Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The 2023 legacy Act was rejected by our domestic courts, as well as by victims and survivors across Northern Ireland, not least because it proposed giving immunity from prosecution for the most appalling terrorist crimes. Any incoming Government would have had to fix this mess, and that is what this Government are seeking to do with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which we published yesterday.
Luke Murphy
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer and for his remarks in yesterday’s statement about the professionalism, bravery and sacrifice of our armed forces and veterans, including those who live in my constituency of Basingstoke, in their roles in Northern Ireland, across the UK and abroad. What discussions has he had with veterans, the Defence Secretary and the Minister for Veterans and People on the new provisions and protections in the new legislation?
Hilary Benn
I have had many such discussions, as I indicated in my statement to the House yesterday, and those have informed the package of veterans protections contained in the Bill, which the Government have set out.
Gareth Snell
When the unlawful legacy Act shut down 200 investigations into the deaths of British soldiers, people across the country, including in my constituency, will have thought that was desperately unfair, and not just on those individuals but on the families and victims. Can the Secretary of State assure me and my constituents that under the new legacy Act there will be opportunities for those victims finally to get the justice they deserve?
Hilary Benn
There certainly will, because with the commission as it is now and with the commission as it will be reformed by the troubles Bill, any incident relating to the troubles anywhere in the United Kingdom can be referred into the commission. The M62 coach bombing, the Kingsmill massacre and the Warrenpoint massacre are all currently the subject of investigation by the commission.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Many families are desperate for answers about what happened to their loved ones. That is often not about wanting to take legal action; they just want to know. Under this new Bill, how quickly will that be delivered for those families? How quickly will they get the information that they have waited decades to receive?
Hilary Benn
I know from my discussions with the commission that it is working hard with the 100 or so cases that it is already dealing with to go through that process and start producing reports for families. We know that many families have decided not to engage with the commission because they objected to the legacy Act and, in particular, to the immunity it was proposing to give. That is why we are removing that. I encourage more families to come forward, because I know that the commission and its staff are determined to try to provide the answers that those families seek.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Secretary of State’s allegations about the legacy Act rest on a fiction that the Labour Government have not already handed out amnesties to all those terrorist killers. Two facts need to be put in front of the House. One is from the Good Friday agreement, which
“put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners…convicted of scheduled offences”.
That is one half of the amnesty. The other half is the comfort letters, and the right place to look there is the judge’s ruling in the Downey case, which shot down any future prosecutions. The judge said—I will read it carefully—that there is a
“public interest in holding officials of the state to promises they have made in full understanding of what is involved in the bargain. Hence I have concluded that this is one of those rare cases in which, in the particular circumstances, it offends the court’s sense of justice and propriety to be asked to try the defendant.”
In other words, it is an amnesty, whether the Government like it or not.
Hilary Benn
On the first issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises, for anyone who was serving a sentence for a troubles-related offence, part of the Good Friday agreement was that they were released after two years. The people of Northern Ireland voted for that by about 70%. It was part of the agreement. On his second point, there were specific issues in the case of Mr Downey, because he had been given a letter that said he was not wanted when in fact he was. That is why that prosecution could not proceed. The right hon. Gentleman’s point is undermined by the fact that Mr Downey—this is a matter of public record—is currently facing prosecution for two counts of murder in 1972. It therefore cannot be the case that any letter he received gave him an amnesty.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
A number of the core provisions of the previous Government’s legacy Act have been deemed by the Northern Ireland courts to be incompatible with our human rights obligations. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is little wonder that the legislation was so widely opposed, and does this not make the task of repealing and replacing it even more important?
Hilary Benn
It certainly does make it more important, because it is a piece of legislation that has not worked and did not command support in Northern Ireland. If legislation is passed in this House that does not command support in Northern Ireland, how on earth can we expect the answers that families are seeking, which the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) referred to a moment ago, to be provided? We have a responsibility to give more people in Northern Ireland confidence in the new arrangement so that they will come forward to get the answers they have been seeking.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Secretary of State has done much to talk up the alleged special provisions in relation to ex-servicemen, but legally is it not the case that any such provisions would have to apply across the board? If I am wrong about that, will the Secretary of State now tell the House which special provisions apply exclusively and only to servicemen?
Hilary Benn
The provisions that apply exclusively and only to service personnel are: first, the arrangements to prevent cold calling—a protocol will be agreed with the commission in relation to that—and secondly, not being required to rehearse the history when the Ministry of Defence would be perfectly capable of providing that information. The hon. and learned Gentleman, being a distinguished lawyer, will know that, in respect to other arrangements for witnesses, the law requires that they are available to all witnesses.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
Many families have been struggling and campaigning for years for truth and justice, and they are now hopeful that we can get to the truth. We know that MI5 admitted only a few months ago that it had not given all of the files over to Operation Kenova. I am also aware that there are many Northern Ireland Office and MOD files that have not yet gone through the freedom of information process and are therefore not available to the National Archives. Will the Secretary of State commit today to ensuring that those files are available to the new legacy commission?
Hilary Benn
The legacy commission has the right to receive all information that it requires to do its job. We are proposing in the legislation to amend the arrangements for disclosure, to require the Secretary of State to conduct a balancing exercise, which was not in the previous Act, and to require the Secretary of State to give reasons, in line with standards that apply across the UK. In addition, any decision of the Secretary of State is open to be judicially reviewed. Those are important changes that I hope will give people in Northern Ireland greater confidence.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State said yesterday that his new legacy commission will not relitigate previous investigations involving veterans unless there are “compelling reasons” to do so. That is reinforced in clause 30 of the Bill that has now been published. To remove scope from opportunistic lawyers, would he consider defining far more closely than he has done up to this point precisely what he means by “compelling reasons”?
Hilary Benn
That is no doubt an issue that the House will discuss as the Bill is considered in detail. I think that “compelling” and “essential” is a pretty high bar. It will be for the commission to interpret that, but no doubt we will continue to discuss it.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Further to the Secretary of State’s comments on the adequacy of the legacy and reconciliation Act, I would like to turn to the role of the European convention on human rights. As he will be aware, the Leader of the Opposition seems more interested in the views of the Member for Mar-a-Lago and Moscow than the vision of her predecessor Winston Churchill and is now calling for withdrawal from the ECHR. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State what assessment his Department has made as to the effect that ceasing to be a signatory of the convention would have on the Good Friday agreement, the Windsor protocol, the new legacy framework and Northern Ireland’s institutions in general?
Hilary Benn
The Government are absolutely committed to the European convention on human rights. I very much regret that the current Opposition have moved away from that historic support, which goes right back to Winston Churchill, as the hon. Member has set out. It is highly irresponsible to suggest picking away at one of the essential foundations of the Good Friday agreement.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Yesterday, in an atypical fit of pique, the Secretary of State failed to answer my question as to whether the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, had been excluded from the legislation or had personally recused himself. So today I have an easier question. Given that the Secretary of State yesterday highlighted the protections for veterans in this legislation, could he tell the House which page, which clause or which line uses the word “veteran”?
Hilary Benn
The clauses that would implement the protections in relation to veterans and others are clauses 30, 31, 36, 51, 54, 56, 69 and 84.
Gavin Robinson
Labour Members may cheer, but not one of those clauses refers to veterans. Those are not protections for veterans; they are protections for everyone—paragraph 20 of the explanatory notes shows that what I am saying is true—and many of them are already available in the criminal justice system. It is a mirage.
To be collegiate, the Secretary of State has spent many years criticising the legacy Act of 2023 and previous efforts on the basis that they commanded no political support whatsoever across the parties of Northern Ireland. If there is agreement across Northern Ireland’s Members of Parliament on amendments during the passage of his legislation, will he agree to those amendments?
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman invites me to speculate on amendments that I have not yet seen. As I indicated to the House yesterday, I want to work in as collegiate a way as possible in trying to take the legislation through. In respect to the first part of his question, however, I would say that the only reason the protections and clauses I just read out are in the Bill is because of the Government’s determination to treat our veterans fairly.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
As part of “Safeguarding the Union”, Intertrade UK was established to advise on and promote trade and investment across the UK. The terms of reference and work programme were published on gov.uk. The NIO provides secretariat support, but Intertrade UK is free to submit advice and recommendations to the Government as it sees fit.
Alex Easton
What indicators is the Secretary of State using to measure growth in trade within the UK internal market? Will he commit to publicising an independent assessment of the barriers that the Northern Ireland protocol is having on trade within the UK and Northern Ireland, which I believe affects the ability of Intertrade UK to fully promote trade within the UK and operate independently?
Hilary Benn
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, a range of organisations, including Intertrade UK, are looking at the impact of the Windsor framework. We have recently had Lord Murphy’s report, for example, which the Government are committed to publishing. The House of Lords Northern Ireland Affairs Committee published a report on the same subject only this morning.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the major deterrents to investment and growth in Northern Ireland is the absence, 20 months after the restoration of Stormont, of a published investment strategy from the Executive with any sort of a road map for investors or businesses on the infrastructure, roads and housing developments that the Executive will invest in? Does he agree that, in the absence of that strategy, we are flying blind in investment terms? Has he had any discussions with the Executive about that?
Hilary Benn
Like my hon. Friend, I look forward to seeing the investment strategy published. Northern Ireland has a great opportunity under the Windsor framework because of the dual market access, which no other part of the United Kingdom has. For those looking to invest to trade with both the UK and the European Union, there is no better place to come and do that but Northern Ireland.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)
In this role, I am committed to supporting all people across Northern Ireland. From its businesses to its community groups, there is much to champion. I will do all that I can to build on the excellent work of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson).
The defence industrial strategy is great news for Northern Ireland. We are committed to economic growth that people can feel in their pocket, and the £250 million allocated to five defence growth deals, including one in Northern Ireland, will see its booming defence sector thrive.
Kevin Bonavia
Airbus, which manufactures satellites in my Stevenage constituency, will soon integrate the civil aircraft wing business at the historical Shorts site in Belfast, close to where Thales tests its satellites and produces vital missiles for Ukraine. Will the Minister work with colleagues across Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that the defence industrial strategy is complemented by the industrial strategy’s advanced manufacturing sector plan so as to maximise skills, innovation and growth?
Matthew Patrick
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the rich expertise in Northern Ireland’s defence sector, which brings benefits right across the UK, including to Stevenage. I assure him that the Secretary of State and I will work across Government and with the Executive to ensure a joined-up approach that benefits Northern Ireland.
Alex Ballinger
I am incredibly proud of our naval engineering history in the Black Country, including at companies such as Somers Forge in Halesowen and Brooks Forgings in Cradley Heath. I am delighted that this Labour Government are increasing defence spending to levels never seen under the previous Government. Does the Minister agree that that investment in Northern Ireland, at places such as Harland & Wolff, will not just benefit the local economy there but the supply chain all across the country?
Matthew Patrick
My hon. Friend is right. I warmly welcome this investment and I know he is rightly proud of the defence expertise in his constituency. Backed by this Labour Government increasing defence spending to 2.5%, Harland & Wolff is building the next generation of support ships for our Royal Navy. We are safeguarding jobs, skills and our future security.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I welcome both the Minister to his place and the defence growth deal. Does he agree that he now needs to work with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that the supply chain in Northern Ireland extends beyond Harland & Wolff and the greater Belfast area, so that everyone in Northern Ireland can benefit from what is potentially a life-changing development for industry there?
Matthew Patrick
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm words. He is right that we need to work across Northern Ireland to ensure that the life-changing investment he mentions is felt throughout, and I will make sure that happens.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
May I welcome the Minister to his place as well? Will he ensure that there is that co-working across the Northern Ireland Executive and the Ministry of Defence with regard to the Executive’s investment strategy, which is also integral to the defence industrial strategy, and that the NIE will work to remove any blockages that would prevent the two being merged?
Matthew Patrick
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm words. I will meet Executive Ministers in Northern Ireland next week to discuss this and other matters. I will ensure that we remove any blockages that we can, and that we do so by working together.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Government are committed to repealing and replacing the legacy Act with new arrangements that seek to command greater confidence in Northern Ireland. Yesterday we published the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and a draft remedial order to do just that.
John Lamont
Yesterday the Secretary of State announced this Labour Government’s new Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Despite all the justifications for the Bill, it still means one thing: veterans, many of whom are elderly, being dragged back through the courts. Does the Secretary of State think that is an acceptable way to treat those people who bravely served and defended our country?
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman says “dragged back” to court. The only circumstances in which a veteran, or anyone else, appears in court is if they are charged with an offence. He will know perfectly well what the figures show about prosecutions in the 27 years since the Good Friday agreement. Here we are talking about coroners’ inquests. A small number will be restarted because they were already in train and were stopped by the last legacy Act. The rest will go into the sifting process governed by the Solicitor General. We think that we have a fair and reasonable framework that we will put in place to ensure that veterans are protected and properly looked after.
Gregory Stafford
On 25 September, the Prime Minister assured the BBC that veterans would receive protections not afforded to paramilitaries, so can the Secretary of State confirm which of the statutory protections will apply solely to veterans? Or is it the case that they will also extend to paramilitaries?
Hilary Benn
I will give the hon. Gentleman one example, which involves the representation of veterans on the statutory advisory group that will be established, drawing on the experience of Operation Kenova, allowing the voice of veterans to be heard. This will be covered by clause 8 of the legislation.
Bob Blackman
One of the concerns around dragging veterans through lawfare and our courts is the effect on Army recruitment, so what is the Secretary of State’s reaction to Colonel Nick Kitson, the son of General Sir Frank Kitson, saying:
“How can anyone volunteer to put their life on the line for a Government—indeed a nation—that does not have their back?”
Hilary Benn
I meet many cadets who are very keen to join the armed forces, and we should pay tribute to all who are offering their services to the nation in defence of the realm. We should not talk down the importance of that recruitment effort. If anybody looks in the round at what we are putting forward, they will think it is reasonable. I have met many veterans who argue—as the Veterans Commissioners have said—that they are not looking for immunity under the law, which is what the legacy Act gave; they are looking for fairness under it, and that is what we will provide.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that people who join the British Army not only recognise that they have to abide by the law, but expect the Government to have their back and offer them that fairness? Can he offer an assurance that people who served in Northern Ireland will be given the fairness that they expect, and that this is a Government that genuinely have their back?
Hilary Benn
I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. To take another example of the protections, it was put to us by veterans in our discussions that no veteran should have to return to Northern Ireland to engage with legacy processes, and we are legislating for that in the Bill.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
This morning, unusually, I congratulate the Government on having admitted a terrible mistake. Earlier this year, we on this side of the House voted against Labour’s draft remedial order, which would have allowed Gerry Adams to sue the taxpayer, so we welcome the fact that Labour amended that order yesterday. But the question remains: why did it ever bring forward such a ridiculous policy in the first place?
Hilary Benn
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not only offer congratulations but continue these discussions about legacy matters in that spirit. When I say I am prepared to listen, I mean it. I would just point out to him that the problem arose because of the Supreme Court judgment, as he is well aware, and that for just over two years, the last Government could not find a solution. The one that was put in place did not work because it was found to be incompatible. I have reflected on the point that was made in representations, and this decision will ensure that there is no gap, as it has been referred to. We have found a mechanism that we believe will achieve what sections 46 and 47 failed to do.
Alex Burghart
I invite the Secretary of State to look at his own legislation, because clauses 89 and 90 are markedly similar to the sections that we left him. We on this side of the House may have won the battle over this, but we still have not won the war to protect our veterans from vexatious complaints. Is it not the truth that if it had not been for months of campaigning by the Conservatives, the shadow Defence team, the media and reports from Policy Exchange, which may now have saved the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds, Labour would have stuck to its plan and allowed Mr Adams and his comrades to sue anyway?
Hilary Benn
I indicated to the House some months ago that we were determined to find a means of dealing with the Supreme Court judgment in 2020 on the subject of the Carltona principle. That is what our proposed legislation will seek to remedy. We think it is a better formulation than sections 46 and 47, and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s support in passing it.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Government are committed to safeguarding Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market and to implementing the Windsor framework in good faith. The internal market scheme enables traders to move goods from Great Britain into Northern Ireland tariff-free and, since May, with significantly reduced paperwork and checks.
Andrew Rosindell
It is a disgrace that the “Safeguarding the Union” provisions severely restrict trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, binding the Province to 300 areas of EU law over which the people have no say. Will the Secretary of State take steps to remove what is left of this damaging international trade border within our own nation and restore the birthright of the people of Northern Ireland as equal citizens of this United Kingdom?
Hilary Benn
I say to the hon. Gentleman and those who advocated that we should leave the European Union: this is the consequence of it. There was an open border and two different jurisdictions—how were we going to deal with trade in those circumstances? Secondly, the goods are flowing; the goods are moving. Look at the evidence: the Northern Ireland economy in the second quarter grew by 2%. That is not indicative of a problem.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
On 26 November last year, the Health Secretary assured this House that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will apply in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State will know that the age-based sales ban affects the placement of tobacco products on the market and so is potentially in breach of the EU’s tobacco products directive, so can the Secretary of State repeat the Health Secretary’s assurance and also tell us whether the Government have confirmed with the European Union that the ban will stand in Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
It is certainly the Government’s intention that the ban will apply in Northern Ireland, because it is very important that young people all over the United Kingdom are protected in the way in which the Bill seeks.
Speaker's Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I welcome to the Gallery the honourable Speaker of the Parliament of the Republic of Fiji and the Chairman of the Parliament of Ukraine.
Members will also know that today marks the fourth anniversary of the death of our friend and colleague, Sir David Amess, who was murdered in his Southend West constituency in 2021. Sir David was a long-serving Member of Parliament, respected and liked by Members across the House and dedicated to his constituency. We remember him fondly.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
As you have just said, Mr Speaker, today marks four years since the horrific murder of Sir David Amess. Sir David was much loved across the House, kind and generous, and I know it was a huge loss to many Members opposite. May he rest in peace.
As we remember Sir David and our friend Jo Cox, of course, I want to take this opportunity to condemn unequivocally the death threats made against the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I know the whole House will welcome the justice that has been done. Whatever our disagreements, we are all parliamentarians, and I will not stand for violence or threats against our democracy.
Mr Speaker, on that point, may I update the House on the China spy case? I am deeply disappointed by the outcome. We wanted to see prosecutions. Mr Speaker, I know just how seriously, rightly, that you take these matters. National security will always be the first priority of this Government, and we will always defend against espionage. In recent weeks, baseless accusations have been put about by the party opposite. Let me set out the facts. The relevant period was when these offences took place. That was under the Conservative Government between the years of 2021 and 2023. That period was bookended by the integrated review of 2021—the beginning of the period—and the refresh of that review in 2023, setting out their policy. These statements of Government policy were very carefully worded to not describe China as an enemy. Instead—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Mr Stuart, somebody who is on the Speaker’s panel, and who I have told once before, should know better. Do not question my judgment. I thought it was important that the Prime Minister tells the House first rather than somewhere else. Please, this is very important to me and to the House. I take it seriously, so I do not need any more side comments.
The Prime Minister
The review of ’21 and the refresh of ’23 were very carefully worded to not describe China as an enemy. Instead, they stated that they would “increase…national security protections” where China poses “a threat” and that the then Government would “engage…with China” to “leave room” open for “constructive and predictable relations”.
The deputy National Security Adviser, Matt Collins, set out the then Government’s position in a substantive witness statement in 2023, which was subsequently supplemented by two further short statements. The Cabinet Secretary assures me that the DNSA faithfully set out the policy of the then Tory Government. I know at first hand that the DNSA is a civil servant of the utmost integrity, and those Opposition Members who worked with him, I am sure, would agree with that assessment.
Under this Government, no Minister or special adviser played any role in the provision of evidence. I cannot say what the position was of the previous Government in relation to the involvement of Ministers or special advisers. If the Leader of the Opposition knows the answer to that question, and I suspect that she does, I invite her to update the House.
Last night, the Crown Prosecution Service clarified that, in its view, the decision whether to publish the witness statements of the DNSA is for the Government. I therefore carefully considered this question this morning, and after legal advice, I have decided to publish the witness statements. Given the information contained, we will conduct a short process, but I want to make it clear that I intend to publish the witness statements in full.
To be clear, had the Conservatives been quicker in updating our legislation—a review that started in 2015—these individuals could have been prosecuted and we would not be where we are now. I am happy to answer any questions on this.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We want a country where young people are supported, where the quality of teaching is raised and where every skilled apprentice is valued and respected. We have set a new target of two thirds of young people to be in an apprenticeship or university. That will smash the glass ceiling and renew our country. We have supported this with a record £3 billion budget for more apprenticeships, more technical colleges and guaranteed training, apprenticeships or work for all 18 to 21-year-olds.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Mr Speaker, thank you for marking four years since the terrible murder of Sir David Amess. I know the whole House will want to join me in remembering our former colleague. He is very much still in our hearts and minds. The way he died reminds us that the security of Members and this Parliament is paramount, so it concerns us all that the case against two people spying on Members of this House has collapsed. It is simply unbelievable.
Exactly as I expected, the Prime Minister had to be dragged out at the top of PMQs to give a statement that answers no questions. [Laughter.] I don’t know what they are laughing at; we are talking about the security of this Parliament. He had to be dragged out only to repeat more obfuscation. It is simply unbelievable that he is trying to say that the last Government did not classify China as a threat, so I will refresh his memory.
In 2021, the previous Government’s integrated review described China as
“the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security.”
In 2024, the then Minister for Security said from the Dispatch Box that China poses a threat. But let us leave aside the Government. In November 2022, the director general of MI5 classified China as a threat in his remarks. How is it possible that the Government failed to provide the evidence that the CPS needed to prosecute?
The Prime Minister
The substantive evidence was provided in 2023 by the previous Government. That is when the witness statement was submitted. I am going to disclose it; Members will all be able to read it. The substantive evidence was written, disclosed and submitted in 2023, under the previous Government. I note that the Leader of the Opposition did not indicate whether Ministers were involved in that at the time.
The Leader of the Opposition questions what is in the refreshed reviews of 2021 and 2023. Let me be clear: the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, gave a speech at Mansion House one month after the arrests. It was called “Our position on China” and set out the Government’s policy. He said in that speech that summing up China as a “threat” in “one word” would be
“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise.”
He was Foreign Secretary at the time.
It was not just the right hon. Member for Braintree. The Leader of the Opposition was Business Secretary at the time. In September 2023—the relevant year—she said:
“We certainly should not be describing China as a foe”.
It is worth looking up the word “foe” in the dictionary. It does not end there. In September 2024, she said:
“I have shied away from calling China a threat”.
She is playing politics with national security.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister can read the beginning of a quote, but let me finish that quote. At the end of the quote that he just read out, I did describe China as a threat. But his whataboutery neglects the fact that the spies were charged under a Conservative Government and let off under Labour.
The Prime Minister has not answered any questions. On Monday, the Security Minister repeatedly told the House that Ministers did not take decisions and that it was the deputy National Security Adviser who had full freedom. Are the Government seriously saying that only one man—the deputy National Security Adviser—had anything to do with this failure? Is that Prime Minister seriously saying that the deputy did not discuss with the National Security Adviser, the Home Secretary or anyone in Downing Street? Is the Prime Minister seriously saying that?
The Prime Minister
Yes, and let me explain why. First, the case was charged under the last Government, according to the evidence submitted under that Government, who set out their policy position. What was on issue in the trial is not the position of the current Government, but the position of the last Government. They carefully avoided describing China as an enemy because that was their policy at the time. As far as the position under this Government is concerned, no Minister or special adviser was involved. I will double-check this—[Interruption.] This is important. After the charging decision, the prosecution were very careful about who would then see the witness evidence. I will double-check exactly what instruction was taken, but I can be absolutely clear that no Minister was involved, no special adviser was involved in this. I am as assured as I can be that the prosecution was saying that it would be the witnesses only who would be involved in short updates to the evidence that was submitted under the previous Government.
Mrs Badenoch
The end of the answer was different from the beginning of the answer. What on earth is the point of us having a lawyer rather than a leader as the Prime Minister if he cannot even get the law right on a matter of national security? He keeps going back to the CPS. The CPS has said that it was satisfied that it was right to charge in August 2024. The Sunday Times reported that Jonathan Powell, the Prime Minister’s National Security Adviser, convened a secret meeting to discuss the security consequences of the China spy trial. Did that meeting happen, or is The Sunday Times making it up?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady is clearly not a lawyer or a leader. The problem for her is that I do actually understand the law, and I know what has to be proven. I have also looked at the evidence that was put in under the last Government in relation to this case. There was a meeting in September; that did not involve the National Security Adviser discussing the evidence in any way. One further point: the final statement in this case was submitted in August 2025. There was no further submission of evidence, one way or the other, after any discussion in September. This is a red herring—a completely scurrilous allegation made by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister has now twice directly contradicted the words of his Security Minister. They cannot both be right. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee could not get any answers from the Security Minister. The CPS said that it was satisfied that the decision to charge the case in April 2024—not August—was correct on the basis of where the law stood at that time. This is a matter of fact, not a matter of what the previous Government had thought, or of the case not meeting a legal test—it did. Something must have changed when the charges were brought and when the case collapsed. The charges were brought under the Conservatives and collapsed under Labour. Will the Prime Minister tell us what changed, and what collapsed the case?
The Prime Minister
I have said that I will publish the witness statements in full. The whole House will then see exactly what was set out in 2023 in the substantive witness statements, and exactly what was set out in the two supplementary witness statements. The right hon. Lady will then realise that what she has just said is entirely baseless.
Mrs Badenoch
The CPS has said in the clearest terms that this prosecution was dropped because this Government did not provide the statements it expected. Why should we believe a man who at the last Prime Minister’s questions said that he had full confidence in the best friend of a convicted paedophile? Forgive us if we do not trust a word he says. This all stinks of a cover up. Given his statement earlier, will the Prime Minister publish today not just the Government witness statements, but also the meeting minutes, and all the correspondence that he had with the CPS?
The Prime Minister
Let me be clear: the only process I want to go through is in relation to some of the individuals in the statements to make sure that they know that this is coming up. I can assure the House that there is no substantive delay here.
The Prime Minister
I know this is of acute concern to a number of people. I will have the statements out in full. There is a bit of proper process that I need to go through—the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) will understand why that is necessary—and then they will be published in full. The right hon. Lady asks about minutes etc. There are the usual rules and process for Government. I remind her that the substantive issues in this case were discussed at meetings under the previous Government, so the Opposition are asking me to disclose the discussions that they had in relation to the witness statements in the first place.
Mrs Badenoch
Mr Speaker, you deserve better, and this House deserves better, than the evasive answers that we have had from the Prime Minister. Even the former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler has accused the Government of being “economical with the truth” on this issue. The Prime Minister cannot tell us why Jonathan Powell had a secret meeting, when the Security Minister said he had no involvement the case. He cannot tell us why his Government did not provide evidence that China was a threat, and I suspect that the statements will not prove that either. He is blaming his civil servants, the media and the last Government. He cannot explain why he could not see this case through. He should have seen this case through.
Let me be clear about what has happened: a serious case involving national security has collapsed because this Government are too weak to stand up to China. If the Prime Minister cannot protect the Members of this House, what does that say about his ability to protect this country?
The Prime Minister
The case did not proceed because the policy of the past Government did not meet the test that was necessary. That is the long and the short of it. Far from evading, I have said that I will disclose the full witness statements, and set out exactly what was in them, and exactly what the subsequent statements say. The allegation that somehow they were changed—that the first and second statements are different—is completely and utterly unfounded. This is a pathetic spectacle. Instead of taking responsibility for the fact that they failed to update the law—the review into the legislation was in 2015—the Conservatives took eight years to change the law. Had they done that more quickly, this case would have proceeded. It was their failure, and they are just slinging mud. Meanwhile, we are getting on with renewing our country, planning reforms to get Britain building again, online hospitals for waiting lists, and new opportunities for young people. Labour is building a better future; the Conservatives cannot even come to terms with their past.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend will have heard at our conference from Pooja Kanda, who I have met a number of times. Her son Ronan was fatally stabbed. Iusb am proud that we have delivered Ronan’s law to tackle the sale of ninja swords; we have also banned zombie knives and strengthened controls for online knife sales. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work in setting up the city safety summits.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
May I associate myself and my party with the tributes to David Amess? On behalf of my party, may I also pay tribute to Ming Campbell, who is being laid to rest today? That is the reason why my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) cannot be here. I thank you, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister and other Members of this House for the very kind tributes paid yesterday.
We welcome the new level of transparency from the Prime Minister, and we will scrutinise the witness statements closely, but it is clear that there are still many questions to be answered, including questions from Hongkongers. Hongkongers in St Albans and across the UK settled in our communities after they fled repression at the hands of the Chinese state, but they now see a British Government who want to make it harder for them to settle here permanently, refuse to impose targeted sanctions on Chinese officials who put bounties on Hongkongers’ heads, refuse to rule out a Chinese super-embassy and are failing to tackle Chinese espionage. Hongkongers are starting to ask whether the Prime Minister is trading away their security and safety in our communities for a cosier relationship with Beijing. What is the Prime Minister’s answer to them?
The Prime Minister
The answer is no. We have given and will continue to give support to Hongkongers, who need and deserve that support. The hon. Lady will be assured that the Jimmy Lai case is raised regularly at every opportunity by my Ministers and by me.
Daisy Cooper
I think Hongkongers will require a lot more reassurance and action from this Government. It is not just the Chinese Government who are a threat to our country. On Monday, the far-right, racist hate-preacher Tommy Robinson, who is on trial for allegedly refusing to comply with counter-terror police, claimed that his legal costs are being paid by Elon Musk. It is outrageous that a man who has so much control over what people read online every day could be funding someone who stokes far-right extremism on our streets. If it was Putin, the Government would surely act. Will the Prime Minister commission the security services to assess the threat that Elon Musk poses to our democracy, and to recommend measures that this House can take to stop that?
The Prime Minister
We look across the board at threats to our democracy, and must continue to do so. I will not comment on the particular case, given the state of legal proceedings.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in marking the heroism and sacrifice of the 29th Infantry Brigade, which is an enduring example of the bravery of all our armed forces. I know that Defence Ministers would be happy to discuss commemorating their courage. Our debt to the armed forces underlies our commitment to veterans, which includes delivering homes for heroes and a new network of veteran support centres, backed with £50 million.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Ahead of his party conference, the Prime Minister told the BBC that he was not sure whether he would campaign in Caerphilly for the by-election on 23 October. This is an important by-election in Wales, but with just over a week to go, the Prime Minister has not shown his face there yet. What is the problem? Is it his party’s decision to close 10 libraries in the community? Is it cuts to disability support? Or is it perhaps the fact that even the council leader resigned from the Labour party and is calling on people to support Plaid Cymru?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady leaves out of her count that we provided £21 billion—the largest ever settlement for Wales—and what did she do? She voted against it, if you can believe it. While we are on the question of money, I noticed that this week, the right hon. Lady accepted figures showing that independence would cost every Welsh person £7,000. Her party should be honest about the cost of their policies to the people of Wales.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I know just how important that school is to parents and children in his constituency, and share his determination to fix the broken SEND system. That is why we have boosted investment in SEND to £12 billion, to put new facilities and tailored support in place for children who have long been failed. We want decisions to be taken swiftly, and I will ask the schools Minister to update my hon. Friend about that particular school.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that food security is national security. I believe that our reforms strike the right balance, enabling investment in the public services that rural communities rely on. I thank him for drawing my attention to that report; he is right to do so. What really matters is increasing the year-on-year profitability of our farmers, which is why the former president of the National Farmers Union is leading a review of farm profitability for us. We are also delivering a 25-year farming road map and boosting export opportunities through the EU and US trade deals. That is backed by the £11.8 billion in the Budget for farming.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
On behalf of the House, I wish my hon. Friend the very best for his recovery. I know that this is a deeply personal campaign for him—a campaign that is also supported by our hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West. May I send my deepest sympathies, and pay tribute to, Zoe’s family, who are with us today? Their bravery is staggering, and I share their determination to improve cancer survival rates. That is why we are investing billions to see earlier diagnosis and faster treatment of cancer, and are developing a national cancer plan. Of course, we will get a meeting set up, and if the family are available and it is convenient —I do not know whether it is—I will ask the Health Minister to meet them later today, or, if that is not convenient, at the earliest possible opportunity, so that they can have that discussion.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We will certainly not be following the Leader of the Opposition. She unveiled what she called her “golden economic rule”, I think it was, which involves £47 billion of spending cuts—that is a fifth of the NHS budget—with not a shred of detail about where the money would come from. The Institute for Government said that it was based on “shaky foundations”. More unfunded tax cuts, and more austerity for public services: the Conservatives have not listened, and they have not learnt.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has been a strong advocate for his constituents on this issue. The Health Secretary has met the families affected by these failures twice, I think, this year to hear their stories, and I want to make it clear that what happened to their loved ones is unacceptable. The Health Secretary is currently considering the best way forward so that families get the answers that they deserve. It is right that they receive any update first, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we will provide that update as soon as we are able to do so.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Just a few months ago we published our small business strategy, which was based on what small businesses said to us. I will make a copy available to the hon. Lady so that she can give one to each of her constituents before they respond to the survey.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right: the Conservative party let roads crumble after years of under-investment. We are building infrastructure that working people rely on, with £1 billion to repair bridges, tunnels and flyovers across the country and £92 billion in major road and rail upgrades. We are rebuilding Britain; the Conservatives cannot even spell it.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman will have heard my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) a moment ago; I say again that what happened to his constituents is unacceptable, and we will give the answer as soon as we can. In the meantime, the hon. Member asks what is happening. We are getting on with recruiting 6,700 additional NHS mental health staff, we are building 85 new dedicated mental health emergency departments, and we have boosted NHS spending on mental health by almost £700 million.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend captures the choice before us as a country: we can either give in to division or come together as a country and renew our country. This is National Hate Crime Awareness Week, and in the past fortnight we have seen the horrific terror atrocity in Manchester and a despicable arson attack on the mosque in Peacehaven. I want to be clear as Prime Minister: I am proud to lead and to serve this beautiful, tolerant and diverse country. An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady will know, we have protected business rates bills from inflation and extended relief at 40%, with new, permanent lower rates set and introduced for retail, hospitality and leisure. As part of our small business plan, we are providing £3 billion so that lenders can offer more loans to small businesses. We are, of course, introducing the most significant package on late payments—a real issue for small businesses—and reforms that are bigger than any in the last 25 years.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Labour is introducing an elections Bill to protect our democracy from foreign interference. But look at Reform. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and his deputy, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), worked alongside someone who took money to spread Putin’s propaganda. Whatever their denials, they have serious questions to answer about what they knew, but that is the choice: Kremlin cronies sowing division or Labour patriots working for national renewal.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
The lines that we have heard from the Government in recent days have been a conflation of fabricated stories trying to set up straw men and knock down things that have not been said. The real question in this whole debate is whether or not the Director of Public Prosecutions charged legally and properly. If they did, then the Official Secrets Act is valid, and all this talk about the National Security Act 2023, which I introduced, is completely irrelevant. If they did not, why is he not charging his successor with abuse of power? Well, we know the reality, Mr Speaker. Although the Prime Minister has answered the question about evidence, the real question is: what political direction did this Government give to their officials before they went to give evidence?
The Prime Minister
Absolutely none—absolutely none. I will also tell the right hon. Gentleman this: I was the chief prosecutor for five years, and I can say that in those five years, which included three years under the coalition Government, when we were taking difficult decisions on MPs’ expenses, not once—not once—was I subjected to political pressure of any sort from anyone. That is the tradition in this country. It is a proud tradition, and it is one I uphold as Prime Minister, just as I upheld it when I was Director of Public Prosecutions.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the statement that the Security Minister made earlier this week and then again in answer to a question today, I have been misquoted—and the misquote, I think, is significant. It has been said that I, in a speech at Mansion House, said that describing China as a threat was
“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise.”
The quote was that describing China or our policy “in one word” was
“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise.”
In that speech, I went on to say of our policy:
“First, we will strengthen our national security protections wherever Beijing’s actions pose a threat to our people or our prosperity.”
I finished by saying:
“And when there are tensions with other objectives, we will always put our national security first.”
How can I get redress for this misquote, Mr Speaker?
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman has put it on the record, and it is there now for all to see. I will leave it at that.
Jhoots Pharmacy
(1 day, 9 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
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the adequacy of Jhoots as a pharmacy provider.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important urgent question.
Pharmacies play a vital role in our healthcare system. They are at the heart of our high streets and are the cornerstone of communities up and down the country. That is why this Government have given pharmacies a funding boost of almost £500 million this year, which is more than any other area of the NHS and the biggest uplift in years. Indeed, we have provided a 19% uplift over the two-year period.
The vast majority of pharmacies provide excellent care to their patients, but unfortunately there are some that fall short of the standards we expect. Sadly, the services provided by Jhoots are falling well below the mark. Hon. Members will know that several integrated care boards have been deploying contract management actions against Jhoots, initially in the form of breach notices. Integrated care boards enforce the NHS terms of service on pharmacies for such things as their opening hours, and the General Pharmaceutical Council regulates pharmacy premises and pharmacy professionals. Both ICBs and the General Pharmaceutical Council have powers to address problems in pharmacies and they are actively using those powers, including in relation to stores that are part of Jhoots.
I have written to the hon. Gentleman about this case. As he will understand, it is difficult for me to go into detail about one pharmacy chain, at least on the specifics of the measures we are taking, but I can tell him that where there are problems with access to medicines, ICBs are supporting affected patients in the short term, for example by allowing local dispensing doctors to provide dispensing services to those patients. Where pharmacy stores regularly breach their terms of service, ICBs can give them notice that they are being removed from the pharmaceutical list. This power applies to any and all pharmacies, including, of course, Jhoots, and means that pharmacies would no longer be able to provide NHS services. Such notices can be appealed against, so it does take some time to work through the system. I stress to hon. Members that pharmacies are private businesses and must be responsible business owners. We can regulate what pharmacies should and should not do as part of their NHS terms of service, but it is not possible to prevent pharmacies from, for example, not paying their staff.
In conclusion, if pharmacies breach their terms of service, for example by not being open when they should be or where there are patient safety concerns, we take action. The General Pharmaceutical Council is taking regulatory action. ICBs are taking regulatory action and are supporting patients with access to medicines where necessary. This is aimed at improving pharmacies’ behaviour, but can ultimately lead to pharmacies being forced to close their business. I have also asked my officials to explore whether we can strengthen the regulatory framework to be able to deal more quickly with pharmacies that do not play by the rules. My officials are working on that as a matter of urgency. My office is also setting up a meeting with the hon. Gentleman to discuss this matter further and I will keep the House updated in the usual way.
Edward Morello
I would be grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you could pass on my thanks to Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. I thank the Minister for his response.
The collapse of service provision in some places, the constant closures in others and the general governance at Jhoots pharmacy, which operates 150 branches across England, demands immediate ministerial intervention. In West Dorset, Jhoots branches in Lyme Regis and Bridport have been closed for months, leaving thousands without access to essential medication and placing a huge strain on overstretched neighbouring pharmacies. Jhoots staff have gone months without pay, despite payslips being issued, tax deductions made and pension contributions not deposited. I have been contacted only this morning by staff who have not been paid for the third month. Many are unable to buy food or pay rent. They are relying on food banks and the amazing communities that have stepped up to support them. There have been reports of staff recruited by Jhoots under skilled worker visas being left without income or resource. I have also been made aware of deeply troubling reports of controlled drugs being removed without proper documentation or process, which if proven true may constitute a breach of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
I have raised my concerns with the General Pharmaceutical Council, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the NHS Business Services Authority, the ICB and the Minister, whom I thank for his response. I understand that processes must be followed, but this situation requires immediate action. Jhoots staff are not being paid and people across the country do not have access to vital medicine. Will the Minister please confirm what steps are being taken to ensure that all Jhoots staff are paid without delay? What discussions have taken place with the NHS BSA, the General Pharmaceutical Council and other regulators about Jhoots’s business practices? Finally, will the Government commit to urgently reviewing Jhoots’s suitability as an NHS pharmacy provider, outline what safeguards will be introduced to prevent this from happening again and review the pharmacy funding model?
Stephen Kinnock
I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman has said. It is completely and utterly unacceptable if a business such as Jhoots is not paying its staff. If there are indeed these reports that controlled drugs are not being handled properly, I would strongly recommend that any mishandling of drugs be reported to the General Pharmaceutical Council, which regulates pharmacy professionals and premises, so that appropriate action can be taken.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the payment of staff. Pharmacy staff are vital parts of the NHS part of what a pharmacy does. Pharmacy staff provide vital services to our communities and should be paid according to their contracts; any failure to do so is completely unacceptable. Of course, pharmacy staff are employed not by the NHS, but by the businesses they work for, so any dispute between staff and a pharmacy business should be raised with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, ACAS. I am also in touch with the Pharmacists’ Defence Association—the PDA—which is doing important work representing its members. I will be meeting them soon as well. Of course, we have responsibility for the NHS part of the work, but it is up to individual businesses to ensure that their employees are treated fairly.
The hon. Gentleman rightly mentions the review of suitability to operate, and we are now looking at that across the board. We are looking at the role of the General Pharmaceutical Council and what is taking place with ICBs taking contract action. Where there is no sign of improvement and pharmacies continue to be in breach, the next escalation is to strike them off the pharmaceutical register, which takes some time, because certain pharmacies—I am not going to name names, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman can imagine who—are trying every single thing they can to appeal, push back and stop the actions that we are seeking to take, which is elongating the process. However, I want to be clear: if there is clear breach and action is not taken to remedy that breach, pharmacies will be struck off the pharmaceutical register.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call our very own pharmacist, Sadik Al-Hassan.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a pharmacist for nearly 20 years and the MP of North Somerset, I have the dubious pleasure of having two Jhoots pharmacies in the town of Portishead in my constituency. I cannot say two operating pharmacies, because they have shuttered their doors, with reports of them not having paid their bills, their rent or their staff. As a pharmacist, I know that this affects the perception and view of community pharmacy up and down the country. What plans do the Minister and the Department have to ensure that bad actors in the pharmacy space—as Jhoots, in my opinion, appears to be—are dealt with more quickly and effectively under new legislation?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Questions should not be statements.
Stephen Kinnock
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s direct professional expertise and experience as a pharmacist. He is right to point to the fact that the regulatory framework is not as strong as it needs to be. I have spoken with officials in my Department who have worked in the pharmacy sector for many years, and they have never seen behaviour like this before. It is quite unprecedented. Nevertheless, it is shining a light on the fact that we do not have a strong enough regulatory framework. We need to look at the way that business owners are regulated. There is strong regulation of pharmacists and pharmacy staff such as technicians, but business owners are not regulated as strongly as they could and should be.
My hon. Friend is right that speed is also important, which is why we need to look at ways of fast-tracking particular cases where there is clear breach, because sometimes the appeal process can be very slow indeed. We are looking at all of this in the round, and I have commissioned urgent advice from my officials to see how we can beef up the regulatory framework.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Only this weekend, the National Pharmacy Association chief executive, Henry Gregg, said that he is concerned that
“reports of Jhoots Pharmacy branches across England failing patients risks damaging community pharmacy’s reputation and could imperil its ability to secure a good 2026-27 funding settlement.”
Communities across the country have been left without functioning pharmacies. Doors have been locked without notice, patients have arrived to find no pharmacist, no prescriptions and no stock, and staff have gone unpaid and been threatened with the sack. Jhoots Pharmacy faces allegations of not paying wages, having premises repossessed and serious regulatory breaches. The General Pharmaceutical Council has already intervened several times, yet for many patients it is too late—they simply cannot get their medicines. This is not an isolated business failure; it exposes a deeper fragility in the community pharmacy network on which local people depend for basics and often lifesaving care.
I have four questions for the Minister. First, when was NHS England first made aware of these closures, and has the Minister met the Jhoots leadership? If not, why not? If he did, what was the outcome? Secondly, has the Department assessed how many people have been left without local pharmacy access as a result of Jhoots’s actions, and what is the Minister doing to remedy this, considering it is happening across the country? He mentioned ICBs, but there are several involved. Thirdly, what mechanisms exist to ensure continuity of care when a contractor collapses or walks away? Again, he mentioned ICBs, but is there a national contingency plan? Finally, will the Government now review whether the current model, under which chains are expanding rapidly through acquisition and debt, is fit to safeguard community pharmacies in the long term? Linked to that, can the Minister definitively confirm that the funding settlement has not been compromised?
The 10-year NHS plan states that it wants to move more care into the community, yet it is completely missing a delivery chapter on how to achieve that. At the same time, we have issues such as Jhoots. I hope the Minister will be taking steps to investigate this issue in its entirety and to safeguard against this type of incident happening again, and will spell out the delivery aspect of the 10-year plan.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the shadow Minister for his questions. He asked about first awareness of what was happening with Jhoots. He will be aware that it entered the market through the purchase of a number of Lloyds pharmacies that were no longer a going concern in 2023, so the question about due diligence on Jhoots as an operator is probably something he should be asking one of my predecessors from his party, which was in power at the time. Since those purchases, Jhoots has expanded rapidly, and that has been where we have seen the question marks around its ability to operate and the serious downgrading of services.
I have not met the management of Jhoots. We are looking at a whole range of legal and regulatory enforcement procedures, and the decision we have taken is that it is better not to interfere in any way in those processes, but I am certainly monitoring that very closely. If we receive legal advice that suggests that such a meeting would be a good idea, I will of course be open to it. However, the current legal position based on the advice we have received is that it would not be appropriate at this time.
On local pharmacy access, integrated care boards have a statutory responsibility to ensure adequate pharmacy provision. Some ICBs, for example, have allowed dispensing GP practices to provide dispensing services to affected patients, while others have worked with local GP practices to advise patients to nominate alternative nearby pharmacies for their prescriptions. We have looked at the impact geographically, and our view is that in most cases there is alternative pharmacy provision to Jhoots within striking distance. However, there are four or five areas of the country where that is not the case, including in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), who secured this urgent question. I am very conscious of that. In those cases, extra provision needs to be made through ICBs and GPs—that may be through distance selling or by other means—to ensure that patients have pharmacy access.
The shadow Minister asks about continuity of care and national contingency. The situation is challenging because, as I mentioned in my remarks and as officials have said, we have not seen this rapid decline in service before. We are working at pace to strengthen the regulatory framework and we are looking at contingency plans. I do not see any reason why the overall funding settlement for pharmacy should be undermined. We will continue to protect community pharmacy as a crucial part of our NHS.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response. Community pharmacies, such as Lodge pharmacy in Perry Common in my area, play a vital role and offer an excellent service, and that is why I am concerned when places such as Jhoots pharmacy close or, maybe, fold. The winter months are coming, and I am passionate about winter measures. How will we ensure that our pharmacies can offer the winter vaccines needed this year if we lose large chains, such as Jhoots?
Stephen Kinnock
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work on the Select Committee. NHS England is assessing the situation and preparing contingency plans in case Jhoots becomes insolvent. Such plans involve working with other local pharmacies and dispensing GP practices to ensure that patients continue to have access to medicines. Continuity of care, as she rightly points out, must be at the heart of our response, and we are working at pace to ensure that is protected.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
May I first thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for raising this appalling issue? Pharmacies are at the heart of our communities and are relied upon by millions. They are under increasing pressure across the country, where we are seeing irregular opening hours and unannounced closures. Families living in communities that rely on Jhoots pharmacies, such as those in the constituency of my hon. Friend and many other parts of the country, will be deeply concerned that they and their loved ones could be about to be left without medicines that they desperately need. Staff have been placed in an intolerable situation.
The National Pharmacy Association’s chief executive has said, as we have heard, that Jhoots risks damaging the reputation of community pharmacies. The Government urgently need to grip this issue and ensure that patients and the staff of these pharmacies are not being let down. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State agree to meet all the Members in this place whose communities are affected by potential closures? Will he update the House at the earliest opportunity as to what steps he is taking to stabilise the crisis in community pharmacy across the country? Is he confident that integrated care boards, which are distracted by 50% cuts to their budgets and top-down reorganisation, have the capacity to deal with this urgent situation as they head into planning for the next winter crisis?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Member for those questions. I would certainly be happy to meet Members who have Jhoots in their constituency and are affected. I will update the House. We are looking at strengthening the regulation, but there are some constraints on what I can say, because so much of this is now going through legal process. There is pushback, and we do not want to do anything to jeopardise the legal action we are taking through the appeal process, so I will have to be relatively circumspect in what I say. I am happy to have those discussions and to update the House.
I am confident that ICBs can take this forward. In most cases across the country, our assessment is that there is a pharmacy within striking distance of a Jhoots, but certainly in those areas where there is not, that may require particular follow-up action. My officials and I will be following up with those ICBs to ensure that the appropriate action is being taken.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Five members of staff from Jhoots pharmacy in Laceby Road have been to see me. They have been going into work, but they have not been paid since July. It is absolutely appalling. Can the Minister set out what pressure he and the Department can bring to bear on this chain, which has now unfortunately closed its doors for good?
Stephen Kinnock
I agree with absolutely every word that my hon. Friend has just said. It is completely unacceptable that people are coming into work, doing an honest day’s work and then not receiving an honest day’s pay. Unfortunately, there is a limit to what we can do, because pharmacies are private businesses and each employer is required to fulfil their legal obligations to pay their staff. I recommend that the members of staff she mentions contact ACAS and their trade union the PDA, if they are not already in touch. For those who are not members of that union, I strongly recommend joining a trade union and seeking legal advice from it. That is a vital part of what trade unions do. They need to take action to force Jhoots to do the right thing.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I thank my friend and neighbour, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), for securing this urgent question. I have exactly the same problem as he and the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), but in Shaftesbury in my constituency. I thank the staff of Boots, who are picking up such a huge amount of slack because Jhoots is not there. There is a danger to the member of staff who is on duty, because there are prescribed drugs on the premises, and she is the only person there, and I worry for her safety. What additional support can the Department give to existing providers, such as Boots, that are picking up the slack, particularly during the winter peak, in terms of advice to patients and administering vaccines?
This is a clear breach of contract, but I am told by our ICB that it does not fall within contract law. The regulations are moot on this point, because the circumstances that Jhoots finds itself in were never envisaged when the regulations were written. That is the problem that the Minister has identified. There seems to be some timidity among officials and others on the overhanging threat of a judicial review, were the Government to act in extremis to introduce some urgency. I urge the Minister to take that risk on behalf of all our constituents. I certainly welcome his offer, following the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), that all Members of Parliament with constituents affected by this dire problem should be involved in meetings. I look forward to that, so that we can provide timely advice, updates and support to our constituents, who are rightly worried.
