front pricing so that consumers understand what they are paying for. Additionally, consumers must be able to evaluate that information in the absence of undue pressure. Aggressive tactics and pressure selling are illegal. When price fluidity or instability puts customers in an unfair position—for example, as we mentioned, in ticketing, when consumers feel that they have to immediately accept a high price for fear of it going even higher—that is unacceptable.
The CMA is acting when businesses fail to comply with those laws. For example, last year, it took enforcement action against Wowcher, which agreed to change its selling practices after concerns were raised about its use of a countdown timer to pressurise customers, among other marketing claims.
Before moving on to Oasis, I should declare an interest, which is that in the late-1990s fight between Oasis and Blur, I was very much Team Blur, so that may inform my attitude towards these matters. The CMA is seeking to make changes to the way that Ticketmaster labels tickets and provides pricing information to fans, in response to concerns about last year’s Oasis sale. Obviously, that investigation has yet to conclude. We will continue to work with the watchdog to ensure that pricing practices are transparent and proportionate, and that consumers have the right safeguards.
The CMA recently examined the use of dynamic pricing across different sectors of the economy, and its report sets out all sorts of conditions that may make dynamic pricing problematic, and the information that businesses should provide to consumers when it is in operation.
Matt Western
I should have congratulated my hon. Friend at the very beginning on his appointment—a very warm welcome, Minister, to the role. He talks about dynamic pricing and ticketing. He will probably be aware that in the Business and Trade Committee we looked at Ticketmaster and Live Nation. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) made some comments about smaller venues. What was striking was the scale of dominance that Live Nation and Ticketmaster have—their control over this entire market.
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend makes a really good point. He referenced the comments made by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) on the impact on venues, big or small. It is important to say that there are ways of doing this that are advantageous to everyone. An example that was mentioned to me is Radiohead’s practices in selling their tickets to make sure there was not widespread industrial buying and reselling. There are ways of doing this. The Government really welcome the CMA’s guidance on dynamic pricing, and it has been clear that it will continue to actively review those practices and will tell us if it feels there is a need for changes in the regulatory environment and the law in future.
Another issue that has been raised is personal pricing, where technology is increasingly enabling online businesses to use personal data to set different prices and tailor them to different groups of people. It is not against the law, as with dynamic pricing, to change prices for different groups in a free market; that is part of the functioning of the market. As with dynamic pricing, it can offer consumers benefits, such as tailored deals based on regular purchases, but we know that customers worry about their data being used in more targeted and less transparent ways to set personalised prices that are higher than those they would otherwise see.
The watchword on this is transparency, in accordance with consumer law. It is an evolving issue, and the Government will keep a close eye on developments on this frontier. We will, of course, look to the watchdog to act on any suggestions that consumers are being disadvantaged.
I want to turn to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington on the pricing of food and essential goods and services. Other Members made these points too. The difference between the smaller high street supermarkets and the hypermarket is one that I feel very personally. I grew up in a household without a car, so we had to go to the local shop, where there was much less choice and fewer bargains. It is not an easy issue to solve, but it is one that I feel particularly personally.
It is really important in those situations that there is transparency and fairness in pricing. Our role in Government is to protect consumers and ensure minimum standards, including on pricing. Sector regulators build on the framework that we set by introducing targeted regulations to support consumers in their sectors, particularly in essential services such as energy, financial services and telecoms, where affordability challenges are most pronounced for our constituents at the moment.
Matt Western
Several hon. Members around the Chamber raised the differential pricing between in-town and out-of-town stores. The points the Minister made are totally right, but when retailers were asked about this at the Business and Trade Committee, they just said that it was due to a different cost base. A corporate has a big cost base. It cannot make the case that there is a different cost base for in-town versus out-of-town stores. It may as well say that it has different cost bases for Cromer and Shoreditch, or wherever—it does not wash. Consumers in different parts of the country, wherever they may be, should be offered, I believe, a uniform price. Pricing should not be to the detriment of those who do not have access to out-of-town stores.