Stephen Kinnock
I pay tribute to the Boots employees in the hon. Member’s constituency where Jhoots is not providing the service that is required. We appreciate that. I can assure him that nothing is off the table. He has rightly identified the problem with the regulatory framework, which is strong on pharmacists, pharmacists’ premises and pharmacy staff, but there is something of a gap when it comes to regulating pharmacy business owners. That gap has been identified, and I have commissioned my officials to work on that at pace. I will happily keep him updated on that work.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the context and the responses he has provided so far. Jhoots in my constituency of Gillingham and Rainham has provided an incredibly poor service, not paying staff, not dispensing vital medicine and often not opening on time. However, any replacement pharmacy or provider cannot come in, because the local pharmaceutical needs assessment suggests that there is functioning provision. Will the Minister consider a review of the criteria surrounding PNAs so that they not only list those pharmacies that are available, but also look at failures, such as the ones we are seeing with Jhoots? By recognising that, other providers can take their place, if needs be.
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend has put her finger on an issue within all this, which is that if we are looking to bring in other pharmacies to replace Jhoots or, indeed, to take over a Jhoots store, we cannot do that in the latter case until such time as there is an insolvency and that business is no longer a going concern. There is a process, set out in legislation, for opening new pharmacies. Potential new pharmacy contractors can apply to open in an area and evidence how a new pharmacy can provide benefits for patients, but it is a challenge for them to make such a case if a Jhoots pharmacy is still listed as open and providing services. It is something of a Catch-22 situation. We first have to resolve the issue with Jhoots and take the necessary action, and then we can see where we are with potential gaps in the market.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The case of Jhoots is clearly hugely unfortunate given the incredible work that community pharmacies do up and down the country for our constituents. I am pleased to hear the Minister say that this case will not negatively affect the funding settlement, but it is set against the backdrop of a very precarious sector where actors who want to do good by our communities and do a high-quality job often find that they simply cannot make ends meet, and bad actors find a way to move in. When the Committee looked last at this issue, the workforce was a key plank to why the sector is not sustainable. What update can the Minister give us on the inclusion of pharmacists in the workforce plan?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Lady and pay tribute to her work as Chair of the Select Committee. I am very proud of the fact that we delivered a £500 million uplift to pharmacy—19% across the two-year period. It was the highest uplift of any sector, not just of my portfolio but the entire NHS. I am also very proud of the fact that we are taking forward hub-and-spoke legislation to enable pharmacists and pharmacy technicians to operate at the top of their licence. The day before yesterday we signed off on a statutory instrument to improve the ability of technicians to do more in the area of dispensing. We are looking to empower the workforce and enable them to operate at the top of their licence. That is a fundamental part of the shift from hospital to community that is at the heart of our 10-year plan.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
Jhoots pharmacy moved into the village of Knott End in 2023, and it was not long before constituents were getting in touch with me to explain that they could not access their prescriptions because pharmacies were closed and unreliable. We do have the very good Over Wyre medical centre, which has dispensing rights, but it is restrained by the one-mile rule, which means that it cannot dispense prescriptions within one mile of a pharmacy, whether that is open or closed. I feel like we are in a Catch-22 situation. What help can the Minister give my constituents to ensure that those who are within one mile of the Jhoots pharmacy that is never open can access their prescriptions from the dispensing Over Wyre medical centre?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend rightly puts her finger on the Catch-22 situation in which we find ourselves. It is patently absurd that a pharmacy that is not operating, as she just described, is blocking the ability of others to step in and fill the gap. That is something we have to resolve, and it is part of the work I have commissioned urgently. We clearly have gaps in the regulatory framework. This is an unprecedented situation, and we are working at pace to address it, but she has rightly put her finger on this Catch-22, which needs to be resolved. We need to move one piece out of the way so that we can deal with the situation.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The way Jhoots is treating its workforce, the community and suppliers is frankly appalling. It is failing communities who desperately rely on it. The Government are planning to introduce a health Bill at some point in the coming months that will see the abolition of NHS England. Can the Minister update the House on when the Bill will come forward and what provision it will contain to strengthen accountability for the delivery of community pharmacy?
Stephen Kinnock
I know that my colleague the Minister of State for Health is working hard on the drafting process for the Bill. I cannot give the hon. Member the exact date of its introduction, but I would be very happy to write to him with confirmation of the expected introduction date.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I am pleased that this urgent question has been secured, because I have written to the Minister about this company. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), who has given me advice in the matter. I am pleased that the Government are taking regulatory action in respect of the quality, safety and availability of the service, but I was horrified to hear that several of my constituents working for this company have gone unpaid for several weeks. Please could the Minister reach out to the relevant Minister within the Department for Business and Trade to see what else we can do for those people, because it is simply not right that they are out of pocket?
Stephen Kinnock
That is an excellent suggestion; I will do that. We are hearing colleague after colleague say that staff are not being paid, and if there is clear evidence of a breach of employment law, we absolutely need to look at that. I will follow up on my hon. Friend’s suggestion.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
We have heard again this afternoon the line from the Minister that pharmacy staff are employed not by the NHS but by pharmacy businesses, and that this is just a dispute between staff and the pharmacy business that should be raised in the first instance with ACAS. Holli Froggatt from Sidmouth, a former member of Jhoots staff, has written to me to say that staff have emailed Jhoots begging for their wages as they have empty bank accounts. In normal circumstances, the Government like to lean on pharmacies to take the pressure off GPs, with such schemes as Pharmacy First, so how can the Minister simply wash his hands of this situation when staff have gone for three months without pay?
Stephen Kinnock
I do not think that is an accurate characterisation of what I am saying. I am saying that we are taking action against Jhoots from the regulatory point of view, and there is clearly a glaring issue with the payment of staff. That needs to be taken forward through the industrial relations process, both through ACAS and the PDA. We will give all the support we can to both those organisations to ensure that Jhoots is held to account.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
My constituents in Sedbergh, a rural market town, have suffered greatly from the terrible pharmacy provision by Jhoots. Medicines have been unavailable, the pharmacy has often been closed, and staff and locum pharmacists are going unpaid, yet pay slips are being issued, so it is very hard for them to claim benefits. I have written to the Minister and met with the integrated care board. Doctors and neighbouring pharmacists—I say neighbouring, but this is in Westmorland, which is a 40-minute drive away—have stepped in to help, as has the parish council. Can the Minister outline what action he is taking nationally to force Jhoots to provide a better service for my constituents?
Stephen Kinnock
We are actively working with integrated care boards, NHS England, the General Pharmaceutical Council and, indeed, trade unions to ensure that all of these issues are being taken forward and given the urgency that they require. Sadly, as I have pointed out, the regulatory framework is not adequate. It is very focused on pharmacists and pharmacy premises, and inadequately and insufficiently focused on business owners. That is something that must be addressed as a matter of urgency, and we are working on it at pace.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The failure of Jhoots is putting unsustainable pressure on other pharmacies across my constituency, but talks have not even begun on pharmacy funding beyond March of next year. Given the urgent situation with Jhoots, will the Minister review the timescale for those talks so that our pharmacies that are having to pick up this extra work can have some certainty about future funding?
Stephen Kinnock
This is absolutely urgent, as the hon. Member rightly says. I have commissioned officials to work on this matter at pace. We can clearly see that this is a matter of national significance simply by the number of colleagues in the Chamber. I can give the hon. Member that assurance, and I would be happy to update him once I have a better sense of the exact timeframe and deadlines. We will be insisting that things happen as a matter of urgency.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Over the recess I met the Singh family, who run two pharmacies in my constituency. The family were clear that, despite improved funding, they are still struggling with overly complex funding formulas, delayed payments, high energy prices and drug shortages, among other challenges. However, the positive initiatives of Pharmacy First and the independent prescribing pathfinder programme offer a ray of hope. Will the Minister commit to continuing to invest time and energy in expanding those programmes and meet my pharmacies from Rushcliffe to discuss them further?
Stephen Kinnock
We remain absolutely committed to the independent prescribing service and are working on the plans and strategy to make that a reality. We continue to support Pharmacy First, but sadly take-up of it has not been as good as we would have liked it to be. The way it was structured and incentivised has not enabled it to realise its full potential, and we are working on that as well. A number of errors were made by the previous Government, who did not set Pharmacy First up to succeed to the extent that it should have done.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Jhoots Pharmacy has revealed the severe financial strain facing community pharmacies. The towns of Glastonbury and Bruton are home to fantastic independent pharmacies, continuing to serve their communities despite more than half of pharmacy owners losing money last year. How will the Government ensure that the regulatory framework is robust so that community pharmacy services in rural areas can remain resilient and accessible?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Member is right: this is about making the regulatory framework more robust. As I have pointed out, it is robust on pharmacists, on technicians and on pharmacy premises, but it is simply not strong enough when it comes to pharmacy business owners. The unprecedented case of Jhoots is throwing that into sharp relief. That is what we are working on at pace. I will be happy to update her once we have some clear progress on the plan and strategy to beef up the regulatory framework to ensure that this kind of thing can never happen again.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
Last week I met staff from Jhoots Pharmacy in Thorley and was shocked when they told me that they had been unpaid for months but were still working. Some were struggling with their mortgages or unable to afford food for their children’s school lunches. Their concern was for their residents, many of whom are elderly and vulnerable, who have been left without essential medication because of stock issues and unexpected closures. They are good, decent people who want to provide a community service for our residents. Will the Minister assure my constituents directly that the Department will look at all possible options and work across Government where relevant to address the situation that allowed this to become a problem and the specific situation affecting my constituents now?
Stephen Kinnock
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituents, who are clearly going through an extremely difficult and challenging time. I strongly recommend that they contact ACAS and the PDA, or another trade union if they happen to be a member of one. His key point is about how we can ensure that this does not happen again. The GPhC is taking enforcement action against individual pharmacies and we have to wait for the outcome of those actions—some of those are going through appeal processes. As soon as one of those actions has concluded, that will greatly facilitate and catalyse the process for going after any pharmacy that is not delivering to the service standards that we would expect.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Staff and patients at Jhoots Pharmacy in South Wootton in North West Norfolk have been let down, going months without pay or stock, and with no communication from management. The pharmacist left after non-payment. When I raised those issues with the company, it simply refused to respond. The Minister has referred to future regulatory changes, but given that the pattern is repeated across the country, what urgent steps is he taking to work with ICBs collectively to ensure that staff get the money they are owed and that commissioned services are delivered? Will he not rule out taking action against individual directors?
Stephen Kinnock
As I said, we are in constant dialogue with ICBs and the GPhC. I absolutely get it: we need to speed it up as it needs to be faster and more urgent. I am clear about that, and we are taking this forward as a matter of priority.
In terms of taking action against individual directors, nothing is off the table. As I said, the regulatory framework as things stand does not facilitate that, so we have got to look at other options. But there are views in the GPhC that suggest there may be some ways of looking at interpreting regulations and legislation that could facilitate more immediate action. That is on the menu of actions that we are looking at.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
For almost two years now, the people of Sheringham have been suffering from completely unacceptable service from our local branch of Jhoots. Shortages of drugs, shortages of pharmacists, issues with paying staff and a litany of other issues have caused chaos, including one resident sent by NHS 111 to secure emergency antibiotics finding themselves standing in the rain outside a closed pharmacy, fearful that they would end up in A&E. Will the Minister tell people in Sheringham and the surrounding villages what protection there will be for services if Jhoots is no longer fit to provide them? How is taxpayers’ money being protected from being lost? Most importantly, how on earth was it allowed to get this bad in the first place?
Stephen Kinnock
In terms of the replacement for Jhoots services, that is where we are in a Catch-22 situation, because until a pharmacy that is not providing a service has been moved out of the way, it is not possible to move in and replace that service with another, so the first step in all this is to take action against those pharmacies that are not delivering to requisite service standards. As soon as we can get that process moving, we can start to commission and bring in alternative providers. I share his frustration and the impatience of his constituents, and I assure him that we are taking urgent action on all these issues.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his strong answers to restore confidence. Will he acknowledge that pressure on the NHS, especially into the winter months, means that pharmacies will be playing a bigger role in providing basic help and advice, and that being unable to rely on a pharmacy cannot be sustained? Will he please outline the professional standards expected of pharmaceutical chains throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and how these private companies can be held to their public obligations?
Stephen Kinnock
I agree with the hon. Member on the vital role played by community pharmacy now and going into the future. We want that role to continue and, indeed, to be strengthened and expanded. If we look at our 10-year plan, with the shift from hospital to community, we see that community pharmacy is at the heart of that. Also, in the shift from sickness to prevention, we see the vital work that community pharmacy plays in delivering vaccines and a whole range of other services that really will support the prevention agenda, so community pharmacy is at the heart of our plan.
The standards set out by the General Pharmaceutical Council—robust standards that are robustly regulated—require a certain level of service to be provided and certain levels of expertise and experience. What we clearly now need to do is upgrade the way we regulate pharmacy business owners. My officials and I are working on that as a matter of urgency.
Ukraine
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the latest situation in Ukraine, on the recent strikes against Kyiv, on our continuing support for Ukraine, on our response to continuing Russian aggression, and on a major new package of sanctions against Russian oil and gas that I am announcing today. It is a pleasure to do so on the same day we have welcomed Ruslan Stefanchuk, the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament, to the House of Commons—a sign of our strong and continued friendship.
It is a reflection of the importance of Ukraine’s security to the Government and to all of us here in the UK that my first statement to the House from the Dispatch Box as Foreign Secretary is on Ukraine, just as Ukraine was my first visit when taking up the role a month ago. Let me also thank and pay tribute to my predecessor in this role—the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—for his work in representing our country on the world stage with great principle and distinction, and in showing such strong and continued leadership in supporting Ukraine.
Three and a half years after Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, President Putin has failed in his war aims. He is failing on his military objectives, on the economy and on his political objectives for both Ukraine and Europe, thanks to the courage and resilience of the Ukrainian people and the support and determination of Ukraine’s friends. As Ukraine stands firm against Russia, the UK stands firm with Ukraine. Ukraine’s security is Europe’s security, and the security and stability of the whole of Europe is vital for our security here in the UK. President Zelensky stands ready to hold talks for peace, but President Putin seeks only to escalate war. He will not succeed.
Now is the time not just to continue with our steadfast support for Ukraine’s defence, but to substantially increase the pressure on Russia’s economy and on Putin’s war machine. Major new UK sanctions against Russia’s biggest oil companies and shadow fleet and new concerted actions with our partners will choke off oil and gas revenues and hit at the heart of Putin’s economy and war machine. We are determined to support our Ukrainian friends and to stand up for our own security.
What was clear to me in Kyiv a few weeks ago, and what is clear to everyone visiting Ukraine, is the enduring courage and unbreakable spirit of the Ukrainian people. I saw at first hand the damage from an Iskander missile on Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers building just 10 days after the British Council offices were also damaged. I met families whose lives had been uprooted, their homes destroyed and their children’s education torn apart. I also met up with two teenagers who lived with us in Castleford during the first year of the war and who have now returned. Despite the drones, the bombardments and the disruption to their lives and their schooling, they continue to train as international standard ballroom dancers. Like Ukrainians across their country, they will not let Russia destroy their dreams.
That is what Vladimir Putin will never understand about the Ukrainian people. For three and a half years—indeed, since 2014—he has questioned their resilience. For three and a half years, he has doubted the commitment of their allies. For three and a half years, he has been proven wrong. Everywhere I went in Kyiv last month, I saw a nation resolute in its fight.
Despite the huge Russian mobilisation efforts in the last three years, Putin remains as far away from achieving those military goals as he has ever been. In this war that Putin started, Russian losses are now 20 times higher than Soviet losses in Afghanistan. In this war that Putin continues to pursue, Russia is now struggling to equip its forces. In some areas, stocks are so low that they have resorted to using military kit from the 1950s. As a result of this war that Putin refuses to end, the International Monetary Fund has revised down Russian growth forecasts and military spending now outstrips social spending for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
We know, however, that with increased desperation comes increased danger. In recent weeks, Putin has engaged in provocative and reckless violations of NATO airspace in Estonia, Poland and Romania, and NATO stands together against that action, resolute and ready to act. His recent bombardment of Ukraine has seen some of the largest attacks in Europe since the height of the second world war. Civilian casualties have risen nearly 40%, with children killed in playgrounds, hospitals and schools destroyed, and civilian energy infrastructure targeted. Just yesterday, a UN aid convoy was hit delivering vital assistance to a frontline community.
While we continue to strive for peace in Ukraine, we must be steeled for the war to continue, and that means focusing on four priorities. First, we will ensure that Ukraine gets the support it needs to stand up to this latest onslaught. In my meetings with President Zelensky and Foreign Minister Sybiha in September, I reaffirmed the UK’s ironclad support. We are providing £4.5 billion of military support for Ukraine this year—more than ever before—with over £150 million-worth of air defence and artillery delivered in the last two months alone. We have used our co-chairmanship of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group to galvanise partners, raising over £2 billion through the UK-run International Fund for Ukraine to support the most urgent military needs. During that Kyiv visit, I announced £142 million in UK aid to support Ukraine through the winter and into next year. That will include our largest emergency energy support package since the start of the war to restore and repair water, heating and electricity systems.
Secondly, we will ramp up the pressure on Russia to ensure that their escalation comes at a clear cost. I am today setting out a further and new set of sanctions—among our strongest so far—to tighten the pressure on Russia’s economy. This will be the second set of sanctions I have announced in a month and I am ready to go further still. This will take the total UK-imposed sanctions on Russia-related individuals and entities to over 2,900.
At the UN Security Council last month, I told Foreign Minister Lavrov directly, shortly before he walked out of the chamber, that
“we will target your ailing economy, your oil and gas revenues…the defence industry making your munitions, because we know for Russia, the price of war is piling up.”
With immediate effect, we are sanctioning Russia’s two largest oil producers, Rosneft and Lukoil, the two biggest Russian energy firms ever targeted by UK sanctions. That is part of an extensive new sanctions package of 90 targets that include refineries around the world that are responsible for importing Russian oil, suppliers of drone and missile components and 44 shadow fleet vessels, further disrupting the network of tankers that transport Russia’s oil.
The UK has now sanctioned more shadow fleet vessels than any other partner, taking billions of dollars-worth of Russian oil off the market. We are sanctioning not just Russian individuals and companies, but organisations in third countries that continue to support the Russian war effort with all the damaging consequences not just for Ukraine but for Europe’s stability. The sanctions stop UK businesses and individuals from trading or transacting with the actors that we have targeted. Importantly, we are also strengthening our co-ordination with the EU, which is finalising a new wave of sanctions. We urge countries across the world to go further, working with us in targeting Russian oil and gas.
President Zelensky has made clear in recent months that he supports a full, unconditional ceasefire and is ready to meet Putin for talks to achieve a just and lasting peace. President Trump has urged peace and ceasefire talks. Instead, President Putin seeks only to escalate the conflict. That is why this co-ordinated economic pressure is so urgent and important to get him to change course.
Thirdly, we will ensure that Ukraine gets the financial support it needs to recover and that Russia is the one to pay. The whole House will be aware of Ukraine’s acute financing needs, both now and in the long term, so we are pushing at every level to ensure that frozen Russian assets can be used to meet those needs. They were on the agenda of the G7 Finance Ministers when they met on 1 October, and the Chancellor is in Washington today, again pressing for progress with her counterparts, as I have done directly with our European partners. We will continue to argue that the full value of Russian sovereign assets must be used to support Ukraine. The EU has developed a proposal for reparations loans for Ukraine, which we welcome. The Prime Minister discussed this with Chancellor Merz and President Macron on Friday, and we expect and hope that further progress will be made in the coming weeks.
Finally, while we are prepared for this war to continue, we must also keep working and preparing for peace. We have seen in recent days what is possible when the international community builds a consensus for peace. We know too the huge international co-ordination that has come behind the US peace initiative in the Middle East and the huge international effort that will be needed to ensure it is implemented. Those same principles on international co-ordination and effort over time are important for Ukraine. That is why, together with France, the UK Government has convened over 30 countries in several meetings of the coalition of the willing, encouraging contributions towards a multinational force that would stand ready to deploy to Ukraine upon a ceasefire or peace agreement to help regenerate Ukraine’s armed forces so that Russia is never able to attack again. We are also implementing the 100-year partnership signed by the Prime Minister and President Zelensky in January, making real our commitment to stand with Ukraine not just today or tomorrow, but over many decades to come.
While Ukraine continues to show its endless reserves of strength, Vladimir Putin continues to show his endless depths of depravity. Time and again he has shown his willingness to threaten the security and sovereignty of other nations, to threaten democracy and undermine the world order and to kidnap tens of thousands of children. From cyber-attacks in Moldova to the deployment of mercenaries in the Sahel, Russia’s actions seek to topple Governments, fuel conflict and spread instability far beyond Europe’s borders. That is why the UK continues to support Ukraine—not just to help brave people to defend themselves, but to make clear that aggression does not pay and that Putin does not win, that force will be resisted with strength and that criminals will be held accountable. Ukraine’s security is our security, and I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. As the Foreign Secretary, with prior agreement with the Chair, was allowed to speak a little while longer than the allocated time, the same will be allowed to those on the Opposition Front Benches. I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving me advance sight of her statement. I would also like to welcome her to her place in her new role. We meet again at the Dispatch Box; we have shadowed each other in many roles, and this time around it feels like she is following me in this portfolio.
On the occasion of the visit of the Chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament to our Parliament, it is right that Britain should stand with Ukraine on what will soon be the eve of the fourth winter of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Putin’s relentless efforts to obtain the territory of a sovereign European state by barbaric levels of force have undermined peace in Europe and the established international order. In recent months, we have seen European and NATO airspace brazenly and deliberately violated by Russian fighter jets. From Poland to Estonia to Romania, such aggressive provocation must yield stronger deterrence against Russia.
The same applies to the intensified aerial bombardment of Kyiv. The hundreds upon hundreds of Iranian Shahed drones attacking civilians represent a cruel attempt by Putin to psychologically torture Ukrainians, but the bombing will not break their resolve. From Russia’s kidnapping of Ukrainian children to the daily bombardment of propaganda and bombs, Britain must stand firm to level the playing field for Ukraine so that it can repel those attacks. We must continually refuel our country’s ability to support Ukraine, and never stand still.
Is the Foreign Secretary brokering more packages, here at home or across NATO, to support Ukraine’s air defence? The 100-year partnership agreement with Ukraine must be leveraged to support innovation in defence technology and production within Ukraine right now, while we also learn from Ukraine’s successes in these fields. The way the Ukrainian people have conducted themselves and continued to fight for what is rightfully theirs in the face of the barbarity and savagery that many of us thought was confined to a bygone era will go down in history. We must ensure that Russia’s defeat goes down in history, too. To do that, Britain must lead all allies to raise the price of Russia’s aggression by cutting off Russia’s financial lifelines, which continue to fund Putin’s war in Ukraine and fight against our democratic values.
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcements today of the new entities, including the ships that have been sanctioned as of today. She will know that China, India and Turkey have become the mainstay of Russian oil exports, together purchasing around $380 billion of Russian crude. This provides Putin with a lifeline to fund this illegal war and invasion, at the cost of around $1 billion per day, so in addition to the new sanctions announced today, can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether she or the Prime Minister have had any discussions with India, Turkey and China about refineries in their own countries purchasing Russian oil and then re-exporting it? Is the UK in a position to spearhead a direct challenge and get this stopped? Will the Foreign Secretary challenge European countries who are still importing Russian liquefied natural gas to phase this out far more rapidly? I recognise and appreciate her comments about EU countries and the sanctions package.
Further to the new banking sanctions that the Foreign Secretary has announced, will she commit to review what we can do to limit Russia’s banking sector, including its regional banks? On the mobilisation of frozen assets, we need to go beyond just offering Ukraine loans from the revenues of the sanctioned assets and find a new formula under the law that mobilises the assets to fund Ukraine’s defeat of Russia in the immediate term. London is home to our world-class capital market, and the City of London must be deployed to help find solutions that our diplomats can then sell to our allies, because this needs concerted action. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the coalition of the willing, convened in February this year, is as determined as it was then not just to stand with Ukraine but to work to find solutions to these major issues?
The UK must commit to spending 3% on defence by the end of the decade. This is a vital step on our route to the higher sustained spending demanded by the new NATO targets. In her new role as Foreign Secretary, is the right hon. Lady in discussions with the Chancellor about this? Britain must be ready for continuous tension with Russia with effective deterrents against sub-conventional threats such as hybrid warfare, sabotage of infrastructure, disinformation, election interference and killings. If we do not put up boundaries now, Russia will come closer, but it is stoppable.
We have seen positive developments in recent weeks, including the decisive election result in Moldova that should cement its Euro-Atlantic trajectory, but Russia’s behaviour elsewhere, from Georgia to the Balkans and including the stationing of nuclear weapons in Belarus, is deeply alarming. Here at home, there are reports that the cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover may have emanated from Russia. Is the Foreign Secretary able to confirm that attribution? The whole Euro-Atlantic alliance needs to be incredibly robust, because the lessons of the last 20 years are crystal clear and the outcome of the war in Ukraine will shape the future of European global security.
President Trump’s recent remarks were absolutely right. Our Ukrainian friends can regain the territory that is rightfully theirs, and we support them on that. Britain and our European allies must now pull out all the stops to help our Ukrainian friends to expedite Putin’s exit from their country. We should be clear that territorial concessions must never happen, as this would be a reward for Putin’s barbarism. Britain should and can lead the way in weakening Putin’s war machine with a full range of hard-hitting new sanctions and brokering new military aid packages with our allies to ensure that Ukraine has the capabilities it needs to defeat Putin’s tyranny.
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the shadow Foreign Secretary’s response, and I am glad to face her across the Dispatch Box again. I think she and I have probably missed each other. This time round, we agree on some things, which is perhaps a new experience for both of us.
I checked, and I think that the last time the right hon. Lady and I were opposite each other—although we were on the opposite sides of the House then—was on 5 September 2022, the day that Liz Truss was confirmed as Prime Minister. It was perhaps not quite such a good day for the right hon. Lady, who then lost her place as Home Secretary. It was also not such a good time for the country.
Interestingly, after our exchanges on that day, the next discussion was on Ukraine. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), now the Defence Secretary, speaking from the Opposition Benches, began his remarks by observing that it was day 194 of a war that Vladimir Putin had expected to be over inside a week. He saluted the bravery of the Ukrainian resistance and pledged the Labour party’s full backing for every aspect of what the right hon. Lady’s Government were doing at the time. Now here we are on day 1,330, and all of us in this House are still full of admiration and respect for the Ukrainian resistance, and determined to support Ukraine in the face of the continuing Russian onslaught.
I welcome the continuation of the shadow Foreign Secretary’s cross-party support for the Ukrainian people, for the actions that we need to continue to take to support Ukraine in its defence, and for the pressure that we need to exert. I can assure her that we will continue to support Ukraine’s defences, and to look at what more we can do. The Defence Secretary has also set out new partnerships; in particular, we are working with Ukraine on developing new drone technology, learning from its technological experiences, and helping it with production.
The right hon. Lady raised issues about third countries—China, India, Turkey and other European countries that have continued to be involved in purchasing things from Russia. We want as wide a consensus as possible on economic pressure on Russia over Ukraine. I continue to raise this with many different countries, including some of those that that she referred to. Also, in our sanctions package, we are including sanctions against entities operating in third countries; we need to continue to do so.
We need to be clear that the ability to target Russian sovereign assets needs to be about mobilising the assets, and going further to ensure that there is an effective way to do that. We believe that there is, and we have been working with the EU on that. We will continue to put considerable pressure on as many countries as possible to join us in taking action on Russian sovereign assets. I think that all of us in the House—or at least the majority of the parties here, with one unfortunate exception—are clear that we need to continue to stand in solidarity with Ukraine, not just now, not just tomorrow, but for the future.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I begin by publicly welcoming the Foreign Secretary to her new post, and by echoing her comments about the previous Foreign Secretary. I also welcome her commitment to finally using the Russian frozen assets. I hope that the situation will be resolved soon, because those assets are needed for the defence and reconstruction of Ukraine.
I am pleased to see that the Foreign Secretary is going to take further advantage of Britain’s unique sanctions regime by extending it against Russian individuals and companies, but she knows—perhaps better than most, given her previous experience—that a regime is only as good as its enforcement, and there are times when doors need to be kicked down. It worries me that officials from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation told the Treasury Committee a year ago that they had issued only one £15,000 fine against a British business for engaging with a sanctioned individual. How many British businesses have faced financial penalties for direct or indirect breaches of sanctions on Russia or the Russian state since then, and what has been the value of those fines?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the point that the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee has raised, and I thank her for her considerable work and expertise, and thank the Committee for its work in this area. As she will know, the Foreign Office sets out the framework for sanctions and then works with the Treasury on enforcement. Following the publication of the cross-Government review on enforcement in May, the Government are committing to stronger action to make compliance easier, but also to deter non-compliance, and to ensuring proper enforcement.
I am advised that so far in 2025, Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation penalties have totalled over £900,000, and there has been a £1.1 million compound settlement with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. In April, the National Crime Agency secured the first convictions for breaches of Russian financial sanctions, but I am happy to work with the Chancellor to ensure that my right hon. Friend has any further information that she wants on that topic.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I warmly welcome the announcement of fresh sanctions aimed at cutting Putin’s oil and gas profits. It is vital that we make use of all the tools at our disposal to undermine his war machine, and we know that oil and gas revenues are primarily used to fund it. These measures are a further step in the right direction, but I encourage the Government to go even further.
Analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air think-tank shows that UK-owned or insured liquefied natural gas carriers have facilitated the transport of £45 billion of Russian gas since the start of the full-scale invasion. That means that 76% of the total export value of Russian LNG was carried on UK-owned or insured vessels. It is unconscionable that UK businesses are still contributing to Putin’s coffers, so will the Foreign Secretary commit to banning the provision of maritime services, including transport and insurance, for Russian gas? Will she engage directly with the maritime insurance sector, a large proportion of which is based in the UK, to find practical ways to implement such a ban?
I was very pleased to hear of the Foreign Secretary’s ambition to progress plans to use the full value of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine’s war effort. That is a measure that the Liberal Democrats have been pushing for action on for some months. The Government need to move at pace as Ukraine continues to face Putin’s relentless assault, so can the Foreign Secretary confirm the timetable she is looking at for new funds becoming available from frozen assets? Can she outline how those funds will be allocated, and if barriers to seizing those assets are put in place internationally, can she commit to the UK Government acting unilaterally when it comes to seizing the assets held in the UK?
It is more than three years since Roman Abramovich sold Chelsea football club. In June, the then Foreign Secretary said that the Government were ready and willing to take legal action to finally secure the £2.5 billion generated from the sale that is earmarked for additional support for Ukraine. It appears, however, that the Government’s bark has been worse than their bite so far, as we have heard no more about how the Government intend to pursue those assets. What concrete action have the Government taken since June to secure them?
We all hope to see a just peace in Ukraine. When we do, thoughts will switch to reconstruction. Can the Secretary of State commit to provide full UK backing, including funding, to the Council of Europe’s register of damage for Ukraine?
Yvette Cooper
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his questions and his continued support for Ukraine. We are determined to tighten the restrictions much further, not simply on the oil and gas companies, although this is the first time we have sanctioned these major companies, but on the distribution networks and those who continue to profit. On 12 September, I announced 100 new sanctions, including on 70 more ships in the shadow fleet. Today, in the second sanctions package that I have announced since being appointed, I have announced sanctions on a further 44 shadow fleet ships, because we are clear that the shadow fleet is undermining the impact of the sanctions that we have set out.
On Russian sovereign assets, if what we do is to have a proper impact, both on Russia and on the market, it is right that we should work alongside partners, and we welcome the statements from President von der Leyen and the G7 Finance Ministers. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that this is a huge priority for me and for the Chancellor, who is pursuing those exact issues about timetables, and about the final steps we need to take around Russian sovereign assets in Washington today.
The issue of the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea football club is a priority for me personally. We must ensure that those proceeds can reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine, following Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion. I am deeply frustrated that that has not been possible so far, but we are fully prepared to pursue this matter through the courts if required, while the door for negotiations remains open. Again, I have discussed this matter not just with the Chancellor, but internationally.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Speaker, the Speaker’s Office and the Deputy Speakers for the gracious welcome they today gave Ruslan Stefanchuk, the Speaker of the Rada. Also, seeing the Foreign Secretary in Kyiv on her first foreign visit was a real fillip for the people of Ukraine.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for the sanctions package, but I would like to ask further questions about the seizure of Russian assets. I am pleased that we are ready to progress the seizure of Russian assets, and that we have announced work with France and Germany, but are we working at pace with our allies to ensure the seizure of Russian assets? Ukrainians know that their best chance of winning this war will come from the move from freezing to seizing assets. Will the United Kingdom provide finance for the reparations loan that the EU proposes?
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued work for many years on Ukraine. It was certainly very good to see him at the event in Kyiv. I can assure him that we think that the new mechanism that the EU has drawn up and provided to mobilise effectively the assets that are being held is really important. We support that work, and we believe that we, the EU and other allies should try to make rapid progress now, because ultimately, the rebuilding of Ukraine and support for Ukraine should be paid for by Russia.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary to her new role and commend her on a very strong statement. I welcome the progress being made by the G7 Finance Ministers in DC on seizing Russian state assets. It is an issue I first started working on three years ago, and I know the Chancellor has continued that work. Because of that, there is a body of clear technical analysis that has been done in the Treasury that I think shows clearly at this point, first, that there is a sound legal basis for taking these assets and using them; secondly, that there is now a practical way to use them, especially as the bonds have matured into cash; and thirdly, that by acting in concert with allies, any risk to financial stability can be absolutely minimised. I urge the Foreign Secretary to show continued UK leadership on this issue, as I know she is, especially sharing that work with our European allies, because I know she would agree that this is an urgent issue that requires action.
Yvette Cooper
I welcome all the points made by the former Prime Minister. I pay tribute to the work he did both as Chancellor and as Prime Minister to support Ukraine and the defence of Ukraine—in particular this work around Russian sovereign assets, as well as finding different ways to ensure that market stability remains and that we have the proper financial safeguards in place, while also ensuring that the money can get to Ukraine. I have spoken to colleagues in Belgium and France over the last week. As the right hon. Member will know, the Prime Minister has discussed this with French and German counterparts in the last week as well. We will continue to press on every avenue to make the progress that he talks about.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place and I welcome her statement. In September, the Yale School of Public Health Humanitarian Research Lab revealed that the number of facilities that Russia is using in its forced deportation of Ukrainian children has risen from 53 to 210. That report highlighted that 110 facilities were being used to re-educate children, and that at 39 of those facilities military training was being provided to train Ukrainian children to throw the grenades and pilot the drones that are destroying their homes and killing their families. Could my right hon. Friend outline what further steps are being taken to relocate, rescue and return those children to their families?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. The forcible deportation—the kidnapping—of almost 20,000 Ukrainian children by Russia is one of the most disturbing aspects of this war. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of supporting those families. We have been supporting organisations such as Bring Kids Back UA and Save Ukraine, which are supporting efforts to return Ukrainian children. Just two weeks ago, Baroness Harman attended the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children event at the UN General Assembly. We will continue to do all we can to support the return of those children.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Fifty years ago, I was working down the corridor here for Margaret Thatcher. I make that point to give an opportunity to the Foreign Secretary to pay tribute, on the centenary of her birth, to the lady who won the cold war with Ronald Reagan. The other point I want to make is: why did we win the cold war? We did not fire a single bullet; it was all about economic pressure on the Soviet Union—Russia’s precursor, of course. Following the point made by the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), I think the whole House is determined and united on the issue of Russian assets. I also serve on the Council of Europe, and everybody there is passing motions trying to propel this forward. Is the Foreign Secretary confident that we can make progress on this, because the way to bring down this regime and end the war is, as we did with the Soviet Union, to break them economically?
Yvette Cooper
I think all of us, no matter our party, would recognise the challenging nature of the job for all Prime Ministers. The Father of the House will understand that in a coalmining constituency like mine, there were obviously very strong views against the former Prime Minister to whom he refers, but I pay tribute to his long service in this place, which he also mentioned.
There is strong agreement across this House: we have to get those assets mobilised, and get that investment and support into Ukraine. It is right that Russia should pay the price for reconstructing, rebuilding and also defending Ukraine.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
It was great to see the Secretary of State out in Ukraine; I know it was very much appreciated by our Ukrainian colleagues. She will be well aware that foreign investment is absolutely vital to the economy and to the reconstruction of Ukraine. What talks has she had with ministerial colleagues and others about schemes such as the one suggested by the British Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce, which proposes using frozen Russian assets and/or western Government guarantees administered by the World Bank to provide greater availability of risk insurance for British investors in Ukraine?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right that we need to look at different, innovative ways of providing the financial support, and the commitment and investment, that Ukraine will need. Obviously, there are immediate issues around defence equipment and support, including support for the energy infrastructure that we are providing, but there will also be issues around longer-term investment and we should look at innovative ways to support that.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I am the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation, and we have encouraged the last Government and the present Government to be much more aggressive about their sanctions regime. When we look at the number of people who have been sanctioned, it does not compare to what the United States and many others have done. First, it is long overdue that the whole business of the money from the Chelsea sale was settled; it beggars belief that we have not managed to get that one done. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—the ex-Prime Minister, rather; some of us live in hope. The shadow fleets could easily be attacked by sanctioning British marine insurers who have insured those ships. Without that insurance, they will not be put to sea because they will have no financial backing for it. Why we have not done that up until now is a complete mystery to me. That is surely something we should get on with straightaway, because we can act on it immediately.
Yvette Cooper
I thank the right hon. Member for his long-standing commitment on sanctions, and on Russia and Ukraine. The impact of the sanctions is that any company or any UK company or resident that transacts with, as well as trades with, those sanctioned bodies, will therefore be covered by the sanctions as well. We will continue to look at what further we can do to keep increasing the pressure on Russia. On the Chelsea football club proceeds, I strongly agree that this needs to move as swiftly as possible, and I can assure him that it has been something on which I have focused significantly since I arrived in post. We will continue to do all we can in those areas to support Ukraine.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
My constituent is a refugee from Ukraine whose home and livelihood were destroyed in Ukraine. She contacted me because of the uncertainty of her visa situation. Her three-year visa will expire in December, but she cannot apply for extension until November, which is preventing her from getting a new job and securing a new tenancy agreement. She is at risk of becoming homeless in the coming weeks. I recognise that my right hon. Friend is now the Foreign Secretary, but she knows the Home Office well. What conversations has she had with colleagues from the Home Office about reviewing the Ukrainian visa scheme so that Ukrainians can rebuild their lives in this country?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for refugees and for those who have come here on the Homes for Ukraine scheme and other Ukrainian schemes. As she will know, the Government have set out provision for the extension of the visas. I think the point to which she refers is to do with the Home Office mechanism and the timings of when applications can go in. I will raise that issue with the Home Secretary.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary mentioned that Speaker Stefanchuk of the Ukrainian Parliament—the Rada—was in the Gallery earlier today. He also met members of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, when he drew a parallel between western sanctions packages and versions of the Apple iPhone: it feels like we see a new one every other week. Rather than the gradual introduction of sanctions on Russia, will the Foreign Secretary work with the United States and other allies to introduce a sanctions package that will really hurt Russian oligarchs in the pocket?
Yvette Cooper
I want to see the strongest possible economic pressure on Russia—from every avenue, frankly. We have discussed that issue extensively with the US and Europe. I have discussed it with my Foreign Minister colleagues and the Chancellor discusses it with her Finance Minister colleagues. We want to see the strongest package. However, it is right to continue introducing new sanctions as soon as we have the evidence ready. I do not think that we should wait until more work can be done or more agreement reached. If we have the evidence to be able to introduce another set of sanctions, we should get on with it because we need to maximise the economic pressure as rapidly as we can to put pressure on Putin’s war machine.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that more must be done to inform not just the British public, but countries that are equivocal in their support for Ukraine, that Russia’s illegal invasion is particularly egregious in its cynical and cruel targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure?
I pay tribute to a member of Rugby’s Ukrainian community, who told me today:
“Russia strikes not only the frontline but homes, hospitals and power plants. Whole regions are left in darkness after systematic attacks. Just recently, a maternity hospital in Sumy was targeted. Yet people wake up after nights of bombardment and go to work and school—the unimaginable has become normal. That is the true horror.”
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that those horrors can only strengthen our resolve in supporting Ukraine?
Yvette Cooper
We must maintain the strongest of resolves in supporting Ukraine. I have spoken to families and children who will have to sleep in corridors or underground car parks tonight to avoid drone attacks, but will still get up for school and carry on with their lives each day. The Ukrainian people are showing resilience, and we will continue to support them.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The only thing wrong with the Foreign Secretary’s admirable statement is the fact that it was made by a British Foreign Secretary rather than by the President of the United States, given that, only a few months ago, President Trump said that President Zelensky had few, if any, cards to play. The Foreign Secretary takes a much more optimistic view of the geopolitical situation as regards the invasion of Ukraine. Has she identified any signs that the leader of the free world is coming to a more realistic view of the nature of the killer in the Kremlin?
Yvette Cooper
We have discussed this issue considerably with the US. I welcome President Trump’s decision to allow NATO allies to purchase vital US military equipment for Ukraine’s defence, including Patriot missiles. President Trump called for a peace process, and President Zelensky was ready to have those peace discussions, but President Putin has done the opposite. There is a growing sense of frustration, which everybody can see, about the fact that President Putin has just ignored the requests for peace discussions and is instead seeking to do the opposite—not just in Ukraine but in attempts to destabilise NATO airspace.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
The NATO Parliamentary Assembly delegation—of which the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), who is sat on the Opposition Front Bench, is deputy leader—met the Ukrainian delegation at the weekend and also heard from President Zelensky. The line that we heard time and again from them was about the need for more weapons, equipment and munitions, particularly deep-fire missiles and drone munitions. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. A lot has been said about the need to unfreeze Russian assets and use their full value. She said that work is being done on that. We in this House have on numerous occasions seen things happen quickly; things need to move at pace to ensure that the free industrial capacity that Ukraine still has, which can make those things, is funded and used as quickly as possible.
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. We want progress to be made as rapidly as possible. He will know that the UK has stepped up support for Ukraine this year, which includes £4.5 billion of military support—more than ever before—and thousands of air defence missiles and drones. We want to go further with the Russian sovereign assets process.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I remind colleagues that we have another statement followed by the business of the day. Questions do not require a preamble. They should be sharp and to the point.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on her appointment and welcome her remarks about the consensus on the war in Ukraine holding up well across the vast majority of the Chamber. She is a fresh set of eyes. Will she look at the efficiency of some of the aid? Might we work more closely with organisations such as the Come Back Alive foundation, or can more work be done in Ukraine? I think that the UK is doing a good job on this, but a fresh set of eyes is always welcome.
Yvette Cooper
We always want to ensure that we provide aid and defence support in the most effective way and, crucially, in partnership with Ukraine, which, as a sovereign nation, knows where its greatest need lies. That is what we support.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I welcome the measures that have been announced, particularly on oil and gas revenues. They come as Russia continues to target Ukrainian energy infrastructure, including a state-run power plant last night. How are the Government helping Ukrainian homes to stay warm over winter, and will the Foreign Secretary join me in paying tribute to the Huddersfield Ukrainian club, which has continued to support Ukrainians who have arrived in Huddersfield since the conflict began?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the support that my hon. Friend’s community is providing in her constituency. That has happened right across the country. She is right to focus on the impact on families. In targeting that infrastructure, Russia is deliberately targeting the heating and lighting of families across Ukraine as they go into winter. We have just announced—I announced it in Kyiv—a £42 million energy support package that is designed exactly to keep homes warm and support the resilience of the Ukrainian people through the winter.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Given that time is the most precious commodity in war, and that, as former head of MI5 Eliza Manningham-Buller said, Britain may already be at war with Russia, why have we allowed Russia so much time to build up a stock of 155 mm shells, for example—three times the quantity of the entire European and American stock of 155 shells? How long does Ukraine now have to hold out against Russia, which has mobilised its entire economy and put it on a war footing to win the war at almost any cost to Russia itself? Do we not have to up our long-range weapons and other military support to help Ukraine finish and win this war?
Yvette Cooper
As I just set out, the UK has stepped up support for Ukraine this year, providing £4.5 billion of military support. We will need to continue providing military support to Ukraine, but we also need to encourage as many other allies as possible to do likewise. When meeting the Ukrainian Prime Minister and President in Kyiv, I was struck by how much they saw the UK as a leading ally, but they recognise the need for international partnership and support. We need to continue escalating support. That is why we also need pressure on the economic side as well as on the defence side. It is only by that combined concerted effort that we will be able to affect the course of the war.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
It was a privilege to meet the Chair of the Rada today and to add my voice to this House’s shared commitment to stand with Ukraine and in defence of our democratic values. To increase economic pressure on Russia, we must sanction Russian-linked countries operating in third countries, including in the energy sector. Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that she will apply maximum pressure on such companies, even when they are based outside Russia itself?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend. As part of the sanctions packages announced in September and this month, we are looking increasingly at entities in third countries that continue to heavily support the transit and export of Russian oil and gas, in order to ensure that those sanctions can really bite.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I have just returned from Ukraine, where I learned at first hand about the challenges that both the military and the emergency services face in dealing with unexploded ordnance; I saw its impact when I visited the heroic patients at Superhumans, the prosthetic supercentre in Lviv. There are over 60,000 amputees in Ukraine as a result of the war and the need is immense, so will the Secretary of State consider further strengthening the strategic health alliance and UK-Ukraine trauma recovery with additional funding to the £1.2 million already pledged?
Yvette Cooper
Alongside our allies, we will continue to look at the different forms and ways in which our support can be provided. We have particularly highlighted support for energy infrastructure and homes, but the hon. Member is right to highlight the resilience and determination of the Ukrainian emergency services, who have to respond every morning to see where strikes have taken place, and in the middle of the night when the drones arrive. We should all pay tribute to their bravery and strength.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
All of us who have visited Ukraine will know the stoicism of the people. Despite being bombarded night after night, they continue to rebuild, often supported by UK businesses and individuals, as well as others from across the European Union. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we must do more to continue to encourage businesses and individuals to support Ukraine in any way that they can, but that ultimately it is Putin’s responsibility—and his alone—to pay for the damage that he is causing to the country?
Yvette Cooper
I agree. We expect Putin and Russia to pay for the damage that they are doing through the unprovoked aggression of their invasion of Ukraine. We will continue to support Ukraine and encourage everybody else to do so, but ultimately we need Russia to pay for the damage that they have done.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I welcome many of the measures that the Foreign Secretary has outlined today. Like her, I have visited Ukraine and seen the impact of the attacks from Putin and his flunkies and, like her, I have seen the resilience of the Ukrainian people. I believe, as we all do in the Chamber, that Putin and his flunkies must pay for their crimes. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the UK Government would support pursuing legally those individuals responsible for the crimes, through the International Criminal Court?
Yvette Cooper
As the hon. Lady will know, we continue to support international law and international court processes. She is right to say that Russia ultimately needs to pay the price and to be held accountable for the damage it is doing. I hope she also agrees that Kyiv is an incredibly beautiful city, where many people are going about their daily lives undeterred, determined not to let Russia win.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The politicians, civilians and soldiers I spoke to last month in Kyiv were unambiguous when asked what was the best thing the UK could do to help them win the war. The hundreds of billions of dollars of frozen Russian assets that they currently cannot deploy could help them bolster their military and swing the war decisively in their favour. On their behalf, will the Foreign Secretary use every power available to her to unlock those assets and put them in the service of the people of Ukraine?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for unlocking Russian sovereign assets. The Chancellor is raising that issue in Washington with international partners as I speak.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the right hon. Lady to her place. The experience that she brings from her previous role will benefit us all and I thank her for her answers. Putin will have watched the Israel-Gaza problem carefully, and he will know that all eyes are turning to Russia to end the unnecessary conflict in Ukraine. What further steps can we take, in co-operation with our American allies, to seize this opportunity to end bloodshed and to restore education and hope for Ukrainian children, thereby ensuring that Putin realises that he has no option other than the cessation of Russian aggression?
Yvette Cooper
I thank the hon. Member for his kind words. I agree with him that there must be no other option for Putin than to cease aggression and that this is ultimately about hope for Ukrainian children.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the sanctions targeting the $108 billion in oil revenue that the Kremlin received last year and the progress on the $350 billion in frozen Russian sovereign assets. I applaud the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor for their efforts in building a coalition with the EU and others to move from using the interest payments to using the capital. Does she agree that that recent breakthrough shows that legally this money should be treated as a downpayment on the reparations for the horrific harm that Russia has caused, which we know it will do everything to avoid paying?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The EU has set out work linking the issues around assets to reparation payments. We welcome that work and we believe that there is a strong basis to go forward. We need to do so in a co-ordinated way and recognise the importance of supporting Ukraine.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
I welcome the Government’s progress on the frozen Russian assets, but it is disappointing that, as yet, they are allocated only to recovery and not military capability, because Russia is spending $40 billion more than Ukraine and her Western allies on the war in Ukraine. The courage of Ukrainian forces has brought Russia to a standstill, but does the Foreign Secretary agree that if those frozen assets were used today to close and exceed that military spending gap, Ukraine would have a path not just to stop Russia but to win?
Yvette Cooper
We are already increasing UK military support, and we want to see that happen across the board. The way to put the greatest pressure on Russia will always be through a mix of different measures, including direct defence support, support for the resilience of the Ukraine people through their basic energy infrastructure and ensuring that they and their communities can keep going, and by establishing strong economic pressure on Russia, so that it is put in a position where it has to change course. All those things need to happen at once to have a significant impact on the way that Putin is behaving.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement and for her recent decision, when she was Home Secretary, about the Ukraine permission extension scheme. Does she agree that when Putin probes weakness we must respond by demonstrating strength? Does she further agree that the post-war development of Ukraine’s significant energy resources, which may require British technical expertise, would serve the dual purpose of helping to reconstruct Ukraine’s shattered economy and increase Europe’s security of energy supply?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend that Ukraine’s security is Europe’s security in many different ways, including in defence and in energy. That is why it is so important that we should continue to support Ukraine and Ukrainians in the UK, who came to find safety at the beginning of the war.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Earlier this year, I joined a brilliant organisation called Mighty Convoy to drive some refurbished ambulances full of medical supplies to Ukraine. While we were there, we bumped into another organisation called FIRE AID that takes refurbished fire engines to Ukraine from the UK. That equipment is vital for the war effort, but in addition the Ukrainians we met said that it is a great morale boost to know that not only are the British Government behind their war efforts, but the British public are too. Will the Foreign Secretary join me in thanking all the volunteers from the UK who drive equipment to Ukraine to help with that war effort?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member makes an important point about the strength of support from across the country, from communities and civil society. At a time when Ukrainians are showing such resilience and strength, it is important for them to hear about that support and to know that people across the UK have huge respect for what they are doing and will continue to support it. I welcome the work of different organisations to raise funds and provide support for Ukraine.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
May I thank the Foreign Secretary for extending the Homes for Ukraine scheme by two years in her previous role? I welcome her to her new role. This morning, the Chair of the Rada spoke to the parliamentary group and talked of how Russian manufacturers are using advanced electronics from white goods to build their drones. What will the Foreign Secretary do to prevent such vital equipment going to them through the export of seemingly harmless white goods?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is right to raise issues about broader technology. That is why we need to ensure that our sanctions regime is continually updating and responding. We have seen immense improvements in Ukrainian technology on different responses, particularly around drone technology and countering drone technology. We need to recognise the expertise and strength of the Ukrainian people and the country of Ukraine and to continue to show our support at every level.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That concludes the statement on Ukraine. I will allow the Front Benchers a few moments to shuffle over as we prepare for the second statement.
Pride in Place
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Waugh, you do not cross the Front Bench, even to take a shortcut. It is not on.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the action we are taking to restore pride in place. Britain’s renewal is a driving mission of this Labour Government, and we know that that must be seen, felt and heard in every single neighbourhood. Our identity, sense of patriotism and feeling of belonging can all depend on the condition of our local area and the view from our doorstep.
Our neighbourhoods are the nation’s barometer for whether all of us in this House are doing our jobs. Under 14 years of Conservative failure, the needle of that barometer has increasingly pointed in the wrong direction. The effect of this decline in pride in place has been corrosive. It has eroded people’s trust in politics and the state, created a sense of unfairness and that some places have fared better than others, and opened the door to the plastic patriots in the Reform party, who say that there is a simple answer. Let me say from the start that we are under no illusions about the complex causes of, and answers to, this decline.
The failure of the Conservatives properly to fund local government, the sharp transition away from industry and the broken Tory promises of levelling up must shoulder part of the blame. We cannot and will not pretend that the legacies of any of those issues can be reversed overnight, but, as both a Labour Government and a Parliament, we can be confident that the way in which we restore pride in place lies not in this Chamber or the corridors of Whitehall; the answer is in the communities that we each represent.
Our job is to give our constituents the investment and powers that they need, so that they can deliver the change they want to see in their communities. That is why we have announced the pride in place programme, backed up by £5 billion. This is a priority for the Prime Minister, choosing renewal over decline and unity over division. This is our plan for change in action, giving power and pride back to the people who make Britain great.
There are two categories of investment. The first, the main programme, is the flagship pride in place programme, which will provide up to £20 million of funding and support to each area over the course of a decade, focused on specific neighbourhoods. Communities will need to decide how that funding is spent. We will establish a neighbourhood board in every place, made up of local people. Residents, business owners and community leaders will come together alongside their Member of Parliament to come up with a 10-year plan for this investment. They could choose to bring a derelict pub back into use for the community, transform a boarded-up shop into a wellbeing hub, improve local transport links, create a new playground or roll out a community-level service to help with the cost of living. Local people know best what change is needed.
This programme is about local communities taking back control. As long as the plan provides value for money, the board will have our full support to deliver the change that the community needs. We are taking inspiration from the new deal for communities, which, under the last Labour Government, put local communities in charge of renewing their neighbourhoods, but we are also adapting to the world as we find it today and learning the lessons of what did and did not work from the last time around.
The second programme, the pride in place impact fund, will provide a short-term injection of £1.5 million per place. It will be delivered by local authorities for the most immediate results in three phases: community spaces, public spaces and high streets and town centre revitalisation. Despite the shorter timeframe of the fund, there is still an important emphasis on local collaboration. We will ask local communities to work closely with MPs and local authorities to ensure that investment decisions reflect local priorities and community needs. Our economic situation means that we are not in a position to cover everywhere that would benefit from this programme. We have therefore prioritised places with the highest level of need—those places that have been left behind and let down, and those communities that were hollowed out over 14 years of Conservative austerity, for which the Conservatives should hang their heads in shame.
It is important to this Labour Government that every community has the power to renew their area, so alongside this investment we have published the pride in place strategy. The purpose of the strategy is to promote the same principle of community power across the entire country, and it centres on three aims.
The first aim, building stronger communities, means bringing people together. We see that as the foundation for a greater sense of belonging and local pride. When people spend time with each other in their community, including those from different backgrounds, they see that they have more in common than separates them. This sense of shared endeavour means that communities are more likely to take steps to improve their local area. As part of that, we will fund locally led interventions to build community resilience, encouraging volunteers through co-produced policies, and tackle loneliness. We recognise that that can be delivered only by a whole-of-Government approach, so this section of the strategy includes policies from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office.
The second aim, creating thriving places, is how we promote pride in place in the most direct sense: by improving how the public realm looks. As a Government, we see a direct link between the declining appearance of our local neighbourhoods and how people feel about not just their immediate area, but the country and the world around them. We acknowledge that the performance of the public realm is often a reflection of the economy and the work of local authorities, which is why we are focused on growth and on fixing the foundations of local government, but even in times when the economy has been strong and local government was funded properly, the effects have not always been felt in the public realm. Fixing that disconnect is the inspiration for policies to encourage the application of shopfront design guides as well as the use of clean-up powers. What links all the policies in this section of the paper is that they empower our communities to create thriving places. This is not an attempt to micromanage change from Whitehall.
The final strand, helping communities to take back control of their own lives and areas, sets out our plan to give people a stronger voice in what matters to them. Each of us in the House will have spoken to constituents who talk of helplessness, when the place that they live in is changing in ways that they did not ask for and that they feel they have no control over. Sometimes it is about antisocial behaviour on their estate; other times, it is about the shops being lost from the high street. People want to be in control of their surroundings, but that is such a distant concept when they do not feel safe going out at night or do not have a say over how their town centre looks.
A lot of those feelings stem from the effects of the Conservative Government’s 14 years of austerity, which took libraries and leisure centres from some of the most deprived and disadvantaged communities. When combined with the closure of pubs, sports clubs and social clubs, it means that for much of the country there are fewer and fewer places for people to come together and take pride in. We are therefore introducing a community right to buy, to give local residents new powers to save treasured assets; giving more people a say in their local economy by creating a new co-operative development unit in my Department; and requiring all authorities in England to establish effective neighbourhood governance.
This Labour Government’s pride in place programme is an investment in the UK’s future, backing the true patriots who build up our communities across every corner of the country. Alongside our strategy, it aims to spark a new way of governing, where power and resources are more readily shared with our communities. However, like devolution, this needs to be the start of a process rather than a single event. We have specifically designed both investment programmes with a guaranteed role for local Members of Parliament, so I finish by encouraging Members from across the House to get involved. At a time when trust is low and the demand for change is high, this is an opportunity for all of us to make a real, tangible difference to our communities by giving real power to those we are elected to serve.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
This statement speaks of pride. Conservative Members have pride in our local pubs, 200 of which have closed in the past six months, hammered by the Labour party’s business rates rises. We have pride in our restaurants, which are closing in record numbers under the business rates burden imposed by this Government. We are proud of our local shops, which—according to the British Retail Consortium—are buckling under an additional £7 billion of annual costs imposed by this Government. We are proud of our family businesses, the bedrock of our high streets, which are buckling under new taxes introduced by this Government. We are proud of our family farms, which are also buckling under the new taxes imposed by this Government. We are proud of our local councils, which face maxing out their council tax rates. We hear of £20 million at a local level, but councils across the country are maxing out their council tax, not to invest in new local services, but to pay an additional £1.5 billion of annual costs imposed on them by this Government’s job tax—every year, when it comes to delivering services, a net £1.5 billion worse off. We are proud of the workers of this country, of whom there were 4 million more when the Conservative party left office last year. In the retail sector alone, 97,000 have lost their jobs since this Government took office. As such, this programme is a fig leaf—elements relabelled from past programmes such as the long-term plan for towns, slightly redirected to Labour areas—that covers up a collapse in the ability of our elected local representatives to invest in their communities. As with so many things, that collapse gets worse every day under the Labour party.
Let me pose some specific questions to the Minister. First, why is there so much complex governance around this? Why not listen to the cries of our local leaders in Croydon, Somerset and Hertfordshire—people across the political spectrum who are saying, “Why not just give the councils the money to get on with this? Why tie this up in bureaucracy and red tape?” How much of this money has simply been rebadged from other, previously announced Government programmes? Why the change in methodology? In the interests of transparency, can the Minister set out for the House why the funding now seems to be landing in areas that are more likely to support the Labour party?
How much of this funding sits outside of the 2025 spending review, and is therefore deeply in question from the start? How much of this money—like so many of this Government’s announcements, such as on housing—has been put in the public domain, but promised as spending towards the tail-end of the next Parliament, perhaps the very definition of jam tomorrow? Finally, can the Minister tell us how today’s announcement will help small businesses on all our high streets across our country to recover from her colleague the Chancellor’s £2.7 billion tax hike in this year alone?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am disappointed by the hon. Member’s lack of contrition and his failure to say sorry. The Conservatives presided over 14 years of failure, during which, over a period of austerity, local government and local civic institutions were denuded and deprived communities were hollowed out. He says that we are funding areas of deprivation—that is because we actually care about funding those areas. Candidly, if I had the record of the last Government, I would not stand at the Dispatch Box and give us lectures.
Let me pick up the specific questions that the hon. Member asked. First, why are we tying this up in process? There is no process, but we have said that communities should be in charge. The difference between this scheme and the things done by the last Government is that we want to put communities in the driving seat and give them power. We want local authorities to enable and facilitate, but we absolutely need our community leaders. Members across the House will know them—the people who are networking, championing and making change happen. We want them around the table, driving the change that their community needs.
On the methodology, the Conservative party obviously did some fiddling, but we do not do that. We have focused on two metrics: multiple deprivation and community needs. That is putting investment into the areas that most need it, because they are both deprived and, critically, have low social infrastructure and social capital. That is why we are funding the areas that we are funding. We all remember the Conservatives’ last Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), saying that they actively diverted funding away from areas of deprivation. That is something that the Labour party will not do and has not done.
Finally, turning to the funding profile, we are desperate to move with momentum. We want to get the investment out. It is a 10-year commitment—that is an absolute game changer. No Government have ever said to communities, “Come up with an investment plan and we will fund you over a decade.” We think that is game changing for communities on the ground, but we are not going to wait. We are already giving programme capital investment to the 75 places that were in phase 1, in order to start the work of kick-starting that programme, and then their funding will flow next year. For those places in phase 2, capital and capacity investment will be going into them from next year and then flowing in the year after. We are very clear about this opportunity for our communities.
This is not about party politics, so I am incredibly disappointed by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). This is an opportunity to support parts of our country that have been absolutely hollowed out. I would expect a bit more contrition. [Hon. Members: “Why?”] Because of your record. Because you sat—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. “Because of your record”? My record? “Because of you”? Me? Let us temper our language, lower the temperature and continue.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Because of the Conservatives’ record, I would expect a little bit more contrition.
We are focused on the task ahead, which is the opportunity to drive change in our communities. I hope Members across the House can join us in that endeavour.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The £5 billion investment in the pride in place programme means that Brinnington and Stockport will benefit from a £20 million investment. What does the Minister think of the former Government’s levelling-up slogan, which in reality was a levelling-down agenda for opportunity, ambition and trust?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right—levelling up was a hollow slogan. We see from the record that there was no substance behind it. Unlike the Conservative party, we are doing the job of investing in our communities, putting them in the driving seat. That will be a game changer in constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I welcome the Minister to her place. Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to invest in high streets and communities—making our local centres thrive is a cause that all of us across this House share. However, despite the strategy talking about empowerment and the Government previously announcing that they would simplify the system and consolidate grants, this strategy does the opposite by creating a patchwork of small ringfenced grants for certain areas with strict rules on how local authorities can spend their funding.
However, what goes unsaid in the strategy is perhaps as important. The importance of community assets such as libraries and swimming pools is acknowledged in the strategy, as is the lamenting of their loss, but the strategy neglects to mention the deeper causes of those sell-offs. Local authorities face ever-growing crises in funding statutory services that they have to fund according to Government rules, particularly social care and provision for special educational needs and disabilities, and are forced to sell assets to keep those services going. In this year alone £1.3 billion of public assets have been sold off, nearly three times the amount of the annual funding announced today. In my constituency, and in Somerset as a whole, more than two thirds of council tax payments go towards the funding of care for children and adults. Last year the county succeeded in plugging a £55 million shortfall, but that feat will become harder to achieve each year.
Pride in place will struggle to succeed unless the Government fix the care crisis. Council tax payers should not be bailing out the Government when it comes to their duty to provide a care and SEND system that works. Investment in the high streets is welcome, but is no substitute for giving local authorities the means to protect their services and assets into the future. Will the Minister tell us what plans the Government have to relieve the care funding crisis at local level, so that communities can keep and maintain the services and assets that they value most?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will take each of those points in turn. This is about empowerment. We are driving through what we believe is the biggest boost to devolution in a generation, and there are three strands to that.
First, we are putting communities at the heart of the strategy. We have designed it in a way that does not just mean that local authorities are in the driving seat, because we consider it critical to put community leaders at the heart of it. This is an opportunity for us to galvanise our communities, to get people from diverse backgrounds round the table and, crucially, to build momentum to drive the change that they want to see. We do not resile from that, because we think it is absolutely the right approach.
Alongside it, however, we are giving more power to local authorities, whether that means multi-year funding or consolidating the local government finance system so that authorities have more flexibility. We see them as a key partner in the driving of change on the ground.
Thirdly, as we create strategic authorities there will be the biggest tranche of devolution to our city region and county region mayors that we have seen so far. Taken together, those three strands are about fundamentally shifting and transferring power from the centre to places, so that we can deliver the change that people want.
There has been a huge sell-off of assets. That is the legacy of the last 14 years, and it is a tragedy for our communities. We have introduced the community right to buy so that communities are able to identify assets of community value and to buy them, and support from pride in place gives them an opportunity to put investment behind that.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the critical issue of local government funding. Labour Members entirely understand the pressure that local government is under. There have been 14 years of austerity, driven by the Conservatives, and local authorities are having to deal with a very difficult context. That is why we have moved towards a multi-year funding settlement, and why we gave a huge boost to local government financing last year. Over the course of the spending review, there will be a real-terms increase in local government spending power. It is tight, but we are doing our part as a Government to ensure that local government can deliver for our communities. My colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care are driving through critical reforms that will address some of the pressures that we know exist in our social care system.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I welcome this Labour Government’s £22 million investment in Fairfield in my constituency, which was ignored by the Conservatives. Does the Minister agree that it is crucial for this programme to provide not just new money, but new powers for local people to decide how it is spent? Will she confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that the money should not be used to deliver core council services?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Absolutely. Let me put it on record that we want communities to be in the driving seat. That is how this differs from programmes organised under the last Government, and if we get it right, it will have a huge, galvanising potential. What we want to militate against is the possibility of its just going towards “business as usual”. If we can bring people from communities to the table and get them to invest in the things that matter to them, but can also generate community wealth, this will be a potential game changer.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
May I congratulate the hon. Lady on her new role, and, perhaps, strike a more slightly consensual note?
In Sutton Coldfield we welcome this initiative. It is good that it builds on the towns fund set up by the last Government, and we in the royal town are very pleased to be part of it. I can tell the hon. Lady that we are undertaking extensive community consultation, led by Royal Sutton Coldfield Town Council and its leader, Simon Ward, and that our local board, under the chairmanship of Doug Wright MBE, is forging ahead and already making considerable progress. May I invite her—as I invited her predecessor—to pay a state visit to the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, where she can see how we will use this money to the best possible advantage?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for telling us about the progress on his patch. It is incredibly encouraging to see the work that has already been done, whether through the local authority, existing boards or the coming together of community leaders. I ask all Members who can give examples of this working well to reach out to other Members, on both sides of the House, so that those examples can be shared. I look forward to travelling across the country and seeing pride in place in practice.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the £20 million pride in place funding for the Hawkesley estate in my constituency. It stands in stark contrast to the hopes and expectations that were allowed to be built under the last Government for £11 million for Northfield’s high street in the second-round bid for the levelling-up fund, which were cruelly dashed when not one penny was allocated to the city of Birmingham. Does my hon. Friend agree that this will not be, and cannot be, some lengthy bureaucratic process? Of course our councils must be essential partners, but will she confirm that the priorities will be set in the communities themselves?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Absolutely. We are trying to make this as permissive as possible, and we want communities to genuinely choose the schemes and projects that will work in their areas. As long as the community represented in the neighbourhood board are behind an area and are confident that it delivers value for money for them, we will step aside and let them get on with it, because that is absolutely the right approach.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
My constituents in Rowner were delighted to hear that they had been chosen for pride in place funding, but they are now a little bit worried, and I hope that the Minister can help us. My constituents fear that rather than the money being spent on projects that will change lives in Rowner in a meaningful way, our Liberal Democrat council will attempt to siphon some of it off to bankroll one of its vanity projects, namely the Criterion, a dilapidated former bingo hall. I am pleased that this funding comes with some flexibility, but what protections will the Minister introduce to prevent the money from being frittered away on white elephants by unscrupulous councils?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I shall not comment on the specifics of the council, but what I will say is that we are very clear about the fact that the local community should be in the driving seat. The funding is flowing through councils because they have accounting officer responsibility, but the decision needs to be made by the neighbourhood boards. My plea to Members on both sides of the House is this: get the neighbourhood boards up and running. The recruitment of the chair is key, and that is a joint endeavour between local authorities and MPs. The MPs must be consulted, and must have the final say in who the chair is. The chair can then ensure that the right voices are sitting round the table. Ultimately, the funding will go to back an investment and regeneration plan that the board will develop. That will make it very hard for particular long-standing projects to be funded: this must be part of a plan that is supported by the neighbourhood board, and the investment will flow into that.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
Like others, I welcome this investment, particularly the investment initially in Merthyr Tydfil and latterly in Rhondda Cynon Taf, which covers the Aberdare part of my constituency. It will make a real difference to the community. I am sure the Minister agrees that it is crucial, indeed critical, for real engagement to take place with communities when it comes to how this money is spent, but can she say a little about any discussions that are taking place about a replacement for the shared prosperity fund, which will remain until March next year?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The shared prosperity fund will come to an end in March next year. We will set out the details of a local growth fund, which will be geared towards the areas of the country that we think need it the most: our mayoral authorities in the north and the midlands. We will share details of that in due course.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Borderlands was a fully-funded initiative launched by the former Government, and it is now supported by the Department, the Scottish Government and the Scotland Office here in Westminster. It is designed to meet all the objectives that she has set out in the south of Scotland, Cumbria and Northumberland, but for some reason, only a very small proportion of the money has got out the door. Can the hon. Lady, in conjunction with the Scotland Office, do a full drains up to understand why the money is not getting to the community projects that it is designed to support?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I am very happy to take it away, and to work with the Scotland Office to understand why the money has been blocked. We are really keen to move at pace. We want to get investment into our communities, and we want things to start happening, so if we can find ways to unblock the investment, we absolutely shall.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
May I welcome the Minister to her place, and say what an encouraging start this is? All the funding that my community is receiving is very welcome, and it is such a contrast to the previous regime’s approach, where we had the crumbs off the table, and a politically motivated process in which communities had to bid against each other in a system that was essentially rigged. It was always about what the Government wanted to spend the money on, not what communities decided their priorities were. Since the announcement of pride in place, I have had so many constituents come forward with great ideas. What assurances can the Minister give me that their voice will really count?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the difference in approach—both in allocation and in the power that we are genuinely trying to give communities—between this Government and the last Government. We are very clear that communities are in the driving seat. The Conservative party pointed out that things were being made “complex”, but I do not think they are. We are creating a route that allows communities to be in the driving seat; we have designed the programme with that intent. We have community delivery units that will be working on the ground alongside Members of Parliament to make sure that communities are genuinely driving and shaping this, and that we can unlock the huge potential to change our places.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I congratulate the Minister on her appointment and welcome the core principle that she described: giving our communities the power to decide how to put money to best use. I am delighted that Torbay has been awarded two tranches of pride in place funding. However, it is a perverse badge of honour, because it demonstrates that we are the most deprived local authority in the south-west of England, the Conservatives having short-changed us. Another challenge in Torbay is the fact that social rented homes account for only 7% of our housing. Will the Minister reflect on how the whole Government can try to meet the desperate need for social housing in Torbay, which has less than half the national average?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for raising the critical issue of housing. I am incredibly proud that this Government are putting record investment into social and affordable housing—£39 billion—because we absolutely recognise that if we are to tackle poverty and deprivation, we must get to the root cause of the housing crisis. We have to make sure that affordable housing is an absolutely right, so that people in our communities can afford a roof over their head. That should not be a distant dream for so many.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
After 14 years of neglect under the previous Government, it is refreshing to see that under this Labour Government, communities such as New Addington in my constituency come first. I welcome the £20 million long-term investment that this Government are making in New Addington, its people and its future. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that local people get to decide how this money is spent, and can she outline what new powers will be given to local people in New Addington, so that this money is spent on their priorities?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that at the heart of this must be the community. That is why we have made the neighbourhood board absolutely critical, and there is a huge job for Members of Parliament from across the House in helping to organise, convene and bring together community leaders who can populate that board. We are very clear that regeneration plans will be driven by that board. Critically, it will not just be the board in the driving seat; big swathes of the community will be engaged, and they will have a voice and a say in what this looks like. Alongside that, we are making sure that there is a community right to buy, which I have spoken about, so that the community is in the driving seat, taking on community assets of value. There is a huge opportunity, but Members of Parliament and local government must play an enabling role, so that we can put communities in the driving seat for the first time.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The future high streets fund worked well, because to get any funding, areas had to demonstrate that they had a plan, and that the money would be used effectively, in accordance with local priorities. Pride in place is structured in a very different way. I accept that the Minister’s intent is to ensure that redundant premises are repurposed and reused; that is really good, and as chairman of the Trowbridge Place Partnership, I certainly welcome that. However, how will she ensure that the whole thing is not just bunged up with endless legal challenges, as her unelected boards make diktats that will be subject to endless review?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
There is the pride in place impact fund—£1.5 million that will go to local authorities across the country to bring about high-street regeneration. Alongside that, there is this programme. We are unapologetic about the fact that we want communities in the driving seat. We know that this is a different approach for Government, but it is the right approach, because we cannot and will not address the huge distrust, anger and frustration in our deprived communities unless we give people power and agency to shape and drive the change that they want. We will work as a Department to enable that. I have talked about the community delivery units; they will work alongside areas to make sure that we provide capacity-building support and enabling support, so that the investment not only works for the community in the short term, but fundamentally builds community wealth.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Members can see how many colleagues wish to contribute. Unless they keep their contributions short, they will deny their fellow Members the opportunity to speak. Show us how it is done, Shaun Davies.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I warmly welcome the £20 million investment in Telford, which has been match funded by Labour-led Telford and Wrekin council. That means that £3 million will go to Woodside, Brookside and Sutton Hill each and every year for the next decade. Will the Minister confirm when that money will come to the community frontline? Will she also challenge Government agencies and Departments right across Whitehall to get behind the ethos of this scheme, and make sure that communities are in charge, and that there is pride?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We will start investing. Phase 1 places are already receiving capacity funding, and £2 million will flow from next year. Phase 2 places—the places we recently announced—will receive capacity funding from next year, with full funding flowing from the year after. This is potentially a way to revolutionise the way that government works. We are very keen to work with Departments across Whitehall. We are saying, “Here is a way of investing in communities that genuinely puts communities in the driving seat.” Hopefully it has the impact that we want.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I was really disappointed that Cornwall, despite having some of the most deprived towns in the country, will not receive a penny of pride in place funding. At a time when our shared prosperity funding is to stop, I am concerned to hear the Minister mention that the north and the midlands will receive pride in place funding. I hope she clears that up. Will she meet me and my constituent Fin Irwin, who has really exciting plans for Bodmin’s Fore Street in my constituency? They could be the basis for a great pilot involving social housing, opportunities for small businesses and community spaces, and it would prove that the Government want regional growth everywhere.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are not able to fund all areas—I wish we were—so we have focused on particular areas of deprivation that also score high on the community needs index. However, we are also putting in place a whole set of powers and provisions so that every community can take control of its high streets and other areas, and can use the community right to buy. I am very happy to meet the hon. Member and other Cornwall Members to talk about how we can ensure that that part of the country thrives.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I will try again. Dr Lauren Sullivan will show us how it is done.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to her place. I thank her for Gravesham’s share of the pride in place impact fund; £1.5 million over two years is a really great investment, so that we can restart building communities and place—and there are new possibilities that once could only have been imagined. These priorities have been neglected over many years. Does she agree with me that the impact fund will make a real difference to Gravesham?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I do. It is a huge opportunity, and if we get this right, we will see tangible benefits in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I welcome the Minister to her new position. I enjoyed shadowing her on the energy brief. I really welcome the inclusion of Lakenheath in this announcement, and I look forward to working with her, and with residents and councillors, on making sure that the funds are well spent.
I want to ask the Minister how we build pride in place by improving local economies. Her Department is contemplating its plans for the development of Cambridge. My constituency is very affected by that development, and there is rising demand for new housing. I would appreciate it if I could meet her, or one of her colleagues, to discuss how we integrate new housing with transport connections. In particular, I am thinking of connections from Cambridge to Haverhill in West Suffolk.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member, and I am very happy to meet him.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Government’s investment of £20 million in the Raffles and Morton neighbourhoods of my Carlisle constituency. As I am very fond of reminding Members, Carlisle is the most northerly city in England—120 miles north of Manchester, and a very long way from this place. Does the Minister agree with me that what is truly transformative about this programme is not simply the money, but the fact that decisions about how it will be spent are put in the hands of local people, not politicians and civil servants in what we in Carlisle call “that London”?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right. Putting local people and communities in charge is game changing, if we get it right. I think it will lead to better decisions, and to an impact on places that matters to people. However, there is a big collective onus on all of us to get that right. The instinct to hoard power at the centre and to control is strong, and we all have to work to make sure that we put our communities in the driving seat.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I congratulate all Members who have secured funding in this pride in place settlement, but once again Perth and Kinross has been totally and utterly ignored. We did not receive one penny in levelling-up funding from the Tories, and we have received nothing from this Labour Government. Worse than that, they actually took away from Perth and Kinross the £5 million that we had finally secured from the Conservatives. The people of Perth and Kinross are sick and tired of being ignored in this merry-go-round of pork barrel politics. When are we going to get our share, and just what have the UK Government got against the people of Perth and Kinross?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We have allocated local growth funding to Scotland, which we will announce in due course. In addition, we are working with the Scotland Office on the allocation of the Scottish component of pride in place. This Labour Government are investing in Scotland and in our communities, but the Scottish Government are in charge, and if our communities are struggling in Scotland, responsibility for that sits with the SNP.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Paul Waugh, who will not want to let me down after his earlier infraction.
Paul Waugh
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In Rochdale, we warmly welcome this £20 million investment in Smallbridge and Hurstead, which is very much overdue. I am the Labour and Co-operative MP for Rochdale, which is the home of the Co-op, and we know more than anyone elsewhere the power of local people coming together, setting their own priorities and taking back control. Does the Minister agree with me that this investment is overdue because of the years of neglect by the Conservative party and Whitehall, and is a vote of confidence in local people?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right. Like him, I am a Co-operative MP, and I think the values of our Co-operative movement run through this programme. It puts local people in charge, but it also says that it is by giving local people a stake, giving them ownership and allowing them to generate community wealth that we make our places prosperous.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Minister described those receiving the money as “true patriots”, but in my constituency we have not received a single penny of this funding. Are my constituents not true patriots? There are plenty of places in the north of Farnham and potentially in Bordon that could really do with using this money. I invite the Minister to come to my constituency so that I can show her the places that need the money, and the amazing job that others are doing already.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We would have loved to have had funding for every part of the country. Sadly, because of the inheritance—the hon. Member has encouraged me to raise this again—of 14 years in which the public finances were decimated and the Conservatives crashed the economy, we are having to navigate through that situation. However, alongside the investment in the places that have been chosen because of deprivation, we are giving all places the tools and the levers to reclaim their high streets and invest locally.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
It is a damning legacy of the Tories that being born in Avondale Grange in Kettering rather than three minutes down the road means that people’s opportunities are less, they face more health inequalities and, under the last Government, they were told to accept decline. This £20 million funding shows that this Government believe that no matter where someone is born, they deserve to have pride in their community. While Reform continues to seek division, can my hon. Friend outline how people having pride in their home and bringing communities together is a real example of true patriotism?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right, and she put it incredibly eloquently. We can change the country by bringing our communities together and giving them the tools and agency to change their place so they have pride. Labour Members are on the side of unity, and of bringing communities together to drive renewal. I note that there are no Reform MPs here, but they are on the side of dividing, and of simple slogans and simple answers that—to be candid—will not change the lives of people in our communities.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister said in her statement:
“Our job is to give our constituents the investment and powers that they need”.
Of course, we all agree with that, and today’s announcement is welcome. However, as a fellow London MP, she will be aware that the so-called fairer funding review will actually decimate the funding of many London local authorities. My own borough of Richmond is set to lose a staggering amount—over 90% of its core Government funding—and our most vulnerable and disadvantaged residents will suffer. [Interruption.] If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am being heckled by Labour Members—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. There isn’t time—get to the point!
Munira Wilson
Will the Minister at the very least commit to an impact assessment of the fair funding review changes for local authorities such as Richmond, and will she grant transitional funding?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We have been consulting. We have closed the consultation, and we are looking through the responses at the moment. We have had representations from authorities across the country, including London. This Labour Government are very clear that we will continue to invest in our local areas and our communities. There is a need to rebalance, but we will do that in a fair way that does not negatively impact deprived communities.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Last week, I went to the toddler group at Open Heaven church in Friar Park. The mums there told me there is nothing for young people to do in Friar Park—no playground, no youth club. Does the Minister agree with me that the £20 million is going to make the most massive difference to Friar Park, especially given that it is local people, like those mums, who will decide how it is spent?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right. The opportunity to invest through this in local community services and youth services is absolutely huge, and putting local mums in the driving seat is always a good thing.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I welcome the fact that south Bridgwater has been included in this programme. These funds come on top of the £23 million allocated to Bridgwater under the last Government’s town deal. Parts of Highbridge in my constituency are equally deserving of funding, so can the Minister advise whether there will be any further rounds of allocating funding in this Parliament?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I think the hon. Gentleman is asking me to do the Chancellor’s job, which I shall not be able to do. We think that this is an exciting way of investing in our communities, and that there is a huge opportunity for us to leverage in additional investment. We are very keen to talk to social impact investors and philanthropists about how we can invest. There is also a lot of interest among the business community—local businesses and business improvement districts—in bringing this together. If we get this right and the funding in place leverages in additional funding, we will have shown that this is a way of operating that we can then roll out across the country.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
The Featherstone people have great pride in their place, but they are also shrewd. They know that the Tories did austerity, trickle-down economics and cuts across the health service, so they will very much welcome this announcement. May I push the Minister a little bit further on the question of a new economic model? Top-down economics has failed. Treasury mandarins do not understand what is happening in a place like Featherstone, whereas Featherstone people do. Does she see this measure as a way of community wealth building from the bottom up, rather than economics from the top down?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Absolutely. The Prime Minister spoke about grassroots growth, which is growth rooted in our communities and our places, where we build community wealth, which fundamentally changes and rewires the economic model and the economic settlement. We are very deliberate about the fact that we want to put communities at the heart of both driving change, and driving wealth and economic opportunity. That is how we drive up living standards.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
The Government are presenting the pride in place programme as a win for communities across the UK, but the focus of this particular scheme is on neighbourhoods of around 10,000 people. On Ynys Môn, only one town even meets that population threshold. That is not unique to my constituency; it is the case across Wales. Will the Minister explain why rural communities are excluded by design from this specific programme?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are investing in rural communities, whether in Somerset or Wiltshire. We have used very clear metrics—we have used deprivation and the community needs index—to focus the programme on the areas that need it the most. We recognise that this is part of a bigger strategy, whether that is giving communities the power to reclaim their high streets, the investment we are trying to do through local government, or, critically, the job we are doing with our regional mayors to fundamentally drive economic prosperity. There is a bigger plan to invest in all parts of the country.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
For years in Derby, we have been pushing for this kind of long-term investment—investment that the fantastic community of Chaddesden richly deserves. It will take time and hard work to recover from the 14 years of neglect that communities like Chaddesden experienced. I would like every Chadd resident with ideas of how they can get the money spent and get involved to contact me. Does the Minister agree that it is key that local people have a say in how that money is spent?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right. This is a huge opportunity to bring the community together and for them to be in the driving seat. Therefore, reaching out to all parts of the community is one of the most powerful things that Members of Parliament can do. I have an organising background and this is an organising moment, because it is the ability to bring people—those who are not normally around the table and who cannot normally shape their places—around the table and to give them voice, power and agency.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
Minister, the statement makes reference to engaging with the Northern Ireland Executive. Can you tell me what discussions you have had with my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. It is not “Can you tell me?”; it is “Can the Minister tell me?”. Yes? Quick!
Sorcha Eastwood
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can the Minister please tell me what discussions you have had with my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive? You will be aware of the fact that the shared prosperity fund, which other Members have referenced, is not being replaced. The local growth situation is already jeopardising jobs in Northern Ireland. Can you make any comment on that, Minister? Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Correction twice—it is not “Can you make a comment?” Let us please make sure we get our words right next time around.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are working very closely with the Northern Ireland Office, which is in constant contact with the Northern Ireland Executive in terms of pride in place and community investment, and local growth investment more widely. We will be working closely with them and ensuring that we are engaging with, and trying to design this with, the Northern Ireland Executive.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
In my area of Blackpool, the damning legacy of the Tories means that we now live in the most deprived borough in the country. High streets such as those in South Shore—Bond Street, Waterloo Road and Lytham Road—have been left to ruin. Will the Minister outline how the £1.5 million that can be used to restore high streets can be used quickly and efficiently in South Shore? Will she join me in Blackpool to meet residents and businesses in South Shore, and get some fish and chips along the way?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I would love to join my hon. Friend and I would love some fish and chips. On the £1.5 million, we are getting out the first tranche this autumn, so places will already be getting the investment. We are already signing memorandums of understanding to ensure we can move quickly. There is a critical role for Members of Parliament, working with the community, to ensure that the investment goes into the things that the community wants.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
More money and power going into communities is of course a good thing, and it would be only right and proper for me to welcome some money going into my neighbouring area, represented by the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra). I want to return to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) about the broader question of funding for local government. Stockport council covers my patch. Some £3 in every £4 it spends goes on adult and child social care. That is not sustainable. Three years to do a social care review is a long time. Will the Minister explain what conversations she is having with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to shorten that timeframe so we can crack on?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care. We understand the pressures that the social care system and its failures—which, again, we have to lay at the door of the Conversative party—are having on local government finance. We are doing what we can to give local government the flexibility to respond and increase the funding envelope, but there is a fundamental question about social care reform that is difficult and complex and that has been kicked into the long grass. We are determined to take this forward, but we have to do it carefully and we have to do it well so that it delivers the impact that everyone across the House wants to see.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
The £20 million pride in place funding going into the west end of Morecambe shows that this Labour Government are really trusting local people to spend money locally, without lots of bureaucratic hurdles—and I really welcome that. Whether it is smartening up Yorkshire Street or Regent Road, or getting under the bonnet and helping people with their health problems, in Morecambe we are ready to go. Will the Minister tell me if we can work together to get this going as quickly as possible and speed up the pride in place timescales?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right. We want pace, we want momentum and we want to get on with investing in our communities. Our community delivery unit will be working really closely with communities. If places want to run, it is our job to work alongside them so that they can run.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I welcome this new funding package. The city of Birmingham will receive £160 million over the next 10 years. My constituency, which has been in the media recently, undoubtedly has some of the highest levels of unemployment, child poverty, deprivation and health inequalities, but it has not received any of the funding. May I invite the Minister to meet me, so I can seek to persuade her that we need more funding, given that the eight neighbourhoods in Birmingham are patches that, unfortunately, have Labour MPs?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I would be happy to meet the hon. Member. We know there is deprivation across the country, and everything the Government are trying to do, from our strategy to drive growth to the work my colleagues in other Departments are doing on child poverty—we are taking action across the piece—is to tackle that. We have focused on certain communities, but we know that there is work to be done in all our communities.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Peterlee is the place to be. Interestingly, Peterlee is the only town in the country named after a trade union leader. There will be great celebration of the Labour Government’s £20 million investment from pride in place in Peterlee. I welcome this money, which is going to make a real difference to people in my constituency who were ignored by the previous Conservative Government. Does the Minister agree that it is important to note that this programme is not just new money, but gives new powers to local people to decide how it is spent?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right. What is game changing, in my view, is putting local people and communities in the driving seat and giving them powers to decide where they want to put the money. That will deliver impact, but critically it will also bring our communities together; it will bridge and create a sense of pride and a sense of community.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I welcome the Labour Government’s £20 million investment in Kingstanding in Birmingham. For 14 years, my constituency was repeatedly overlooked; it was even denied levelling-up funding on two occasions. Can the Minister assure me that after 14 years of Conservative neglect, local residents will come first, going forwards?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right. The approach this Labour Government are taking is to put local residents and communities first. We will all have examples of communities that have been hollowed out; we will all know that sense of despair and distrust. We absolutely need to turn that around, and we are committed to doing so.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the £20 million coming to Paston, Gunthorpe and the Welland area of Peterborough. This is pride in place being delivered by my hon. Friend the Minister—the pride of Peckham—and I thank her. I am deeply proud as a Co-operative MP that the co-operative development unit is part of this strategy. Earlier this week, along with Peppa Pig and the Education Secretary, I visited Honeyhill’s childcare centre, which is a family hub in the centre of the area that will receive this funding. Can the Minister confirm that this money will be not just about bricks and mortar, but about changing lives? Facilities such as family hubs will be at the centre of how we can give children the best start in life. We can use this investment to change things for the long term in Peterborough.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right. If we get this right, it will be about not only the investment in the next 10 years, but how we create momentum around that and catalyse greater community wealth and, critically, how we invest in our communities for the long term. As a proud Co-operative MP, I think there is a huge opportunity for us to ensure that communities have a genuine stake and that communities are benefiting in the long term from the wealth that is being generated.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The Conservatives hollowed out our communities and Reform is exploiting it, and yet this Government are helping communities like mine to thrive. We have already had the announcement of our £20 million in the towns fund. We have set up our Believe in Bedworth board, because my residents believe in their town, and the chair of that board has said that he feels energised to have a hand in shaping the future of his home town. We have already had thousands of responses to our survey and are organising a family fun day on 25 October. We would be delighted if the Minister could join us for that. Can she outline how the £1.5 million of impact funding can help to turbocharge the groundbreaking work already being done by Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council to bring empty properties back into use?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for setting out the huge amounts of work and progress in her community. That is a great example of exactly how this can work really well. There is a huge opportunity with the impact fund to build on that; where neighbourhood boards and governance structures are already established and where people like my hon. Friend have done huge amounts of engagement with the community, we should absolutely be thinking about leveraging in more investment.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
In June, I led a Westminster Hall debate calling for better investment in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, so I am delighted that my call was heard. I welcome the £20 million for Low Hill and an additional £1.5 million of pride in place impact funding. Does the Minister agree that the people who live in my communities, who know their strengths, their struggles and their solutions, must be at the heart of deciding what this money is spent on—not investment done to them, but investment by them and with them?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for the huge amounts of work she has done to champion this agenda and to come up with ideas to tackle deprivation. She is completely right: it is about communities in charge, driving change. It is not about change done to them, but about change with them in the driving seat.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I remind Members to keep questions short so that we can get try to get everybody in. I would not want Members to miss out on the opportunity to speak about their constituency because other Members had taken so long.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the £20 million for Old Farnley, but now is the time for action. Hundreds of people have already completed my survey. I have more than 100 volunteers for the neighbourhood board alone—it will not be that big—and we have plenty of ideas that we want to spend the money on. Given that we are ready and impatient to deliver, will the Minister empower my residents to crack on and spend this money and deliver the change that we know they deserve?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work and the huge progress he has made, both in reaching out across his community and in convening and galvanising people to join his neighbourhood board. We want communities to run this. We want pace and we want impact, and we are committed to working alongside him and his community to drive the change that they want to see.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
The people of Warndon in Worcester feel immense pride in their identity, and they know that for far too long they have been unheard, let down and left behind. This commitment of £20 million to Warndon could be transformative, especially as it is long-term funding over 10 years. However, more than money being spent, the people of Warndon need to be heard, respected and empowered. Can the Minister assure the people of Warndon that she shares my determination that the power, the decisions and the money are in their hands?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend puts it eloquently and correctly. The power will be in their hands, and it is our job to ensure that is the way it plays out.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
On behalf of the people of Portsmouth, I am delighted that we have received £41.5 million under Labour’s pride in place impact programmes. Some £20 million of that is for Paulsgrove, which is close to my heart. It is a proud and resilient place, but it was neglected and ignored under 14 years of the previous Government. As pubs, shops and facilities have closed, volunteers and community champions have been running them out of their own pockets to keep that part of the city going. Will the Minister confirm that the community of Paulsgrove will now be able to have a say and put into action what the community wants and needs, with real investment from the Government, rather than from their own pockets?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend highlights the patriots I talked about—the people in our community who have been holding things together despite all the damage done by the Conservatives. We are clear that those people are the ones who we must champion and put in the driving seat.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
I welcome the pride in place funding announcement and, in particular, the £20 million that has been allocated to Barrow Central ward in Barrow-in-Furness. It is one of the most deprived in the whole country, and it is refreshing to see that under this Labour Government, we are delivering to those who were left behind by our predecessors. Does the Minister agree that the people who live there not only know the opportunities and the barriers, but understand where we need to spend the money to put things right in these left-behind communities?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is 100% right. Understanding what is needed is game-changing, and I hope that this programme will deliver the ability to ensure we can act on that understanding.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Labour Government’s £20 million investment for Heartsease and Pilling Park in my constituency will be transformative. For too long our communities have had stuff done to them, not with them, and this model will help change that. Will the Minister join me in encouraging all people who live in these areas to get involved? Does she agree that it is important that people of all ages and from all backgrounds, including people who have perhaps never thought before about doing something like this, get involved?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right. This is a huge opportunity for our communities to get involved. As I have said, I think there is a powerful role that Members of Parliament can play in putting out the clarion call. I encourage anyone, particularly those who have felt politics and decisions about their lives to be remote, to become involved. This is their chance to get around the table, to shape their place and to make sure that they drive the change that they want to see.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
After 14 years of Tory neglect, the town of Fleetwood has been buzzing with ideas about how to make the most of this fantastic pride in place fund. My community is ready to hit the ground running. We are hungry to deliver the investment we so badly need. Can the Minister assure me that the people of Fleetwood will get the resources we need to begin the work at the earliest possible opportunity? We cannot afford to wait any longer.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I completely agree that we need pace and urgency. Communities have been let down and held back for far too long, and this is our chance to act with purpose and speed. We want to stand behind communities so that they can crack on and make the change that they want to see.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The pride in place funding will be transformative for my constituency. I thank the Minister for working with me and for giving advice to urban areas such as Middleton—urban areas that a former Conservative Prime Minister bragged about diverting funds away from. I was delighted to convene a meeting at Burnside community centre recently where calls for improvements to Middleton were decisive. What steps are being taken to ensure that places with the most acute need, such as Middleton, are given priority within local authority areas?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is right to remind us that resources were deliberately taken away from some of our most deprived communities under the last Government, which is a shameful record. We are very clear that this is an opportunity to invest in our communities. We want local authorities to ensure that they are working alongside our communities and enabling them, and that the money and resources are going to the places that the communities believe need the investment.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the £21.5 million pride in place investment for Hartlepool, which will go directly into our neighbourhoods. It comes off the back of the biggest deal in Hartlepool’s history of £6 billion for new nuclear and 2,500 jobs, and a brilliant Labour council delivering £150 million of capital investment in our town. Does the Minister agree that after years of being left behind, this shows that the people of Hartlepool have a Government and an MP who are on their side?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I 100% agree. That example shows the difference that a Labour Government working with a Labour council can make. We inherited a decade and a half of decline and neglect, and it is—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) is sighing from the Conservative Front Bench. He should be far more ashamed about his Government’s record. It is our job to turn around their failure and neglect.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
Since the announcement of £20 million for the east of Sheppey, my constituents have been fizzing with excitement. I am getting loads of responses to my online surveys, and the coffee morning I held on Saturday—the first of many I will hold—was very well attended. People had really great ideas, but they had two main things to feed back. First, they want local people to be at the heart of this initiative. The citizens of Eastchurch, Warden, Leysdown and Shellness all want to be part of it, but they want to make sure it is centred on them, not on outside voices. Secondly, they want the funding to be a catalyst for further change and investment in the area. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that, and I would also quickly remind her that I have three more neighbourhoods in the bottom 10% of the country—just to add that to the list.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his amazing work to reach out to his community and get that engagement and feedback from people. That is what will drive the change. I thank him for the feedback from his residents and community; will take it on board. We completely agree that residents need to be in the driving seat and that this initiative needs to be a catalyst. If we get this right, we can take the model to Whitehall, local businesses and philanthropy and say, “This is how we drive change in our communities. Continue to co-invest.”
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I am thrilled that my hometown of Thetford in rural South West Norfolk is to receive a share of this funding. Just last week I was at the board meeting where we made our first funding commitments to increase capacity and reopen a derelict medieval church in Thetford town centre as a community space. Does the Minister agree that projects such as those will bring footfall back into our towns, support local businesses and improve our local economy?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that example. I completely agree; that is an incredibly exciting project. Those sorts of schemes can have a huge galvanising impact on our local areas. I look forward to seeing the progress that he and his community are making, and we will make sure that we do our part to support them.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
To their great credit, the Bournville, Coronation and Oldmixon communities have survived in spite of previous Westminster disinterest. Does the Minister agree that this huge £20 million investment in Weston-super-Mare is an endorsement of our faith in every community champion who has kept our most vulnerable communities together while Westminster looked the other way?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right to highlight the heroes who helped to hold our communities together through 14 years in which they were neglected and faced huge pressure. Pride in Place is a vote of confidence in those local heroes. Our job is to give them what they need in order to drive the change they have been rightly calling for.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I am delighted that this Labour Government are investing £20 million into Weston and a further £1.5 million into the wider Southampton Itchen constituency. Ideas are already flooding in from a group of people who are relieved not to be overlooked yet again, as they were under the last Government. Does the Minister agree that such long-term, stable and—most important—community-led investment is absolutely the right way to transform communities like Weston for the better?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right. Long-term, stable investment that is anchored in our communities and puts them in the driving seat is a game changer. I am incredibly excited about the programme, but it is examples like his that show us just how transformative it could be.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I am delighted to confirm that the entire community of Park End and Beckfield will be able to benefit from the £20 million of investment through the Government’s Pride in Place scheme. Will the Minister confirm that the funding should be spent not by the council or by any politician but by the community themselves on the priorities they want to see?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Absolutely, 100%. Communities are in the driving seat, with the neighbourhood board of a cross-section of members of the community—people who have never sat around the table—being around the table and driving the change that they want to see.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I really welcome the £21.5 million of extra funding for Hastings, and I am delighted that hundreds of residents have been in touch with their ideas about how to spend it. As the Minister said, it is better spent on people’s priorities and not wasted as in previous schemes under the Conservative party, like the £150,000 wasted on Owens in Hastings. Public money was also spent on reopening the Bridge community centre in Ore, which has sadly been closed for seven years, so many in Hastings were shocked to hear that Parchment Trust, which was given the centre for free, plans to sell it on the open market for £650,000. Does the Minister agree that Parchment Trust should look at how it can return the centre to public hands and take up the Charity Commission’s offer to meet to discuss that?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Absolutely. My hon. Friend gives us the example of how not to do this, as we saw that under the Conservative party. If we get this right and we put communities at the very heart of it, that is how we will drive change. I commend her on the amazing leadership she is showing in her community, working with others to bring them around the table to ensure that investment that has a long-term impact will drive change in her community.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Two neighbourhoods in Fife are benefiting from £40 million of Pride in Place funding, showing the Government once again delivering for the people of the kingdom of Fife. Given the centralisation of power in Scotland under the SNP, how does the Minister believe those funds can support local decision making in Scottish communities, particularly in areas of deprivation?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. We believe that communities should be in charge and in the driving seat—that is how we drive transformative long-term change. We desperately hope that the Scottish Government will look at what we are doing. The Scottish Government have been hugely centralising, but not always making decisions in the best interests of the communities we want them to. We think there is something that they can learn, and we will work with them to share the lessons and, critically, to advocate and encourage them to take a similar approach.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for this fantastic funding announcement. I know that my constituents in Maryport and Broughton Moor will make good use of this £20 million investment. Thinking back to the last Government’s approach to levelling up, I recall that the Public Accounts Committee criticised the lack of transparency in how levelling-up money was allocated. As pork barrel politics and levelling up are two very different things, will the Minister reassure us that lessons have been learned and this Government will be transparent?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. The pork barrel politics we saw under the last Government were shocking. At a time when our communities were under huge pressure and we saw such deprivation, it was pretty egregious and unforgivable. This Labour Government would not do that. We are clear and transparent about the metrics that we have used; it is all published and it is there. Critically, we are trying to reach the communities that need the greatest help.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
For the final question, I call Richard Burgon.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Not only as the Member of Parliament, but as an east Leeds resident, I am delighted that £20 million has been secured for Seacroft North and Monkswood, which really needs it. Does the Minister agree that the ideas and answers on how this vital money should be spent lie with the local people in Seacroft North and Monkswood, who were sadly left behind and let down by the previous Tory Government?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right. The answers lie with our local communities. If we do the job of creating the space for them, empowering them and building their capacity, they have the ability to fundamentally transform lives in our communities. I am determined to support that, we are proud that, as a Labour Government, we are putting it at the heart of our approach, and we are determined to deliver it.
Point of Order
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Members will be aware that the Upper Waiting Hall is this week hosting the Speak Their Name exhibition of suicide memorial quilts from across the UK. This would not have been possible without the help of House staff who have gone way over and above to ensure that the exhibition and last Friday’s launch with the Baton of Hope could take place. May I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to thank all the staff involved for their help and to pass on my appreciation?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. She has now helpfully placed on the record her thanks to those responsible for the exhibition and I will ensure that Mr Speaker is made aware of that gratitude, so that it can be passed on to staff.