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully. The argument that the Government sometimes hear from business is that it is about the cost of the property. He is shaking his head, and I will try to transmit the shaking of his head throughout the system on his behalf. He makes an important point.
I reiterate my thanks for all the contributions to the debate, and congratulate my hon. Friend on securing it. I assure him that we will not be complacent on this issue. Using the DMCC Act and the CMA’s recent work on pricing, we are working to take tangible steps to ensure that pricing practices are fair and transparent, and that businesses across the economy are held accountable.
Where specific markets require more targeted interventions, the Government have been willing to do so. We have seen that recently with the regulation of buy now, pay later arrangements and ensuring that customers continue to pay fair prices for energy. Our work will not stop there. We are always testing the case for going further, working in partnership with regulators and enforcers to ensure that consumers are adequately protected as pricing practices evolve. I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate.
Matt Western
I thank all those who participated in the debate. It is a Thursday afternoon, and I would have anticipated that a lot more people would have wanted to speak to this issue. I welcome the points that have been made. We have used examples that perhaps bring a certain lightness to the debate, but they are good examples of what is going on more generally across markets. I am absolutely pro-markets—I used to work for a corporate in a very competitive sector. All I am asking for is greater transparency, clarity and responsibility from the marketplace.
So many points, such as those about variable pricing and drip pricing, were repeated. Some of the examples were about the financial sector and what has happened there. Many of us have seen the scams in that sector over decades, whether it was endowment mortgages or whatever. Most recently, we have seen that about £950 will be paid out to most of the claimants following the mis-selling of automotive finance since 2007.
I was really encouraged to hear what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said about the provision of a helpline. My goodness—I remember those. Northern Ireland offers that for consumers. Points were also made around experiences in the housebuilding sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) talked about the leasehold sector and the management charges.
There are so many facets of the marketplace that we could have talked about this afternoon—so many different categories in which consumers feel cheated by the system. I therefore welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his place and the vigour with which he will, I am sure, look at this. I will absolutely continue to pursue it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered consumer affairs.
Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm: Development Consent
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
This statement concerns an application for development consent made under the Planning Act 2008 by Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Ltd for the construction and operation of an offshore generating station comprised of up to 79 wind turbine generators, off the coast of Essex and Suffolk.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of the receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under section 107(3) of the Act to set a new deadline. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it.
The statutory deadline for the decision on the Five Estuaries offshore wind farm is 17 September 2025.
I have decided to allow an extension and to set a new deadline of 17 December 2025. This is to allow time to request further information that was not provided for consideration during the examination period and to give all interested parties the opportunity to review and comment on such information. While it is not my preference to extend, I am clear that applications for consent for energy projects submitted under the Planning Act 2008 must meet the necessary standards.
The decision to set the new deadline for this application is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.
[HCWS919]
Chief Coroner’s Annual Report to the Lord Chancellor
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I am pleased to lay and publish the chief coroner’s 11th annual report to the Lord Chancellor on the operation of coroner services, under section 36 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
The report provides a comprehensive overview of the work taken forward across the coroner service in England and Wales in the calendar year 2024, under the leadership of the chief coroner. It provides valuable insights into the service’s operations and future direction.
In particular, the chief coroner’s report sets out:
The continuing work to promote consistency in the resourcing of and practices in coroner offices across England and Wales;
The training and guidance that coroners and their officers have received and the engagement with a wide range of stake- holders; and
Recommendations to improve coroner services further.
I am very grateful to Her Honour Judge Alexia Durran for her work in preparing the report, which is her first as chief coroner, following her appointment in May 2024. I also extend my sincere thanks to His Honour Thomas Teague KC who, throughout his tenure as chief coroner from December 2020 to May 2024, demonstrated tireless commitment in his leadership role—particularly in completing his welfare tour of all coroner areas following the pandemic.
I am grateful too to all coroners and their officers and other staff for their continued dedication to improving services for bereaved people through their invaluable frontline work.
The report will be available online, at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/chief-coroners-annual-report-2024
[HCWS918]