Police and Crime Commissioners (Accountability and Review)
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the accountability of police and crime commissioners; to make provision about the measurement of police and crime commissioners’ performance; to make provision about the setting of priorities for police and crime commissioners; to require the Secretary of State to commission a review of the operation and functions of police and crime commissioners, including consideration of options for their abolition and replacement; and for connected purposes.
My constituents are worried about crime and disorder across their communities. It is the same for a great many colleagues, if not the vast majority. For years now, they have seen a rise in crime, be it anti-social behaviour in their neighbourhoods, crime on their high streets, or, in more extreme cases, violence. Those concerns really matter; people deserve to be listened to and taken seriously by the police.
I am pleased that this Government are taking action, with the Crime and Policing Bill making massive strides to protect our communities. However, it will take time to reverse the impact of the original cuts to police numbers and the erosion of experience over the previous 14 years. The problem is that the public feel helpless: they feel that no one is listening to them and they do not know who to turn to, who to talk to and who is responsible for the police in their area. That brings me to the purpose of my Bill: that too often, police and crime commissioners have not delivered for their communities.
I will argue that PCCs need to be replaced and reformed with police and crime panels while the wider devolution process takes place. However, first, to understand the problem, we must look back 15 years to the changes introduced by the then incoming Government and their promise to bring “democratic control over policing” through the creation of PCCs. That proposal resulted in PCCs replacing police authorities and becoming the sole authority. As Prime Minister, David Cameron explained that police and crime commissioners would
“lead the fight against crime”
and be someone
“to hold to account if they don’t deliver.”
Today, how many of our constituents can name their PCC? Indeed, how many know what a PCC is? How many of our constituents think that their PCC is leading the fight against crime? Many would say that the promises of that original Bill have not been delivered and that we need to amend these shortcomings for the sake of our constituents.
How did we get here? Back in 2012, the first PCC elections were held. Turnout in the first election was just 15%, making it the lowest-ever turnout for a peacetime national election. As Prime Minister, David Cameron promised that turnout would increase over time, and it did, but it was hardly impressive and certainly not representative. In fact, turnout last year, 2024, reached 23% across England and Wales but it coincided with certain mayoral elections on the same day. The apathy for PCCs remains.
The problems run far deeper. Indeed, in 2024, the Home Affairs Committee said that the PCC approach faced “a number of challenges”, the foremost being the lack of public awareness of PCCs and their functions, the relationships between PCCs and chief constables and the lack of accountability. The Committee was concerned that the introduction of PCCs had seen the creation of yet another layer of bureaucracy and additional cost, with questionable impact on the outcomes for police forces. It also noted that there was considerable variability in the relative performance between PCCs across the country, and that the nature of the relationship they have with their chief constable can damage the model entirely. The Committee concluded that their effectiveness was highly variable and questionable.
There is also the matter of legitimacy. As elected representatives, PCCs are held to account at the ballot box, but with turnout percentages often in the mid-teens, the public are clearly not taking them seriously. Also, while police and crime panels exist to scrutinise PCCs, they are constrained by funding and formal powers. The panels are limited in their funding to £53,300 a year, and this does not reflect the workload required to proactively hold the commissioner to account. In terms of formal powers, the police and crime panels lack the proper mechanisms to hold the PCC to account. The panel can only veto a decision once, be it a budget or a chief constable appointment. Furthermore, PCPs can investigate police and crime commissioners, but in real terms it is no more than a polite inquiry.
Across the country, we see examples of PCCs failing constituents. This became an issue for me in Warwickshire, and not just through casework and wider constituents’ concerns, of which there are many. It was truly crystallised by the news story of a cover-up between Warwickshire hunt, Warwickshire police and the police and crime commissioner. I will not go into the details, but the allegations are that the PCC, Philip Seccombe, and the then chief constable, Debbie Tedds, engineered a cover-up that prevented a case of illegal foxhunting by Warwickshire hunt from going to court. The PCC is supportive of Warwickshire hunt, and so was the chief constable, whom he alone appointed in 2021. That was rubber-stamped by the PCP.
Between October 2023 and November 2024, I wrote to the PCC and the chief constable six times on this issue. They blanked me. They withheld information from me, an elected MP, and also from the police and crime panel. The PCC claimed that he did not have the information and that he had not seen it. I believe he obstructed me from getting that information. As a result, neither I nor the residents of Warwickshire have any trust or confidence in Commissioner Philip Seccombe or the senior leadership team at Warwickshire police. There was clearly collusion. That is what the public believe, and that is what I believe, too. The chief constable, whose daughter worked for Warwickshire hunt, retired early in September 2024, just three years after her appointment.
Public concerns across the country are not simply confined to ineffectiveness or collusion, as in the case of Warwickshire; they also centre on costs. In my home county of Warwickshire in 2023-24, the running costs of the PCC and his office were a staggering £1,175,000. That is just for one year. That is the equivalent of 38 trainee police constables in Warwickshire for one year. Across England and Wales, the total budget for the 41 commissioners is just shy of £50 million. Given that context, I am encouraged by the Government’s ambition to move the responsibilities of PCCs across to mayors through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, but these changes will take at least two years to come into effect, so more immediate action is needed. In the meantime, we could be saving tens of millions of pounds a year and diverting that money straight to frontline policing.
It is increasingly clear that for, the most part, PCCs have failed to meet the needs of their communities. They have not brought greater accountability or improved police outcomes. I would argue that the time has come for us to change the system and do away with police and crime commissioners.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Matt Western, Chris Bloore, Adam Jogee, Debbie Abrahams, Sam Carling, Rachel Taylor and Matt Western present the Bill.
Matt Western accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 May 2026, and to be printed (Bill 312).
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 78 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 151 / Noes: 319 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 160 / Noes: 324 - Question accordingly negatived.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Review of the supply of bioethanol for use in sustainable aviation fuel production—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament a report reviewing measures to encourage the supply of materials for sustainable aviation fuel.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—
(a) an assessment of the impact of the closure of bioethanol plants on the ability to encourage overall increases in sustainable aviation fuel production;
(b) options for mitigating any adverse impacts on the availability of supply of sustainable aviation fuel by the closure of bioethanol plants;
(c) recommendations for any necessary Government action to promote a stable supply of bioethanol for sustainable aviation fuel.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report outlining measures to encourage the supply of materials for SAFs, including considering the impact of bioethanol plant closures on encouragement to increase supply.
New clause 3—Increasing greenhouse gas saving potential of sustainable aviation fuel—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish and lay before Parliament a report which sets out a strategy for increasing the greenhouse gas emission saving resulting from the promotion of sustainable aviation fuel production in the United Kingdom.
(2) The report required under subsection (1) must include, but not be limited to—
(a) proposals for incentivising the research and development of sustainable aviation fuels that maximise greenhouse gas emission savings;
(b) an assessment of, and recommendations for increases to, the minimum required greenhouse gas emission reduction in order for a sustainable aviation fuel to be issued a SAF certificate;
(c) an assessment of, and recommendations for increases to, minimum ratios for renewable content in blended sustainable aviation fuels, for the purpose of more quickly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
(3) Twelve months after the publication of the report required under subsection (1) and within every twelve months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a further report which—
(a) sets out progress against the strategy; and
(b) makes any necessary adjustments to the strategy as a result of developments in the sustainable aviation fuel industry.
(4) In this section, “SAF certificate” has the meaning given in article 2 of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) Order 2024.”
New clause 4—Reporting of Sustainable Aviation Fuel targets—
“(1) The Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) Order 2024 is amended as set out in this section.
(2) In paragraph (3), after sub-paragraph (5) insert—
“(5A) The Secretary of State may vary the table in paragraph (7) in order to increase the obligation in any given year.”
(3) In sub-paragraph 33(2)(c) leave out “, and”
(4) After sub-paragraph 33(2)(d), insert “and
(e) consider whether the SAF obligation set out in the table in sub-paragraph 3(7) of this Order should be increased for any given year, and if so, set out steps the Secretary of State will take to effect such an increase.”
(5) After paragraph 33(2) insert—
“(2A) A copy of a report published under this article must—
(a) be laid before Parliament; and
(b) be sent to the relevant select committee of each House of Parliament.
(2B) In sub-paragraph 33(2A)(b), “the relevant select committee” is—
(a) in the House of Commons, the Transport Committee, provided that—
(i) if the name of that Committee is changed, reference is instead taken to mean the new name, and
(ii) if the functions of that Committee with respect to Sustainable Aviation Fuel become functions of a different committee of the House of Commons, reference is instead taken to the committee by whom the functions are then exercisable;
(b) in the House of Lords, any such Committee as the Chairman of Committees may appoint.””
New clause 5—Air travel providers’ use of sustainable aviation fuel: reporting requirements—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a requirement for air travel providers to report annually on their use of sustainable aviation fuel.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must specify—
(a) that the annual reports include figures for sustainable aviation fuel usage which can be easily understood, including expressed as—
(i) an absolute volume, and
(ii) proportion of all aviation fuel used; and
(b) that the annual reports are accessible to members of the public including by being made available on their websites.
(3) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be made under the negative procedure.”
New clause 6—Economic Impact of the Act—
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the economic impact of the Act.
(2) This report must include, but shall not be limited to—
(a) the impact on the UK’s aviation fuel industry;
(b) the impact on the UK’s sustainable aviation fuel supply including the impact on all small, medium and large producers and potential importers of sustainable aviation fuel;
(c) the impact on international and domestic tourism in the UK; and
(d) the impact on passenger air fares.
(3) The report required by subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament within one year of this Act being passed.”
New clause 7—Targets for power-to-liquid aviation fuel usage—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the power-to-liquid aviation fuel targets as set out in section (3) of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) Order 2024.
(2) The review carried out under subsection (1) must only consider—
(a) the effectiveness of the existing power-to-liquid aviation fuel target and;
(b) whether the target should be increased.
(3) In carrying out the review under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult with—
(a) producers of power-to-liquid aviation fuel;
(b) airlines;
(c) experts in sustainable aviation fuel production; and
(d) any other persons the Secretary of State deems appropriate.
(4) A report setting out the findings of the review must be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
Government amendment 1.
Amendment 10, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—
“(4A) The terms under subsection (4)(c) must include a requirement for the producer to consider the longevity of supply and relative environmental impact when prioritising between organic and synthetic derived sustainable aviation fuel solutions.”
Government amendments 2 to 5.
Amendment 11, in clause 6, page 4, line 19, leave out from “pay” to end of line 22 and insert
“to the designated counterparty in each month a standardised levy on their relevant disposals of aviation fuel products in the preceding month that must be publicised on invoices expressed in pence per standard litre.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to set a standardised levy rate payable by all suppliers of aviation fuel, that must be publicised by suppliers of aviation fuel on invoices to their customers.
Government amendment 6.
Amendment 8, in clause 12, page 7, line 6, at end insert—
“(3) A direction given under subsection (1) must include a requirement for the designated counterparty to report on—
(a) the impact of any revenue certainty contract on the fluctuation of the average price to consumers of an airfare over the proceeding 12 month period;
(b) a projection of the expected impact of any revenue certainty contract on the fluctuation of the average price to consumers of an airfare over the following five year period.
(4) A report under paragraph (a) must be made within one year of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter.
(5) The Secretary of State must lay a report made under paragraph 3(a) before Parliament.”
This amendment would require the designated counterparty to report on the impact that the revenue certainty mechanism has on passenger air fares.
Amendment 9, page 7, line 6, at end insert—
“(3) A direction given under subsection (1) must include a requirement for the designated counterparty, where a venue certainty contract would result in a new production facility, to prioritise entering into any such contracts with producers that will use UK owned technologies in that facility.”
This amendment would require the designated counterparty to prioritise UK-based technology when entering contracts.
Amendment 12, page 7, line 6, at end insert—
“(3) Within twelve months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make a direction under subsection (1) which requires the designated counter party to prioritise entering at least one revenue certainty contract with a producer of Power to Liquid sustainable aviation fuel if doing so will allow for at least one plant to reach Final Investment Decision by 31 December 2026.”
Government amendment 7.
Olly Glover
Global demand for aviation continues to grow; it is projected to be two or three times bigger by 2050. In 2024, there was a record rate of increase in carbon emissions, according to the World Meteorological Organisation, and there was a new daily record for global aviation emissions in July 2025. Nearly half of all the carbon emissions to date from aviation have occurred since 2000.
Sustainable aviation fuel has been talked up for years as the solution, yet there has been a poor track record of unambitious targets not being matched by delivery. For example, in 2010, Boeing announced the target that 1% of aviation fuel globally should come from SAF by 2015, and in 2019, the International Air Transport Association set out hopes of reaching 2% by 2025, but today, globally, the figure is just 0.3%. The UK’s published figure this year of 1.29% is better, but it nevertheless shows how far we have to go.
The Conservative Government promised back in 2022 to have five commercial UK SAF plants operational by 2025, but there is still only one. It is therefore right of the Government to have introduced legislation to attempt to make sure that the latest set of SAF targets move from fantasy to realistic, credible and deliverable plans, although these will ultimately need to transition us towards the development of truly zero-carbon flight technology. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), and for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), for their contribution to the Bill Committee, and I hope that Members from across the House will consider the Liberal Democrat amendments.
New clauses 1, 2 and 3 all increase the chances of the intention behind the Bill being realised. New clause 1 requires the Secretary of State to assess and report on the potential for disused oil refineries and similar industrial sites to be used for the production of sustainable aviation fuel. New clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to assess the measures being taken to encourage the supply of materials for production of sustainable aviation fuel, and has a focus on bioethanol plants. That is especially important in the context of the expected closure of the Vivergo bioethanol plant near Hull, following the Government’s decision not to provide it with financial support.
New clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the development of a strategy for analysing and maximising the potential of sustainable aviation fuels to contribute to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
I also speak in support of two new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), both of which would improve the Bill by providing greater rigour and scrutiny of progress towards sustainable aviation fuel targets. New clause 4 would give the Secretary of State the power to increase SAF production obligations where necessary, and to ensure that reports on progress are laid before Parliament and relevant Select Committees. New clause 5 would introduce requirements for air travel providers to report on their use of sustainable aviation fuel, and to provide annual reports to the public via their websites. Collectively, new clauses 1 to 5 would strengthen the Bill and increase its credibility when it comes to SAF production and reporting on progress.
The Government’s SAF mandate requires just 22% of aviation fuel to be sustainable by 2040. That compares poorly with the European Union’s target of 32% by 2040. It is hard to square an objective of net zero aviation by 2050 with just 22% of fuel being sustainable a decade earlier, unless we put in place measures alongside SAF to cut emissions and make climate-friendly flight a reality. We urge the Government to clarify their plans for achieving their targets, particularly as hope for SAF progress is being used to state that Heathrow and Gatwick expansion are compatible with our greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
As my hon. Friend says, sustainable aviation fuels are being used by the Government to justify major airport expansions. One such expansion would be at Gatwick, adjacent to my constituency. A target of 10% SAF by 2030 is optimistic in the extreme, as the Climate Change Committee said. If the Government’s own advisers do not believe in this target, why should we?
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend makes a good point about what the Climate Change Committee has said. That is why I hope the Government will consider these Liberal Democrat amendments, which are intended to strengthen the Bill, so that its provisions become reality this time, and contrast with the many missed targets in the past on sustainable aviation fuel.
Making aviation genuinely sustainable will require the Government to go beyond securing investment in SAF, and to ensure that in the longer term, the SAF measures complement, rather than detract from, investment in zero-carbon flight technology. I hope that the House will support our amendments, so that our country makes a bigger and more rapid contribution to decarbonising aviation.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Ind)
This year, Petroineos—that is, Jim Ratcliffe’s Ineos and PetroChina from the Chinese state—closed the Grangemouth oil refinery. Closure was not about some passionate quest for net zero. Closure happened because private capital and a foreign Government owned vital energy infrastructure, and because corporate profits are more important than community good to the billionaire Jim Ratcliffes of this world. There were 435 jobs lost at the refinery, and hundreds more lost in the shared services that are housed on site; 2,822 jobs were lost in the wider supply chain. That is mass de-industrialisation.
But closure is not just about job losses. The exodus of talented, skilled workers is awful, but closure also means that the site is no longer a positive destination for many local young people leaving school. We have seen an end to a generational employer in my community. The economic consequences are also absolutely enormous for local Grangemouth businesses, which relied on the custom of refinery workers and their families. Once again, I want to give credit to all the small local businesses that have kept town centres going in recent years. The pressure of running a small business when austerity and the cost of living crisis have hammered people’s disposable incomes can be all-consuming and incredibly stressful. I should know; I tried it for some years.
The economic turmoil of stopping refining is also a national issue, because the refinery was worth more than £400 million per annum to the Scottish economy. Politicians often talk about black holes. Well, that is a sizeable, industrial-shaped black hole to fill. I do not doubt that the Government understand the magnitude of how important it is to re-industrialise communities like mine in Grangemouth. The other day, I read my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who has done so much work to bring this Bill to the House, describing in Hansard the situation that he grew up in on the east side of Manchester, which lost its chemical and mining industries. He said:
“We are still getting over that in my great city.”––[Official Report, Sustainable Aviation Fuel Public Bill Committee, 17 July 2025; c. 108.]
He undoubtedly understands the social consequences of industry finishing up. No community can afford this continued spiral of industrial decline.
To go back to my original point, we have for decades been an economy controlled by private capital, multinational corporations and foreign Governments whose policy has been to make things elsewhere, and to sell here. Have the last four decades not shown that the country’s complete reliance on private capital means profits over people? We must adopt a new industrial strategy that meets the needs of working people and their communities by securing at least some form of public ownership of the new industries that we will need—that is a mainstream political view.
The Government must learn lessons to stop history repeating itself, and to prevent workers and communities having every last ounce of work extracted from them before they are discarded on a corporate whim. For the Government to create and benefit economically from the necessary green industrial revolution, which we need for our economy and for the planet, some form of Government ownership of future industries is necessary. Surely, that view should be at the heart of any Labour Government.
If the Government want to put their faith in private capital to mould Britain’s new industrial future, I urge them to think again. They need to be more active in the process of creating Grangemouth’s industrial future. They need to seize the initiative and invest in workers, communities industry and Scottish manufacturing. Producing sustainable aviation fuel is an enormous objective—one that we have committed to—and sites like Grangemouth are ideally placed for it. The infrastructure needs some degree of conversion and upgrade, of course, but it is there. The workforce and expertise are there. My local community needs to be re-industrialised. The Labour Government have ambitious SAF targets to meet, but, more importantly, they also have obligations to communities in our forgotten industrial heartlands.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
New clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), would require the Government to publish a report within six months of securing the supply of bioethanol for sustainable aviation fuel production. The Government have repeatedly cited the increased use of SAF as the answer to questions about how the UK will meet our net zero targets while expanding multiple airports in London. It was wishful thinking nine months ago, but that argument has now dissolved almost into impossibility. Not only did the summer proposal submitted by Heathrow Airport Holdings for a third runway include a request to add nearly 300,000 flights to our airspace each year, but the concerns regarding the production of SAF have become more prominent. That concern has grown following China’s implementation of its own SAF mandate, which will result in it using more of its production domestically. That will undoubtedly cause a challenge for the UK given that over 90% of our current SAF is imported from China.
The challenges to the UK’s ability to produce and import SAF were underscored by the Climate Change Committee’s recent report, which estimated that only 17% of the UK’s aviation industry will be using SAF by 2040. That is 5% lower than the Government’s own mandated targets, and 8% below the EU’s target. The estimate does not even take into account the additional flights that would come in and out of the UK as a result of the proposed airport expansions. In fact, in 2024 only 10% of bioethanol certified as renewable and consumed in the UK was produced domestically. That was down from 17% in 2023 and 15% in 2022—a concerning trend and one that the Government must report back on.
In addition, the UK-US trade deal presents a threat to the UK’s domestic bioethanol production, as the agreement removed tariffs on US ethanol and replaced it with a zero-tariff quota of 1.4 billion litres. The US bioethanol industry is heavily subsidised and its companies will be able to undercut UK bioethanol industries. Vivergo Fuels’ plant in Hull, which had the largest capacity of any UK bioethanol producer, has already closed, with the managing director citing the US-UK trade deal as a significant factor that contributed to the site’s closure.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
I will speak to new clause 1. Context is important, as this Bill is a first step on a long pathway to decarbonising aviation. At the moment, SAF components are blended with existing fossil fuels to create usable aircraft fuel, as I will go on to discuss, but I think it is helpful for us to be aware of the context: the various generations of sustainable aviation fuel that will form a road map as we move into the future.
First-generation aviation fuels use oils, often of biological origin, as feedstocks, and they produce a kerosene-type fuel that can be blended with our existing jet fuel. Second-generation SAF is derived from solid waste that goes through a digestion process, producing alcohols that can then be formulated into aviation fuel-type products. Third-generation fuels—I remind hon. Members that there are four generations—use wet mass as feedstock. Again, that wet mass might be biological, but it is incapable of competing with food crops for production, and the process produces an output that is much like a bio-crude oil.
As we move through the generations of sustainable aviation fuel production, it is important to remember that the outputs are different and are able to slip into different parts of the existing fuel production supply chain. The fourth generation is derived from gases, maybe even atmospheric gases, such as carbon dioxide drawn from the atmosphere. It is often referred to as a power-to-liquids process, and is an entirely non-biological process that requires a lot of new technology. It is a future solution, but an advantageous and attractive one as it can provide us with a purely synthetic fuel.
The point that I am illustrating is that the Bill is the first step in a long-term vision for aviation, in which sustainable aviation fuel is able to play a progressively larger role. In future, we may even move to different fuels all together. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on hydrogen, I would like to give a shout-out to its role in the potential long-term future of power for aviation.
These generations of fuels also interact with the technology in our aircraft. Although current blends of sustainable aviation fuel can go into aircraft now, the aircraft will need to be upgraded as we move to higher fractions of sustainable components in that fuel, because some of the aromatic components in fossil fuels are not available in synthetic fuels. They are currently required by some of the seals in the engines, and the aircraft will need to move into future generations to accept high proportions of aviation fuel.
All of this is about having a strategic road map. The Bill is one step—one vastly enabling piece of legislation—and it follows a model that is well proven to help establish new technologies as part of a green and sustainable future. We have seen the similar progress in offshore wind, for example, where it has been utterly transformational beyond anybody’s expectations. This vehicle should be able to do similar things for the beginning of our journey on decarbonising aviation, but it needs a long-term plan. That is why there is a really important piece of work to be done in the secondary legislation enabled by the Bill. It is very important that that legislation takes account of all the factors being discussed through the various amendments that have been tabled.
I oppose new clause 1, because we must not oversimplify the journey before us. In fact, we must allow the Government the freedom to create a sophisticated, technically-led strategy to deploy these different types of sustainable aviation fuel, taking into account all factors, including our existing infrastructure, the production of biomass and the advancement of aviation technology. If we get this right, and if this game is played well, we have the opportunity to start successfully—and even lead—a journey that will be absolutely transformative, and to envisage a thriving, positive and sustainable future for aviation.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
For many years, I commuted by aircraft from Scotland to Dublin—so many years, in fact, that I can still recall there are eight emergency exits on a Boeing 737-800. There are two at the front, two at the rear and four over-wing exits. What a great pity that this Bill does not have an amendment that is an escape slide.
While sustainable aviation fuel sounds wonderful, it is burdened with many inconvenient facts. The first is that there is no SAF production industry at the scale required. While new clause 1 is a bold attempt to jump-start production by repurposing old facilities, it is a jumbo jet of a task. The World Economic Forum estimates that by 2030, global demand for SAF is expected to reach 70 million tonnes per annum—around 4% to 5% of total jet fuel consumption.
Meeting likely demand in just five years requires an additional 5.8 million tonnes of capacity. What is the investment required to reach even that relatively modest goal? The WEF pitches it at somewhere between $19 billion and $45 billion globally. If that does not give our legislative autopilot the warning, “Terrain! Terrain! Pull up!”, then it should do. New clause 1 is unaffordable, whether backed by public or private finance, and I am afraid it is doomed to fail.
It is certain that the vast input costs will result in massively higher costs for passengers and air freight. I support the vital new clause 6, which would force an assessment of the economic impact of this Bill, which I fear will be nothing short of devastating. Some might piously accept fewer flights to the Costas or a little less airfreighted Kenyan mangetout on the dinner table, but making air travel ruinously expensive will have implications for thousands of jobs—millions globally—in not only aviation, but tourism. Many flights are not indulgences, but lifelines. We are an island nation, and many communities within the UK are entirely reliant on air links.
Will Britain—so long the pioneers of aviation, with a history stretching back to the first scheduled international passenger flight and the first jet airliner—be foremost in SAF? Probably not, for mandating SAF is easier than producing it, especially in a country with power prices as exorbitant as ours. Energy bills in Dumfries in my constituency are four times what they are in Dumfries in Virginia in the United States, and they are cheaper still in China.
We need a lot of power to make SAF. Many question its green credentials when so much carbon is generated in its production. Amendment 10 is a bid to explore the serious issues around SAF derived from either organic or synthetic sources. Much is made of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases using SAF sourced from waste fat and oil feedstocks, but, as we have heard, those basic building blocks are in limited supply. That issue is also addressed in, though not solved by, new clause 2. Using crops as feedstock may not reduce greenhouse gases at all, and there are huge implications of turning prime agricultural land and billions of gallons of water over to producing crops for fuel, rather than food. Again, Britain is at a disadvantage. America’s vast corn belt might get involved, but the British bioethanol industry is a warning to us, for it was not able to survive on current targets for the content in road fuel.
Other amendments, including amendment 11, concern themselves with how a revenue certainty mechanism will operate. My concern is that we risk creating a self-licking ice cream—a self-perpetuating system with no purpose other than to sustain itself. This Bill could guarantee moneys that simply offset the costs of manufacturing SAF, which is itself made expensive by green levies. Would it not be better to put what money we have available into aviation excellence, driving up the efficiency of jet engines and airframes? Aviation is already playing its part in reducing its carbon footprint—according to some experts, engine efficiency is already up by as much as 83% from the early days of the de Havilland Comet jet liner. That progress can continue, although super-efficient jets need superalloys to handle the extremes of temperature in their engines, and those require the sorts of rare earths that China is hoovering up. Canada, by the way, has many of the same critical minerals; might we be better off investing in those than subsidising SAF?
If we want really big carbon savings, we ought to look to the sea. Much of what we trade—in and out—goes by sea, and cargo ships are heavily reliant on bunker oil, a tar-like substance with heavy emissions. If we want novel fuels, this island nation should look once more to Tennyson’s “boundless deep”, where the salt-caked smoke stacks belch still. Meanwhile, the wild blue yonder of the skies must not be made inaccessible simply by expensive green dogma.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Aviation is central to our economy and our way of life, whether it is delivering well over 300,000 jobs here in the UK, contributing over £22 billion to our economy, driving inbound tourism, or connecting communities, businesses and families the world over. I am proud of our world-leading aviation sector in Derby and many other places across the UK, and while aviation is an integral part of our economy, it is also one of the most challenging to decarbonise. Despite the scale of the challenge, though, we must keep pushing forward, because—as I have said before, and as I will say again now—without net zero in aviation, there is no net zero, full stop.
To ensure that future generations are able to access the opportunities that air travel can provide, we need to make sure that flying is greener. This Bill does exactly that. It will unlock the potential of UK SAF by delivering the confidence and stability that SAF producers need to continue to turbocharge growth as they drive forward green innovation. I welcome the Bill as a clear statement of intent that this country is absolutely serious about decarbonising the future and future-proofing our world-leading aviation sector. It is the right thing to do, and we must do it.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I chair the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace, and the debate on SAF has been a focus of many of our meetings. As a cover-all, I should declare my interests, having met with AirportsUK, Airlines UK, ADS Group, LanzaJet, Back British SAF, Valero, alfanar and others over the past six months. I also worked in the aviation industry for 16 years prior to being elected. I rise to speak in support of new clauses 1 to 5, tabled by my colleagues, and new clause 7. I also encourage the Government to support amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the Conservatives, which would strengthen and improve the Bill and give us the best chance to achieve its targets. I will tell the House why.
In 2023, aviation accounted for 2.5% of global energy-related CO2 emissions; however, when non-CO2 effects are included, its contribution to climate warming increases to approximately 4%. Although that is a small fraction of global emissions, it is not insignificant. However, in my experience, few sectors take their role in bringing down emissions and tackling climate change as seriously as aviation, primarily because fuel burnt and emissions released is money spent.
As other Members have already made clear, decarbonising aviation and achieving net zero carbon UK aviation will require a huge range of different measures. Measures such as Operation Blue Skies, a global contrail avoidance system, will reduce the density of the heat-trapping contrails produced by aircraft, which creates nearly half the overall climate-warming impacts. Continuing improvements in aircraft engine and airframe efficiency are also critical, and that too has been mentioned by others.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
I greatly welcome the progress of this vital Bill, which will help ensure that the United Kingdom takes a genuine global lead in the development and use of sustainable aviation fuel. Sustainable aviation fuel is the key to solving many of the challenges we face today and those we will face in the decades to come. Aviation currently accounts for around 7% of the UK’s total emissions. As demand for travel continues to grow, that figure will only rise, unless we act now.
If we are to meet our net zero commitments while keeping flying affordable and accessible, sustainable aviation fuel must be at the heart of our strategy. It offers one of the most practical and immediate ways to decarbonise flight, reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and secure the economic future of one of Britain’s most successful industries. That is why this Bill is so essential for our environment, our economy, our technological leadership and the future of British aviation.
I would like to draw attention to the £4.5 million investment by Exolum in the existing Redcliffe Bay facility, in my constituency of North Somerset, which is already happening without the need for new clause 1. It will be the home of the UK’s first independent sustainable aviation fuel blending facility. When it becomes operational in 2026, it will underpin green fuel supplies for some 65,000 flights to major airports, including Heathrow, Gatwick, Cardiff and, of course, Bristol.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. Will he join me in thanking our hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) and his predecessor, Alex Cunningham, for securing the Alfanar investment in that constituency, and our right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) for securing investment at the Wilton International Centre, which will lead to many hundreds of secure, permanent jobs?
Sadik Al-Hassan
My hon. Friend is, of course, right to highlight such advocacy in the sector. I welcome his contribution.
The Exolum project is not just a boost for our regional economy; it is a clear signal that the UK can combine its climate ambition with a sound industrial strategy. The production subsidies for SAF introduced by this Bill are therefore already very welcome and are the right step forward, but production plants are only as good as their ability to get their product to market. Without that capability, they cannot attract investment or access the very subsidies that this Bill rightly establishes.
Fortunately, the UK is blessed with an extensive aviation fuel pipeline and storage network—one of the most advanced in the world. Companies such as Exolum are already using that network to deliver cleaner fuels across the country. From my visits to Redcliffe Bay, I know that Exolum has additional storage capacity that it would like to bring back into use to help deliver even more SAF. Companies at the forefront of this shift, such as Exolum, must be supported to deliver further investment at Redcliffe Bay in my constituency—and at other sites—and across the national pipeline network to create a new SAF super-highway for the UK. Such a network would allow producers to get their fuel to market efficiently, and it would secure our long-term position as a global leader in green aviation.
Crucially, my constituency is also home to Bristol airport, which has demonstrated real leadership in this sector. In March, almost a year ahead of the Government’s mandate, Jet2 began operating flights from Bristol airport using SAF, cutting emissions by an impressive 70%. However, our ambitions for cleaner flights cannot stop at SAF. Bristol airport’s same leadership can and should be applied to hydrogen in aviation, ensuring that the south-west continues to lead the UK’s journey to greener skies.
Hydrogen is a key element of the future aviation landscape and the broader energy transition. As we stand at the crossroads and decide which industries and technologies to support, we must not overlook the infrastructure that will support hydrogen tomorrow, as well as its supply chain, its production and its distribution. Investment in hydrogen benefits both the industries of today and the industries of 2050. However, that investment requires certainty, which only Government direction and leadership can provide via a road map already laid out in this Bill.
I believe deeply in the potential of hydrogen, and I am proud that the south-west is uniquely positioned to take advantage of this opportunity. We have world-class research facilities such as those I have visited at the University of Bath, innovative small and medium-sized enterprises such as Hyflux in North Somerset, and a cluster of industries already looking to the hydrogen future. For my constituents in North Somerset, this Bill in its current form delivers both cleaner skies and a sustainable future for a vital industry. Looking ahead to hydrogen in aviation, the opportunities are particularly exciting for our region. The research, development, production and infrastructure required for hydrogen fuel are rightly taking root in the south-west, near Bristol, which is the home of AI in the UK, where the fantastic Mayor, Helen Godwin, is creating jobs, driving innovation and positioning us at the forefront of this emerging technology.
This Bill is not merely climate policy; it is economic strategy, industrial ambition and national leadership combined. Sustainable aviation fuels are essential to the survival of our aviation industry, but let us not allow our ambition to cease there. Hydrogen represents another key to unlocking our sustainable future in the UK, and this Bill provides us with the learnings we will need to make hydrogen in aviation a reality.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I am pleased to rise to speak to my new clause 7 and amendment 12. I support the intentions of the Bill, and I want to strengthen it with my amendments, which I believe are essential to ensuring this legislation delivers a real, lasting impact for our climate, our economy and our position on the global stage.
The Bill rightly seeks to unlock private investment in UK sustainable aviation fuel through a revenue certainty mechanism. This is a welcome and necessary step that gives certainty to businesses looking to invest in this world-leading mechanism to decarbonise the aviation sector. However, if we are serious about climate leadership, preventing the worst effects of climate breakdown and long-term energy resilience, we must do more than build a framework; we must prioritise the right fuels.
That is why my new clause 7 focuses on power-to-liquid sustainable aviation fuel. Not all SAF is equal. Power-to-liquid SAF is the cleanest, most sustainable option we have, in my opinion. It is made from renewable electricity and captured carbon, and it does not rely on limited or environmentally questionable feedstocks such as used cooking oil or palm derivatives. It is future-proof, and it is essential if we are to hit our net zero targets without compromising environmental integrity. The Government themselves, in their SAF mandate guidance, recognise power-to-liquid fuels as having the greatest potential. The Committee on Climate Change has said that we need 13 TWh of synthetic fuel by 2040 to stay on a credible path to net zero. The potential is there, but it will remain untapped unless we take deliberate action to bring this industry to life.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He is making some very persuasive points. I support the intentions of the Bill and pushing for these fuels is absolutely the right thing to do, but does he agree that we must also keep a focus on the wider opportunities—for example, in hydrogen, battery electric systems and next generation e-fuels—if the UK is to be a leader in this technology?
Iqbal Mohamed
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I wholeheartedly agree. We in the UK have the capabilities to be a leader in these technologies and we must take a collective approach on green energy for both environmental and economic gains. We need certainty for private capital to flow in and the delivery of long-term taxpayer returns.
Amendment 12 looks at the SAF mandate itself. It requires a review within 12 months of the sub-target for power-to-liquid fuel to assess whether it is ambitious enough and whether it reflects the urgency of the climate challenge and the pace of international competition. This is not about setting targets in haste; it is about ensuring our targets are based on evidence, consultation and real-world feasibility. The amendment explicitly requires engagements with power-to-liquid producers, airlines, experts and wider stakeholders, and it requires that a report be laid before Parliament.
Let me be clear: I do not stand alone in calling for this. More than 130 organisations, from airlines and clean energy firms to researchers and investors, have called on the Government to prioritise PTL through the Bill. They have called for urgent engagement, timely regulation and a clear pathway to a commercial-scale plant in the UK by 2026. We already know the EU is moving faster, alongside Canada and the United States, with more ambition on PTL. If we fall behind, we will become importers of clean fuel, not exporters of clean technology and we will miss the industrial opportunity staring us in the face. Time is of the essence, and we must all work together to get this right.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am listening very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says and I completely support his good intentions. The problem with sustainable aviation fuel is that it is perhaps five times more expensive than what we are currently paying, and that stocks are very limited and—we have been talking about livestock feeds—even more difficult. I am completely with him on the ambition, but we must also protect consumer rights, the right to fly at a reasonable cost and the cost to the economy. As with all green energy policies, there must be a balance. I am sure he will agree with that.
Iqbal Mohamed
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I do understand his point. This is a transition. We are moving away from fuels that are killing our environment and our ability to survive on planet Earth. It is a responsible thing to do to find ways to reduce our reliance on carbon-generating fossil fuels through cleaner alternatives. This may not be the final solution for aviation—it might be a transition. Future technologies and innovations might allow us to stop the use of such fuels altogether.
More than 130 organisations from airlines and clean energy firms to researchers and investors have called on the Government to prioritise PTL through the Bill. They have called for urgent engagement, timely regulation and a clear pathway to a commercial-scale plant in the UK by 2026. As I have mentioned, the EU, Canada and the United States are moving faster. We must not miss this industrial opportunity to take a lead in progressing innovative SAF alternatives and licensing that technology around the world. We must act decisively, not incrementally.
I support the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, but I believe we have a responsibility to make it stronger, bolder and more targeted towards the fuels that will truly deliver net zero. My amendments are practical, proportionate and widely supported. They add not cost, but clarity, confidence and a commitment to a sector that needs all three. If we want to lead the world in clean aviation, we must lead with action, not just ambition. I call on friends and colleagues across the House to support the amendments in my name, and in doing so to give PTL the foothold it needs to take off in the UK.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Sustainable aviation fuel offers us a route to decarbonise one of the most carbon-intensive industries and to secure the future of our aviation sector in a way that is compatible with our net zero goals. Climate change remains the greatest challenge of our time. It is an existential threat to us, our children and our grandchildren, and every decision made in this House must be measured against the scale and the urgency of the crisis.
Aviation, while connecting people and driving our economy, is a contributor to the problem. In 2022, it was responsible for almost 30 million tonnes of CO2, equivalent to about 7% of the UK’s total emissions. Even as emissions from other sectors decline, aviation’s share is projected to rise to 16% by 2035. That is not compatible with our net zero targets, nor with our moral obligation to keep global temperature rises below 1.5°.
Sustainable aviation fuel is not a silver bullet, but it is a step towards addressing the challenge. As someone who spent almost a decade working in renewable energy, I have seen how technology, innovation and the public trust must work hand in hand if we are to make lasting progress in addressing climate change. However, with innovation must come accountability, which is why I have tabled new clauses 4 and 5. These new clauses would strengthen this Bill and aim to make the transition to clean flight more accountable, more transparent and, yes, more ambitious. New clause 4 would support the Secretary of State to raise sustainable fuel targets in any given year and introduce a duty to consider annually whether the target should be increased. The Secretary of State would also be required to set out what steps the Government will take to make any increase possible. In short, to ensure that the Government cannot forget the targets, it would require them to revisit, review and, wherever possible, raise their ambitions for cleaner flight.
New clause 4 would strengthen the parliamentary scrutiny. It would require the Government to lay a copy of each annual report before Parliament and share it with the relevant Select Committees in both Houses, meaning proper oversight and public accountability. Progress must not just be made; it must be seen to be made if we are going to take the public with us.
New clause 5 would build on that principle of transparency and public engagement, requiring air travel providers to report annually on their sustainable aviation fuel in a way that passengers and the public can actually understand. Too often, data about emissions and fuel use is buried in complex technical reports that mean little to consumers. Under this proposal, airlines would publish both the total amount of SAF used and the proportion it represents of their overall fuel consumption.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is giving a very detailed speech. Would he agree that we already have the annual carbon budget audit, which looks each year at exactly those emissions and was what drew to our attention the growth in this sector and why we need to focus exactly on driving down emissions from the aviation sector, which led us to the SAF mandate? Does he acknowledge that we already have a mechanism for this, which has helped us to get to where we are today with this excellent Bill?
Edward Morello
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She managed to make a detailed speech sound like a backhanded compliment. I do not disagree with her point that we have several reporting standards, and my only counter-argument would be that I do not believe there can be too much transparency. If that results in information being presented in a way that gives the public further clarity and puts greater pressure on any Government to speed up the transition, that can only be a good thing.
Those figures must be presented clearly in a format that is accessible and easy to find on websites and in public material. That matters, because whether it is demonstrating that solar and wind power lower bills, that carbon removal technology will provide jobs or that sustainable aviation fuel can cut emissions, we must be transparent to build public trust and belief in what we are doing. The powers in this Bill to fund the strike price mechanism to levy fines on fuel suppliers who fail to pay are all welcome, but they must be matched by equally strong accountability to this House and the general public. The amendments I have proposed would ensure that the Government are required to review progress every year, to explain how targets will be strengthened, and to make transparent the actual use of sustainable fuel across the aviation industry.
Tom Collins
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I would like to speak to his comments and those of the Father of the House about the impact on consumers. In Committee, the Government made it clear that they are alive not only to the considerations of cost and the impact on consumers, but to the extreme complexity of how aircraft logistics and fuelling function across global markets, and how aircraft are operated on a day-to-day basis. That makes some of these reporting requirements extremely difficult for airlines to deliver. We do not want to create a burden of bureaucracy that drives airlines away from sustainable fuel and back towards unsustainable pure fossil sources. I support the Government’s position that we should stay where we are and build processes that provide accountability.
Edward Morello
I think I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am afraid that I do not agree that increasing reporting burdens on industry is a bad thing. Every industry will argue that reporting is onerous. The liturgy starts with water companies. Companies will hide behind not having to report. On the need to move forward with technology, I am reminded that Henry Ford once said, “If I asked people what they want, they would say a faster horse.” The reality is that technology will be the route to our achieving our net zero goals, and this is one step on that pathway.
I will finish. New clauses 4 and 5 would strengthen this Bill, strengthen public confidence and demonstrate the UK’s global leadership, and I very much hope the Government will support them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Olly Glover
This has been an informative debate on all the new clauses. From a procedural point of view, we are happy not to push new clause 1 to a Division.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
To begin, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with regard to the synthetic road fuel provided to me for a constituency surgery tour last year. That is not strictly relevant to sustainable aviation fuel, but I want to be entirely transparent about it, as I have been throughout this Bill’s passage.
May I also welcome the new Minister to his place? He has a big pair of shoes to fill, and I equally want to commend the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane)—we did not always see entirely eye to eye—for the effort and attention he put in to getting this Bill through the House and to his other duties in the House.
I begin with new clause 6, which requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the economic impact of the Act once it is in force. This amendment goes to the nub of what is important. Does the Bill enable growth or stifle it? Does it support our world-class aviation industry or go against it? More importantly, does it enable our constituents to do what they have always done and fly, be that on holiday, on business or to visit family and friends overseas, or does it hinder them in doing that; and does it hinder our businesses in bringing goods in and out of the country by air?
New clause 6 forces the Secretary of State to confront the realities of the Bill on multiple fronts. It covers the impact on the UK’s aviation fuel industry and the UK’s sustainable aviation fuel supply, and the impact on small, medium and large producers and potential importers of sustainable aviation fuel.
Iqbal Mohamed
Could the hon. Member clarify over what period the Government would do the cost impact assessment, if they were to do one? Does he agree that the transition to any new technology requires significant initial upfront investment? All the trillion-dollar companies in the world were losing millions before they became profitable.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will come on to some of the technological points he made earlier, which it may surprise him to hear that I was incredibly sympathetic towards. On the timescale he asks for, I think it reasonable that, when a new Act comes into force, the Government should review it on a yearly basis at least, if not more frequently, to check that it is working. The point he makes is valid, and I thank him for it.
Last on the list of impacts covered by new clause 6 is the impact on international and domestic tourism in the UK and passenger air fares. We in this House can pass all manner of laws and schemes, and we can mandate new things, but their impact, including on the wider economy, matters. Reviews like the one proposed by new clause 6 would ensure that Governments of all political persuasions monitored real-life outcomes and, if necessary, tweaked provisions—or completely changed course. I cannot for the life of me understand why any Government would run scared of such a clause; it would help them govern better in the long run.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
The hon. Member will know that countries right across the world are moving towards SAF. Has he reviewed them to understand what is unique about the UK that means that we are vulnerable, while other countries are able to drive ahead? Are these countries undertaking the same bureaucratic reviews of their own legislation, and which country is he modelling his approach on?
Greg Smith
I think it is necessary for any Government to review the legislation they are passing to check that it actually works, does what it says on the tin, and does not negatively impact real people and businesses going about their day-to-day lives. If he has paid attention to the debates in previous stages of this Bill, he will know that I support a move to sustainable aviation fuel; I will come on to that shortly, when I speak about other amendments. I think, as the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) does, that some technologies are superior to others when it comes to power-to-liquid, but the move to those fuels is very important. We have to get it right. If we do not, and we do not make it affordable, it will not happen.
Sir Edward Leigh
I commend my hon. Friend on his speech. Does he agree that the Conservative way is to ensure practicality over mere ideology, and consumer rights over Government imposition of controls and regulations that can do serious damage to the economy and people’s livelihoods?
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Father of the House; I could not have put it better myself. It is essential that whatever measures, on any matter, are brought forward by any Government—be it the current Government or any future Government—real people’s lives and the cost base be reviewed regularly, so that we are not making people poorer, or stopping people from being able to do what they want, be it go on holiday, travel for business or move goods around.
With that, I come to amendment 8 and the cost impact on passengers. The amendment would require the designated counterparty to report on the impact of the revenue certainty mechanism on passenger air fares. One of the most contentious areas surrounding the Bill, and indeed the Government’s whole approach to net zero, is: what does it actually cost real people? The amendment seeks to clarify that, and it gives the Government the opportunity—in theory, they should cheerfully embrace this—to lock in a claim that they profess to believe, namely that the Bill will have an impact of plus or minus £1.50 on air fares. The previous Minister repeated that statistic time and again on Second Reading and in Committee. The new Minister has the challenge today of either sticking with his predecessor’s assertion, backing the amendment and locking in protections for consumers, or admitting that this may well be more costly to air travellers.
It is worth noting that during the evidence stage of Bill Committee, none of the witnesses was willing to affirm the Government’s figure. In fact, some noted that the estimated price appeared low. For example, Jonathon Counsell from International Airlines Group stated:
“We think there are potentially some elements that have not been included in that calculation, but £1.50 per passenger feels quite low when you think the costs of the SAF itself will be nearer to £10.”––[Official Report, Sustainable Aviation Fuel Public Bill Committee, 15 July 2025; c. 17, Q12.]
Consumers need peace of mind that the Bill will not cost them dear, and will not act as a financial barrier to the family holiday or any other trip, so failure to back the amendment can only mean uncertainty.
I turn to amendment 11, which is focused on transparency. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to set a standardised levy rate, payable by all suppliers of aviation fuel, that must be publicised by suppliers of aviation fuel on invoices to their customers. Valero, for example—one of the world’s largest renewable fuels producers—has contacted the Opposition arguing for the amendment, saying that it would offer a workable solution; it would support the development of new SAF production without significantly impacting the industry as a whole. The amendment would apply the levy equally to all jet fuel suppliers, providing a fair and transparent mechanism for supporting the broader SAF industry.
Just this week, I have been contacted by Virgin Atlantic, which is arguing that transparency safeguards must be in place to keep costs low for consumers. As organisations including the International Air Transport Association have highlighted, since the mandate came into effect in January 2025, fuel suppliers have been adding compliance risk premiums to the cost of mandated SAF, contributing to the price of SAF and doubling it for some carriers. That is to cover the eventuality that they do not meet the 2% mandate target and must pay the buy-out price for any missed volume. Virgin Atlantic has argued that to prevent SAF prices increasing further, the revenue certainty mechanism must have sufficient safeguards in place to ensure transparency over cost pass-through. There must also be a transparent process for refunds in the event of over-collections, and all revenues generated under the RCM should be ringfenced, rather than going into the general taxation pot.
Amendment 9 looks at British technology and intellectual property. It would require the designated counterparty to prioritise UK-based technology when entering contracts. As I said from the Dispatch Box on Second Reading, there is a historical reality that we need to confront, and the amendment would stop history repeating itself. The historical error that I refer to is this: a great many projects supported by grants from the advanced fuels fund use foreign-owned technology. It cannot be right that the British state, while arguing for domestic fuel security, funds overseas technology when we have incredible innovators and manufacturers right here.
Domestic fuel security must mean domestic fuel IP, manufacture and supply. It is important both to develop a UK market for SAF, eSAF and local production, as is provided for by the Bill and the mandate, and to support and encourage the use of home-grown technology for the manufacture of those products. That not only retains revenue in the United Kingdom but leverages a huge amount of revenue for future exports through technology licensing. The amendment tackles that head-on, and a failure to back it would be a failure to back United Kingdom innovators.
Lastly, amendment 10 is on technological choices. It states:
“The terms under subsection (4)(c) must include a requirement for the producer to consider the longevity of supply and relative environmental impact when prioritising between organic and synthetic derived sustainable aviation fuel solutions.”
I feel incredibly strongly about this amendment. It is on a matter that I have championed in this House for many years—in the last Parliament, during my time on the Transport Committee and, since July, from this Dispatch Box. The amendment is in the name of the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), and it is relevant to new clause 7 and amendment 12 in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley, both of which I have a great deal of sympathy for.
Governments of all political persuasions have professed to be technologically neutral. They seldom are. There is a natural tendency to pick winners and losers. We need to look through that lens, and ask ourselves what the Bill is promoting and using the levers of primary legislation to enable. The disappointing answer to that is the potential to bring alive SAF plants using technologies that have already been superseded—plants that would therefore be temporary at best. Stepping up something with no longevity, and with an estimated build cost of between £600 million and £2 billion, would be no small mistake.
Power-to-liquid solutions, otherwise known as eSAF or synthetic fuel—liquid hydrocarbons literally made out of air and water—are surely the better and sustainable future for aviation fuel. We had debates on Second Reading and in Committee about other solutions. I cannot imagine that anyone is ready to defend growing food to burn it, but equally, waste-derived fuels simply are not sustainable in the long term. Solid waste is not readily available; the primary source is local authorities, the majority of which are on contracts with energy-from-waste facilities and incinerators that have decades to run. Likewise, I am not sure there is enough chip oil in the country to meet our aviation fuel needs.
That leaves power-to-liquid solutions and eSAF. Many say that it is not ready; some say it is too expensive; but those of us on the Public Bill Committee heard loud and clear from Zero Petroleum that it is ready to scale right now. It just needs the green light from the regulators, and with scale will come affordability. Amendment 10 is in many ways a light-touch amendment to bring this debate to the fore. It does not close down other technological routes, but forces the Government to acknowledge the risk, both to the environment and in terms of cost, when choosing contracts under the RCM.
As other speakers have said, the Bill can still be improved. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments, which would improve the Bill, and to ensure a strong and affordable future for sustainable aviation fuel in our great United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Before I turn to the amendments before us, I would like to thank the many hon. Members who have made considered and helpful contributions. This legislation has been long in the making, and few have been more central in bringing it to fruition than my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who I would like to thank personally for his efforts throughout the Second Reading and Committee stages.
Iqbal Mohamed
The Minister mentioned a reduction of 6.3 megatonnes, but what is that as a proportion of the current emissions?
Keir Mather
No piece of legislation can deal with all the emissions that we are facing through challenges in the aviation sector. That is why we have this comprehensive package of measures to make decarbonising aviation while allowing passengers to fly at an affordable rate a reality.
The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) spoke with his usual fervent passion in support of his constituents. The National Wealth Fund stands ready to encourage investors to join us in finding a long-term industrial future for Grangemouth, standing ready to invest £200 million once an investable proposition has been identified.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) raised the unfortunate closure of Vivergo. The Government have been working with the plant to understand the financial challenges that it has faced over the last decade, but I would like to reassure her that we do not anticipate supply issues in bioethanol provision. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester for his decided and confident support for the measures in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) said that the market was too nascent, but I encourage him to look at the detail of the Bill. He will see that that is exactly the problem we are seeking to solve through this legislation, by allowing SAF producers to scale at pace and pursue those innovative technologies. He also spoke about Britain as an aviation leader. The RCM is a first-of-its-kind global initiative to allow SAF producers to produce the fuels we so desperately need. He also encouraged me to sort out decarbonisation challenges in maritime. I draw his attention to the fact that the UK Government announced £448 million of funding to decarbonise the maritime sector only a fortnight ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) has Jaguar Land Rover within his constituency and is a passionate advocate for both the automotive and aviation sectors there. He spoke about the urgent need to encourage people to fly—to enable them to access the rest of the world, to see their families and to pursue business opportunities. That is something that we are passionate about championing through the Bill.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) was pleased to see that the Bill was supported across the House. I can only hope that he is correct in his prediction. We shall see. I note that there are no representatives from the Green party here today to focus on these important measures to decarbonise aviation. Hon. Members from across the House can take from that what they will. The hon. Gentleman was right to outline the broader work that is required to decarbonise aviation, including airspace modernisation, but also to talk up our fantastic UK aviation sector and the hard work that it is undertaking to pursue decarbonisation.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) pointed to the very important fact that we are endowed with key infrastructure, such as pipelines, pioneered by firms like Exolum, the research facilities in his constituency to which he pointed and the pioneering work of Bristol airport. We need to develop a market to facilitate that infrastructure further. The 70% cut in emissions through SAF is an exciting proposition indeed.
There are a number of Government amendments that I would like hon. Members to consider. Government amendment 6 allows for levy regulations to require the Secretary of State to assist the designated counterparty by collecting information and sharing it with the designated counterparty. It will also allow for the regulations to be used to impose requirements on a person to provide information to the Secretary of State. It is a technical amendment that will ensure that the information required to calculate individual levy contributions is provided at sufficient frequency, while not creating additional administrative burdens for industry.
Government amendment 1 allows the Secretary of State to direct a Government-owned company to provide assistance for the purpose of identifying to whom revenue certainty contracts should be allocated. The allocation process for RCM contracts will be fair and transparent to give confidence to any applicants. In other renewable schemes, contract allocation is often carried out through an auction process. The allocation process for contracts for difference for renewable electricity is carried out through the National Energy System Operator, or NESO, which is an operationally independent, publicly owned body.
That type of approach to allocation may also be suitable for RCM contracts, so the amendment will allow the Secretary of State to direct a body like NESO to support in the allocation process. The final decision on allocation, however, remains with the Secretary of State. Without the amendment, the same allocation process could be pursued, but that would need to be done on a contractual basis through a procurement process, which would add unnecessary cost and complexity to the process. The amendment avoids those unnecessary impacts. I therefore commend it and all other Government amendments to the House.
I would ask that new clauses 1 to 3, which were tabled by the Liberal Democrats, be withdrawn. They were introduced in identical form in Committee, and my remarks will closely reflect the points my predecessor made then. The amendments seek a review of the impact of the revenue certainty mechanism within the next 12 months. I am afraid that that is not reasonable, as the revenue certainty mechanism triggers only once SAF is being produced, and even at pace, that is some years off. It will take time to build SAF plants, initially starting with a contract allocation round with SAF producers. Therefore, we will not see sufficient developments in the next 12 months to warrant a review of the impact of the revenue certainty mechanism. I agree, however, that it is important to have parliamentary scrutiny to measure the impact of the Act and to propose actions if necessary. The SAF mandate already includes a review clause to assess the impact of the statutory instrument, with the first review scheduled within five years. That is in line with comparable schemes.
With regard to new clause 1, I can reassure the House that work is being carried out at pace across Government on the future of our refineries. Commissioning a separate report, as the new clause proposes, risks a delay to future decisions and any subsequent benefits that may be realised. Overall, we expect low-carbon fuel production to support up to 15,000 jobs across the country and to make a contribution to the economy of up to £5 billion by 2050.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the Minister, and wish him well in his new role and in all that he does. The legislation extends to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so what discussions have been taking place with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that we can see its benefits—to both employment and the wider economy—in Northern Ireland?
Keir Mather
The hon. Member raises a very important point. We need to ensure that the benefits of the Act are felt across the length and breadth of our United Kingdom, and that includes engaging with our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I turn to new clause 2. We do not anticipate a substantial impact on SAF production in the event of a decline in UK bioethanol production. The bioethanol market is a global one, and we do not currently foresee any supply issues. Furthermore, the recommendations in new clause 2 are already under way and duplicate measures can already be found in the SAF mandate. In July, a total of £63 million was awarded to 17 projects via the advanced fuels fund. That includes projects that use bioethanol, municipal solid waste and green hydrogen as feedstocks, among other sources. The Chancellor also announced in the spending review 2025 that we will continue to support SAF production throughout the spending review period. The SAF mandate also includes a formal review mechanism embedded in its legislation, with the first review scheduled to take place within five years.
New clause 3 would also duplicate measures that already exist in the SAF mandate. The mandate awards more certificates per litre to SAF with higher greenhouse gas savings, which will encourage SAF developers to continuously improve on their greenhouse gas savings. This will be monitored through the formal review mechanism, with the possibility to update legislation as required.
I hope that this reassures the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that, in many respects, the concerns he outlines are allayed by existing measures in the Bill. I therefore urge him not to push his new clauses.
New clause 6, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the economic impact of the legislation within a year of it being passed. Such a report would not show the full economic impact of these measures. Contracts will need to be negotiated, signed, plants built and SAF produced and sold before economic impacts are released. Transparency on reporting in relation to the Act’s economic impact can be achieved through regular updates to the House. Therefore, I do not see the new clause as being effectual, if he wishes to evaluate the economic impact of the RCM. I therefore ask him not to move his new clause.
New clause 5, tabled by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), would require the Secretary of State to introduce a regulation requiring airlines to make an annual report on their use of SAF, both in absolute volumes and as a percentage of overall fuel used. I welcome transparency on carbon emissions to help consumers make informed choices. However, we will be providing data on the supply of SAF under the mandate, including what proportion of the total aviation fuel supply is SAF. Furthermore, many airlines already provide public information on their decarbonisation efforts, and I therefore do not believe this new clause is necessary and ask the hon. Member not to move it.
New clauses 4 and 7, tabled by the hon. Member for West Dorset and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) respectively, relate to power-to-liquid obligations. On new clause 4, the Government have already committed to keep mandate targets under review. The existing legislation enables the Secretary of State to amend obligations under the SAF mandate, subject to consultation with those affected and scrutiny by Parliament. Allowing amendments to the obligations without consulting appropriate parties could be detrimental to our shared ambition of increasing the use of SAF. On new clause 7, the legislation that gave effect to the SAF mandate already makes provision for a review no later than 2030. Given that the mandate has been in place for less than 12 months and the PtL obligation does not come into effect until 2028, it would not be helpful to review earlier than planned. I therefore ask the hon. Members not to move their new clauses.
Amendment 8, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, would put a requirement on the counterparty to report on the effect of the introduction of the RCM on air travel prices. This was spoken to by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). The Government are committed to delivering value for money in the RCM scheme by controlling the scale and number of contracts entered into, and through the prices negotiated in each contract. The impact on air fares are likely to rise or fall by less than the cost of a cup of coffee. The costs of the scheme and the impact on ticket prices will be kept under continual review. Passengers should also benefit from the lower prices generated from the lower project risk and reduced cost of capital for SAF producers. Therefore, the Bill and the measures in it will not limit people’s ability to fly. Given that, I ask the right hon. Member not to move the amendment.
I turn to amendments 9 and 10, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, and to amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley. The decisions on the specifics of contract allocation will be made during the contract allocation process. There will be a fair and transparent allocation process that evaluates the key costs, benefits and risks of each project. That will be developed over the coming months and will be subject to consultation with stakeholders. These amendments would reduce the Government leverage in negotiations by setting criteria in advance and would likely reduce value for money in the contracts signed, which I am sure all of us would seek to avoid. I therefore ask that these amendments are not moved.
Finally, I turn to amendment 11, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay. In May 2025, the Government published the response to the consultation on funding the SAF revenue certainty mechanism. It confirmed that a variable levy on aviation fuel suppliers would be introduced, and this was included in the contents of the Bill. The Government plan to consult imminently on the detailed design of the levy, but this amendment would pre-empt stakeholder responses, which will be considered in any design decisions. I therefore ask the right hon. Member not to press the amendment.
I hope that my responses have provided the explanations and reassurances that colleagues were seeking. The Bill is a crucial step towards establishing a SAF industry in the UK and driving investment, growth and jobs across our great country. Once again, I urge the House to give the Bill its full support.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Mr Glover, is it your pleasure that new clause 1 be withdrawn?
Olly Glover
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 5
Air travel providers’ use of sustainable aviation fuel: reporting requirements
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a requirement for air travel providers to report annually on their use of sustainable aviation fuel.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must specify—
(a) that the annual reports include figures for sustainable aviation fuel usage which can be easily understood, including expressed as—
(i) an absolute volume, and
(ii) proportion of all aviation fuel used; and
(b) that the annual reports are accessible to members of the public including by being made available on their websites.
(3) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be made under the negative procedure.”—(Olly Glover.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, the Prime Minister promised that certain papers would be published as soon as they could be, but he did not give a time. Has there been any indication of when those papers will be published? We are still waiting for them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. While that is not a matter for the Chair, I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what he said.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
Privatisation of Sycamore Adventure Centre
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to present a petition this evening on behalf of the constituents of Dudley. Despite the Conservative council pledging funding in a public question and answer session in April, the Sycamore Adventure Centre is due to be privatised, with a risk of a hike in entrance fees. The centre must remain solely controlled by Dudley council.
The petition
“declares that Sycamore Adventure Centre has served as a vital, safe and inclusive community space for children, young people…in the area; that for decades, it has been more than just a play site—it has fostered community cohesion, supported children’s physical and mental health, and given young people a place to explore, learn, and grow…The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to stop the privatisation of Sycamore Adventure Centre, guarantee that access to the centre remains open and free (or affordable) to all families, preserve the current number of play sessions and hours of operation, and work with local residents, staff, and young people to protect and enhance the centre as a valued community resource.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Dudley.
Declares that Sycamore Adventure Centre has served as a vital, safe, and inclusive community space for children, young people, and families in the area; that for decades, it has been more than just a play site—it has fostered community cohesion, supported children’s physical and mental health, and given young people a place to explore, learn, and grow; that the petitioners call for an immediate halt to the proposed privatisation of Sycamore Adventure Centre, which would reduce accessibility by introducing fees or limitations that restrict entry for families already facing financial hardship, cut down play opportunities and available hours, leaving children with fewer safe and constructive activities, undermine community ownership of a space that belongs to all of us, shifting its priority from public benefit to private profit; and that public recreational spaces like Sycamore Adventure Centre must remain publicly funded, publicly run, and accessible to all.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to stop the privatisation of Sycamore Adventure Centre, guarantee that access to the centre remains open and free (or affordable) to all families, preserve the current number of play sessions and hours of operation, and work with local residents, staff, and young people to protect and enhance the centre as a valued community resource.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003117]
Work for Serving Prisoners
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
In my early years as a barrister, I sometimes came across defendants who knew the criminal justice system better than me. Their antecedents—their list of previous convictions—was pages long, showing multiple stints in prison. I used to do both prosecution and defence, and I remember some defendants even sharing with me their top tips as to what might be the strongest arguments for bail or the best mitigation points in sentencing, because they had been through the process so many times.
I also saw offenders sentenced to custody for the first time, taking their turn in what is far too often a revolving door of prison. Sometimes, they were sent to prison far from home. It is so common to see offenders lose family ties, their housing, their job and any sense of purpose. After weeks, months or years, they would come out having achieved nothing, often with little or no money, no job and little confidence or self-worth.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I compliment my hon. Friend on her excellent speech. Does she agree that improving literacy in prisons is a powerful tool for rehabilitation and reintegration? Literacy equips prisoners with essential communication and comprehension skills, laying the foundation for further education and vocational training. By fostering reading, writing and critical thinking abilities, inmates become much better prepared for employment opportunities within prison and upon release. That not only enhances their self-worth and confidence, but reduces reoffending by opening pathways to stable work. Does she agree that investing in prison literacy is an investment in safer communities and more productive lives?
Catherine Atkinson
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Investing in education and work is a key part of preventing reoffending.
Frustratingly, without rehabilitation the alternative is a return to the easiest path—one of crime. We then see the revolving door of prison take another turn. Without intervention, one in two prison leavers reoffend within six months of release. Some 80% of offending is reoffending, and reoffending costs the UK an estimated £18.1 billion per year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on bringing forward this debate. When I heard what she was going to speak about, I wanted to intervene: first, because it is an admirable subject, and secondly, because I fully support what she is trying to achieve. I hope that the Minister will come back to her along those lines. Does the hon. Lady agree that rehabilitation must take place in prisons, that part of rehabilitation is about giving the prisoner confidence that they can do something of value and worth, and that training in a new skill can do more for rehabilitation than group therapy sessions? That is the way to give an ex-inmate or prisoner the opportunity to do better, and that is what we should be doing.
Catherine Atkinson
It is not a bona fide Adjournment debate unless the hon. Member has intervened, so I thank him for his intervention and his insight. I fully agree with him.
As well as having seen countless examples of prison having not worked, I have met former offenders who have escaped the revolving door, often through work. Many have stories like Mark’s. Mark spent 15 years in and out of prison on five separate occasions, but—with the support of a project called Jericho House in Derby—he is now clean, stable and gainfully employed.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The issue of work in prison is something we have considered on the Justice Committee. Separately, I have recently visited prisons, where I had the opportunity to talk to prisoners. Does my hon. Friend agree that meaningful work in prisons can not only erase the boredom that can lead to drug use but give prisoners skills that they can use to find employment when they are released from prison? It enables them to reintegrate into society, thereby reducing the risk of reoffending.
Catherine Atkinson
I agree, and I want to see work in prison start as early as possible—not just at the end of a prisoner’s sentence but during it. I was proud to stand on a manifesto pledge to get offenders into work. That offenders should work is a conclusion that is intuitively obvious to me, having been a barrister, and that is also empirically supported. Rehabilitation without getting into work is rare. For those who have offended, and considering the impact on the rest of us, working is far better than sitting in cells most days.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I agree entirely with what she says about the importance of meaningful work or purposeful activity in prisons. On that basis, does she share my concern that the court backlog means that there are thousands of prisoners on remand who are not required to do purposeful activity and are often sentenced to a walk-out, essentially—going back into our communities without having had the opportunity of working in prison to help with their rehabilitation?
Catherine Atkinson
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution and for making that powerful point. That is why the Government are doing so much to reduce the backlog.
Work in prison also comes with a host of second-order benefits, such as improving prisoner behaviour, filling skills gaps and boosting the economy. I do not underestimate the scale of the challenge in turning around our prisons; nor do I seek to claim that we could get all prisoners in prison starting to work tomorrow. I pay tribute to the work of our current Home Secretary, who when Justice Secretary got to grips with the crisis she inherited of prisons near to complete collapse.
Over the 14 years of Conservative Government, prisoner participation in education, employment and vocational qualifications dropped sharply. As the previous Government were coming to their end, His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons condemned the “appalling” neglect of how prisoners spend their time; far too many were locked in cells without meaningful activity. In category C prisons—closed prisons, but with lower security than those in category A or B—nearly a quarter of prisoners reported getting less than two hours unlocked each day.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
My local women’s prison is HMP Styal, and my hon. Friend will be aware of the Clink Charity, which does work in developing people’s skills in hospitality. Its ability to operate in HMP Styal collapsed completely because, as there was such a shortage of prison officers, the women were locked up for so much of the time that it was simply unable to provide the service. In other prisons, the charity is being forced to retender for contracts on a commercial basis. It is a not-for-profit that was set up to do that work. I encourage the Minister—I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees—to review whether contracting in the Ministry of Justice is really working as we need it to in that regard.
Catherine Atkinson
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. There is some really fantastic work being done, which I will come on to, and it is essential that we find ways of enabling even more of that, because time stuck in prisons does not improve behaviour; it makes it worse. In the last year of the Conservative Government, we saw assaults on prison staff increase by 23%.
The £15 million investment in body armour and Tasers announced by the Deputy Prime Minister in recent weeks shows that he is giving prison staff the tools they need to do their jobs safely, but anything we can do to reduce the chances of violent incidents deserves our full support—that includes meaningful activities such as work in prisons—because those on the frontline in our prison system deserve our full support.
Prison officers at HMP Ranby told me what a difference it made to the behaviour of prisoners when they were doing work—when their days had purpose. As well as the improved behaviour that work for prisoners leads to, nearly a fifth of the earnings of prisoners who work out of prisons on licence goes to the Prisoners’ Earnings Act levy, which supports victims of crime. We have a Government committed to investment and reform and taking a long-term view of what is needed for a justice system that works. Our Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, Lord Timpson, was a businessman who throughout his career enabled offenders to turn their lives around and break the cycle.
I have sought to be candid about how bad things are in some of our prisons, but I also want to talk about some of the brilliant work already happening, which can be built on and scaled up. I praise the hundreds of employers who are pointing the way forward. In Derby, we have Pennine Healthcare, an employee-owned medical equipment manufacturer, and its successful experience of employing prisoners has led to its long-term vision for rehabilitation-focused employment opportunities, for itself and potentially across the sector.
Pennine supports a release on temporary licence scheme. I was proud to welcome the former Justice Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), to its headquarters in Derby. I went with him to HMP Ranby to see where Pennine is establishing a workshop, which it calls Project Phoenix. It will operate as an extension of the Derby site, and it will also prevent manufacturing from being offshored to competitors 7,000 km away in China. It could not have been more positive about the motivation and work ethic of the prisoners working for it.
That is a practical solution to meet some of the workforce challenges facing UK manufacturing, at a time when many employers share with me the difficulties that they can have in recruiting people with the skills that they need. It could create a pipeline of trained workers who can have jobs that they know how to do available to them when they leave prison. The difference that could make to offenders’ chances of avoiding another turn of the revolving door of reoffending is clear.
I am the parliamentary champion for the Rebuilding Futures Alliance—the RFA—whose mission is to break the cycle of reoffending by creating smarter pathways into work, often in rail. The evidence is extraordinarily compelling in showing that employment reduces reoffending.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I visited His Majesty’s prison in Hatfield in my constituency—I have among the highest number of prisons in the whole country—and it was absolutely amazing. The governor there had been creative and innovative in his thinking about rehabilitating the prisoners, working with Tempus Novo. By bringing that charity in, reoffending rates have reduced substantially, giving people hope and a second chance. That is great for their families as well, which we need always to remember, and it makes economic sense. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to get behind those kinds of initiatives to stop reoffending?
Catherine Atkinson
That is another fantastic initiative. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Impressively, some of the partner agents and partner charities working with the RFA have achieved reoffending rates of under 5%.
I was told at HMP Ranby that the most popular work with prisoners was for the rail industry, though sometimes a prison struggles to find long-term rail-related work for prisoners. The RFA is working to help address that. That is particularly important in a sector such as rail, which really needs more skilled workers and is anticipated to lose 90,000 workers by 2030.
The RFA has a tracking system that allows it to see how prisoners and placements progress. The Prison Reform Trust reports that, for years, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service
“has not published figures on the number of prisoners working in custody, due to the disruption to data quality.”
We need more data and we need it to be tracked.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The hon. Member makes an important point about data. A colleague of mine said that when they visited a prison they asked what the reoffending rates were and the governor could not answer because reoffending rates were not being tracked. Does she agree that if prisons had an incentive to watch their reoffending rates, they would be more keen to make sure that the rehabilitation programmes made a difference and that they were not seeing the same faces time and again?
Catherine Atkinson
The hon. Lady makes an important point. That is one of the reasons that the RFA has created its tracking system: to have tangible evidence of the efficacy of the work that we intuitively know must be successful in preventing reoffending.
The businesses that I have met that are utilising release on temporary licence schemes or have workshops in prisons often act from a really strong ethic and a strong sense of social responsibility. There are also economic benefits and evidence—a clear business case—for providing work in prisons. I thank the East Midlands Chamber for its work with businesses in this area. I was told by their chief executive, Scott Knowles, that
“those employers that can successfully navigate the administrative burden to employ prisoners or offer placements on temporary licence, frequently comment that these members of the team rapidly become their most productive team members.”
A lot of the work taking place in prison is not for the private sector at all. Some 90% of the work at HMP Ranby is for the public sector, in a range of things including building beds, lockers and furniture for use not just in other prisons but in the wider public sector. That means that it does not have to be bought in, providing significant savings to the public purse as a result.
The success of schemes such as those that have been mentioned and those at HMP Ranby raises an important question: how can we scale up the model across more prisons and employers? The goal should be to reach a point where, upon release, prisoners can return to their communities anywhere in the country and find employment that builds on the skills that were developed inside.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
I completely agree that all the evidence points towards the need to invest in prison training and employment programmes to reduce reoffending. Doing so is good for society and for the public purse, but does my hon. Friend agree that we should reform the system to support shorter, more modular learning in our prisons, in line with the Government’s approach to the growth and skills levy? Rochester prison in my constituency runs a successful stonemasonry course, but the length of time it takes—18 months—makes it difficult for prisoners to complete it, due to shorter sentences, prisoner moves across the prison estate, and early release.
Catherine Atkinson
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Having a range of options for people is really important, but she also makes it clear that shorter sentences can prevent rehabilitative work being done, which is why it is so important that we are trying to move to a presumption against shorter sentences.
A range of things can be done, and there needs to be a co-ordinated effort to ensure consistency and opportunity across the prison estate. Perhaps that could involve asking different Government Departments to look at the goods and services that they procure from prisons, to ensure that there is that option, or building on the brilliant work being done on procurement to ensure that employers who provide meaningful work opportunities to prisoners see the wider benefit, thereby reinforcing the Government’s commitment to rehabilitation and reducing reoffending.
There is a popular myth that the poorer the quality of a prison, the greater the punishment, but that has been well tested over the last 14 years. His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons suggests not only that purposeless prisons are harmful for prisoners, but that that harm could extend to wider society. We cannot isolate, bore or humiliate someone into being rehabilitated. It is far better that they are able to make amends through work. The idea that giving more people—perhaps people who have never had it—access to good work might strengthen society comes naturally to me as a Labour MP, because Labour is the party of work. Without it, boredom, frustration and despair can thrive.
Work in prisons benefits prisoners, yes, but it also works for those who risk their life and their safety as frontline prison officers and probation officers. It works for companies, and not just because they are keen to do their part for society. It can help us to meet the skills challenges that industry faces, to onshore manufacturing jobs, and to create more funding for victims through the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996 levy. Job or jail? If we truly want to break the cycle of crime, and give people in my constituency of Derby North and across the country the safety and opportunity that they deserve, this is how we begin.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) on securing this important debate, and on her fine speech. We have known each other for many years, and she is one of the best advocates I have come across, at the Bar and now in this place. She is a ferocious champion of justice and social justice, a credit to the people of Derby North, and an asset to our politics. It is particularly apt that she brings this vital issue to the fore, as it deserves far more attention, and while I am in this role, I am determined to ensure that it receives it.
Finding employment after release is one of the most effective ways to support rehabilitation and break the cycle of reoffending. The evidence is stark beyond argument that having a job reduces the likelihood of reoffending, and given that reoffending costs the taxpayer around £20 billion a year, getting prisoners and prison leavers working is the right thing to do, not only for individuals and communities, but for the public purse. As my hon. Friend has mentioned, we are debating the Sentencing Bill in Committee next week, and I hope that the whole House will support the Government’s agenda of tackling reoffending through that legislation.
Work in prisons is vital, because the argument for work in prisons wins both the heart and the head. It is about self-worth for the prisoner and worth for society as a whole. Let us be clear: that must never mean offenders bypassing punishment for the pain that they have caused victims, but they should not be left to wallow in prison. Indeed, many have untapped potential that our economy desperately needs, as my hon. Friend set out. That is why the Government are committed to improving offenders’ access to purposeful activity, and to strengthening the links between prisons and employers, so that more people leave prison with the skills, qualifications and opportunities that they need to succeed. I must at this point pay tribute to Lord Timpson for his work before he was made a Minister in the Justice Department. He continues to be a fine advocate for this cause.
Delivering skills and work experience to prisoners is not always straightforward. It is right that I draw the House’s attention to a recent report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and Ofsted, “Just Passing Time”. It sets out serious concerns about the quantity and quality of work, and attendance at work, in prison. It is something that I and the Government take seriously. The problem is difficult, especially in the context of the prisons capacity crisis that this Government inherited last summer, but that does not mean we should not strive to perform better. The report only motivates me and this Government to do more.
I want to look forward and set out positive measures that we are taking to drive improvement in the short and longer term. To understand the needs of prisoners properly, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is now making sure that every prisoner has an individual learning and work plan during their sentencing, focusing on their needs, which might include numeracy and literacy. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) is a fine advocate on this issue; he is doing great work on it in a pilot project that applies across the country. We must ensure that qualifications to improve inmates’ job prospects, as well as work experience and vocational training, are built into sentencing. Simply put, these issues should be right at the heart of sentencing policy and sentencing at court.
Jess Brown-Fuller
It is wonderful to hear the Minister laying out everything that the Government are doing to address what is happening in our prisons. I wonder whether he will give consideration to my amendment to the Sentencing Bill, which applies matters that are considered after sentencing to prisoners who are on remand, so that they can have the same access to work and rehabilitation programmes, rather than being released when it is time to be sentenced because they have already served their time, and then going home without any support.
Jake Richards
We will absolutely consider that amendment. I should congratulate her on her appointment to her role in the Liberal Democrats. That point was made in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). Although the remand population is too big, we must ensure that inmates on remand receive the services that they need.
Youth justice is also a key priority for me, and this issue also affects the youth estate. On a recent visit to Wetherby young offenders institute, I observed brilliant work by teenage boys in what they call Q branch working on allotments, helping with the recycling, learning to make honey, and building a garden for the custody community. It is genuinely heartwarming and important work that these young offenders are undertaking as they reach maturity. My only disappointment came when I learned that only 5% of the children in the young offenders institute were able to access those facilities.
We must do more to make sure that every single offender who can do so safely has access to the skills and training that they need. Earlier today, I was in Birmingham to see the brilliant social enterprise Skill Mill. I met three 17-year-olds who are learning skills in construction, recycling and agriculture. Those skills mean that they will have options when they reach the age of 18 that they would not have otherwise had.
Good work is happening. A good example on the adult estate is Greene King’s academy at HMP Onley. What they call “the hideout” is a replica of a Greene King pub that gives prisoners real-world experience in hospitality, City & Guilds qualifications, and genuine job opportunities on release. Marston’s Brewery has a similar set-up in the academy at The Lock Inn at HMP Liverpool, which equips prisoners with professional catering and kitchen management skills. In fact, I must make sure that I visit The Lock Inn as a matter of urgency; I will tell my private office so. Graduates from both schemes have already gone directly into employment on release, so these initiatives really are successful. We have the data, but we need to improve it to ensure that the evidence base is there across the prison estate.
The future skills programme delivers vocational training based on employer and labour market needs and requirements. It offers a range of sector-specific skills training courses, with a guaranteed job interview on release. Building on that, and to address HMIP concerns about the intensity of the work experience, we are trialling a new Working Week project in five category C prisons, including HMP Ranby, which I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North visited recently. It is just a few miles from my constituency. Indeed, I drive past it on my commute to this place, and I will be visiting it in the coming months.
Jim Shannon
I was just thinking to myself that there probably are stats that show that many prisoners, with great respect—this is not meant to be judgmental—may not be able to read or write. When it comes to helping them find jobs, we have to create confidence in them, and enable them to say, “I can do that. I can learn to read and write, and can then get a job.” That is a very basic thing, but it is important. Maybe the Minister could tell us what will be done on that. That is not just about working skills; it is about life skills, social skills and being able to connect with the person next to them.
Jake Richards
I completely agree, and it goes back to the central argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North made about the innate value of work. Labour Members, and I am sure hon. Members from across the House, believe that work is a good thing in and of itself. It is not just about earning a salary to pay the bills, though that is very important; it is also about building life skills and having confidence, so that when someone leaves prison, they can enter the world and be a better citizen, whereas too many leave as better criminals. That must be at the heart of what this Government do, and it will be.
In addition, release on temporary licence is an important rehabilitative tool that allows suitably risk-assessed prisoners to engage in work with employers in the community. That provides people with the opportunity to build relationships with employers and boosts their job prospects ahead of release. A good example of that is the work of Prisoners Building Homes at HMP North Sea Camp, where prisoners are trained and employed to build modular, low-carbon, affordable homes in partnership with housing providers, public sector bodies and third sector organisations.
Linsey Farnsworth
As part of the Justice Committee’s inquiry on rehabilitation and resettlement, we received evidence showing that ROTL use has declined, particularly since covid; it has not really recovered from that. It is great to hear the good work the Minister is outlining on this, but I urge him to continue to push for greater use of ROTL, because it could be a key aspect of rehabilitation of offenders going forward.
Jake Richards
Absolutely. We will look at the evidence that the Select Committee received, and we are having those conversations all the time. It is important to stress—I know my hon. Friend is very aware of this—that in the first year of this Government, we have been dealing with one of the most acute crises across the public estate, and that has clearly taken up the bandwidth of the Government and the Ministry of Justice. Because of the difficult decisions that the last Lord Chancellor made, we are now in a position where I hope we can do more on this.
The Government have also launched regional employment councils, which for the first time bring together businesses, prisons, probation and the Department for Work and Pensions. We have extended apprenticeships across the prison estate, from the open to the closed estate. At HMP Highpoint, five cohorts of prisoners are beginning rail apprenticeships this year. This is a model we want to expand further, and early results are encouraging. To help build on this expansion, we have announced new foundation apprenticeships, which are available to prisoners. They are shorter courses than traditional apprenticeships, and can be accessed by prisoners up to the age of 25. It was a fine point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) about the length of courses. Clearly, too often prisoners are in and out for short periods. We want to try to stop that fundamentally, or at least amend the framework in that regard, but we have to have training and services for those who are in prison for a short time.
To support prisoners in considering their longer-term goals, we are delivering better careers advice and guidance in prisons. From April this year, we are rolling out new national careers, information, advice and guidance contracts, so that, again, every prisoner has access to consistent, high-quality careers advice, tailored to their needs and, critically, linked to real job opportunities. Taken together, employment hubs, employer partnerships, vocational training, apprenticeships and the Working Week project represent initiatives that are moving in the right direction, but I want to be clear that we know that the situation is not good enough, and that there is a lot more work to be done.
I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North for raising this important subject, which, as I said, does not get enough attention. I hope to do my bit to change that. This Government are committed to rehabilitation to help cut reoffending. I hope that she will agree that the Government have built solid foundations to stabilise the prison system after the inheritance we received last summer, and have launched important initiatives in our first year in office, but there is much more to do, and I welcome her support in driving forward this vital work in the months ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Recognition of Palestinian Statehood
UK Government relations with Israel
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
Knife Crime
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Before I call the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) to open the debate, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. I am sure Members will have relevant constituency cases that they want to raise during today’s debate, but under the terms of the House’s sub judice resolution, Members should not refer to any cases where there are ongoing legal proceedings. They should also exercise caution if raising matters that are not the subject of active legal proceedings but where discussions could prejudice ongoing police or other law enforcement investigations.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of knife crime.
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. We know that knife crime is not a random event—it does not happen by accident. It is a consequence of decisions made by individuals who choose to carry knives and then to use them to brutally murder people. And what do we do? We light a candle. We hold a memorial service. We say things like, “This should never happen again,” and then we go on to blame lack of investment, lack of youth services and lack of youth clubs. But I am not buying that at all. While we are sat here in the Palace of Westminster, the families of the deceased must live a life of pain, and the families of the attackers have to live a life of shame.
Let us look at the facts. We know that knife crime in England and Wales has been rising for a long time. In 2014, there were just over 27,000 recorded offences involving knives or a sharp instrument. In the space of five years, that number doubled to over 52,000. Last year, there were more than 50,000 such offences—an increase of 4.4% from the previous year. Some 41% of all homicides in 2022-23 involved a knife or a similar weapon. I could go on and on. These numbers point to hundreds of lives being lost to extreme, senseless violence. Each murder leaves behind a grieving family, friends and community.
Since saying I was going to have this debate, I have been contacted by families who tell me they face unimaginable pain and loss. At the same time, they feel like they have not received justice for their loved ones. That should fill us all in this place with a sense of shame. We cannot blame this on a lack of investment, lack of youth clubs or lack of youth facilities. Most of the blame, I believe, lies in this room and with every single politician in this Palace, past and present. We are legislators—we can change this.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. Having had to work with the families of victims of knife crime, I know that this is a hugely important and very sensitive issue. Given the picture he is portraying, does he welcome the fact that the violence reduction unit and other efforts in London, including a public health approach, have seen a reduction in this problem in the capital city, led by our Mayor but also by individual councils investing to support families and individuals to stay out of crime?
Lee Anderson
Of course, we welcome any sort of policy in the capital city and Ashfield that reduces knife crime, so I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.
We are all legislators, and if we cannot reduce knife crime and save lives, there is not much point in us being in this place. Some will say that we are doing enough.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate, because it is immensely important. Of course, we sympathise with the families who have had these awful experiences. As he rightly says, we have to look at what we, as legislators, can do to make a difference. I point to two instances in Wales, the Dyfed-Powys and the North Wales police, where the rates are so much lower: 30 per 100,000 of population in Dyfed and Powys, where the police and crime commissioner is Plaid Cymru’s Dafydd Llywelyn; and 49 per 100,000 in north Wales. Both forces have maintained school officers who talk face to face with children and young people about the reality of crime, such as knife crime, and violence. It is to be hoped that that makes something of a real difference.
Lee Anderson
Education can play an important part in the reduction of knife crime, and deterrence should too. Some will say that we do enough and that action is being taken, such as the use of metal detectors or knife arches, which are being installed in schools and colleges, but how did we get to the point where knife arches are being installed in the buildings where we send our children to learn how to read and write?
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. My constituent, Cody Fisher, a young footballer, was brutally stabbed to death at the Crane nightclub in Birmingham nearly three years ago. Since that horrific night, his family and especially his mother have been campaigning tirelessly with two Governments to get bleed control kits and the use of metal detectors in late-night venues. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in urging the Government to support Cody’s family’s campaign to ensure that no more families have to endure the heartbreak that they have endured?
Lee Anderson
I am happy to support the hon. Lady on Cody’s family’s campaign.
Politicians highlight the bans on certain knives, such as zombie knives, and in all honesty, those bans are not a bad thing, as we need fewer weapons on our streets, but the most common weapon used in knife crime is a simple kitchen knife, which is used in more than half of all stabbings. If someone wants to cause someone harm or to intimidate, they do not need a zombie knife, a machete or a sword; they can just get a kitchen knife.
Members will have heard about surrender bins or knife amnesties. This time last year, during the unrest, one knife bin was located outside a mosque in Small Heath in Birmingham. It was found to contain dozens of machetes, an axe, large knives and even an adapted knuckleduster knife, but how did we get to the point where we politely ask people to hand in their weapons at a local mosque? That is not policing or law enforcement; at best, it is wishful thinking or, at worst, it is total surrender to the problem.
That brings me to stop and search. In the year ending March 2024, police officers in England and Wales conducted more than half a million searches. More than 70,000 people were arrested and 16,000 weapons seized. That is thousands of potential crimes prevented, including murders, assaults, robberies and serious sexual offences. That is impressive, and we should commend our brave police officers for acting in the line of duty. A lot of people might say that stop and search does not have an impact on overall crime rates and that it does not put people off carrying knives, but that is to miss the point. Stop and search is about not only deterrence, but detection. It gives police officers the power to remove dangerous weapons before they are used, and it takes dangerous people off our streets.
In fact, in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), in London under Sadiq Khan’s leadership, there has been a reduction in stop and search of more than 23% in just one year, between 2023 and 2024. Meanwhile, knife crime in London has increased by nearly 60% in just over three years—
Lee Anderson
I want to make some progress. That figure is from a Policy Exchange report. [Interruption.] I am going to make some progress, because a lot of people want to speak in this important debate. I have already taken three interventions.
That is not a coincidence. It is a classic case of a Mayor who could not care less. He would sooner spend his time calling everyone who disagrees with him—
Lee Anderson
I have just said that I am not going to give way. Sadiq Khan would sooner spend his time calling everyone who disagrees with him a racist, rather than stopping endless knife attacks on the streets of London.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Is it a point of order? I remind Members that it is down to the Member speaking whether to accept interventions. I will listen to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, and we will decide whether it is one.
Neil Coyle
Thank you, Ms McVey. Members are all required to not mislead, or accidentally mislead the House, and there is an issue with some of the figures that have just been presented. Could you encourage the hon. Member to either give the dates for the figures he was using, which will show that they are out of date, or use the correct data, which show that knife crime has fallen in the capital, which is something we should welcome together?
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
It was a point of debate. There are at least 10 people who would like to speak today. You had your chance to speak, but I am afraid your temper and your attitude do not belong in Westminster Hall. I call Lee Anderson.
Lee Anderson
Thank you, Ms McVey. It is not the first time that the hon. Member has been thrown out of a room on this estate.
We must use powers lawfully, and our police cannot be hindered. We cannot allow a fear of red tape, or baseless accusations of institutional racism or unconscious bias to stop police officers doing their job. Serving police officers and former police officers reached out to me ahead of this debate, and they all said the same thing: we need to reform policing priorities from top to bottom, we must protect police officers and increase stop and search, without apology and without hesitation. In the same way, the message coming from our courts must be clear: if you are caught with a knife, you go to jail.
When someone puts a knife in their pocket and walks out of their front door, they have made a choice and there must be consequences to it. Today the maximum sentence for possession of a knife is four years. For second knife offences, adults are supposed to face a mandatory six months’ jail sentence, but that in reality looks completely different. In 2023, only 28% of people caught with a knife went to prison, down from 33% in 2018. Dangerous men are walking away with little more than a slap on their wrist or a community sentence. The rate of offenders who receive just a caution has dropped a lot over the past 30 years, and we know that the average custodial sentence has crept up to just over seven months for possession of a knife, and almost 15 months for threatening offences. That might sound like progress, but those sentences are far too short. Community sentences are still being handed out to most youth offenders, and it is no wonder that young lads are becoming more brazen, carrying knives in broad daylight, and making TikTok videos with their machetes. They do that because they know that our justice system is a soft touch.
There are lots of reasons why a boy might decide to pick up a knife. Some believe it is for protection, but we should never have got to a point in our society where someone feels the need to carry a knife to be protected. That said, I must highlight that adult men are the primary offenders, and they are responsible for over 80% of all knife crime offences. These are not just isolated incidents among youngsters, and that is no wonder when grown men are getting off too. Just a couple of weeks ago we all saw a man avoid prison despite attacking someone with a knife. The person was burning a Quran, and in this instance the court basically said, “It’s okay to take justice into your own hands. If you attack and threaten someone with a knife for causing you offence, he will be the one who is convicted, and you won’t have to go to prison.” At the same time, people are getting locked up for Facebook posts or offensive tweets. It is madness. Communities across the country are fed up with our weak and flimsy justice system. They have had enough; they want action, not words.
Over the summer I submitted several written questions to the Home Office about illegal migrants crossing the English channel in small boats, and I asked how many of them have been found carrying drugs and weapons on their arrival in the UK. I got a response from the then Minister, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle). She told me that the migrants were searched upon arrival and that:
“Some small weapons—for example, knives—have occasionally been seized as a result of those searches over the past seven years,”.
“Some small weapons”—what kind of pathetic, weak answer is that? People in this country want to know how many people, and how many knives have been found. How many of those men are still here, and how many are still being put up in taxpayer-funded hotels? The Minister owes it to our concerned constituents to tell us what is happening to men who arrive on our shores carrying knives.
We have enough of a home-grown knife problem already; we do not want to import more. While I am on this point, I want the Minister to tell us how many illegal immigrants have committed knife offences in our country over the past few years. Individuals might have had a knife taken off them when they got to this country, but it is not that difficult to get another knife. That information should be made publicly available.
I know I speak for a lot of people when I say that I am sick of politicians speaking at vigils, lighting candles and sharing their sympathies with the families and loved ones of another person murdered on our streets, only to come back to this place and avoid taking decisive action. We need police officers who take violent criminals off our streets, courts that administer real justice for victims and a Government not afraid to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to knife crime. How else are our constituents going to feel safe?
Our message needs to be plain and simple: “If you pick up a knife, you will feel the full force of the law and go to prison.” I have one ask on behalf of the law-abiding British public: anyone caught carrying a dangerous weapon should receive an automatic custodial sentence. I am not talking about Swiss army knives, penknives, small knives or tools used for fishing or arts and crafts, nor about men coming back from a shift at the local factory, plumbers, electricians or carpenters. I am talking about the type of knife carried by people who have no reason to carry such weapons in a public place.
Several hon. Members rose—
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they need to be here for the start of the debate and to bob if they wish to be called to speak. A lot of Members wish to speak. If everyone keeps to a maximum of five minutes, we should get everybody in.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing the debate. Although we may not agree on how to fix knife crime, I believe everybody here cares and wants to sort out the issue.
Knife crime is huge and devastating, with a massive impact—not just on friends and families, but on communities. When we talk about this subject it is important to remember that these are not just statistics, numbers on a piece of paper, but people who have lost their lives. This is a little personal for me because I witnessed a slashing. When I left the Army, I took a job as a bouncer and there was an incident between two gangs outside the club after closing hours. I will never forget seeing a human flashing a blade at another human. Bear in mind that I was in the Army and have seen a few things, but that was a crazy situation that will always stick with me. As the hon. Member for Ashfield said, we have a duty as legislators to get a grip of the situation.
I am going to talk about two stabbings that happened in Swindon. Owen Dunn was murdered on 4 December 2022. He was only 18 years old, basically a child, and was stabbed in his armpit with a machete. He had his whole life ahead of him; that was completely unacceptable and tragic. Through their grief, his family have set up a charity, Owen’s World. They have honoured his death by going into schools, educating students about knife crime and raising funding for bleed kits. I do not believe we should have to have such kits but, when there is an incident, they are needed.
The second person I want to talk about is Lee Turner. I knew Lee because we grew up in the same area. The place where he was stabbed, the Venney, is around the corner from my house. His was another life taken too soon. Lee might not have been a model citizen, as even his sister would admit, but he did not deserve to die. His sister has done a fantastic job, putting her energy into setting up Change Lives No to Knives, which focuses on education and amnesty bins. The hon. Member for Ashfield might not agree that we need amnesty bins but there are people in our community who do not feel comfortable going to the police. We need to rebuild that relationship with community policing. Amnesty bins serve a purpose by offering the opportunity to hand blades in without fear of repercussion.
I am so proud and grateful to both those charities and all the charities across this country. Their focus on education and prevention will play a massive part in addressing knife crime.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I can say that my own life has been changed through knife crime, having been attacked on some occasions in my youth. I have lost some friends to knife crime and over the last 25 years, when I have been mentoring people, I have supported families who have lost loved ones.
The pain that we see in those families is something that I find difficult to explain or describe. Southend East and Rochford, the community that I represent, is vibrant and bustling, but young people in that community suffer knife crime, too. Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill, alongside initiatives such as Young Futures hubs, will strengthen prevention and early intervention?
Will Stone
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing a personal part of his life. I absolutely agree that that measure will help. It is the first step, but we need to go further. As I have said, knife crime is devastating. Although I agree that the Government can always do more, I will praise their Crime and Policing Bill for providing new powers to seize and destroy weapons; introducing tougher sentences for online sales; getting zombie knives off our streets; and introducing new offences of possessing weapons with intent to use. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield for bringing forward this debate.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
We all have stories. In my constituency, we used to have quite a number of knife crimes, but the early intervention and violent crime reduction unit that the Mayor has put in place has helped to reduce that and young people in pupil referral units are also mentored and looked after. Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot just look at the end stage? As people did in Scotland, we have to look at a public health approach to how we combat knife crime in our country.
Will Stone
I absolutely agree. I know that my hon. Friend is an active supporter of trying to reduce knife crime and has done fantastic work in her constituency.
I am incredibly proud of what the Government are doing, but we need to do more. I want to give one more shout-out to Owen’s World for the fantastic work that it does and to Change Lives No to Knives. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and hearing from everyone else in the Chamber.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey, and to give you the respect that you deserve for the position that you hold. May I say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for leading today’s debate on this very important issue? Knife crime is such a prevalent issue across the UK, mainly here on the mainland, of course, where the figures are higher, although unfortunately we are also seeing an increasing number of incidents with knives back home in Northern Ireland, so I am very pleased to be here to try to raise awareness of that. As previously stated, the prevalence of knife crime is not and historically has not been the same in Northern Ireland as it has been in England and under other devolved institutions—
Adam Dance
Does the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) agree that knife crime is not increasing just in towns and cities and that we desperately need more funding for community policing in rural areas, such as the Yeovil constituency?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do and I commend the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I know that he has done lots of work with youth groups in his constituency. Sometimes we need to be at that level to try to change the mindset. All Members are probably focused on that as well.
In Northern Ireland, we are seeing a substantial number of violent and sexual offences that involve sharp instruments. For example, in the 12 months to September 2024 in Northern Ireland, there were 846 violent crimes involving a knife or blade. Those include rape, assault, attempted murder and robbery. I well recall the occasion when my son was a manager of a shop in Newtownards and someone came in high on drugs and probably drink as well and told him to empty the till. This is a question we all ask: when we are younger, we perhaps do not see things the same way and perhaps we are more brave and courageous; for just that second we say to ourselves, “Do I hand it over, or do I grapple with him?” Grappling with someone high on drugs or whatever would not be a wise thing to do, so my son stood back on the other side of the till. The person did not get the money, but the best thing to do was not to grapple and not get stabbed as a result of money in a till. That is one of the things that happened in Northern Ireland.
Some 31% of homicides over recent years have involved a knife and 25% of robberies have involved a sharp instrument. I am sure I do not need to mention the matter of violence against women in Northern Ireland. Since April 2019, there have been some 34 deaths in Northern Ireland from killings involving knives. Those are worrying, tragic, disturbing figures. I have on numerous occasions spoken about this and how horrendous the statistics are. Those victims are more than numbers and we must do more to put our words into action.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
My hon. Friend talks about putting words into action. Does he agree with me—this has been expressed in the debate—that it is good, proper and appropriate that we have a debate like this on the increasing prevalence of knife crime? It would be better to see the result of this debate in Government action across the United Kingdom, particularly in towns and larger conurbations where knife crime is on the increase.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry for his intervention. As always, he brings pertinent words of wisdom to the debate and I thank him for that.
There is a worrying trend as well. I read an article about children—my goodness, it is hard to take this in—as young as four years old taking knives or sharp objects into school. It is so bad that parents are calling for metal detectors or arches to be installed in schools. The hon. Member for Ashfield referred to that in his contribution. A freedom of information request highlighted that there were some 1,304 offences involving knives in 2024 at schools and sixth form colleges. Long ago are the days when our children were dropped at school to learn and integrate with their friends. Now some parents are terrified that their son or daughter may fall victim to a knife attack.
Concerns were also raised through the Netflix show “Adolescence”, which brought to light the dangers of social media in regard to knife crime among children. The key word here is “children”. These are not 16, 17 or 18-year-olds who have some capability to make the correct decision; they are young, impressionable people using knives to seriously hurt people or who feel that they have to protect themselves. We are worried about that scenario, so what do we do? I am not saying it is right, by the way. I am just saying that sometimes the reaction is, “I had better carry a knife.”
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
In Dorset, where I represent Bournemouth East, figures show 39 knife-related incidents per 100,000 people. That is more than half below the national average, but behind every statistic there is a story. I am thinking particularly of 18-year-old Cameron Hamilton, who was tragically killed. His grandmother Tracy, who I had the honour to meet, has set up an organisation called Changes Are Made. Does the hon. Member agree with the mission of that organisation—that we must put lives before knives? Would he also agree that no one should carry a knife, because the quickest way to destroy a life is to carry a knife?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Member, who is a very assiduous MP, puts forward a viewpoint from his own constituency, which we all endorse, and I thank him for all that he does in his constituency to try to stop people carrying knives.
If we look further across the globe, we hear of knife incidents most days in newspapers or news headlines. The one that probably shocked us all was the case of Iryna Zarutska, who was stabbed three times from behind on a train in North Carolina. She was an innocent lady sitting on her own murdered by a disturbed person. And recently someone was stabbed at a Manchester synagogue—we had a statement yesterday in the Chamber about that. These instances are endless and the stats show the situation is not getting any better.
I hope there is more we can do—I think there is. There are ways to educate young people on the dangers of carrying knives, which is what the hon. Member for Bournemouth East referred to. We need to educate the children at a very early age that it is not wise to carry a knife. We need to take the angst away from the parents who have concerns as well and learn about the reasons why young people feel the need to carry a knife.
I am always very pleased to see the Minister in her place. Her ministership has changed, and I wish her well in her new role; I know that she will try to take forward the same excellence in her new role that she showed in the last one. I also look forward to the contribution of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers). The Minister’s job is to ensure that we do more to protect people and give the harshest sentences to those convicted of knife crime.
Adam Dance
On a point of order, Ms McVey. May I just correct the record? I think you may have called me by the wrong name when I intervened.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing the debate.
Knife crime and the gang activity that comes with it ruin lives and leave whole communities living in fear. This debate has been wide-ranging, but for Greater Manchester, and Oldham in particular, there is an urgency to tackling youth knife crime, gang activity and the real threat of child criminal exploitation in our communities—a threat that continues to hit working-class communities the hardest. I place on record my thanks to Greater Manchester police and their partners in the violence reduction unit—chaired by Kate Green, the deputy mayor for policing—for recognising and acting on the issue, and for meeting me to discuss the issue further.
Since 2020, Greater Manchester police have run the forever amnesty, which has taken thousands of weapons off our streets. However, the police themselves would say that knives remain easily available in households and in everyday lawful life, so unless the culture and environment change, we will not break the cycle of offending and the harm that goes alongside it.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether we like it or not, social isolation and a lack of opportunities are possible causes of knife crime? I am an OnSide youth zone champion, and my constituency has The Way youth zone. It is launching a comprehensive knife crime prevention initiative to tackle such issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need well-funded youth services that prioritise early intervention, empower our youth, foster community safety, and thereby help to achieve safer streets and stronger youth?
Jim McMahon
That is very important, and it has to go alongside other interventions. Like my hon. Friend’s constituency, Oldham has an OnSide youth centre, called Mahdlo, which provides significant intervention and support for young people. It is fair to say that the world has changed since I was a child at school. The online world means that it is difficult for young people to escape threats of violence and intimidation, and their glorification on online platforms, which allow videos showing young people threatening young people to be uploaded, seemingly without any challenge whatever. The culture and environment are important.
In Greater Manchester, Operation Venture, which was launched in 2022, has led to hundreds of arrests, improved intelligence and a clearer understanding of where and how weapons are used. However, I want to focus on the young people most at risk, both as offenders and as victims, and to call for stronger safeguarding and prevention response. Gangs have always existed in some areas—lines between estates and postcodes are not new—but what has changed is the speed with which petty disputes can escalate, and the online meeting the on-street, with little escape for those who are at risk. A perceived lack of respect can turn into revenge, and verbal exchanges can quickly become fatal violence involving knives. Many young people live in fear—afraid simply to walk home from school, making them a target.
The same culture that drives that fear also traps young people within it. Simply telling young people to stay away from trouble is not realistic when violence and intimidation follow them home through their phones, consoles and social media—24 hours a day, seven days a week. In that environment, some young children start carrying knives themselves, for what they believe is self-defence—an avoidable and dangerous response to fear.
More sinister still is the impact of child criminal exploitation, or county lines, as it is sometimes called: the systematic grooming of mainly, though not exclusively, working-class boys—girls can be impacted too—by older men and their peers into organised crime such as robbery, drug dealing and violence. In some cases, there is a proven link to sexual exploitation alongside it. In the House, we recognise the patterns of child sexual exploitation and abuse and the characteristics of victims and offenders, as we now know them to be. We also know when we see clear and present safeguarding failures. We must apply the same urgency to understanding and acting on child criminal exploitation.
None of that takes away the importance of individual responsibility or the role of parents, but too often the system looks at these working-class young people and writes them off. It sees them as bad kids or lost causes, instead of as vulnerable children being exploited and abused. That attitude reflects a class bias that is still far too common—the idea that some estates or even some families are just rough and that being drawn into crime is inevitable. Too often, that allows neglect to go unchallenged. If that mindset persists, we will continue to fail young people, and entire communities will remain trapped in fear.
For too many families in Greater Manchester, that fear has become a reality. We have seen repeated knife attacks, many involving children. In New Moston, just streets away from my constituency, a 15-year-old boy was chased down the street and stabbed to death. I cannot say any more, as the Chair reminded us at the start of the debate, because it is an ongoing case, but what is beyond doubt is that another family have lost their son.
In Limeside, in Oldham West, the community has spirit and solidarity, but its foundations have been weakened. The local police post, the GP surgery, the housing office and other public services have been eroded in the last decade and a half. Those who remain, such as the Avro football club and Anthony Crolla’s gym, are doing heroic work to give young people purpose and safety, but they are fighting to survive every single day when the community needs them more than ever. These same areas experience some of the highest numbers of section 60 stop and searches in Greater Manchester. The Limeside estate alone has had seven stop and search orders in the last two years.
There has been some progress. To June 2025, the homicide rate in Greater Manchester was 8.8 per million people, a decrease of 21% compared with the previous year and down 45% on the last three years. While youth violence overall is decreasing, more must be done to prevent children from being exposed to violent crime at such a young age. The police identify that most young people supported by the violence reduction unit are aged between 13 and 15—these are children. Reported knife and offensive weapon offences have risen from 220 in 2014 to 413 10 years later—a significant increase. Some of that reflects increased police activity, including stop and search, which should be welcomed, but let’s not kid ourselves: every one of those cases represents a real threat.
Knife crime is not inevitable. My call today is for a step change in how we safeguard young people from criminal exploitation. That means recognising vulnerability, not just criminality. It means restoring trust in communities where fear has replaced hope. It means tougher action to hold social media giants and messaging platforms to account. It means rebuilding the foundations of our youth services, safe spaces and neighbourhood networks to give young people a sense of belonging and a reason to believe in a better future, to finally break the cycle.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
We had a little dispute earlier about the statistics on knife crime. The fact is that we clearly do see from the evidence that knife crime is a serious problem, and it is rising in pockets. We have a clear problem in London. The stats are disputed, but the fact is that any knife crime is unacceptable, and the crimes that lead to death are utter tragedies.
Dawn Butler
The Metropolitan police briefing for October 2025 said there were 1,154 fewer knife crime offences in the 12 months to August 2025—a 7% drop. Is the hon. Member disputing the Met police stats?
Danny Kruger
I am sorry, but I do not think we should spend the whole time disputing the statistics. I can cite statistics suggesting there has been a 60% increase in knife crime in the last year. Let us not trade stats, but by all means let us take this offline, if the hon. Lady would like to trade citations. The fact is that significant studies demonstrate there is a real problem—an increasing problem—with knife crime in some areas. As I said, any knife crime is unacceptable, and the tragedies that lead to death are to be enormously regretted.
For the last 20 years, I have run a charity working with people in prisons and with ex-offenders—many of them involved in knife crime and violence—to try to reduce reoffending in London. I know from first-hand experience, and indeed from encounters I have had this week, how much our justice system is disrespected in our communities. So I absolutely agree with the central point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson): we need to increase the deterrent effect of the justice system, and that means having clearer and sterner punishments for the crime of carrying weapons. We need swifter justice, to ensure that the time between the committal of an offence and punishment is as short as possible. We also need—this is the work I do—to focus on rehabilitation and reducing reoffending, because the cycle of crime is the cause, the real heart, of these terrible statistics. It is not the number of first-time offenders, which is always terrible; it is the number of people who stay in a life of crime.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield for referencing the families of the victims. Ultimately, those are the people we should bear in mind when we consider these tragedies. But I also pay tribute to him for mentioning the families of the attackers, whose lives are also ruined when their son—it is usually the son—goes to jail for many years as a consequence of knife crime. As my hon. Friend said, they suffer shame and trauma.
I want to mention family—this is really my only real contribution to the debate—because I do not think we have heard the word “family” mentioned yet, and it is rare that we do. All my experience of working with offenders is that in almost every case—it is almost absurd how standard it is—the father is absent from the young man’s life; it is not always the case, and of course there are exceptions. I therefore pay tribute to the amazing women who try to bring these boys up in very tough circumstances and who overwhelmingly do their best to ensure that their boys stay on the straight and narrow. But in the absence of a father, how are those boys to understand what it is to be a man, to respect authority, to respect women and to collaborate constructively with their peers? Those lessons are so much harder to learn for boys growing up without a positive male role model in their lives.
I want to make a simple point in response to a remark the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) made earlier about the public health approach to crime. I respect that concept; if we are talking about knife crime as an epidemic comparable to a contagious disease, that is a very apt analogy. I also respect the principle that we should have a whole-community approach to knife crime. My concern is that the concept of a public health approach is really code for a statutory response that says that the reason we have knife crime is that the wider community—which really means what the Government are doing—is inadequate and needs to step forward in some way. As I said, a lot of my life has been committed to the principle that community needs to step forward.
However, the role of the state is fundamentally to enforce justice; the job of the Government is to ensure that people are safe in their streets and that the law is respected. The real source of the knife crime epidemic, and the resolution to it, does not lie with the state, nor with the nebulous community; it lies with the individual themselves, who needs to grow up learning and knowing what it is to do right and wrong, and it lies with the family. If Government can do anything apart from enforce justice—which of course is their primary function —they should be instilling the principles of right and wrong in our young people through the education system. More importantly than anything else, they should be supporting stable families, because that is the context in which young boys will grow up much less likely to go off the rails.
Dawn Butler
The hon. Gentleman is making some extremely valuable points. The public health approach is not something I have invented; when there was a knife crime epidemic in Scotland and they needed a way to curb it, they adopted a public health approach—and it worked. I am talking about doing things that work. The first law of a Government is to protect all their citizens. Families also include blended families, so there are many different family structures.
There is some discrepancy in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He has to recognise that a public health approach works; it worked in Scotland, and it is working in London—the police and the mayor say so. The hon. Gentleman mentioned male role models, and the mayor’s mentorship programme to mentor 100,000 people is helping. We have to look at this in the round if we are really going to curb knife crime.
Danny Kruger
I agree with every single word the hon. Lady said, except the implication—actually, I will just leave it in agreement.
I respect what has happened in Scotland, and I welcome the reductions they have seen there, but my concern about the public health model is that it might mean we have an excuse not to think about the essential moral challenge of individuals understanding the difference between right and wrong, and the role of stable families in preventing crime. We would then have abused the valuable concept of a public health model.
Will Stone
I want to point out one thing. I agree that stable families are incredibly important. I am from a single-parent family: my mum died when I was young and my dad worked. Youth clubs established by the then Labour council kept me on the right track and stopped me going into certain circles. One of my friends stabbed someone in the behind with a screwdriver and went to jail. Those youth clubs were essential for me to find leadership through sport, so I think there is a role for the state to play. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Danny Kruger
I agree, although most youth clubs are not statutory institutions—they might be publicly funded but they belong to civil society, and I honour and welcome them. I pay tribute to the youth club that supported the hon. Gentleman, and indeed the armed forces, which I suspect he would also say played an important role in his being the fine, upstanding citizen that he is today.
Nevertheless, we will never compensate for the epidemic of family breakdown in this country with youth clubs. Youth clubs are vital, the armed forces are vital and all the other institutions of society that come around individuals play an essential role, but if the family is broken in our communities, we will continue to have the tragedies that we have been discussing today.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing this important debate.
I will speak about some of my experiences as a magistrate for 20 years in Cheshire. I am sure many think of Cheshire as a sleepy county, but statistics show that knife crime increased there by 7% year on year from March 2024 to March 2025, which may surprise some. I will take time to look into that with my chief constable.
Over my 20 years in court, I heard so many reasons—in fact, excuses—for why defendants might have been carrying knives at the time of the incident or when the police caught up with them. Those ranged from “I forgot it was in my pocket” to “I needed it for work”—that was always a standard one, no matter what they actually did for work. Today, there is a mandatory six-month custodial sentence for anyone caught carrying a knife in the community, but the fact is that magistrates often do not enforce it after listening to and accepting the mitigating factors put forward by the solicitor on behalf of the defendant. Sometimes, a suspended sentence might be given, but the point is that this is soft justice, and I have seen it time and again.
The courts must get tougher on doing what they say they will do—doing what we ask them to do—and enforce that custodial sentence, because only by enforcing the custodial sentence will the message start to get through. I would say that the mandatory six-month sentence is not currently a deterrent, because people are not afraid of going to court. That is an issue for people like us who set policy.
Sarah Pochin
I will make a little progress, if that is all right.
My only observation about stop and search is that it has an effect, and I believe very strongly that stop and search needs to be brought back with absolutely zero tolerance. We need to support the police in putting aside any worry about being accused of being racist or of targeting particular groups in particular communities, because these policies work in taking knives off the street.
Sarah Pochin
Let me make a little progress, sorry.
The other point about stop and search is that the police, and indeed politicians, should not congratulate themselves on how many knives are found through stop and search; we and the police should congratulate ourselves on how many knives are not found when stop and search is used to its maximum power, because that is the measure of success.
I now come on to the point about why so many young men carry knives, and it is generally young men who carry knives. Again, over the years of my experience, I have seen the fear that young men often have—sadly, sometimes when they are going to school. People have said to me that they felt threatened at school, so they took knives into school. Of course, this also affects older men out in the community. There is a difference between these two groups, and it is a problem for magistrates. There is a difference between a young man, a youth, saying that they were frightened to go into school without a knife, and an older man going to a pub with a knife in his pocket.
This is an interesting issue for magistrates, because magistrates need to have some insight into people’s lives. We have heard talk this morning about role models and that type of thing. It is a huge problem that we never see the parents when these young men are in court.
The other thing is the problem of drug gangs and county lines, which we deal with all the time as magistrates. That culture on our streets is feeding this knife crime, and it is not just in cities any more. It is all over the counties, with young people—and they are often very young—carrying knives because they are drug runners.
Dawn Butler
I, too, was a magistrate and heard lots of cases. The hon. Member might be coming to domestic violence, as there is a lot of knife crime in the home.
However, I do not quite get the hon. Lady’s thread with regard to the police searching people and not finding knives. In August 2024, the police had a 10% success rate with stop and search. In August 2025, there was a 25% success rate. The difference was that the later stop-and-search operation was data-led and intelligence-led. Do we want to go forwards or backwards? That is the question.
Sarah Pochin
My point is that if stop and search is working, we will eventually get to a point where knives are found less often. That is the measure of success.
We as politicians need to give our courts and our police the power to have a zero-tolerance approach to stop and search. The police need to have the confidence to carry out stop and search without fear of criticism. They need to be given funding to carry out thorough intelligence work on drug gangs, and they are doing an incredible job on the county lines operations that are now overtaking our society. However, they need to be given more funding for that work. The courts also need to be given the funding and resource to enact swift justice.
Clearly, we also need education in schools and the community initiatives we have talked about. All of this is important, all of this is a package, but it starts at the top. It starts with us.
Warinder Juss
Of course, it is the job of the state system to act as a deterrent, so I understand the hon. Lady’s point.
I sit on the Justice Committee, and I have visited prisons and spoken to young people. Unfortunately, a lot of people do not think they will be sentenced to a long period in prison if they commit a crime—that is not in their minds. Does the hon. Lady agree that our focus should be on enabling the people who are likely to commit knife crimes to make the right choices in life? That is what we should focus on, rather than trying to get the message across that if they commit a crime, they will end up in jail. We need to be enabling our youth, our young people, to make the right choices in life.
Sarah Pochin
Clearly, at the moment, the threat of a custodial sentence is not the deterrent that it has to be, which is an important point. The Sentencing Bill, which will have its next stage on Tuesday, will take away the power of magistrates courts to hand down custodial sentences of less than 12 months. That is a big issue, but I will talk about it on Tuesday.
Finally, it is important for all of us, as politicians, to remember that David Amess was brutally stabbed and killed four years ago today. What we have talked about this morning does not touch on the extremists and the nutcases who are out there in society, and from whom we are all under threat. I acknowledge that today is the four-year anniversary, and I urge everyone to take the utmost care when we are out in our communities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I remind Members that we want to get to the Front Benchers as close as we can to 10.30 am, so be mindful of the time.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing this crucial debate. He always says it as it is and speaks common sense. He is speaking for millions of people in this country who are sick of the knife-crime epidemic that we see across our nation. This is a timely debate, following the appalling events in Manchester only a few weeks ago.
As the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) just said, the appalling murder of our friend Sir David Amess took place four years ago today. We continue to grieve for that great parliamentarian and his family. We all felt the loss when he was taken from us.
Every one of us in this place will have heard of the fear and frustration of our constituents regarding the rising tide of violence in our cities. As the Member of Parliament for Romford, an Essex town on the periphery of Greater London, I see that fear at first hand. Ordinary, law-abiding people—mothers walking their children to school, young people heading home from work, shop workers locking up at night—are frightened to walk the streets of their own city.
A fortnight ago, the police cordoned off Romford High Street due to a knife-crime-related incident. Last year, a man was stabbed and killed only metres from my constituency office. That is not how London used to be. When I was growing up, it was not like that at all. It is not, and should not be, characteristic of the world’s greatest city.
My constituents are dutiful people. They respect the police and they respect authority; they expect their Government to defend them. Many residents have sought refuge in Romford from the crime that is spiralling out of control in inner-London areas. However, we fear that Havering will one day go the same way.
It fills me with shame and anger when I hear that other nations now warn their citizens to exercise a high degree of caution when visiting our capital. Australia has raised its travel advice for the United Kingdom from level 1 to level 2. That places us in the same bracket as countries such as Albania, Senegal and Tunisia. The embassy of the United Arab Emirates has gone further still, warning of a recent increase in violence and knife crime in London.
When foreign Governments are advising caution on British streets, something has gone very wrong indeed. Yet the Mayor of London chooses to accuse others of spreading misinformation, rather than confronting the truth on knife crime, along with the rest of his totally appalling record. I agree with President Trump’s assessment that Mayor Khan is doing “a terrible job” for our capital.
According to the recent Policy Exchange report, which has already been mentioned, there are almost 17,000 knife crime offences in the capital, which is an 86% increase since 2015. London now accounts for nearly a third of all crime in England and Wales, and almost half of all knifepoint robberies. Robbery is now the largest single category of knife crime, with more than 10,000 offences in 2024, the majority involving mobile phone theft.
During Boris Johnson’s term as Mayor of London between 2011 and 2016, knife crime in London fell by almost a third. Since Sadiq Khan entered City Hall—sorry, I should say Sir Sadiq Khan—the number of offences has climbed relentlessly, but Mayor Khan takes no responsibility for the shocking situation. The reality is that Londoners have been failed by a mayor who spends most of his time virtue signalling, rather than restoring order to our capital. The result is that criminals have been emboldened, while the law-abiding majority have been abandoned. Stop and search, used properly, is working and needs to be extended, and I am glad that my party is suggesting that. I am sure that others in this House agree.
We need zero tolerance in policing the worst hotspots. That means returning to the principle of having large numbers of uniformed police officers patrolling our streets. It means tough sentences for those who carry knives and immediate prison terms for repeat offenders. The first of nine policing principles outlined by the former Prime Minister and founder of the Metropolitan police, Sir Robert Peel, is that the basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder. That may have worked in the 19th century; it certainly worked in the 20th century; and I am convinced that it will work in the 21st century. We must ensure, however, that the police are doing the job of policing and not acting as social workers. We want more police and fewer PC PCs—politically correct police constables.
I commend the hon. Member for Ashfield for bringing this debate before the House. I hope that the Minister is listening to everything that is being said, because the people of my constituency and throughout London are fearful that the Government and the Mayor of London are simply not doing the job that they were elected to do.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, as always. I congratulate my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), on securing this vital debate.
Knife crime is the scourge of our society. Almost every day or every week, in the newspapers and in our constituencies, we hear horrific stories from people and we have our own experiences. Many good examples have been spoken of today, and there have been different suggestions of how to try to reduce it, whether that is through education in schools, amnesty bins, knife arches —we do not want them, but maybe they help—youth clubs and much more besides. We have to be prepared to try things to see what works, and different police forces will make different progress. Ultimately, however, there has to be a deterrent.
Earlier this year, I had a slightly strange experience while campaigning in the glorious town of Boston in Lincolnshire, in my constituency. Some of my team were driving down a neighbouring street where a gentleman was walking along carrying a machete. They took a photograph of the machete and called the police, who were fantastic and responded immediately: I was taken off the street and the police found the gentleman. They arrested him and he was charged for carrying a machete. He went to court, but he was found not guilty of carrying a knife that could be a lethal instrument.
We have to ask, where is the consistent application of sensible laws to act as a genuine deterrent? That is the point. Ultimately, with all the good measures that we hear about, which I just touched on and other Members know can work, when we educate people about the horrors of knife crime, there also has to be a sanction. There has to be a deterrent—that if someone does not listen to the wise words of mentors, fathers, teachers or youth clubs, there is a sanction.
It seems to me that the data does not lie. There are short-term variances, but the medium and long-term data is crystal clear in England and Wales: in the past 12 years or so, stop and search has halved, while knife offences have doubled. We have to have automatic detention for carrying a knife and automatic longer sentences for using a knife. A zero tolerance policy is what our constituents want.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
We now come to the Front Benchers. I call the Lib Dem spokesperson.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
This is my first opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I welcome the chance to talk again about knife crime in this place and I will outline the ways in which this heinous crime is marring communities and claiming too many lives. Although I wholeheartedly disagree with the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on most topics, this is an important debate. I hope for the sake of all victims that we can make constructive suggestions to improve the situation. I think we can all agree, across the political divide, that young people in every corner of the country should not be growing up in a climate of fear.
I have outlined the Liberal Democrat approach several times, because, unlike the Reform party next to me, we believe in evidence-based policymaking. The public health approach to knife crime, which has worked in Scotland and has also shown signs of success in London, holds the most promise. I reiterate that the Liberal Democrats are clear on the need for a proper joined-up approach to youth diversion, making it a statutory duty with proper funding, so that every part of the country has a pre-charge diversion scheme for young people up to the age of 25.
I am increasingly conscious that over the past year or so figures on the extreme right of British politics, seemingly with the backing of a stream of American malcontents who reach from the mad fringes to the White House, have chosen to weaponise the issue of crime in London. They paint a picture that few Londoners recognise of a city rife with violent crime on every corner. It is as though we have all descended into lawlessness, scared to walk the streets because of a mad, feverish crime wave, driven by liberal, middle-class squeamishness.
As a proud Londoner, I totally reject that nonsense. Violent crime fell in London by 6% in the year to last March. The following three months saw a 19% fall in knife crime compared with the same time last year. Knife-enabled offences have dropped in each month of 2025 from the same months in 2024; I invite the hon. Member for Ashfield to correlate that with the reductions in stop and search over the same period. I have been to Scotland Yard with colleagues and heard that the Met’s action in recent months has been modestly successful. I believe that, given the Met’s increasingly limited resources, it is affording the issue the priority level it deserves.
To avoid the risk of being misrepresented, I will be clear that I do not wish to minimise the issue, for two reasons. First, looking further back in time, knife crime has gone up dramatically since 2016 under the Labour Mayor’s watch, as Conservative Government cuts to local government and the police obliterated the community support networks that the public health approach relies on. The hon. Member for Ashfield was happy to be part of delivering those cuts as a Conservative MP. Secondly, every childhood snatched, every pavement stained in blood, every family with one too many chairs at the dinner table is one too many.
Policing alone cannot and does not pretend to effect the culture change we need. For that, we need to deliver the public health approach properly. In London, the growing funding gap for local councils after years of austerity is about to be made worse by the Government’s unfair funding review and the risk of new Labour austerity. That means that the cracks in the system are now chasms.
For too many young people in Britain, feeling unsafe is not an occasional fear; it is part of the everyday fabric of their lives. I have met young people in London and in my constituency of Sutton, Cheam and Worcester Park for whom that sense of vulnerability sits in the background of everything they do. What we too often fail to recognise is that, when young people start to believe that no one else will protect them, they ask themselves a simple but devastating question: “If no one is going to keep me safe, how do I keep myself safe?” For some that is a turning point, when anxiety stops being a feeling and starts becoming a plan. Far too often, that plan involves carrying a knife.
We cannot wait until a child reaches that point. We have to intervene before that fear hardens into a decision to carry a weapon. Last May, 60% of young people surveyed told the Ben Kinsella Trust that they feel worried about knife crime. A 2009 study by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies showed that 85% of young people who carry a weapon say they do so for self-protection. Many of the knives they carry are not the exotic or illegal zombie knives that attract headlines, nor weapons smuggled in on small boats; they are kitchen knives. That is not organised criminality; that is the tragic banality of a deteriorating everyday experience.
Jim McMahon
I understand the hon. Member is still developing his argument, but does he accept that one place young people should feel safe is in their own home? With the online world and messaging platforms, any intimidation, abuse and threats that might take place in school or on the street follow them 24 hours a day. Many parents, sometimes in the next room, have no idea what threats and intimidation their children are facing.
Luke Taylor
I agree that ensuring protection online is important, but as we have already heard, the loss of officers who most closely support children outside the home, such as those in schools, is equally important. The loss of those in London will be devastating to our communities.
Tackling knife crime cannot just be about enforcement; it must be treated as a health issue. It must be addressed early, consistently and systematically, and it must bring together a range of services that deal with young people, such as early intervention schemes, councils, NHS workers, carers, police officers, teachers, community leaders, social media influencers, parents, mental health workers, restorative practice advocates, and the various arms of Government that young people interact with, all under serious, mission-driven violence reduction units. That needs political buy-in, rather than meaninglessly aping its language without funding its tenets—a mistake that the former Government made with their serious violence strategy in 2018, and that the Mayor of London has made by not giving the violence reduction unit in London the tools it needs to do its job as effectively as possible. If we married that up with other key steps, it could be utterly transformative, turning good public policy into a vision for wider social renewal for young people.
The Minister may be aware that I met her predecessor to discuss that approach in more detail earlier this year, and I ask whether she would be willing to meet me to continue that discussion and see where we can work together on this vital issue. Surely in 2025 we have grown beyond the two-dimensional approach to the causes of crime, or the response to knife crime that the hon. Member for Ashfield presents. Surely by now we should be able to recognise that violence spreads among the most vulnerable like a virus, but it can be stopped in its tracks by good interventions acting as a vaccine to stop the spread. Surely by now we have learned that we cannot punish or scare away violent crime, and that good deterrents are not enough to stave it off when it has already buried its roots far too deeply in our neighbourhoods.
Not so long ago, a leader of the Labour party pledged to be
“tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”,
and all I ask is that the Government recognise that we have done far too much of the former, and far too little of the latter. They must show that they recognise it is finally time to properly adopt a public health approach to save lives, save communities and save futures.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Thank you for chairing this debate, Ms McVey, and I offer my condolences and pay tribute to those whose lives have been tragically lost as a result of knife crime. We recently saw the tragic dangers posed by knife crime during the appalling terrorist attack at Heaton Park, and I offer my condolences to the victims of that cowardly attack. As has been said, today marks four years since the death of the great Sir David Amess, whose family I am sure will be in all our thoughts.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing this important debate, for his ongoing work to highlight the impact of knife crime, and for his straight-talking common-sense efforts in this place. Crimes involving knives are devastating. The lives lost, and the crimes committed using those weapons, scar our society.
Given the Government’s ambition to reduce knife crime by half, I look forward to hearing what the new Minister has to say about the methods they intend to use to reach that ambitious target, which we would all like to see achieved. Under the last Government the headline rate of crime, excluding fraud and computing misuse, dropped by more than 50%, showing that such reductions in crime are possible. As shadow Minister in the Crime and Policing Bill Committee, I listened carefully to the proposals put forward by the Government. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will welcome the Government bringing forward further proposals that could deliver reductions in such crime even more swiftly.
Although the number of hospital admissions related to knife crime has declined from its peak, it remains far too high. That problem is further exacerbated by the concentration of offences in hotspots: the crime survey for England and Wales from March this year shows that the Metropolitan police service area accounted for 31% of all offences, West Midlands police recorded 8%, and Greater Manchester 6%. The Met police recorded a staggering 9% increase, and data up to December 2024 shows that London accounts for 45.9% of all knifepoint robberies in England, despite having only 15.5% of the population. The Government must take further targeted action to address the situation. Over the past decade, steps have been taken, from banning knives to legislating for the serious violence duty and the role of violence reduction units, and violence against the person has decreased significantly since 2010, but knife crime remains far too high.
I welcome measures in the Crime and Policing Bill that replicate the proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill for more stringent rules on knife possession and expanded police powers. Increasing the penalty for those selling to under-18s is clearly a welcome means of protecting young people, but as police have highlighted, its practical impact on investigation timeframes will be critical in their efforts to prevent the illegal sale of these weapons. It is also important that, when police search a property, they have the authority to seize and destroy weapons where there are reasonable grounds to believe they may be used in unlawful violence.
Legislation alone is not enough. Getting more knives off our streets requires us to have more police on the streets, with the power to act and a focus on the crimes that really matter. The previous Government put a record number of police on our streets, and when the Conservatives left office there were more police on our streets than ever before, but since Labour came to power, we have seen a real hit to police funding affecting both the headcount and the resources available to police. This Government hit our police forces with a £230 million national insurance bill—literally taxing the police off our streets—and their failure to build the pay award into the funding settlement, as the previous Government had, is a further £200 million hit to funding.
The result is that police numbers are falling when they need to be increasing. The number of police officers, police community support officers and staff has already fallen by 1,316, and looks set to get much worse. The biggest hit is to the Met, which deals with a disproportionate amount of knife crime, as we have said. I hope that the Minister will be an active champion for our brave police officers, PCSOs and staff, and take the challenge to the Treasury so that police get the resource they need to tackle knife crime and save lives.
As I have said many times before, not only do we need to put more police on the streets, but we need them to be able to focus on the crimes that matter. Non-crime hate incidents have morphed beyond all recognition, and well beyond their intended purpose. Originally intended to apply when there was an imminent risk of crime, they now tie up 60,000 police hours every year—policing our tweets rather than policing our streets. The argument is well trod, whether in the press or in this place. Will the Minister comment briefly on what is being done to ensure that our police can focus on the crimes that matter most, such as knife crime?
The most direct way for the police to remove the threat posed by knives is to remove the knives from those who might do harm with them. Yes, we need to tackle gang culture and improve education so that young people are aware of the risks and harm created by their actions, and yes, we need to restrict sales to prevent young people from getting hold of weapons, but we also need to give our police officers the power, authority and backing they need to remove knives from the hands of those who might do us harm.
Stop and search removes knives and saves lives. We can see that in London without a doubt. There is a correlation between the Mayor’s decision to allow stop and search to decrease by 60% between 2021 and 2024 and the fact that the volume of knife crime offences increased by 86%. We need to remove the barriers that prevent our police officers from using stop and search. We debated this issue at length during the passage of the Crime and Policing Bill, and we encourage the Government to make appropriate amendments to legislation, including the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code A, to make it easier for officers to use.
Just before the election last year, the Government gave the Home Office £4 million to fight knife crime and boost the use of technology, including new technologies that can detect carried knives from a distance. What progress has been made with that, and what steps are the Government taking to harness new technologies in the fight against knife crime?
Given the impact of knife crime on families and communities, reducing it is an essential task for the Government. I hope that the Government will consider what more they can do to increase the ability of police to clamp down on these awful crimes. Alongside measures relating to education and support, we must ensure that our police are properly funded, deployed and resourced to tackle knife crime.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I echo the comments that Members made about David Amess; we are all remembering him today. He was very kind to me, and he was a very good man, and we miss him very much in this place.
It has been a really good debate, and I thank Members for their contributions. I will pick out three that were particularly powerful. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) brought his personal experience and history to the debate, which was very powerful. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) talked about working-class boys being written off, and whole communities not being given the intervention and support they need. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) talked about families and the need for our young people to understand what it is to be a man; that is so important and powerful, and I was pleased to hear it.
I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing the debate. There is much that I agree with him on. He made the point that if we cannot reduce knife crime and save lives, what are we doing in this place? I 100% agree. As the new Minister for Policing and Crime, tackling knife crime is an absolute priority for me.
Last week I met Pooja Kanda, the mother of Ronan Kanda, who in 2022 was fatally stabbed with a ninja sword. He had no involvement of any kind in crime. He was stabbed and ran to try to get home but collapsed a few doors away from his house. His mother has been campaigning ever since. She asked the Prime Minister to change the law on knife crime to stop a situation like this happening again. The Prime Minister listened to Pooja, and we are changing the law, because this Government believe in action, not words. We are introducing tougher rules for online retailers selling knives, with a penalty of two years’ imprisonment if they sell to a minor, and we are changing the age verification system, which is incredibly important, so that under-18s cannot get access to a knife.
It is our great mission in this Government to halve knife crime, and we will use action, not just words. Since taking office, we have reversed the trend on knife crime, and we will continue to work to do so. Where overall knife crime was rising, it is now falling. There has been clear, measurable progress: knife-enabled homicides fell by 23% in the year ending March 2025; hospital admissions for sharp object assaults dropped by 10% and are now 26% lower than pre-pandemic levels; and police-recorded knife-enabled assault dropped by 4% in the year ending March 2025.
Knife crime affects the whole country, but if we look at the statistics, we see that knife crime is most acute in certain areas, and that is where we are putting our resources. In the top seven police force areas, we have established a taskforce to attack knife-enabled robbery in particular. We have released new statistics today which show that those seven police force areas have turned a 14% increase in offence levels at the outset of the taskforce into a 10% reduction, which is an incredible achievement.
In London, which has been much discussed today, violent crime leading to injury has fallen in all 23 boroughs. We can all produce statistics—the hon. Member for East Wiltshire is right that there are statistics that show progress, and there are statistics that do not. I gently ask that we all interrogate those statistics. I want to highlight one particular statistic: although it is correct that the number of stop and searches has fallen in London, the number of stop and searches for offensive weapons has increased. There has been a 27% increase in the number of searches for offensive weapons, as opposed to other stop and searches, which tend to be drug-related. We need to investigate statistics and use them wisely, to make sure we are reaching the right conclusions.
I want to highlight a couple of policies that we are introducing that I have been particularly impacted by. I have had the honour in the last four weeks of being Policing Minister of attending two police raids where we arrested some nasty criminals. I am very proud of our police for what they did. The first involved a huge gang network in London that was taking stolen phones and selling them to China and Hong Kong. This huge operation undertaken by the Met has taken out a gang that is responsible for up to half of all the phone thefts in London, which is quite extraordinary.
The second involved county lines, which the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) talked about. We took off the streets a nasty, violent criminal who has been running a county line. We are investing significantly in police resources for county lines because the connection between knife crime and drugs is clear. In the areas where we have invested and supported the police in tackling county lines, there has been a 23% reduction in stabbings. Focused policing works, and it is absolutely the right way to go.
We are also changing the law to help the police to tackle county lines. We have three new offences: child criminal exploitation, cuckooing, and plugging, which is—I do not really like to speak of it—when people are forced to put drugs inside themselves to hide them from the police. It is increasingly used with children and we need to stop that. There is some evidence of our intervention in county lines having an effect: the age of those exploited is rising because the criminals have realised that we will come for them if they exploit children. That is a good thing, but the criminals will try to find other vulnerable people to exploit, so we need to keep on top of that.
I am aware of the time, but there was a lot of talk about sentencing. I agree that we need to make sure that sentencing acts as a deterrent and that it needs to be swift, clear and consistent. We inherited a situation where around 1,000 young people a year caught in possession of a knife received no meaningful intervention. That cannot be right. We are changing that rule and introducing sentences around knife crime that will ensure that people are given the right punishment. We are not abolishing short sentences—I need to be really clear about that. Judges will always have that power.
I am paying close attention to a new policy in Thames Valley, where if a person under 18 is caught in possession of a knife, they are referred to a youth offending team for interventions, and over-18s are remanded straight away, before they are charged. There is evidence that that is starting to have an effect. We need to watch that and make sure that we are following the evidence in terms of sentencing, but it is a reasonable point to make.
I am aware that I need to give the hon. Member for Ashfield time to respond. There are many more things I could say. I have not responded to his points on migration, but I can talk to him afterwards. I have some things to say, but I know that he needs a couple of minutes to respond. I would like to finish by saying that this Government’s mantra is “Action, not words”. I absolutely support the police in what they are trying to do. I will ensure that we reduce knife crime. It is the mission of this Government to do so.
Lee Anderson
Thank you, Ms McVey, for the way you handled the unruly situation early on with great dignity. I would like to give a special mention to Sir David Amess. The last time I spoke to Sir David was in this room, when he chaired a debate just over four years ago. I thank everybody for turning up today and for their contributions. I agreed with a lot of most of them.
The Lib Dem spokesman spoke about the time when I supported the Conservative Government’s cuts to the police force. I gently remind him that I was not in the Conservative party at that time—he might want to take that away. I am a little bit encouraged by what the Minister had to say. I thank Adam Brooks and Norman Brennan, who are in the Public Gallery today. They set up an online petition to bring this debate to Parliament and asked me to sign it. I said, “No, I’m not signing it—I’m going to apply for a debate in Westminster Hall.” If the Lib Dem spokesman wants to speak to a retired police officer and a gentleman whose family was affected brutally by knife crime, he is welcome to do so after this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of knife crime.
Community Helipads: Rural Access
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to community helipads in rural areas.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am delighted to be speaking on an issue that impacts not just my constituents, but pretty well the whole of rural Britain.
I spoke in this Chamber earlier this year during the debate secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on coastguard helicopter services. At that time, I pointed out that search and rescue helicopters are an extremely valued facility; I think everybody who has had any dealings with them would respect the quality of people involved. I have personal gratitude to them, because my wife was going along a ridge and fell off and was scraped up by Arrochar mountain rescue team and flown to Glasgow hospital, where they fixed her up—which was good news, she tells me. In addition, my father was involved in the Glencoe mountain rescue team for the whole of my youth. He said the search and rescue helicopters were probably the biggest positive change for saving people’s lives in the mountains, so this is a very important debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Representing a rural community, I, like him, understand how important this is. We are very blessed to have an air ambulance available for our communities in Strangford and Northern Ireland. It truly has been the difference between life and death for so many. However, there is a definite issue with safely landing and taking off. Does he agree that there must be access for that purpose alone? It is sometimes possible to land near where an accident takes place, but they must also be sure not to interfere with telephone lines or traffic, and safety must be paramount.
Mr MacDonald
The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. Safety is at the bottom of it all, but I will be talking about over-safety in one particular instance.
I am always pleased to recognise the dedication of the helicopter crews, but there is one specific case I want to talk about, in Portree on the Isle of Skye. The Portree and Braes Community Trust manage the helipad, not NHS Highland or anybody else. The helipad is a community venture; the trust raised the money and built it. It was set up 30 years ago and has been refurbished in conjunction with the coastguard, NHS Highland and other bodies, so it is very much an approved helipad. The ambulance can drive right up beside it; there are lights that can be turned on from the helicopter; it has windsocks; it is fenced off; it has special paint demarking the H—it has every facility one could want from a helipad.
Despite that, members of the community trust tell me that the helicopter is not allowed to land on that H. It has to land on the boggy, wet hillside beside it. It is not allowed to use that helipad. That sounds quite extraordinary; I am sure everybody here is wondering why, so let me inform them. The aviation regulations have been updated, meaning that the helipad is no longer functioning for search and rescue. It is being used by air ambulance and other helicopters, but not by the Bristow search and rescue helicopters. Understandably, that is causing a lot of confusion and irritation for mountain rescue, the community trust and the wider Portree community.
What is behind this? In March 2022, a lady attending an appointment at Derriford hospital in Devon was knocked over by a downwash from a helicopter and died tragically from a head injury shortly thereafter. Following that tragic incident, safety guidance was tightened—but in practice the new approach has gone too far, and has created a fear of litigation rather than a focus on safety.
In April 2024, the Civil Aviation Authority published the third edition of its guidelines, “CAP1264: Standards for helicopter landing areas at hospitals”, which some Members may have read. In August 2024, following the CAA’s publication, Bristow helicopters undertook a thorough review of all helicopter landing sites and helipads that may be used for hospital purposes, to assess their compliance. The review highlighted that the majority of those sites were not compliant with the new guidance, and so Bristow withdrew from operating on the non-compliant helipads. Out of fear of litigation after the Derriford tragedy, Bristow insists that it needs legal authority to operate from sites that are not CAP1264 compliant. The problem is not the quality of Portree helipad; it is the red tape around liability and the ownership of risk.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue. His situation is not unique; we have a similar one in the Western Isles, at the Stornoway hospital. The Scottish air ambulance helicopter is perfectly free to land at the hospital helipad, but the health board has had to set up an alternative site for the search and rescue helicopter, some distance from the hospital. It should not be beyond the wit of Government or legality to close that gap, by giving a derogation and some assurance to the search and rescue operators—currently Bristow—that they will be able to land at designated helipads for hospitals, not just in Portree and Stornoway, but across Scotland, where I understand that this problem affects some 23 sites. It would be good if the Minister could find a way of bringing two helipads into one space.
Mr MacDonald
The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head, as usual. I have met all the interested parties, apart from the Health and Safety Executive, which we will come back to. The CAA has made it clear that the new guidance does not prevent Bristow helicopters from landing in Portree. Its guidance is non-mandatory. In any case, helicopter operators can land anywhere if they carry out what is known as a dynamic risk assessment, a real-time safety judgment that allows them to land wherever conditions permit and it is deemed necessary to do so.
One would think that clarification was a cover-all, but the Health and Safety Executive’s rules have led to an overly heavy-handed approach. It now treats every landing site as a shared workplace—those are the key words. It is piling on paperwork and bureaucracy. By contrast, a boggy hillside or the King George V play area in Portree are not shared workplaces, so Bristow can land at such sites. That is ridiculous; Bristow is not allowed to use a helipad, but it is allowed to land in a play area, which it does occasionally.
I ask the Minister to consider whether there is a problem of health and safety over-regulation. The coastguard, Bristow Helicopters, the CAA and the Department of Transport all have a responsibility to make sure that whatever actions they take in the name of health and safety do not hinder helipad sites. I know that the CAA does not wish for its guidance to close helipads; that is why it did not make its guidance mandatory. That was also the sentiment of the family of the Derriford victim, who agreed that they did not want the CAA’s guidance to negatively impact helicopters’ being able to land and pick up people.
I have a brief anecdote, which is true—a real incident in Portree recently. A woman was suffering from a suspected heart attack. An ambulance was called and took her to the bit of land adjacent to the helipad. The ambulance crew could not get a wheelchair or stretcher to take her to the helicopter. Instead, despite thinking that she was having a heart attack, she had to walk across the boggy ground to get to the helicopter. She could have taken the ambulance right to the helipad, but that was not available, so she had to walk across a very rough bit of ground—I have done that walk myself. One could not make it up.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this important debate. South Western Ambulance Service covers 10,000 square miles. However, due to the large rural areas in the region—different from, but similar to those in his constituency—the response times are three times slower than the NHS target. Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance, which is based in Henstridge in my constituency, provides a vital service to support the ambulance service. They carry out 3,000 missions a year, covering the isolated rural and coastal areas where demand is highest. Does he recognise, as I do, the importance of helipads in rural areas, which enable the air ambulance crews to get to isolated areas, so that they can provide exceptional care and get severely injured patients to hospitals within the crucial golden hour after an incident?
Mr MacDonald
I thank my hon. Friend very much. I do not think that many people in urban Britain know how important the ambulance services are to remote and rural areas, so her point is bang-on.
Had that lady in Portree had a heart attack while walking to that helicopter, would we not all be shouting at the Health and Safety Executive, asking, “Why wouldn’t you allow the use of the purpose-built helipad?” We would all be saying that. We would have had another Derriford-type inquiry, because a helicopter landed on a boggy hillside rather than on the perfect helipad on the other side of the fence.
I hope that I have articulated the reason behind my application for this debate, which was to shine a light on what I consider to be a bewildering anomaly of over-regulation. I have great respect for the CAA, the coastguard, Bristow and the Department for Transport, all of which have been incredibly responsible and helpful. However, I ask the Minister to meet me in person to discuss in more detail the issue that I have raised today, so that, hopefully, we can move to a position where it is resolved once and for all.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I want to use this opportunity to beg a favour of him, although I appreciate that the issue I want to address might not be the responsibility of this Minister. My hon. Friend has rightly highlighted the issue of the collection of patients. However, there is also the issue of the delivery of patients. Far too many hospital helipads do not operate 24 hours a day, especially at children’s specialist trauma hospitals, which results in helicopters having to land elsewhere before the patient is moved by ambulance. If he meets the Minister, can he also press the Department of Health to properly fund 24-hour helipads at specialist children’s hospitals?
Mr MacDonald
I thank my hon. Friend. That is a point I did not know, but I will certainly bring it up should I get a meeting.
Rescue helicopters are vital for rural communities, as are organisations such as mountain rescue, which are voluntarily staffed. It is imperative that we do not over-legislate and create red tape that hampers the amazing work that these crews carry out right across the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I offer my congratulations and thanks to the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) for bringing this debate to the House and allowing what has been a very useful discussion.
I begin by acknowledging the vital role played by air ambulances and search-and-rescue helicopters in saving lives. Across the United Kingdom there are 21 air ambulance charities, covering all regions of the country by air and also, often, by land in rapid response vehicles. In Scotland, the Scottish Ambulance Service, funded by the Scottish Government, helps to convey patients to hospital from some of the most remote areas of the United Kingdom. Some of those areas are represented here this morning.
As the hon. Member highlighted from his own family’s experiences—I hope his wife is recovering—these dedicated teams serve communities across the UK day and night and often in really challenging conditions, providing lifesaving care when it is needed most and delivering patients directly to major trauma centres and other specialist medical facilities. It is not only air ambulances that save lives. Bristow Helicopters operates a dedicated fleet of search-and-rescue helicopters on behalf of His Majesty’s Coastguard. From 10 bases, stretching from Newquay in the south-west to Sumburgh in the Shetland Islands, these crews stand ready to respond in order to save lives at sea and on land. When capacity allows, they also support the NHS to ensure that patients receive lifesaving care when air ambulances are unable to operate—for example, in particularly bad weather. I thank all members of our air ambulance and search-and-rescue teams for their continuing commitment to saving lives.
In more remote regions, such as the highlands and islands of Scotland, air ambulance aircraft play a crucial role in transferring patients from smaller hospitals to specialist centres. These operations may be supported by HM Coastguard search-and-rescue air assets when capacity allows and when air ambulances are unavailable or where conditions are beyond the capabilities of smaller air ambulances. Working hand in hand with NHS colleagues, these teams ensure that patients receive the highest standards of care swiftly and efficiently, no matter the distance or challenge.
However, this vital service depends on the availability of helicopter landing sites that helicopter operators are able and willing to use. These landing sites range from helipads and airfields to community spaces, playing fields and car parks, most of which require patients to be transported to and from them by land ambulance. Currently, the CAA does not formally regulate any of these helipads or landing sites. Although the CAA has best practice guidance—as the hon. Member highlighted—for hospital helipads, known as CAP 1264, it is not mandatory guidance. Helicopter operators can face unique challenges at these sites, including questions about legal responsibility for site safety and ensuring that there are no obstructions or bystanders who could be harmed by the powerful winds or downdraughts generated by a helicopter landing or taking off. As the hon. Member set out, that was made evident in 2022, when the downdraught produced by a search-and-rescue helicopter fatally injured one bystander, and seriously injured another, while it was arriving at Derriford hospital in Plymouth.
Following that incident, HM Coastguard helicopters took the decision that they will transfer patients using helipads only where there is clear responsibility and accountability for safety at the site, as well as a helicopter operations manual that manages known risks. When those safety requirements are satisfied, ultimately it is still the decision of the pilot in command of a helicopter to make a dynamic risk assessment of landing at a particular site, based on the company’s standard operating procedures, safety management systems, weather conditions, and the situation on the ground on the day—these are professionals who can make such judgments.
The Department for Transport continues to work with NHS Scotland, His Majesty’s Coastguard and helicopter operators to encourage all parties to work together to ensure safety at landing sites. I completely understand the frustration of the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire on behalf of his constituent; he described the situation where his constituent had to be transported to a boggy field rather than a helipad. I understand why he has asked about the role of the Health and Safety Executive, which is investigating the Derriford situation.
It would not be right for me to comment on or seek to intervene in a live investigation—the HSE is not responsible to the Department for Transport in any case—but my officials are working closely with the coastguard, the CAA, the NHS, and HEMS operators, as well as consulting with HSE to understand the concerns and ensure that operators can continue to fly into hospital helipads safely. But the decision about whether to land at any particular site is always at the discretion of the pilot in command.
As the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire set out, at the moment coastguard helicopters are not landing at Portree because they will only land at sites where they know who is responsible and accountable for safety, and where there is a helicopter operations manual to help ensure safe operations. If someone from Portree and Braes Community Trust or NHS Scotland is willing to take responsibility for the site and produce a helicopter operations manual, the coastguard and the helicopter operator will consider landing at the site. I appreciate that this sounds like a huge undertaking, but it is worth saying that the site at Portree is not wholly dissimilar to the site at Arran, where the helicopter operating manual, which sounds like it might be a weighty tome, is only four pages long. It sets out a responsible person and the operations. The manuals can be 60 pages long—it depends on the complexity of the site and how busy it is. There is potentially a way forward, and the hon. Member knows that the Department will work with him and others to help find a solution.
The Government recognise the crucial role that helicopter landing sites in rural areas, especially in the far north of Scotland, play in ensuring that local residents and visitors can access the highest possible standards of healthcare in an emergency. We are also cognisant of the potential risks to bystanders, ground staff and aircraft crew and patients when such sites are not properly managed and lack sufficient oversight.
Since the Derriford incident, the Government have taken on a collaborative role with the blue-light aviation sector, and we remain committed to working together with all parties as one team to explore solutions that are capable of both advancing safety and safeguarding the provision of this lifeline service. I am sure that the Department and ministerial colleagues will be happy to work with the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire to look at the detail of this particular case and see if we can assist.
Sarah Dyke
I also want to celebrate and thank all ambulance crews, as well as everybody working in the NHS, for the brilliant work they do providing this service. Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. Since its first mission in 2000, the team has responded to 29,000 missions—an average of eight missions a day— and each mission costs around £3,500.
As well as celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance, does the Minister recognise the vital service our air ambulances provide, as well as the work they do to provide rural services? Will she help me to secure and protect those services for the future?
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight the work of Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance. I add my congratulations on their 25-year anniversary. It is clear that they have made a huge impact not just on the local community, but for the many visitors to that area. I am sure we all want to see the continuation of these vital services, which matter to so many people across this country and share a commitment to work together, where there are any issues, to ensure those services can continue. I have enjoyed today’s debate, and look forward to continuing these discussions on another occasion.
Question put and agreed to.
Educational Assessment System Reform
(1 day, 9 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
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered reforming the educational assessment system.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Over the summer, another cohort of young people finished their exams, marking the end of a period that left many feeling overwhelmed, anxious or uncertain about the future. Young people are growing up at the sharp end of so many challenges. We can see that reflected in recent figures from NHS England: one in four young people are struggling with their mental health, and the number of 16 to 24-year-olds with a common mental health condition is up by more than a third in a decade.
We face an unprecedented a youth mental health crisis. I am proud to sit behind a Labour Government that recognise the scale of the challenge. Almost 1 million more pupils will have access to school-based mental health support this year, and 6,700 additional mental health workers have been recruited since last July. But we cannot ignore the impact that the exam system is having on children and young people’s mental health. We must go further.
Paddy, a YoungMinds activist, gave a striking account of his A-level experience. He said that:
“From the start of Year 13,1 found it difficult to think about anything other than exams. At school, I would hardly eat anything, as I was so focussed on studying. The exams massively heightened my OCD. It seemed to know these exams were incredibly important to me, and it went on the attack. The peak was the night before one exam, when I had a complete breakdown and could not stop crying. The pressure was enormous, and I felt like I was drowning in the sea of pressure. Two years after finishing my exams, I still have nightmares about them, imagining I’m back in the exam hall.”
Paddy’s experience is not an isolated example. Research from the YoungMinds Missing the Mark campaign reveals the profound impact that exams are having on children and young people. Over 60% of GCSE and A-level students struggled to cope during exam season, with many experiencing panic attacks, or even suicidal thoughts and self-harm, and taking time off school. At just 11 years old, year 6 pupils said that their SATS made them question their abilities for the first time in their lives, losing confidence and missing out on sleep as a result.
Let me be clear: I am not making an anti-exams argument. Exams help to level the playing field, and there will always be a place for them. But there is a clear imbalance in the system. Young people are simply sitting too many exams in a concentrated timeframe that puts unacceptable pressure on pupils and teachers alike. Reforms to GCSEs over the last decade have led to an eight-hour increase in exam time, with end-of-course exams nearly all taken over a period of six weeks in a single summer term. Sixteen-year-olds in England spend approximately 31.5 hours sitting their GCSE exams. Compare that to Victoria in Australia, where students in low secondary sit around four hours of centralised exams; in Alberta in Canada it is 10 hours, in Poland it is 12, and in the Republic of Ireland it is 16.
I argue that we are now seeing the fallout of those changes: a much less flexible system that is contributing to a deepening mental health crisis. Eight in 10 education leaders surveyed by the Association of School and College Leaders said that reformed GCSEs had created greater levels of stress and anxiety among their students.
The current system is not just damaging to wellbeing; it is failing to effectively assess the skills that young people need today. A focus on memory recall is pushing educators to teach to the test, covering content at pace at the expense of developing a depth of understanding.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he has tirelessly championed young people and their mental health since entering Parliament. Over the summer I held a number of workshops with young people and families with special educational needs, as well as schools, to understand their concerns about the ways the current system is failing young people. If the Government are to succeed in their worthy ambition of delivering more inclusive mainstream education—which we know is in every young person’s best interest, if we can deliver it well—would he agree that it is vital that we get our reforms to assessment right, and speak to it in an integrated way, to ensure that every young person can be set up to succeed and thrive at school?
Josh Dean
I could not agree more with the point my hon. Friend makes. I held a number of roundtables with parents and carers in my constituency over the summer as well. We were discussing the SEN challenges we face in Hertfordshire. At every session I held, parents and carers talked about the inflexibility of the system. Getting the reforms right to ensure that the system provides that flexibility and caters for all students could not be more important.
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that, because everything we have talked about so far disproportionately impacts the most disadvantaged. Schools in the most deprived areas spend more time preparing for SATs; 76% of children with SEND do not reach the expected standards at the end of year 6, which rises to 91% of pupils with an education, health and care plan. Students with a history of poor mental health are at particular risk, which is even more acute for care-experienced young people, given the prevalence of mental health conditions in that group. Young people deserve a fairer, more balanced approach to assessment, where wellbeing and academic success are not at odds with one another.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on his speech. Does he agree that it is an unacceptable feature of our education system that around a third of young people leave school without a recognised qualification, a grade 4 in English or maths? For many of those young people, the way that the system treats resits traps them in a cycle of demoralising continuous failure, just at the point when they should be discovering their passion—the thing they are good at—and should be preparing to get new qualifications and succeed in life? Does he agree that we need urgent work to stop that cycle of failure both upstream in schools and in post-16 education?
Josh Dean
Again, I could not agree more. Being trapped in that cycle of failure leaves a mark on young people. We want young people to leave school ready for work and life, and to thrive with confidence. A system that grinds them down cannot be correct. I could not agree more on the point of post-16. I have had a number of conversations about that over recent weeks. That is an area that desperately needs reform, so that we get our young people ready to thrive in life.
The independent curriculum and assessment review offers a vital opportunity to tackle that injustice and one of the upstream drivers of the youth mental health crisis, and build a system fit for the 21st century. No 11-year-old child should feel bad about themselves because of exams. SATs are used to rank the performance of schools; they are not supporting children’s learning.
Timed tests over four days in year 6 are neither a reliable way to capture a pupil’s knowledge and abilities, nor a way to monitor school standards. Assessment should support a pupil’s learning and be clearly separated from school performance metrics, because placing the burden of accountability on children at such a formative age cannot be right.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is giving a powerful account of the inadequacy of SATs. Does he agree that the fact that so many secondary schools retest their pupils when they arrive shows that they do not have trust in SATs either?
Josh Dean
I cannot remember the numbers off the top of my head, but my hon. Friend is right to highlight the number of secondary schools that retest students because of the lack of reliance and belief that SATs accurately measure their ability. We urgently need to rethink our approach to assessment at the primary level, and all options should be on the table. I would be grateful if the Minister could address the concern around SATs in her response, and confirm the Department’s commitment to addressing them when the curriculum and assessment review concludes.
We need to rebalance the system, reducing the dominance of high-stakes, end-of-course exams for GCSE and A-level students. A diversification of assessment methods could reduce pressure on young people, allowing them to showcase a broader range of strengths and better prepare them for life after school. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the Department would implement such an approach, should it be recommended in the independent curriculum and assessment review’s final report.
Moving away from reliance on traditional exams and reducing the volume of exams that young people sit does not mean sacrificing rigour, as set out in Cambridge OCR’s “Striking the balance” report. It concluded that the overall volume of exams can be reduced without impacting the reliability of grades, and that greater consideration should be given to non-exam assessments. A well-designed, modular, multimodal system could be equally robust and offer fairer, more balanced ways to measure achievement. Universities across the country already do that to great effect and could offer a model to learn from for our school system.
More widely, a whole-school approach is essential to supporting children and young people’s mental health. An assessment system that balances wellbeing and academic success would be complemented by a curriculum, teaching and learning approach that promotes resilience and supports social and emotional learning. Will the Minister confirm that wellbeing will be a central focus in the Department’s approach when it comes to implementing the findings of the independent curriculum and assessment review and more generally?
I am under no illusions that reform of the assessment system is a silver bullet to resolve the youth mental health crisis. Young people sit at the intersection of many complicated challenges, and this must be part of a wider piece of work to support them. I recognise that it will take time and will need to be phased in, to avoid overwhelming the education system, in consultation with our educators. But children and young people are experts in their experiences. When they tell us something is wrong, it is our responsibility in this House to listen and act accordingly, not decide that we know better.
The last major reform of the assessment system took place a decade ago. We cannot miss this opportunity to get it right for young people. They need us to embrace ambitious reform now, not in another 10 years, to help tackle the youth mental health crisis and deliver a lasting assessment system that supports their wellbeing and their academic success and better prepares them for work and life.
Several hon. Members rose—
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Order. We will have to limit contributions to three and a half minutes.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this hugely important debate and for the way he highlighted the mental health impact of exams on children and young people.
I have been contacted by further education lecturers in my constituency who are increasingly worried about the strain that the current assessment system places on both staff and students. Each year, young people are required to resit GCSE English and maths, often several times, even when they have shown real ability in their chosen vocational courses. Many of these students are capable, hard-working and determined, yet they are being judged on a single written exam that often bears little relation to the skills they will need for work or further study.
Those with learning difficulties, other disabilities or complex personal circumstances are particularly disadvantaged by this one-size-fits-all approach. As someone who worked as a university lecturer for many years before being elected to this place, I have seen how different students learn and demonstrate knowledge in very different ways, and the current model leaves too little room for that individuality.
Our local colleges work tirelessly to support our young people, often with fewer resources, larger class sizes and lower pay than schools. The pressure this creates for both students and staff is enormous, and it is clear that the current GCSE resit system is not giving young people the time or tailored support they need to succeed. We should be exploring fairer, more flexible ways for students to demonstrate their progress, such as modular assessments, more coursework or improved functional skills routes that focus on practical communication and literacy.
Too many young people are being held back by a system that measures only a narrow kind of success. Assessment is important, but it should be formative, build confidence and open up opportunity, helping every learner to move forward rather than leaving them stuck in a place. An overview of the assessment system is needed so that every student in Stratford-on-Avon and across the country can develop their skills and unlock their potential.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. Ours is a one-size-fits-all system, and it should not be, because one size does not fit all. That was certainly the message I took loud and clear from the SEND roundtable that I hosted in Corby and East Northamptonshire when we brought parents, schools and others together.
SATs measure a school’s performance; they do not measure a child’s potential. The numbers speak for themselves: 56% of 10 and 11-year-olds say that SATs were the first time that they really worried about their abilities, 35% said that SATs made them feel ill, and 28% said that SATs made them feel bad about themselves. Let us be honest: exams are damaging young people’s mental health.
We are one of the most over-assessed countries in the world. In Finland they do not assess at all until 16, but their children still learn and their teachers are still trusted. If we are to have primary school assessment, there must be much lower stakes. High stakes exams are not the only way to see what a child can do. We need to put trust back into our teaching professionals. They know their pupils best—they see them learn, grow and shine every single day. I welcome the Government’s ambition to move from half of young people going to university to two-thirds going on to either university or an apprenticeship. That is the right direction. Not all are good at exams. I went down the apprenticeship route, and I know first hand that there are many routes to success.
Too often, our system tells young people that they have failed—“How did you get on in that exam?”, “I failed”—but that is not the way we should be doing it. Children might struggle through SATs, GCSEs and endless English and maths resits, yet once they get to work they start to thrive. That is not their fault; that is the system we have built. Our system risks teachers teaching for the test not for the child, and the whole of year 6 gets wiped out because of SATs.
I have heard children turning down opportunities for things like sport, or for time with their friends, because they say they need to study for their SATs. Clearly that is not right. Ten-year-olds should be outside playing, not losing sleep over league tables. I am looking forward to the full conclusion of the curriculum and assessment review, and I hope it is radical because tinkering at the edges will not do. We need an education system that lifts children up, not one that weighs them down, and one that measures potential, not pressure. It is time to build a system that helps every child to find their path, their purpose and, most importantly, their pride.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. Assessment in education is obviously one of the most important aspects of what we do in education. It gives children a chance to show what they have learned, what they can do, and we want that to be stretching, but also to be fair. Anything that measures our attainment is inherently somewhat stressful. We also want to prepare children for adult life, and part of that is learning to deal with stress and to make it work in a positive direction.
We obviously do not want exams to be overly stressful, and I commend the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for his work on mental health. He poses this as a mental health question, and it is true that there is an upward trend in mental ill health in children in this country and, by the way, in most other countries in the developed world, although they do not all have the same exam system as us. France and the United States have very different exam systems, with one largely a terminal exam system and the other not, but we see a pattern that is essentially the same.
A linear study and terminal exams give us some important things. They give us consistency, transparency, and comparability across the country. Because the exams come at the end we can synthesise knowledge, so it is not just a test of what someone happens to have learned for a test, but it is putting together different aspects of knowledge. It is not just one big exam. First, there are seven, eight, nine or 10 subjects, and typically two papers and multiple formats—multiple choice, short-form open questions, essay questions, orals and practicals in different subjects. Ironically, if we reduce the number of papers we would increase the high-stakes nature of tests that come at the end of study. It is possible that if we had continuous assessments, we might not get rid of stress but just stretch it out over a longer period because, as I said, any assessment inherently has some stress attached.
Let me talk briefly about younger children, because that issue is different. SATs are not public exams, and no child should ever be put under pressure coming up to SATs. SATs are a measure of schools, not pupils—I promise that when someone applies for a job or university in adult life, nobody will ever ask them what they got in their SATs. That is not what they are for. The biggest effect that they could have is what set a child gets into in year 7. But ironically, as the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) said, schools do that anyway. Even if we got rid of a high-stakes assessment at the end of year 6, there would still be one in year 7. I repeat that no child should be put under pressure about SATs. That is not their purpose.
I wanted to say a lot, but that is not going to happen in three and a half minutes. I briefly ask the Minister to confirm that Progress 8 is coming back. We have not been able to do Progress 8 for a couple of years because of covid and not having a baseline, but it is by far the better measure—much better than contextual value added or a raw score. Please will the Minister confirm that the Government are not looking at getting rid of handwritten exams done in exam conditions? Those are the best way to guarantee security of assessment and to ensure that handwriting development continues apace.
We should have an open mind on resits. The point about the policy is not to have more people sitting exams but to carry on studying English and maths. That in itself is a good objective, but we should be open about how it is achieved.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) on securing today’s debate.
The assessment system is so broken that it is breaking our young people. It shows that those who can pass exams do well and those who cannot do not do so well. It assesses what people cannot recall or pull together as opposed to emphasising their strengths and building on their knowledge base, skills and talents. I have long researched this issue and believe it is time for the Government to be bold and welcome this review. The level of mental health issues, stress, trauma and anxiety among our young people is unsustainable. We have to change course. That is why I support the recommendation to scrap the SATs assessments, which place such pressure on our young people.
There are other forms of assessment that can continue to map a child’s journey. Assessment should be a continual process for educators, to stretch their pupils and ensure that students can move on to the next stage of their learning. That is what we should do: enable teachers to use their professional skills to maximise a child’s learning journey, stretch their creativity and give them a hunger to explore curiosity and critical thinking—the skills that are so needed in our economy today and which employers often say are so lacking among new starters.
Every child learns differently so the way they are assessed should reflect that diversity so that the fullness of their learning journey can be reflected in the assessments. I hope that we adopt a much more comprehensive form of assessment, in which we look at the diversity of how children express themselves. That should also be ongoing: people who can cram for exams have an advantage over those who process information and apply skills in very different ways. I say again in this Chamber that I recommend listening to the work of Sir Ken Robinson, which highlights how the education and assessment system must change.
Scrap the SATs. We do not need them in our education system. It is not right that young children should be so stressed. I have a challenge for the Government around GCSEs, given that children do not leave school any more. We need to think about how we prepare our young people for the next stages of life, showing that they have proficiency in their learning and encouraging children to stay with and enjoy their learning. If we are to prepare people for the rest of their lives, when they will not continue to sit exams, let us think about portfolios of assignments—learning journals and project work that reflects the reality of the society that we live in. Let us enable people to have those portfolios that they can use as evidence. That would involve the skills needed and mean we could assess better through a modulated system.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this debate.
With severe attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and dyslexia, I struggled at school and hated exams. The current system of exam-based learning has a role to play in higher education, but it is far from perfect. Today I will focus on the changes we can make to the assessment system so that it is fairer on neurodiverse students because there is an attainment gap. The British Dyslexia Association found that in the 2023-24 academic year, just two in 10 students with special educational needs achieved a grade 5 or above in English and maths GCSE, compared with over half the students without SEND—that is an attainment gap of over 30%. Current assessments, such as GCSEs, are focused on an intense number of written exams, which favour good memory recall, fluent reading and writing and correct spelling in a high-pressure, timed environment.
When someone’s strength lies in creative thinking, problem solving or practical or artistic work, then exams are not testing or rewarding for their strengths. While assistive technologies can make a huge difference, they are not available for too many neurodiverse people. The BDA found that only one in five dyslexic pupils say they have access to assistive technology at school—that is shocking. The bigger problem is that too many neurodiverse kids do not have their needs identified at all. I come back to to dyslexia: 80% of dyslexics will leave school without their needs formally identified—unless, of course, they are lucky enough to come from a high income family, as 90% of children from households earning over £100,000 have a formal diagnosis, according to the BDA. That is just not fair. The result is not just an attainment gap, but damage to mental health. Seven in 10 people with dyslexia say it has made them feel bad about themselves—I know that all too well. Nearly eight in 10 say people assume they are not clever.
I have a list of demands for the Minister today—and they are demands, because things as they stand really are not good enough. One, identify and support needs for early universal screening and better teacher training on neurodivergence. I have written to the Minister to ask for a meeting on that and I am still waiting to hear back. Two, reduce the intensity and number of exams and have more coursework or continuous assessments where possible. Three, introduce and properly invest in more vocational and functional pathways. Yeovil college in my constituency is fantastic at that. Four, invest in access to assistive technologies and integrate it into teacher training and testing as early as possible. Five, get a designated mental health professional in every school who is trained to support SEND children with anxiety at school. Finally, look at removing spelling, punctuation, and grammar marks from non-English exams.
As listeners can tell, I struggle even reading my own speech. People are struggling on a daily basis and we need that support. If we act on this, we can finally move towards an education system that teaches and tests for the strengths in all of us. Surely that can only be a good thing.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this crucial debate.
Teachers and parents alike tell me the same thing: there is too much pressure and not enough time to focus on children as people. We all want an assessment system that raises standards and helps children reach their full potential. Right now, the pressure it creates is doing the opposite. It is piling stress on pupils, parents and teachers, affecting confidence, wellbeing and learning and leaving too many children feeling like they are being judged and not supported. Too often schools feel like a conveyor belt, moving children along whether or not they are ready and sorting them by how well they cope—not by what they can do.
Our current system focuses on what children know without fully understanding what helps them learn. If we want to improve attainment, we have to look at the emotional, social and behavioural foundations that sit underneath it. When a child feels safe, calm and supported, they achieve more. That is what Nurture UK has been showing for over 50 years. It works with schools across the country helping teachers to assess and support children’s social and emotional development through tools such as the Boxall Profile assessment tool and interventions based on the six principles of nurture. These are rooted in the importance of supporting children to build secure attachments as a basis for lasting resilience and happiness in school. It is a low-cost, evidence-based way for schools to understand how pupils are coping and step in early when they need to.
Schools that embed nurture approaches see improved attendance, better behaviour, fewer exclusions and stronger progress. Just ask James Roach, CEO of the Inclusive Multi Academy Trust, who says that
“the impact of this approach is evident in the significant improvements we’ve seen in attendance, behaviour, and a reduction in exclusions.”
It is a simple truth: when we invest in children’s emotional and social wellbeing, academic outcomes rise. That is what we should be building into assessment reform. Through my work as chair of the inclusion and nurture in education all-party parliamentary group, I am working closely with Nurture UK, the charity leading this work, to explore how we can make these approaches part of everyday practice in schools. If we want higher standards, we need to give every child the right conditions to meet them. Emotional and social development should be recognised as part of learning, not left to chance.
I have three asks for the Minister. The first is to make sure that schools can assess pupils’ social and emotional development alongside their academic progress so that we understand what is helping or holding back learning. The second is to strengthen support around exams and results. Those moments can be overwhelming, so pupils need guidance and reassurance to get through them. The third is to protect the classroom and make it a safe and stable place, especially during times of pressure. Teachers need time, training and trust to nurture as well as teach. These are simple, practical steps that would lift wellbeing and achievement. If we get this right, we will have a system that works for children, parents and teachers—one that finally gives every child the space to do their best and thrive.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this debate and for the personal story he told. That always helps us to focus on where we are and where we need to be.
The issue of educational assessment affects every single constituency within this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As every parent, grandparent and teacher knows, exam times are stressful, whether that stress comes from knowing that their child is not studying at all, thinking that they are studying too much, knowing that they are stressed out themselves or worrying that they will not reach their potential. All of it seems incredibly stressful and worrisome. I can still remember the advice that my mother gave to me—wee wise woman that she is, now 94 years of age—“Do your best, work hard and leave the rest to God.” I think that is where we all want to be. It did not do me any harm in my life.
At exam results time in my constituency, I always strive to tell my story. I am the MP for Strangford. I did my GCSEs; I did not do A-levels. The path to success does not always have to be academic. I say that with great respect to those who decide to go that way—I am not against that. It is about making sure that everyone has a chance. I know many businessmen and women who left school at 16 and are multimillionaires. Hard work and good character are their qualifications. My point is that people can achieve their goals in other ways. Exams are not the be-all and end-all. However, they are undoubtedly part of life, and rightly so. Any teacher will tell us that assessment is needed to ensure that a child is getting the help they need and understanding the things they need to.
We are all aware that there are more children with differing needs, and they may well require different assessments. Official stats show a significant rise in autism diagnoses among school-aged children, with the prevalence rate in Northern Ireland increasing from approximately 1.2% in 2009 to 5.8%. However, we know that a diagnosis of autism is an indication not of the level of intelligence, but that a different approach is needed to get the best from that child. That is the way to do it. It does not mean that they are less able; it just means that we need to do it a different way. That is what we need to look at: how do we tailor educational assessment to the large range of needs that mainstream education is dealing with? I believe that that begins with support for teachers in lesson planning to ensure that they can reach a full class that may have a range of very different needs.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford raised some points about assessments being changed, but I believe that our entire approach needs to change. We need an approach that values vocational callings as well as academic ones, and in which children feel that they succeed not because they managed to pass maths, but because they learned their skills well—a system in which academic children can thrive and hands-on learning can be equal.
That will not come by changing exam structures, but by changing the system of education from the ground up. I know that it is the desire of teachers throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to help children to achieve their best, find job fulfilment and be confident in their strengths. I look to my grandchildren—I have six of them, from the age of three to 16—and know that their futures, in each of their own unique ways, are bright. We need an education system that facilitates those ways. That is the change we all need to achieve.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this important debate. I also thank the charity YoungMinds for its hard work and dedication to supporting young people’s mental health and wellbeing. I had the privilege of meeting its representatives at the Labour party conference, having previously attended its Missing the Mark event here in Parliament.
It has become clear to me, especially since becoming an MP, how frequently mental health issues appear across many different areas of policy, and how poor mental health in childhood can have knock-on effects on a young person’s future life chances. The impact that school assessments have on the future of our children should not be underestimated. I look forward to considering the upcoming schools White Paper to see how we can implement the changes we need to help our children.
In my constituency of Wolverhampton West, I hear time and again from parents and teachers about the need for improved SEND support. Almost 20% of pupils in our schools have identified special educational needs, and reports indicate that special educational needs are most prevalent in pupils as young as nine years old. Some 96% of headteachers have expressed concern that SATs have a negative impact on the wellbeing of their pupils. Is it not therefore time to consider whether we actually need these exams for our children? At secondary school level, 63% of students say that they struggle to cope in the lead-up to GCSEs and A-levels, and that figure rises to nearly 80% for those with special educational needs. Something needs to change.
When we talk about early intervention to protect our children, we need to consider the reform of the educational assessment system that all our young people go through, which could also alleviate pressures on key NHS and SEND services. How many times have we heard the phrase, “Prevention is better than cure”? As parliamentarians, we have real opportunities to deliver change and make tangible differences to the lives of so many. We need to adopt a joined-up approach to supporting our children—one that links a reformed, child-centred educational assessment system with a holistic strategy for supporting the mental health needs of our young people. We can then provide a future from which we will all benefit.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing the debate.
The current assessment system is failing our children, our teachers and our society. A combination of factors is at play: the focus of school inspections and parental choice on arbitrary pass rates; the narrowing of the curriculum, which devalues creative and vocational subjects; the failure to maintain school funding, which leaves headteachers little choice but to run schools on a shoestring; the explosion in poor mental health and additional educational needs; the long-term impact of the pandemic on children and learning; and the move to digital, which is increasing the pace of life and risks leaving so many children behind.
I should be clear that assessments of progress are important. There is value in benchmarking our children against age-related expectations, using their progress to assess the quality of teaching and helping parents to find the right schools for their children. For most children, it is also reasonable to feel some level of stress. That is a natural part of life, and understanding how we respond to it helps us with our own coping mechanisms and helps us to deal with bigger stressful life events as we grow up. However, it is fairly obvious that some children are not going to meet the so-called normal expectations.
Let me tell the story of a very special child. To protect their identity, I am calling them Taylor. They could not do their alphabet when they started school; they failed their phonics, their key stage 1 test and their key stage 2 SATs. They were finally placed on the SEN register at around 11, but they were not supported. They were assessed as having a reading age of seven years and nine months at age 14, yet the school forced them to continue with a full eight GCSE programme. The school forced them to progress in English and maths knowing they were destined to fail. The mental health impact of failing everything throughout their whole childhood was so devastating, on top of covid and the other pressures on their young life, that they ended up out of school and out of hope. They ended year 11 with no qualifications and no school.
Their story is far from unique—500 children a day are referred to mental health services for anxiety and four in five education leaders say that reformed GCSEs have created greater levels of stress and anxiety. Just under half the children who fail to make the grade at 16 were judged as falling behind at the age of just five. Those children, when identified early, can be stopped from failing throughout their life. They are not stupid; they learn differently, and they need a more inclusive school, a better curriculum and a system that is based not on remembering stuff, but on applying their skills and talents to help them to meet their potential.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I recognise that my constituency has a bad name in this area, because it was largely my predecessor MP who introduced the kind of memorising curriculum that my hon. Friend refers to. Does my hon. Friend agree that to preserve the mental health of our young people, and to maximise their human capacity, there is no point in just testing their ability to remember and regurgitate after two years? Instead, we should engage their creativity and critical thinking skills, and go back to some element of continuous assessment.
Vikki Slade
I absolutely agree. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and allowing me to pause in my emotion. My constituent Kaisey did not pass her English and maths GCSEs. She got close, but she was forced to resit them at college where she went backwards. Now she is being blocked from progressing on her chosen course in animation, and her mum is being told that her daughter cannot access functional English and maths until she is 19, despite her passing the level 2 creative courses that would allow her to progress. A special school would allow her to take those functional courses. Her mum said:
“The resit crisis is leaving students feeling failures and is demoralising, especially to SEN students who may never be able to achieve a Grade 4”.
There is no reason why these children should be forced into a cycle of doom.
To go back to Taylor and what happened to him, he has now been scooped up by the brilliant special Linwood school, where the staff have rebuilt his self-esteem. He flew through his functional English, he is now on to maths, he has passed a home cooking BTEC, and he aspires to be a teaching assistant in a school for autistic children. I want to challenge the Minister on removing the forced retakes of English and maths GCSEs, having a more holistic range of courses and, as some of us just heard in the Dingley’s Promise roundtable, having reasonable adjustments in classrooms to help every child to learn and achieve better outcomes, and to improve their happiness.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
Before the summer recess, I hosted a “Truth about SATs” parliamentary drop-in with educational reform group More Than a Score. It was a great event, with MPs from all sides of the House sitting down to take some mock SATs exams themselves. Lots of colleagues sat there quite relaxed, chatting to others and evidently fairly confident that these exams for 11-year-olds would not be too taxing. Then the worksheets arrived, and faces fell. That is why I hosted the event in the first place; I saw at first hand why over three quarters of parents think SATs harm children’s mental health, and why 93% of headteachers want the Government to review the entire system.
The spelling, punctuation and grammar exams are stuffed to the brim with questions such as “What is a fronted adverbial?” and “Circle the modal verb”, and questions about subjunctives, determinants, inverted commas, prepositions and past progressives. We all use these grammatical structures automatically, and of course children need to be able to use them in reading and writing, but these are things that intelligent, hard-working adults up and down the country have trouble identifying, and understandably so. Do we really need such an intensive focus on labelling these devices instead of using them? No one is saying that we should not have high standards, nor is anyone saying that grammar is not important, but there are serious questions about whether that is the best way to teach it.
In four—sometimes five—out of seven years of primary school, children are taking statutory exams. The results of those exams, as we have heard, are important to schools as they are used for accountability. Department for Education officials can use key stage 2 performance data when setting criteria for allocating additional funding, which leads to teaching to a test, focusing on a narrower curriculum with the hope that it leads to better scores for the kids, which schools—strapped for funding for years under the last Government—really need.
There is a real danger that the exams will put kids off learning for life. Cramming a student’s head full of fronted adverbials and the like is not a recipe for a love of literature and language, funnily enough. This is a key concern of teachers and parents who lament that a focus on spelling, punctuation and grammar tests does nothing to encourage students to think creatively about reading and writing. We need to be clear about what exactly we are testing across the different stages of education. Are we focusing too much on detailed knowledge in some areas when we should be increasing our assessment of broader understanding and skills instead? We now have a Government willing to properly look at the shortcomings of curriculum and assessment, and I really look forward to the outcome of the review. The interim report talks ambitiously about empowering teachers to foster a love of learning. I hope to see more of that thinking in the final report.
During my first year here I have had a lot of discussions around the importance of strengthening critical thinking skills earlier in the curriculum, as has been mentioned, particularly in this age we live in of online misinformation and the need to be able to tell truth from fiction from a much younger age than has perhaps been critical in the past. An ambitious and modern review would tackle these problems head on. Although the interim report gives a nod to critical thinking, I would like to see more of a focus there.
To conclude, we have a real need to balance assessment, which is necessary to achieve high standards, alongside a curriculum that gives children the freedom to build a curious and inquisitive relationship with learning.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this important debate. For everybody in this room and every educationalist across the country, the aim is to get the best from every child at every age, from kindergarten through primary, secondary and whatever path they choose to take going forward, whether it is university or apprenticeships. However, where we are with our education system and our assessment system does not help us get to that point. As we have heard, our exam system is pushing young people to their limits. For some, exams are the right tool and they are excited by them—they are built for the exams and will show the best version of themselves—but for many, exams are not that vehicle.
Last summer, nearly two thirds of students sitting their GCSEs and A-levels said that they struggled to cope, with many reporting panic attacks, self-harm and even suicidal thoughts. Over a third of 10 and 11-year-olds said SATs made them feel ill, and more than half worried about their abilities for the first time. Those figures tell us something is profoundly wrong. Our assessment system is damaging the very young people it is meant to serve. We have created an environment where success is defined by performance in a few hours of high-stakes exams, rather than by sustained learning or genuine understanding.
Only around 5% of primary school leaders believe that SATs reflect a child’s true ability, and just 3% think that they accurately measure school performance. Exams are meant to measure learning, not resilience under stress. We need a system that uses a fairer mix of assessment methods, combining exams with course work, project work and modular or digital assessments to better reflect the diverse strengths of every student.
Warinder Juss
Does the hon. Member agree that exams do not even test resilience? I consider myself to be quite a resilient person, but I used to hate exams. Even though I retook my A-levels and succeeded in getting them, for years afterwards I used to have dreams about not having passed my A-levels, and I do not think that is an uncommon story.
Iqbal Mohamed
I absolutely agree. After my last exam at university, I promised myself that I would never take another exam. Before I became an MP—not since—I had nightmares where I believed I had an exam in the morning and had not revised, which is a common feeling among many.
This debate follows the House’s passing of Third Reading of the Mental Health Bill yesterday. I spoke about remembering the importance of centring young people’s wellbeing and mental health, and how we must create policy and legislation that fits them and their experiences and needs. A constituent recently told me that both her daughters have needed mental health support, primarily because of issues in school and the stress that came with that. The pressures of our education system are part of that picture, and cannot be ignored.
We have heard arguments about some of the benefits of exams, and we should try to find an adaptable hybrid model so that schools can adapt how they test and assess the ability of individual children rather than forcing them down a single, cookie-cutter, regimented process that does not show their capabilities, intelligence or resilience.
Teaching children about resilience has to come from real-world scenarios, and exams that concentrate stresses into two-hour chunks at the end of an academic year do not reflect the realities of life. We all experience stresses, and we should all try to deal with them, but I do not believe, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) mentioned, that they help strengthen children’s resilience.
With the independent curriculum and assessment review expected soon, we have a crucial opportunity to rethink how we assess young people. Reform must place wellbeing, creativity and fairness at its heart, because a child’s worth should never be defined by how they perform under pressure, but by the full range of their potential.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing the debate. Leaders at the Derby college group told me that some of their students, including some with special educational needs, get trapped in a seemingly endless cycle of English and maths resits.
Those experiences put enormous pressure on students, contributing to the very poor mental health statistics that we have. I am keen for the Government to look at this issue. The Government are investing significantly in education and driving reform. I hope this debate will help them to consider how changes to the curriculum can improve young people’s mental health.
As a former music teacher, my perspective centres around creative subjects and the creative industries. One study by the American Psychological Association found that students taking music are one year ahead of their new non-music peers with regards to English and maths, so the higher uptake of creative subjects could go a long way towards helping young people pass their exams with less mental strain.
There is so much evidence for the positive contribution that the arts make to young people’s mental health, in addition to the broader importance of culture to our sense of self, national identity and the economy. The Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music runs the largest national survey of children, adults and teachers about music education. Its 2025 “Making Music” report demonstrates the immense benefits that music brings. Of respondents who currently make music, building confidence and supporting mental health were the third and fourth most important motivations.
The highest ranked motivation was that it was fun, which doubtless improves people’s mental health, too. Three quarters of music teachers surveyed described music lessons as extremely important for the mental health and wellbeing of their students, and employers are clear that they want creativity and critical thinking from their staff. These are precisely the abilities fostered through the arts, but too often they are the first casualty of curriculum pressures. Indeed, 40% of schools no longer offer GCSE music at all.
There are two big updates from the Government that many people are waiting for. The first is the final publication of the curriculum review. In it, many people would like to see greater priority given to creative subjects, which are undermined by aspects of the system at the moment. The English baccalaureate in particular has been identified as a barrier to full engagement with creative subjects. Many people are asking for the EBacc to be scrapped, and we should at the very least look to reform it.
The second announcement we are waiting for is the national centre for arts and music education. There is much excitement about this body, but some of the detail is yet to come. If the Minister could furnish us with some more information about that today, that would be very welcome. However, I was concerned to read recently that the Department has decided to cut the training bursary for music teachers, as well as those doing religious education, English and art and design. I have reached out to the Department about that, but if we could get some of the rationale behind it, I would be very grateful. Given that we have missed our target for music teacher recruitment for many years, we need to be mindful that the new national centre has the workforce to staff it.
As a former music teacher, I have seen at first hand the power of a creative education to change lives. Children coping with the most difficult circumstances, through music and the arts, can connect to something beautiful—something that transcends time and space and gives voice to their expression. I know the Government appreciate and understand that, and I look forward to working with the Minister to deliver life-changing opportunities to children and young people in every part of the United Kingdom.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.
Before being elected, I spent nearly two decades as a teacher. I know all too well the realities of working in a system that prioritises teaching to the test at the expense of a creative curriculum, broader educational experiences and, most importantly, pupil wellbeing.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for education, I recently led an inquiry into the loss of love of learning. It found that current assessment practices have a significant impact on students’ engagement with, and attitudes towards, learning. One submission highlighted that a system which frames learning through a lens of student deficit rather than progress ultimately ends up demotivating learners and narrowing their sense of possibility. When education is reduced to a means of securing exam results, we lose the intrinsic joy and value of learning itself.
One of the most powerful moments during the inquiry came when a group of primary school children from Wales visited Parliament to give evidence. They were genuinely surprised and, frankly, horrified to learn about the pressure and stress their peers in England face when preparing for SATs—and they were right to be shocked. In England, SATs preparation dominates much of the year 6 curriculum, leaving little room for creativity, exploration or deeper understanding.
Research from More Than a Score found that over three quarters of parents believe that SATs have a detrimental impact on their child’s mental health. More than a third reported that their children were not sleeping properly in the run-up to the exams. Of course, that pressure does not end in primary school. GCSEs and A-levels occupy multiple years of a young person’s life and subject them to immense stress.
According to YoungMinds, pupils sitting their exams last summer reported elevated levels of anxiety, self-harm and even suicidal thoughts. Current systems also disproportionately disadvantage pupils with special educational needs and disabilities—or additional learning needs, as they are known in Wales—as well as those experiencing mental health issues or growing up in a socioeconomically disadvantaged circumstance.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful for what the hon. Member is saying. As well as widening inequality through the current assessment system, which we know occurs, does he not agree that it also stifles social mobility, holding many young people back from the opportunities they could have?
Steve Witherden
Yes, I agree 100%.
In 2025, more than 75% of pupils with SEND and over 90% of those with an education, health and care plan did not meet expected standards in their end-of-primary SATs. Many carry that label of failure into secondary school before they have even had the chance to flourish. As someone who is dyslexic, dyscalculic and was functionally illiterate until the age of 11, I know what it feels like to struggle within a system not designed for people like me.
Teachers in schools serving deprived communities consistently report higher levels of pupil anxiety and disengagement related to SATs, compared with their counterparts in more affluent areas. The current high-stakes, one-size-fits-all model is not only outdated; it actively perpetuates inequality. Like Wales, England should abolish SATs. They damage children’s mental health, impose unnecessary stress at a formative age and fail to serve as reliable indicators of pupil or school performance.
At GCSE and A-level, we must reduce our dependence on high-stakes, end-of-course exams or on-demand online assessments, which give pupils—particularly those who struggle under timed conditions—greater opportunity to succeed. For far too long, education policy has been shaped by an obsession with measurable outcomes, too often at the expense of the very learners who most need our support.
I look forward to the final report of the curriculum and assessment review and urge the Government to respond with both ambition and compassion. Let us move beyond high-stakes learning, reduce anxiety in our classrooms, and above all, restore joy, creativity and a love of learning.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) on securing this important debate. He spoke passionately about the subject. Although I have no doubt that his personal recollections of education are more recent than my own, I not long ago lived through the trauma of summer exam season vicariously through both my daughters, and I am glad that is behind us now.
The effect of exams on the mental health of our children and young people is clear. The hon. Member eloquently laid out that problem and showed that other respectable education systems have found a way to minimise exam time. It is possible to do that, and incumbent on us to look at doing so. Education is about so much more than the grades a child receives. It is about empowering every child to become the best they can be, ensuring they leave school equipped with the life skills, confidence and resilience they need, to lead happy, healthy and successful lives, whatever path they choose.
Education is about so much more than teaching to the test. It should be about opening minds and lighting a spark, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) described so passionately. As the hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) said, social and emotional development is also vital, and as important as academic achievement. At the heart of all this is ensuring that school is enjoyable. Most of us remember that one teacher who inspired us, who turned the light on and sparked a love of something, the one thing we did not mind getting up for in the morning.
I saw a perfect example of that during a recent visit to Stokenham primary school in my constituency. There is a forest school behind the school buildings where children learn through exploring their natural environment in a wonderful wooded area, beautifully demonstrating the importance of learning beyond the classroom, and the creative ways we can bring education alive. That is truly the highlight of the week for all the kids. It might also be music, drama, art or sport, textiles, food tech or woodwork. A holistic approach to education is vital because it nurtures social and creative skills that are just as important as the core subjects of English and maths. If a narrow approach to the curriculum is pursued, enriching experiences such as those risk being pushed to the bottom of the pile.
Lessons that foster interpersonal, creative and emotional skills have their place alongside traditional subjects that are measured in exams. Music has been shown to improve performance in maths, helping children to recognise patterns and sequences, improving memory and recall, as I am sure the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) will agree.
Standardised testing remains important. Exams play a vital role in maintaining high educational standards and provide a clear, objective measure of achievement. As the Sutton Trust highlights, anonymous, externally marked exams help to level the playing field for pupils from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. They act as a crucial equaliser for students who may not have support at home for coursework, and they are less susceptible to the biases that can arise in teacher assessments or oral exams.
We heard passionate speeches from the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and other Members that SATs at 11 should not be included in standardised testing. As the Government’s interim report recognises, the current one-size-fits-all approach is letting down some students. Pupils start sitting exams from the age of 11, and their experience is clear: the system puts enormous pressure on our young people and their mental health. We must take the opportunity to think about how we assess their ability. That is clearly demonstrated in the surge in pupils resitting GCSE English and maths. This year, just under 400,000 students resat those subjects, accounting for 23% of all GCSE entries.
The current system that pushes young people to resit the assessments quickly after their first attempt is flawed. Over-16s are caught in a cycle of repeated resits, with the number of 18-year-olds resitting those subjects rising by nearly 20% from last year. Those students risk falling into a dispiriting cycle, feeling they have failed because they cannot pass the exam and being forced to redo it again and again. Understandably, that has a detrimental impact on their mental health, with repeated resits and a rigid assessment system contributing to heightened anxiety and stress. Alongside increasing support for those pupils to get through their English and maths, we must look at the viability of an alternative functional assessment that better fits ability.
We must also reconsider how certain other subjects are assessed in the first place. Evey child will want to pursue their own path, and in certain subjects such as those that are creative, technical and vocational, exams may not be the solution. Our assessment system must reflect that diversity and recognise the many ways in which children can best demonstrate their learning. As the hon. Member for York Central and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) said, we all learn differently, so why assess in just one way?
We also need to be mindful that one in every five students has special educational needs. As the Government’s interim report notes, the assessment system needs to be more inclusive, and that inclusivity must extend to those with higher levels of SEND, as highlighted by both the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). Currently, only 24% of children with SEND meet the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, compared with 62% nationally. That imbalance is unacceptable, and we must work hard to ensure that it is rectified.
Children with SEND deserve the same opportunities to succeed as their peers, and the assessment system must reflect their specific needs, enabling them to progress and thrive in their education, rather than be weighed down by exams that fail to accommodate their abilities. We must be creative in finding other ways to assess ability. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), who has done valuable work on education for pupils with neurodivergence, spoke passionately about this, and I commend him for his work on the subject.
We also need to think outside the box when it comes to subjects such as music, drama, art and sports. These subjects develop crucial creative and emotional skills, yet they are not always best assessed through exams. They are the subjects that bring joy to education and transform schools into places where children are genuinely excited to learn. As the parent of a daughter who now works as a professional costume maker, I have seen the joy and passion that a creative career choice can bring. Given the love that people have for films, it is no less valid than a career in law, medicine, finance, or, dare I say it, politics.
All too often, however, such subjects are being squeezed out of our timetables due to budget cuts, teacher shortages and a curriculum that is often narrowed prematurely as schools are forced to focus on assessment. That is unfair, disproportionately affecting pupils from poorer backgrounds who do not otherwise have access to extracurricular activities to make up for the gaps. As a rural MP, I will say that the problem is exacerbated in rural constituencies, where students may not be able to attend after-school clubs if their only way to get home is on the 3.30 pm school bus. Limited or costly transport options should never be a barrier to creativity and involvement in sports. We must protect, not diminish, those subjects and ensure that every learner has the chance to excel on whatever path they choose.
The Liberal Democrats want children to be able to thrive in a system that allows them to play to their strengths and supports them in their weaknesses, a system that empowers children, where school is a joyful place that encourages children to follow their passions and get excited about their future. The Government’s interim report says that the system is broadly working well, and that exams can be an effective way to assess progress, but it is clear that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work for every pathway, which is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for an assessment system that reflects the diversity of young people’s needs, especially for those with special educational needs.
Holistic teaching and creative subjects have their rightful place in our curriculum, and pupils’ choices should not be narrowed too early to focus solely on examined subjects. Children deserve an exam system that offers choice and equips them with the skills they need, no matter which path they choose to follow. We must find a more balanced approach to assessment: a way to truly assess the gifts and talents that all young people have—because they all do. A system that makes them start to feel like a failure at 11 is just wrong. We owe it to our children to do better and, as the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) said, lift them up, not weigh them down.
I urge the Minister to take this opportunity to seriously consider broadening our curriculum, expanding the provision of extracurricular activities, and developing an ambitious assessment system that ensures young people leave school equipped with the skills, confidence and opportunity to succeed.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this important debate and for his opening remarks. By almost any metric, the English education system is one of the best performing in the world. In the latest programme for international student assessment results, English pupils have continued to score significantly above the OECD average for mathematics, reading and science. England’s average PISA scores were significantly higher than those of SNP-run Scotland and Labour-run Wales. Assessments and exams have led to that. That is what is at stake here—that is what we are discussing, and we should be clear about that.
That success is owed to the foundations of a knowledge-rich curriculum and rigorous and thorough assessment across all stages of a student’s educational build-up. That success story means that the suggestions from Government Members of reforming the educational assessment system—or, alarmingly, scrapping it—need close scrutiny. When launching their review of the curriculum and assessment system in England last year, the Government made it clear that they were taking aim at the examination and assessment system.
Vikki Slade
I am just wondering whether the hon. Member was listening to all the speeches about the massive increase in mental health issues for young people. Does he acknowledge the link between that increase and the tightened restrictions and curriculum that he seems to be promoting?
Saqib Bhatti
I can assure the hon. Lady that I listened to every speech. As I make progress, I hope to answer her question; if I do not, I will happily take another intervention from her.
The examination and assessment system has ensured that children are learning the basic skills and knowledge needed to succeed in life, that children are improving their understanding in a knowledge-rich curriculum, and that England’s position as an educational world leader in international league tables is secured. The wealth of evidence showing the benefits of exams as a means of assessment is clear, even in the very review of the curriculum and assessment system that the Government commissioned. The interim report, published earlier this year, highlighted that national assessment and qualifications are “working well”, and that examinations such as GCSEs play an important role in driving high standards and ensuring fairness,
“reducing the risk that assessment of students’ performance is influenced by their gender, ethnicity or background.”
Even more encouragingly, polling conducted for the interim report made it clear that students themselves value the role of exams as an
“opportunity to demonstrate everything they have learned in their studies”.
That students themselves recognise the value of exams shows that they understand what this Government seemingly struggle to: that exams offer students of all backgrounds the very best chance to succeed. Our educational system is designed to be a tool of social mobility and to allow the most disadvantaged children to demonstrate their potential—something that replacing exams with coursework would fundamentally undermine. In an instant, every advantage that some children have, such as access to a laptop at home, a tutor or a subscription to an artificial intelligence service, and some children from other backgrounds do not would be baked into our assessment of educational attainment. Students would no longer be rewarded for hard graft in the classroom, which they demonstrate in answering an exam question, but rather for the perks that can access outside school and pass off as their own work.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I was a teacher of chemistry and science. Under the new curriculum that was instigated by the Conservative Government, young people had to learn 19 equations for physics, including mass, units and all of that. I can go to Google and ask for that, but as a scientist, what I need is scientific inquiry and the curiosity to ask, “Is this fact real?” Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the change to a knowledge-based system has cut back on the ability for young people to learn curiosity and scientific inquiry?
Saqib Bhatti
I do not agree with the hon. Lady. Students need assessment and examinations so they can measure up not just within England but against the international landscape that we operate in. By the way, I am sure that she was an excellent teacher who encouraged and nurtured the curiosity in her children, just as my chemistry teacher and my physics teacher did, but we should be clear about what is at stake here and what is at risk if there are changes to the educational system that we reformed, built and created.
Let me make some progress, and I hope that I can answer the question from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). The students who would lose out are the very ones the Government claim they want to protect—the very students in our education system we should all strive to empower. There is no denying that exams can be stressful, as we have all acknowledged. Students want to do well, and they are setting themselves up for future study and careers, so it is no surprise that they feel some pressure—a lot of pressure, even—during exam season.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said, exams are by their very nature stressful. As a father, it is true that I want to protect my children from every stress and injury, but I also know that they need to go through that process to learn the resilience that they will need to go through life.
Josh Dean
The hon. Gentleman has talked a lot about stress. I acknowledge the point about resilience, which is why we need that in the curriculum, but would he equate stress to panic attacks, suicidal thoughts and self-harm? I would say that those are two very different things, and that desperately needs to be addressed in the system.
Saqib Bhatti
I will address that question in one second. As the interim report said, students relish the chance to demonstrate their knowledge and capabilities, despite the stress of exams. I was moved by the hon. Gentleman’s speech. He talks about panic attacks, and other people have talked about mental health and wellbeing, so let me be clear: if those things are observed and not accommodated by the current system, Opposition Members will happily look at suggestions and work on a cross-party basis, if we believe that that will improve the system while also protecting our children.
If the Government really want to tackle the challenges affecting student mental health on a day-to-day basis, we have been clear: this is not just about exam season, and we think that banning phones from schools would do far more to relieve many of the social pressures that face young people, and allow them to focus on their educational needs instead. I welcome support from the Government Benches for a proven mechanism that clearly leads to addressing students’ mental health. After speaking to teachers and other stakeholders we are clear about the positive impact that banning mobile phones would have on mental health—[Interruption.] I am happy to take a positive intervention on that.
It is deeply disappointing, if unfortunately not too surprising, that this seems to be the direction that the Government are taking with our education system, given the appalling record of their colleagues in the Welsh Government on education. Even the most disadvantaged children in England achieve better educational outcomes than the average student in Wales, thanks to the Welsh Government choosing ideology over evidence, and it is the students who suffer in the long term.
Steve Witherden
Would the hon. Gentleman agree that if we narrow the curriculum, take out the music and drama lessons, fill the curriculum and stack it to the rafters with numeracy and literacy-heavy subjects, all the pedagogies, and teach to the test, with exams, exams, exams, that will lead to better PISA results but not necessarily to better mental health for the students in the system?
Saqib Bhatti
Let me address that point directly. First, I am not sure that narrowing the curriculum to that degree would lead to better PISA results. I think the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) spoke about that, and I was nodding my head. I agree that we should have those investments in music that the Government have not committed to—[Interruption.] Let me finish, because it is important to recognise for the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden)—hopefully I have got his constituency right—that Wales, which is run by Labour, has much lower standards. That means less positive outcomes for children, which means less positive outcomes in the rest of their life. It is clear that those children are being let down by Welsh Labour.
We want extracurricular activities. That is why, when I visited Coppice academy in my constituency, which also has a forest school, I was heartened to see all the work that the kids are doing in those schools. Narrowing the curriculum is not what we are talking about. We are talking about something that is wholly rounded, but we must have a standardised and anonymised test system that allows a better level playing field for people from any background to be able to challenge and to thrive in life.
Let me return to the topic at hand. It is almost a month to the day that I welcomed the Minister to her seat, and we had a fantastically packed Chamber where we addressed special educational needs. I wrote to her after that debate, but I have still not had a response. Perhaps she could provide some clarity on the schools White Paper, say what will happen with the SEND reforms and also the curriculum review—I look forward to hearing from her on that, perhaps when she winds up the debate.
The world’s best-performing educational systems test to ensure that all students have a strong grasp of reading, writing and arithmetic in their early years, setting up children for future success at the earliest opportunity in their education. The widespread adoption of phonics testing in year 1 in England has seen English pupils rise up the international league tables, while the Welsh Government’s blind adherence to the widely discredited cueing method and its rejection of phonics testing has seen thousands of Welsh pupils leaving primary school effectively unable to read. Students and parents alike have plentiful cause for concern if that is the sort of education system that the Government want to create in England. I hope that the Minister can wholeheartedly reject the Welsh educational system—one in which thorough assessment of students’ progress has been replaced with a union-influenced aversion to testing in any form.
If the Government do go ahead with banning exams in favour of coursework and formal assessments, they could undermine every major achievement of our education system over the last decade and a half. Academies have changed the lives of their students through the initiative of their leadership. They are already being deprived of the freedoms that they have been used to in leading the way to school improvement and providing a knowledge-rich curriculum that has given every student the opportunity to access quality academic education. That is already being threatened with being dumbed down. If that were to happen, our education system would be left in an even sorrier state.
I hope that the Ministers listen to the views of students and parents. The Conservatives reformed education, and by the time we left, it was one of the best systems in the world. I hope we can keep it that way.
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this debate. I know how much work he has done on supporting youth mental health, along with YoungMinds and its wider campaigns. I thank him for his championing of young people. I also thank everyone who took the time to write to the Government’s curriculum and assessment review. I was pleased to hear so many hon. Members talking about conversations they have been having with young people, especially families with children with special educational needs, and bringing their voices to the Chamber—particularly the moving story of Taylor and their experiences. I am glad to hear that they are now thriving.
So many of the contributions have focused on how our education system is not working for some young people. It is true that, on average, we have moved up the league tables, but we have also seen a growing gap for so many young people. It is a disgrace that only a quarter of disadvantaged young people get a grade 5 in their GCSEs. There are too many of those young people who do not get to access all the opportunities that come with it. We have heard time and again, in an absolutely packed Chamber here, how young people with special educational needs are being left behind. As a Government, we want high standards for every student, and no child to be left behind. We want that to be part of our education system.
Sam Carling
I wonder whether the Minister has the same experience as I do. When I speak to employers in North West Cambridgeshire, I hear time and again that young people do not have the skills for the workplace and that the education system has not left them with the right mindset and abilities. Is something going direly wrong with the metrics that the Conservatives have left us with when they talk about how we have had one of the best systems in the world?
Georgia Gould
One of the really damning statistics is how many young people are not in education, employment or training at the end of the education system. We cannot afford to leave any child behind. Every child needs the best start and to achieve at school. That is what this Government are focused on.
Rachael Maskell
Will the Minister look at how young people can develop a portfolio around their learning as you would with professional development as an adult and in employment, so that they can map that journey and use it as part of the assessment portfolio that they could gather as they move through their education?
Georgia Gould
The Government are absolutely committed to high standards in English and math and the core learning that young people have, but we also want to see young people have a broad experience at school. I have heard the passion of so many hon. Members talking about the arts. I am a former leader of Camden council, where we heavily invested in the arts to make sure that every pupil had access to learning an instrument and the power that brings. We heard about the collaboration and the joy that the arts bring, and the need to ensure that they are taught well and to a high standard. So, I am absolutely committed to that breadth of education and to making sure that that goes through the education system.
Before I talk about assessment, which is the main topic of discussion today, I want to stress that I hear the depth of concern about young people’s mental health—not just from Members here today, but from the young people that I speak to, who talk about the anxiety and stress of being a teenager and the pressures of the huge amount of information that they are getting, and say that we need to address that as a Government.
It is troubling to see any young person struggle with their wellbeing. It can impact every aspect of a young person’s life, from their relationships and confidence to their ability to learn and thrive in school, as we have heard today. Too many young people have struggled to access the support they need and therefore ended up with the kind of deep anxiety and unacceptable mental health concerns that we have heard about when they face challenges, such as when exams are coming up. We need to make sure that we have the right mental health support for young people when they face challenges.
We want to make sure that help is there early by providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school and expanding mental health support teams. We estimate that 60% of pupils in schools and further education will be covered by a mental health support team by April 2026—up from 52% in April 2025. Our goal is for all pupils to have access to mental health support in school by 2029-30. To support education staff, my Department provides a range of guidance and practical resources on promoting and supporting pupils’ mental health and wellbeing. Across the system, we are recruiting 8,500 new mental health support staff to support both children and adults. We also recognise how important it is to listen to young people to understand their experiences and make sure that the support that we offer truly meets their needs.
Turning to assessment, it is important to state that well-designed assessments play a critical role in supporting young people to develop and demonstrate their achievement at school. As the curriculum and assessment review interim report states:
“Effective assessment is a crucial component of a high performing education system.”
Members will appreciate that I cannot pre-empt the conclusions and final recommendations of the review while it is still in progress. The review’s final report is due to be published in the coming weeks, at which point the Government will respond on the issues of assessment and accountability that Members have raised.
I want to address some of the concerns that have been raised this afternoon and give reassurance that many of these issues are being looked at carefully in the review. Starting with concerns about primary assessments, including SATs, these assessments help to make sure that pupils are building the core knowledge and skills they need to succeed as they transition to secondary school and throughout their lives. SATs are carefully developed to ensure that they are accessible, but I recognise that the experience can feel stressful for some young people, as we have heard today.
Schools should not be overpreparing children for these assessments and we must be mindful of the pressure that they can have on children. They should not lead to the kinds of stories that we heard today of children feeling that they had to give up different activities because of the stress and pressure they were feeling. It is incumbent on schools to ensure that young people have the skills and knowledge that they need, but also to continue to provide breadth. Members will know that the changes to Ofsted’s accountability make it clear that we want to see a wider focus on inclusion as well as a focus on attainment.
Lee Barron
My point is that it is not the schools and the way in which the schools are applying exams; the schools are doing what they can to protect the children. The problem is that the children know they are coming. The children feel the pressure point of the exams coming up. That is why they start to feel how they feel. The reason I can say that is that my daughter is 10, and she is the one who turned down going to the football because she has to revise for her SATs. Parents are trying to manage that situation. But that is the reality. They know it is coming. They feel the pressure point. It is not the school.
Georgia Gould
Sorry, I was not trying to suggest that it was, but it is important that, collectively, we create an environment where children know that this assessment is not a pressure on them as an individual, but part of a wider accountability, and that young people should continue to do all the things that bring them joy. That is part of the ongoing conversation we need to have. As I said, we know that there are areas where improvements can be made. We have heard that today. The Department will consider the review’s final recommendations alongside the voices of those calling for change.
As young people move through their secondary education, the stakes understandably become higher. That is why some people argue that if we removed exams, we would take away a lot of the pressure that young people face.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Tree Maintenance: Guidance to Local Authorities
(1 day, 9 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
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I will call Esther McVey to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of issuing guidance on tree maintenance to local authorities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. Trees—beautiful, majestic and an enhancement to an area—are one of the most visible aspects of our scenery in the UK, yet their sheer size makes their maintenance essential for public safety. Sadly, on public land, the reality is that this work is seldom done and, as we are about to hear today, can lead to devastating consequences.
Last year, I met with my constituents Fiona and Sam Hall, whose lives were changed forever in August 2020, when Fiona’s husband and Sam’s father Chris Hall was killed by a decayed tree that was known to be dangerous. Chris had left the house for a routine lunchtime dog walk on what was a warm and calm summer’s day. He took that walk in The Carrs in Wilmslow, a local park popular with residents. While on his walk, the limb of a decayed 130-year-old tree of 22 tonnes fell and hit Chris, killing him instantly. Chris was, by all accounts, a life force for good—someone who
“loved life and life loved him.”
His wife Fiona described their passion for simple things—spending their time cooking together and walking their dog. Chris’s son Sam shared how much he missed everything about his father—his laughter, his wisdom and the adventures they shared together. The loss of a loved one is a tragedy by any measure, but Chris’s death was senseless and preventable.
Cheshire East council, responsible for the tree, knew it was unsafe. A year earlier, another limb had fallen off the same tree. Ansa Environmental Services, the council’s contractor responsible for tree maintenance, found the tree had significant structural defects and recommended it be crowned, but nothing was done. The tree was not crowned, and no action was taken to mitigate its risk or warn the public of the dangers that that tree presented.
When the case went to court, it was clear that the responsibility for the incident lay with Cheshire East, and after an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive, the council pleaded guilty to breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined £500,000 in November 2024. The investigation found that since its creation in 2009, Cheshire East council had no formal tree maintenance strategy. The council agreed, following the court case, to develop a tree strategy and partnership with an arborist chosen by the Hall family. The council implemented its tree management strategy in 2021.
However, despite this tragedy, and others we have heard about through the news and in the newspapers of late, there still appears to be a legislative gap, and tree maintenance across the country continues to be ad hoc. Although councillors are required to ensure public safety, there is no statutory duty on them to carry out regular inspections of trees on public land. Regulatory maintenance work is voluntary, and the extent to which councils inspect trees is left to their own discretion. When budgets are tight, maintenance is often the first thing to fall by the wayside. However, maintenance by councils must be a priority—and, in this case, tree maintenance.
To address this, Fiona is now campaigning for Chris’s law, which would require councils to maintain a register of high-risk trees identified by location, species and age, legislating for those trees to be inspected on a regular basis. This is not all trees, but a targeted approach that is manageable for councils and presents a cost-effective solution.
As beautiful as trees are, like us, they have a lifespan and a life expectancy. As they get old, they become sick and weak, can decay and get disease. It is a predictable life cycle. Some examples of common trees in the UK include birches, which tend to live for 50 to 70 years; beeches, 150 to 200 years; and oaks and sycamores, which can last for 200 to 300 years. But they all have a life expectancy. Therefore, it is safe to say that after a certain age, trees need to be inspected.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Lady. One thing that has always come to my attention—I am dealing with such a case in my office at the moment—is about finding out who actually owns a tree and who is responsible for it. We have found great difficulty, through the local council, in finding out who that would be. As we have had more storms than ever —and probably more to come this winter, unfortunately—that means a responsibility on those who own adjoining land, from which a tree may fall into another’s property.
Does the hon. Lady agree that we perhaps need a system whereby, if there is uncertainty about who owns a tree, someone can step in? That perhaps underlines what the right hon. Lady is saying. It is slightly different from the purpose of this debate, but it does highlight an issue that is probably applicable to me—and, I suspect, to everyone else as well.
Esther McVey
I think ownership of trees and people taking responsibility for their trees is essential. In this instance, it was the local council—they were on public land—but the hon. Member is quite right that they could also be on private land.
We know, too, that there have been large drives to plant trees, particularly after the two world wars, so we can age them. The Carrs in Wilmslow was bought by the council and established as a park in 1935 and, logically, there will be a record of when those trees were planted in the park. Those are quantifiable numbers that allow a methodological approach to inspections. Without providing such structure to a maintenance strategy, cases of concern can slip through the net.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I send my condolences to Chris and his family. Over the past five years, Bromley council has planted around 5,000 street trees and another 800 in parks, all working with residents and schoolchildren. Does my right hon. Friend agree that other local authorities could look to Bromley council for best practice in maintenance?
Esther McVey
I will indeed. The Minister too, might like to look at where best practice is happening across the country, because that is what we are looking to achieve.
Since working with Fiona, I have heard at first hand from individuals who have tried to report trees in imminent danger of falling, only to have their urgent complaints lost among other correspondence. Inevitably, such trees end up falling, and people have been injured in those circumstances. The excuse that there was too much correspondence and that the council could not deal with the reports does not really wash.
This is not unique to Cheshire East council. The court heard that five or six people die every year from falling branches or trees. This year alone, we have seen similar deaths caused by falling trees in Southend-on-Sea in June, West Didsbury in August and Blackpool only last month. Last Saturday my husband went to pick up a friend from Wilmslow train station. He drove through Ashley on the way there. On the way back he could not come along the same road because during that journey a tree had collapsed right across the road and he had to take a detour. Trees collapsing is not an infrequent occurrence.
Each case that I have mentioned might have been avoided if the tree had been maintained adequately. In 2025 there is no excuse. We have a wealth of technology at our disposal: drones, microprobes or other advanced tools that make maintenance inspections more effective and efficient. We hear often about budgetary constraints preventing councils carrying out their maintenance duty, but preventive work is cost-effective. Legal fines, like Cheshire East’s £500,000, are far more costly than routine inspections.
Cheshire and Warrington have voted to set up a new mayoral structure costing millions of pounds to establish and millions of pounds to run annually. It seems the Government and councils can find money for pet projects and devolved Mayors across the country and yet routine work, the most basic of maintenance, is forgone at the first sign of financial strain when it should always be a council’s priority.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for giving way and for securing this important debate. In addition to proper maintenance, which is essential—it is heartbreaking to hear the stories that she has outlined today—the current protection under tree preservation orders is inadequate and covers only a small section of ancient and veteran trees. She talked about the age of trees—300-year-old veteran oaks, for example, and ancient trees even older than that, so they have the ability to live a long time. Somerset has about 3,000 trees on the ancient tree inventory. Nearly 500 of those are threatened by cultivation, development and overshading. Does the right hon. Member agree that, in addition to maintenance, stronger protections for ancient and veteran trees are also required?
Esther McVey
As I started the debate today I said how magnificent and majestic trees can add to an area. I agree with the hon. Member. We have to look after something that so enhances the beauty of our country.
I spend an increasing amount of my time battling with my local council about the most basic of maintenance work that needs to be done now. Drains being unblocked, roads being repaired and rivers dredged all feed into, when maintenance is not done properly, a bigger and more costly problem. I am sure many Members will share that experience. Maintenance must be a council’s priority, especially when it comes to the danger of trees. Too often local councillors treat maintenance work as a box-ticking exercise—a quick fix to get someone off their case while the future consequences of a bodged repair job or no repair job are not considered. Maintenance work is essential. It is not a “nice to have” or a nice little addition. It is essential. As we have seen, if it is not done, it has tragic consequences.
In the four weeks since Fiona launched the campaign for Chris’s law, 35,000 signatures have been gathered and the campaign has caught the attention of the media, too, from BBC Breakfast to BBC Radio 5 Live, and regional channels such as BBC North West and ITV Granada Reports. There is a mindshare among the public and the media that incidents of collapsing trees should not be occurring. Trees are a vital part of our daily lives, bringing many benefits to the environment and our wellbeing. Governments have spent millions of pounds planting trees, with the current Government pledging £800 million for this. But such an increase must be underpinned by a commitment to maintain the trees properly.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
With so many new-build estates that are home to young trees, where watering and aftercare are so essential, does the right hon. Member agree that any new guidance should have a large section with a focus on early years for trees as well?
Esther McVey
I will be asking the Minister for a meeting. This is specifically about older, ancient, decaying and dangerous trees, but I am quite sure the Minister will be considering all kinds of tree preservation, including during the early years.
When people walk through The Carrs now, they can find a memorial for Chris: a hand-carved wooden sculpture erected by his family in his memory. Visitors can scan a QR code to learn about Chris and the need for improved tree maintenance. It is a reminder of the tragedy that occurred and a testament to Fiona’s and Sam’s determination to use their profound grief to fight for change. We owe it to them to work collaboratively for this cause and push for clear standards for local authorities that cannot be skirted or sidelined. The issue extends far beyond Chris. We know that trees have a lifespan, and when and where they have been planted. Without maintenance work on these trees, there will be other tragic cases like Chris’s.
In closing, I thank the Minister for her time and ask whether she will meet Fiona and me to discuss Chris’s law, the best way forward and steps to resolve this issue, and work with us on a meaningful legislative change to prevent such tragedies from occurring again.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship today, Ms Lewell. I commend the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing this debate, and thank other hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions.
Let me begin by saying how incredibly sorry and sad I am to hear about Mr Hall’s death. I offer my profound sympathies to his family—to Fiona, his wife, and to Sam, his son—on their tragic loss, as well as to other families who have lost loved ones in similar circumstances. I also pay tribute to their courage and commitment in their selfless campaigning to reduce the risk of other families suffering such a grievous tragedy. We are all here today to think about how we can prevent that from happening to anybody else. Nothing we can say today can make up for their loss, but it is right that we are having this debate.
Health and safety matters to everyone in this country, and this Government are dedicated to protecting people. The Health and Safety Executive is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety; it works to ensure that people feel safe where they live, where they work and in their environment. It prosecuted Cheshire East council over Mr Hall’s tragic death, which led to the £500,000 fine.
When those responsible for controlling risks to public safety fail to do so, they will be held to account. As in this case, the Health and Safety Executive will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action where necessary, but I do not want us to be in that position. Local authorities, just like any landowner, must ensure that the land they own or occupy is not in a condition that could cause injury or damage to people who might reasonably be expected to enter it. They must not allow activities or conditions on their land that could foreseeably cause harm. If someone is injured due to negligence, the authority may be liable, as was the case with Mr Hall’s death.
There is current guidance available from the National Tree Safety Group, the membership of which is made up of organisations with an interest in tree risk management, including the Forestry Commission. Its publication, “Common sense risk management of trees”, was updated last year, and provides guidance on trees and public safety in the UK for owners, managers and advisers. It recommends that tree owners follow a plan for zoning their tree stock, based on frequency of access, and implementing tree management according to risk. Where trees pose a higher level of risk—for example, a tree with faults that likely make it unstable, such as the oak described by the right hon. Lady, that is in an area frequently visited by the public, such as a park—they will require a higher level of assessment and monitoring.
I have visited parks where veteran trees have been cordoned off. Cordoning off very large trees with known defects from public access during periods of very hot weather, when branches may be more likely to fall, and similarly advising the public not to sit under or next to such trees when wind speeds are higher than normal, is a sensible, common-sense response to changing conditions.
Trees are important to our society and to us intrinsically —we come from the forests—and they are particularly important in this changing climate. However, that does not absolve tree owners from their legal duty of care and the need to prevent reasonably foreseeable risks of injury to people or property. For the breach of its responsibilities leading to Mr Hall’s death, the council was handed a significant fine.
I agree with the right hon. Lady that maintenance and prevention are cost effective. This Government have given more money to councils. There has been a long period of reduction in council budgets, but we have made more than £69 billion available to local government, and Cheshire East, the council in question, has had a 6.6% cash terms increase in its core spending power on the previous year. The majority of the funding is un-ringfenced—we removed central Government controls on that—and can be used to address a range of pressures facing local government. I hope that some of it will have been spent on long-overdue tree maintenance work.
As mentioned, National Tree Safety Group guidance provides a nationally recognised, evidence-based framework for managing tree safety, balancing public safety with the environmental and social benefits of trees. It is grounded in legal precedent and supported by the Health and Safety Executive. Local tree strategies, such as the one in Bromley, play an important role. I encourage councils to use the existing Government-endorsed trees and woodlands strategy toolkit, which has been developed to support local authorities and stakeholders to create and deliver a local tree strategy. These strategies can help to safeguard people from harm. However, it is also important to remember that trees are living organisms and that things can change depending on the weather. They undergo natural processes of growth and development, and eventually fall.
As the right hon. Lady says, we are spending a record £816 million on tree planting. Many of those trees will be in forests, so that involves a different set of risks and limited public access. However, we need to think about street or park trees. I live in Islington, which was planting street trees back in the ’90s. I can think of two street trees, one in my street and one in the neighbouring street, that have fallen over in the past three years. Thankfully, they landed on walls and not on cars or people, but of course from one day to the next, they simply go—often in very hot weather.
As we increase canopy cover, we need to understand what we are doing. We are giving grants to local authorities, but what is the accountability mechanism? As with flood defence assets, it is no good building the asset if we are not going to look after it. Flood defence assets were not in good shape when we came in, so we have spent a lot of extra money—tens of millions—to make sure that fail-safe mechanisms are put in place and that assets are kept up to date.
Sarah Dyke
On tree canopy cover, I was lead member for environment and climate change at Somerset council when it was developing the tree strategy. The county is 8% tree canopy—way below the national average, which is about 13%. Obviously, increased canopy cover helps to reduce storm water run-off, prevent flooding, and improve biodiversity and habitats for local wildlife. Will the Minister commit to setting targets for neighbourhood tree cover to help to ensure equal resilience to flooding and stronger biodiversity in areas with below-average tree canopy cover?
Mary Creagh
Of course, the hon. Member’s area is benefiting, under this Government, from the first national forest to be planted for 30 years. The Western forest will stretch from the Mendip hills up to Bristol, Gloucester—for the flood prevention—and the Forest of Dean, so there will be a huge increase. [Interruption.] She has quite a bit in her area, I hear her say—good. The canopy cover will increase there, with 20 million trees planted over the next 25 years. Some of that will be agroforestry and some restoration of ancient woodland.
Esther McVey
I know that the Minister cares passionately and knows a lot about this issue. Would she meet me and my constituent so that we can discuss Chris’s law?
Mary Creagh
The right hon. Lady is correct to bring me back to my conclusion. We have got five minutes, so I had a little tour via the Western Forest. On the point about 13% coverage, we are trying to get to 16% over the country by 2050. That has been a cross-party agreement under the Climate Change Act 2008 on the number of trees we need to plant to tackle climate change. It is important to look at tree access and tree equity as part of that. That is certainly in my processes as I think about where the next two national forests are going to be.
Let me bring this debate to an end. I thank the right hon. Lady for the debate and for bringing this tragic incident to my attention. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage local authorities to follow our guidance on tree risk management, issued by the National Tree Safety Group, and to develop tree and woodland strategies, taking advantage of the toolkit that has been developed specifically for them. We know that better management of trees can deliver improved outcomes, particularly for public health and safety.
I welcome the attention that Fiona and Sam Hall’s tireless campaigning has brought to this issue. I again express my heartfelt sympathies on their devastating loss. I am, of course, happy to meet the right hon. Member for Tatton and her constituent to discuss those issues further. I would be happy to meet Mrs Hall and Sam Hall. I invite the right hon. Lady to contact my private office to get a meeting in the diary.
Question put and agreed to.
Healthcare: Bolton
(1 day, 9 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
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered healthcare in Bolton.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I declare an interest as a member of the Women and Equalities Committee. Improving the quality of healthcare is a cause close to my heart, and I am pleased to be joined by my fellow Boltonian, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi). I would also like to highlight the work of my friend and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), who is unfortunately unable to join us today, but who I know has been strongly campaigning for a new neighbourhood health centre in Westhoughton, and I pay tribute to that work.
For too long, healthcare in Bolton has been treated as a technocratic policy area rather than a vital lifeline. My constituents are not concerned with acronyms or distant targets; they want answers to real, human questions: “Can I get a GP appointment when my child is ill?”, “Will my mum be seen in A&E within hours, not half a day?” and “Will my toothache be treated before it turns into an infection?” This is about fairness; it is about whether towns like mine get our fair share. My message is simple, and I will repeat it: Bolton must not be left behind—not in GP access, not in A&E rates and not in dentistry.
Everything I say today is drawn from the lived experiences of people in Bolton. Earlier this year, I held a local consultation on the NHS 10-year plan. The response was overwhelming. Boltonians care deeply about our NHS and, as a result, they brought ideas, energy and hope, as well as far too many stories of delays, confusion and dignity under pressure. I promised I would bring their voices here today and speak plainly about the state of healthcare in our town.
Let us be honest: by the time Labour came in last year, Bolton’s NHS was stretched to breaking point, with patients waiting, staff exhausted and services fraying. At Royal Bolton hospital, our A&E was among the worst performing in England-, at one point in the bottom 5%. Local residents were waiting 12 or 13 hours to be seen, with elderly patients on trolleys overnight and small children with high fevers stuck in crowded corridors. That was unbearable, and evidence of more than a decade of neglect. By the time of last year’s election, waiting lists were in crisis, with more than 600 people in Bolton waiting over 65 weeks for treatment—well over a year. Behind every wait was a life on pause: a knee that would not bend, a lump not yet diagnosed, a life put at risk.
That crisis did not happen overnight; it came from choices—14 years of underfunding, frozen capital budgets and ignored warnings about staff shortages. Public health budgets were cut by more than a quarter. That neglect hit towns like Bolton hardest, because when you start with older buildings, higher rates of illness and fewer GPs, cuts hit twice as hard.
Yet, despite it all, one constant kept us standing: our NHS staff. More than 6,000 people in and around Bolton hospital keep this town going. Nurses, doctors, porters, cleaners, therapists and paramedics turn up throughout winter crises and put up with buildings that are literally crumbling. I want to put on record my thanks to the many fantastic people I have met and particularly to Fiona Noden at Bolton hospital, Amy Rothwell at Bolton Maternity and Neonatal Voices Partnership, Leigh Vallance at Bolton Hospice, Carol Fielding and Steve Milward at Bolton Pulmonary Fibrosis Support Group and all the teams who care so deeply for their patients. They deserve more than our gratitude; they deserve a system that backs them.
Thankfully, because our staff and communities refused to give up, and because we now have a Labour Government repairing those years of neglect, there has been a real shift. Over the past year, Bolton hospital has become one of the most improved trusts in England for urgent care, the second most improved on the 12-hour A&E measure, and among the top 10 for the four-hour standard. Gone are the days of the regular 65-week waits. Cancer services are improving too. Bolton NHS foundation trust is leading the country on the 28-day diagnosis standard—a real credit to our cancer teams.
Of course, those gains were not luck; they came from investment, co-ordination and teamwork, and from Government backing alongside A&E staff, social care and our Greater Manchester partners. We have improved because we funded triage clinicians—expanding urgent care so that paramedics are not stuck in corridors—unblocked beds through better discharge planning and used modern data to keep patient flow moving. Improvements such as those show what happens when we have a Government who provide the support and resources we need. When Bolton is backed, Bolton delivers.
Of course, we cannot pretend that everything has been fixed within a year. Bolton hospital’s chief executive told me last week that winter illnesses have already begun, and my constituents are still living with the consequences of underinvestment. If we do not keep investing in beds, staff and modern systems, we will slide back. Even in recent weeks, I have heard from constituents about long waiting lists and poor communication. One constituent wrote to me after waiting nearly 10 months for an operation. Week after week brought new calls, promises and deferrals, with no clear explanation and no timeline held. Another constituent, who had received podiatry care for 20 years, found her care plan cancelled without notice after what was later described as “computer error”, leaving her housebound and in pain. That is not good enough. People deserve timely care and straight answers.
People also tell me about poor co-ordination across hospital, community and social care, delayed wheelchairs, patchy discharge planning and post-hospital support that does not arrive.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) for securing the debate. Whether it be Bolton or Ballywalter, healthcare problems are the same for every one of us. The result of these issues is a lack of confidence in the system, which is harmful in itself. If someone says there is no point phoning the GP, because they cannot get an appointment, they cannot get early detection and intervention, and they will lose out. Does the hon. Lady agree that accessibility is the key to confidence and that that is where we need to start?
Kirith Entwistle
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will come on to GP surgeries in more detail.
None of this is from a lack of effort. Our GPs and practice teams are working flat out. What is needed is joined-up care with real accountability. When a discharge is planned, the equipment and care package must already be in place. Families should not have to chase switchboards for what was promised on paper. Neighbourhood teams bringing physiotherapists, pharmacists and mental health practitioners into GP surgeries are part of the answer, and I want to see them fully rolled out in Bolton. It is common sense: if we help people sooner, we prevent hospital crises later.
Before I move on, I want to speak about the experience of Leah, a Bolton mum who took her 10-year-old son to the GP twice last summer. Her son was suffering from severe headaches, and Leah rightly asked their GP for blood tests. No tests were done. On the first visit, she was told it was most likely a virus. On the second, she asked again for bloods, but was told the GP needed to refer her son to paediatrics. Then, having taken him to A&E, she was told a referral had been received but that there would be a 28-week wait. Leah tried again and again. Later, while on holiday in Cyprus, Leah’s son collapsed. Doctors there diagnosed acute leukaemia, a life-threatening condition. This 10-year-old had to be treated in a foreign country he did not know, away from home and support, and the family were told he could return only by air ambulance, at a cost of more than £50,000.
Leah asked me a question no parent should have to ask: “If basic bloods had been done when I asked, would my son have been spared this ordeal?” I hope the Minister will agree that what Leah and her son have endured is utterly unacceptable, and I look forward to hearing what will be done to ensure that what happened to Leah’s son never happens again. As a mother to a three-year-old boy, I cannot accept a system that makes it easier for GPs to tell a worried mother to wait than to get a same-day full blood count when there are obvious red flags. Parents need to be heard and believed. Leah and her son are far from alone in their experience, which is exactly why we must recognise the critical role and responsibilities of GP surgeries when it comes to preventive care.
After speaking with the Bolton Pulmonary Fibrosis Support Group, I fully back its call for more robust regular medication reviews in GP surgeries as well, and I will keep pressing for GP surgeries in Bolton to meet their responsibility to our communities. We must get this right, because families must be able to rely on their GPs.
Nowhere is the need for better healthcare in Bolton more visible or urgent than in maternity care and women’s health. In 2023, the crumbling reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete we have all read about was found in the roof of the maternity unit at Bolton hospital. Services had to be decanted, temporary structures went up and mothers and midwives made do. Although I am pleased that significant progress has recently been made in removing RACC, I will continue to push until the work is completed quickly and safely. Mothers and babies deserve a modern, safe environment, and I am determined to ensure that Bolton’s midwives have facilities that match their professionalism. The £4.7 million allocated to Bolton hospital by the Government this year for these repairs is welcome, but it is also a sticking-plaster. We simply cannot deliver 21st-century care in 20th-century buildings.
The experiences of mothers in Bolton underline why this matters. Healthwatch Bolton has reported accounts from women who were left alone for hours during labour, while another mother described giving birth in a hospital corridor. Beyond maternity, the gynaecology backlog has been in crisis for decades. Across the UK, more than half a million women are on gynaecology waiting lists, and in Greater Manchester alone around 40,000 women are stuck on a list for over 18 weeks. The average time for an endometriosis diagnosis is nearly nine years, with waits worse in the north than in the south.
That is why I strongly support the women’s health strategy, and the roll-out of women’s health hubs. The North Liverpool hub shows what works—menopause, cervical screening and gynaecology triage brought under one local roof, cutting waits, improving access and working for and around women, not the other way around. Bolton should benefit in the same way. I will continue to fight for a fully established and equipped women’s health hub in Bolton, with funding for specialist nurses, imaging and theatre time to match demand. I look forward to the Minister setting out what steps the Government are taking to improve maternity services and women’s health in my town.
If we want to see the future of a community, we should look at its children’s health. In Bolton the picture is stark. One in five children starts school overweight or obese, and by year 6 that is 38%, which is well above the England average. Worse still, our infant mortality and child death rates are higher than the national rate, and the wealth gap in healthy life expectancy means that someone born in Breightmet is likely to spend about a decade less of their life in good health than someone born in Bromley Cross. That is an utterly unacceptable level of inequality. Close to 30% of Bolton’s children live in poverty. Poverty drives stress, poor nutrition and overcrowding, and those drive ill health.
Bolton also has the highest rate of deaths of despair among young people—particularly young men—in Greater Manchester. We must change that reality. Last week, to mark World Mental Health Day, I had the privilege of training as Bolton’s 100th manbassador. Bolton Manbassadors creates safe spaces for men to talk, connect and seek support, and I am proud that its impact was recognised at this year’s Bolton News business awards, where it won a Heart of the Community award. I commend it and everyone in our community for coming together to support Bolton’s men and boys.
For years, dentistry in Bolton has been a crisis hidden in plain sight. Before the election, fewer than half of adults had seen an NHS dentist in two years. Families tried dozens of practices, only to be turned away, and although waiting lists have fallen under the Labour Government, there is still much more to do. One constituent, a full-time NHS worker, wrote to me in April after suffering 18 months of recurring infections and abscesses, all because she could not register with a dentist after moving to Bolton. She pays taxes and national insurance, but cannot get a basic extraction under the NHS. It is indefensible.
In Bolton our dentistry problem is structural. We are reliant on the Greater Manchester dental budget, but that fund covers only around 60% of our population’s needs. Dentistry is basic healthcare, not a luxury, and Bolton families should not go without because a funding formula short-changes our town.
That structural unfairness is not limited to dentistry. It is pervasive across how our healthcare resources are budgeted. The market forces factor, a key determinant for local healthcare funding, uplifts budgets for high-cost areas such as London, but does little to recognise the higher burden of illnesses in towns such as mine. Public health grants are skewed south. London boroughs receive roughly £105 per head, but the north-west receives only £85. That is the wrong way round when the need is greater there. Bolton families should not be penalised for living outside the M25.
Within that national picture, Greater Manchester devolution has brought real benefits to Bolton, such as shared elective hub capacity to cut backlogs, region-wide diagnostics collaboration and practical schemes such as the Greater Manchester dental access programme. When our region works together, it saves lives. But we must also be honest: Bolton can disappear into Greater Manchester averages that mask local pressures, and deficit controls and top-slicing can threaten to stall Bolton-specific plans. Yesterday’s meeting of the Bolton locality board warned that the biggest risk facing the system is the financial challenge facing health, and that a region-wide deficit could derail development plans, with an £800,000 shortfall for Bolton itself. My ask is simple: give Bolton its fair share, and do not leave us behind.
When I talk to people in Bolton, they do not ask for miracles; they ask for fairness. They want to know that if their child is sick, someone will answer the phone and give them an appointment, that if their mum needs a scan, it will not take months and that if they work hard and pay their taxes, their town will not be forgotten. For too long, those basic expectations were treated as too much—but not any more. We are now seeing meaningful progress in urgent care, waiting lists and a renewed focus on women’s and children’s health—but progress must be made within Bolton and not around it.
We are a proud town with brilliant NHS staff and a community who show up for each other. Bolton must never be left behind again—not in women’s health, diagnosis or the budget lines that can decide our fate. With the determination of our community, and a Labour Government that back us, we will not be left behind. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) for securing this important debate. As she said, our other hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) has a prior commitment, so he is not able to attend this debate. I mention that because the three of us work well together in campaigning on many issues of concern to our constituents. One of the things we do is have a regular meeting with the chief executive of our hospital, as we did only last week, to raise those issues.
Healthcare in Bolton is really important for us and one of the most serious concerns raised by our constituents. When people in Bolton talk about the NHS, they are full of respect for the doctors, nurses and frontline staff. Their frustration is directed not at individuals, but at a system that leaves them waiting for months without answers or support. One constituent with a serious heart condition told me that she had waited more than a year to see her cardiologist at the Royal Bolton hospital. At one point she was informed that the waiting list had actually been closed. She paid to be seen privately, but then her appointment finally arrived, one year after she had last inquired about it. She said:
“I do not expect luxury. I just do not want to be forgotten.”
Ahead of this debate, I invited constituents to share their own experiences of healthcare in Bolton. What I received were not statistics, but stories of worry, delay and a sense of being left behind. Parents spoke about their children waiting for assessment. Women described living in pain while waiting for treatment. Older residents asked whether their names still even existed on any list at all. People said that it was almost impossible to get a GP appointment unless they were online at 8 am. Others described the long phone queue, with no certainty of being able to secure an appointment, and being told that they would need to call back the following day or try again. Many spoke about digital systems that shut people out, especially those who are elderly, disabled or unwell.
I received accounts of hospital letters arriving late, or of appointments missed because no update had been received. Parents of children with mental health needs said that they were given information sheets instead of meaningful support. I hear their concerns, and they must be addressed. I recognise that secondary care is outside of the Minister’s direct brief, but obviously we cannot separate primary and secondary care when patients are stuck between them.
When referrals disappear and no update follows, it is the GPs who are left to manage their patients’ anxiety, without any information to reassure or support them. Communication must be treated as part of care, not an afterthought. In general practice there are concerns about not only access, but continuity. Constituents tell me that they never see the same doctor twice; they repeat their story at every appointment with no sense of follow-up or a clear plan. When ongoing conditions rely on repeated re-telling rather than joined-up care, confidence in the system is lost. Primary care needs support to provide consistency, not just capacity.
Mental health is another deeply worrying area. In Greater Manchester, the number of adults waiting for ADHD assessments has risen sharply; some of my constituents have been waiting eight months or more without being allocated a clinician. Parents spoke to me about their experience with child and adolescent mental health services, where children in real distress are waiting months and months for assessment and intervention. Without early support, families are being left alone to cope.
Another area is women’s health, where the disparities are clear. Girls born in the north-west can expect fewer healthy years than those born in other regions. Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, which serves parts of Bolton, has the highest gynaecology waiting list in England. Women describe missing work, living in pain and caring for families while waiting for basic investigations. I therefore welcome the Government’s women’s health strategy and the development of women’s health hubs. Liverpool has hubs that bring together contraception, screening and menopause care in one place, and Bolton should receive the same opportunity to deliver accessible women’s care in community settings.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for dentistry and oral health, I know that NHS dentistry faces an existential threat. Almost 14 million people were unable to access dental care in the early part of 2025. From 2010 to 2024, expenditure on dentistry went down from 3% of the NHS budget to 1.5%. Although we welcome the 700,000 new appointments, we actually need 2.2 million of them, as the Government have accepted. Morale among NHS dentistry practitioners is at an all-time low, and many are leaving. The Health and Social Care Committee said in 2023 that the current dental contract is “not fit for purpose”. It needs reform.
Another issue is that, while there are qualified dentists, the process by which they have to register to practise seems to be taking a very long time. It is an administrative process, not a process for assessing professional, clinical requirements. That needs to be addressed. Many residents tell me that they cannot get dental appointments and are living in pain, with untreated problems. I have personally had to ring dentists to get appointments for a number of constituents. I know that the Government have a 10-year plan for the NHS, but dentistry cannot wait 10 years for the situation to be resolved.
Finally, we cannot discuss healthcare in Bolton without confronting inequality. One in four children in the north-west grow up in poverty. Delayed treatment, poor health and limited support are not separate issues; they are experienced by the same families. The 10-year health plan must deliver not only nationally, but locally, in towns such as Bolton where the need is greatest.
My constituents are not asking for perfection; they are asking not to be forgotten. They want to know that if they seek help, the system will acknowledge them, guide them and not let them fall between services. If we are to restore confidence, we must ensure that patients are not lost between primary and secondary care, and that dignity and fairness remain at the heart of healthcare delivery. With focus, co-ordination and commitment, we can deliver the timely, compassionate care that the people of Bolton deserve.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate her and the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) on being such powerful advocates for health in their region. I was interested that both Members focused on poverty levels and inequality in health outcomes—a hugely important subject. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), and I both served on the Mental Health Bill Committee, where we discussed repeatedly the fact that people who live in poverty are three times more likely to have mental health issues than those on an average income.
I also served on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee, and I remember Professor Chris Whitty saying that it was not only the biggest piece of public health legislation in 30 years, but one of the biggest interventions to address inequality, because one of the significant factors in differences in life expectancy between more deprived communities and wealthier communities was smoking levels. Despite our economic troubles at the moment, we are still one of the wealthiest nations on Earth, and we can still be one of the healthiest nations on Earth if those resources are deployed in the right way. Everyone should have the right to see a doctor or dentist and to get mental health care as and when they need it.
We have touched on public health. At the moment, two thirds of adults are overweight and 10% of the NHS budget is spent on diabetes and diabetes-related illnesses. That is one reason that the Liberal Democrats are so keen on closing the loopholes in the sugar levy and extending it to sugary milk and juice-based drinks, on restricting the marketing of products high in fat, salt and sugar, on reversing cuts to the public health grant and on legislating for a right to clean air.
It is also why, like the Government, we are so keen on good-quality school meals. The hon. Member for Bolton North East talked about the levels of childhood obesity in primary school and their impact on not only the individual’s health, but the NHS in terms of cost. Having good-quality nutrition in all public organisations, whether schools, prisons or care homes, is an impactful way of not only helping people to have a healthier life, but reducing the burden on NHS services.
I will finish by saying that health is the No. 1 issue that comes up on the doorstep. There is a lot of concern and worry that people may not get healthcare when they need it. Whether in Bolton or Winchester, people need to know that they will be able to access healthcare, free at the point of use, as and when they need it. I commend the hon. Members for Bolton North East and for Bolton South and Walkden on securing this debate and speaking so powerfully on behalf of their constituents.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I too congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle). She covered a huge amount within her allotted time. The only sadness is that we have only an hour, and I have only a couple of minutes to try to address many of her points.
The biggest message that we take home today is that Bolton must not be left behind. The hon. Member has been exemplary in stepping forward and making that case. I would slightly and gently push back and say that I do not think that Bolton was left behind by the previous Government. The trajectory she is working towards is already there, if we look at examples of the investment that was made by the previous Government, most notably the £20 million, which made up part of the £40 million in levelling-up funding, for the medical college at the Royal Bolton Hospital, and listen to Professor Holmes, who said:
“It is incredibly rewarding for us at the University to witness our flagship facility reach this important milestone of practical completion.
It is a privilege to be home to one of the nation’s leading clinical skills facilities here in Greater Manchester and this is a key step in our aim to become a national centre of excellence for health.”
On top of that, there was a £20 million investment in the elective care centre, which has opened with four theatres dealing with about 5,000 patients. The hon. Member for Bolton North East was right to pick up on the maternity and women’s health unit, which is really important. In 2023, we saw a £38 million investment to help the unit, and it will hopefully be done by 2027. I have no doubt that she will be there to wag the stick to make sure that it is. I hope that she and the Government will be successful in that.
I want to tease out a couple of questions for the Government. The hon. Member stressed maternity, which is really important. At the general election, the Labour party made firm commitments on maternity services, so I ask the Minister: when will the national maternity safety ambitions be published, and will targets be set around the maternity mortality gap? What will be done to address it?
The hon. Members for Bolton North East and for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) both rightly raised the integration of system and service, which is also a concern on the Opposition side. We have seen top-down reorganisation, especially around integrated care boards, and I am sure the Greater Manchester integrated care partnership will have been asked to make reductions in its headcount.
The problem is that the Government have not set out how they will pay for those redundancies, or what that shape will look like, so they are trying to make transformative change and looking internally. There is real concern about that among the Opposition, so I hope the Minister will be able to set out how much that will cost and whether the redundancy package will be coming forward, because we hear it could be up to £1 billion. As the chief executive of NHS England has said, if we do not hear something in the next few weeks, the NHS will have to turn to plan B—if there is a plan B. I would be grateful if the Minister could set that out.
Finally, on GPs, we also know that the Government have stated in the 10-year plan that GP leaders will be pivotal in shaping and delivering these new services and will be supported to do so with two new contracts from 2026. Of course, we have learned in the past couple of weeks that GPs have entered a formal dispute with the Government because of the contractual changes, so I would be grateful to understand what the Minister is doing—although it is not in her brief—and what her team are doing to try to pull it back from the brink and hopefully resolve some of the contractual issues, particularly when it comes to access.
To close on a personal note, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton North East on her work as a manbassador. As someone who, since stepping into this House, has campaigned on mental and physical health for men and boys, I know it often gets left behind. I made that point on the Floor of the House only a couple of weeks ago, so it is fantastic that she is championing men and boys. We need advocates for both sexes, both ways round, when it comes to men’s and women’s health. It is not a competition; it is not one or the other—it is “and”, and she typifies that. No man or boy should be left behind, but nor should Bolton.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms Lewell.
It was a valiant effort from the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) to raise things such as top-down reorganisation and the state in which the Conservatives left the health service after their 14 years in government. It is as a result of that record that I am delighted to have my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) here, alongside such strong representation from Labour, following the electorate’s verdict on the last 14 years only 14 months ago. She has been an excellent campaigner since joining Parliament, and securing this important debate is part of that. I am grateful to other hon. Members for taking part.
As a result of the action taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East in securing this debate, I met the chief executive, Fiona Noden, and the local ICB to understand, in a more granular fashion, some of the issues I expected my hon. Friend to raise. She was right to thank the staff—both at a leadership level and across the board in Bolton—for their great work. I commend that leadership for meeting regularly, and my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton North East and for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for meeting regularly with those leaders. That happens in my own patch, but it does not happen everywhere. As I often say, it is a really valuable local relationship, because it makes hon. Members more informed and NHS managers better leaders as well.
As we have heard so eloquently, the NHS faces pressures all over the country, including in Bolton and north-west England. Our 10-year health plan is designed to fix that. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East for holding one of those important consultation events. They were very powerful. As a result of the work that she and others have done to bring the patient voice directly to Government and make it a fundamental part of the plan, I think our plan has widespread support. I hope her constituents can hear their voices reflected in the plan that we have developed: it is about access to healthcare for everyone, no matter where they live or how much they earn. We must make sure that our health service is based on that need.
The three shifts—hospital to community, treatment to prevention, and analogue to digital—will ensure that community and neighbourhood health services get the investment they need and that patient communication is more joined up. We are also working with the NHS to make the tough choices that are needed to get it back on its feet.
We will create an NHS where patients have more control, staff have more time to care, bureaucracy is reduced, power is devolved and the health inequalities that we have so sadly heard about again this afternoon are narrowed. That includes creating a new operating model with fewer, larger ICBs, enabling them to harness a shared budget of sufficient size to improve efficiency and reduce running costs. It is a 10-year plan, but of course we are already seeing some improvements and we have set key targets and milestones along that trajectory. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden said, we cannot all wait 10 years. We have to see that improvement along the way.
Child health is crucial. We have heard about the inequalities and poverty that many children in Bolton experience. That is why the Government have committed to raising the healthiest generation of children ever, and will soon publish an ambitious strategy to reduce child poverty, tackle the root causes, and give every child the best start in life.
A huge part of realising our ambitions for the NHS is about improving access to dentistry services. The Government understand that, which is why extra urgent dental appointments are being made available across the country, including in Greater Manchester. That is expected to deliver an extra 17,897 urgent dental appointments across 2025-26. Additional dentists have also been recruited in areas that need them most, and we are committed to delivering fundamental contract reform before the end of this Parliament.
All of that will deliver better dental care for everyone in England, including those in Bolton. We also recognise that we need to go further to improve the oral health of children, which is why we are providing funding to local authorities to roll out the targeted, supervised toothbrushing programme for three to five-year-olds. As a result of the programme, Bolton has received over 32,000 donated products to implement supervised toothbrushing alongside an additional £127,000 this financial year.
Hon. Members rightly raised the issue of RAAC at Royal Bolton hospital, which is obviously deeply concerning for staff and patients. Let us be very clear: the safety of patients and staff has to come first. Each trust with RAAC issues has invested significant levels of NHS capital to mitigate safety risks. Locally, the Bolton NHS foundation trust has received over £9.5 million to mitigate the RAAC risk and for eradication works at Royal Bolton hospital. The trust will continue to have access to further necessary funding for RAAC removal, enabling the hospital to complete development and modernisation upgrades.
Hon. Members also raised the important subject of women’s health. As part of our work in this area, we are tackling waiting lists, of which gynaecology is a substantial part. We will see those waiting lists come down and we will soon make emergency hormonal contraception free in pharmacies, but we know that there is much more to do for women. That is why we will look at where we can go further and reflect that in an updated women’s health strategy to better meet the needs of women in Bolton and across the country.
This year the Secretary of State announced a rapid national independent investigation into NHS maternity and neonatal services. He will also chair a maternity and neonatal taskforce to develop the action plan based on the investigation’s recommendations. I am happy to report encouraging local initiatives such as Bolton’s new maternity and women’s health unit, which is set to open in early 2027, as well as a focus on paternal support and investment in strong community-based care and specialist parental mental health support, which we know is so important.
Issues around mental health were raised this afternoon. Mental health support in maternity is made possible only by strong mental health services across the board. That is why we are transforming mental health services. We have heard about Opposition Members serving on the Public Bill Committee and we thank them for their work. We need to build new dedicated mental health emergency departments, improve outreach, and increase overall funding to benefit Bolton and the rest of the country. That includes transforming mental health services in 24/7 neighbourhood mental health centres, building on the existing pilots, and investing up to £120 million to bring the number of mental health emergency departments up to 85.
We also heard about urgent and emergency care this afternoon. We will be publishing an urgent and emergency care plan. The plan will reduce A&E wait times, provide almost £450 million of capital investment for same-day emergency care and mental health crisis assessment centres, and get more ambulances back on the road. The local picture is promising. In Bolton, 12-hour wait times are down compared with a similar time last year, and meaningful infrastructure improvements are being delivered. We are not complacent, however, and we know the situation is not acceptable for people.
A large part of the contributions was about improving general practice and recognising the need for people to feel they have access to it, because that is where most people have contact with the health service. That improvement is a crucial part of our agenda. It is heartbreaking to hear about patients not getting the testing or treatment they need, and of course Leah and her son should not have had to endure that shocking ordeal. I hope that they are getting the support they need, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East will be supporting them.
On access, my hon. Friend will be aware that part of our negotiations with doctors has been about increasing online access, which was rolled out on 1 October. That is helpful to know if that is available in her patch. New funding for the advice and guidance scheme is helping GPs to work more closely with hospital specialists to access expert advice quickly and speed their patients through the system, so they get care in the right place as soon as possible.
Dr Luke Evans
Hearing Leah’s story was very concerning and upsetting. When it comes to further online access, one of GPs’ biggest concerns is about what to do with the emergencies that may come in through a computer at 6.20 pm as a result of that access, having to make that assessment when the system is supposed to be closing, and the ability to move GPs to take them away from face-to-face consultations to deal with online access. How will the Government square the circle of access versus patient safety? That is at the crux of the dispute.
Karin Smyth
The shadow Minister opens up a discussion that could take some time. Clearly, practices regularly manage emergency situations. The system that we have put in place aims to make sure that patients have access during the day. Different practices will obviously have different opening times—that is a matter for the local system—but I know that if an emergency comes forward, practices all over the country do all they can to make sure that patients are safe. There are also disclaimers on their websites about the times of operation and so on. If there are any individual cases that he wants to raise, we will look at them, but that urgent emergency interface is a matter of negotiation locally and I think most practices understand how to manage it.
I am pleased to report that we are investing more than £1 billion extra in GP services and £82 million in the primary care workforce to ensure that places such as Bolton get the resources and GPs they need. On infrastructure, a new £102 million fund will create additional clinical space across more than 1,000 practices in England. As a result of those efforts, 8 million more appointments have been delivered this year compared with last year. Our shift to a neighbourhood health service is exactly about the joined-up, accessible and locally accountable care that we all want to see, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East rightly highlighted. That is also what staff in the system want to see.
On waiting lists, we published our elective reform plan to deliver the change that we promised at the last election. Between July 2024 and June 2025, we delivered more than 5 million additional appointments compared with the previous year. There has also been a reduction in the number of people on the waiting list of over 200,000. I think patients and members of the public are seeing and feeling that progress, and although there is a long way to go, staff are starting to feel it too.
Since June 2024, the number of people on the waiting list at Bolton NHS foundation trust has reduced by more than 7,000, and the number of patients waiting over a year has more than halved. Those are tangible improvements in a very short time, and we thank the staff for their hard work to achieve that. Patients deserve better, but they are seeing progress. We know there is more to be done.
I thank hon. Members for bringing their knowledge and experience of Bolton’s health services to this debate. I know that they and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) will continue to advocate strongly on behalf of the people of Bolton, continue to work closely with local leaders, and continue to hold the Government to account for the promises we are making. That conversation between local Members of Parliament about what is actually happening on the ground, which we all hear about in our inboxes, in our surgeries and when we talk to local people, is an important part of what they are doing to raise these issues. I hope that my response shows how much the Government are committed to addressing these issues and working to improve healthcare for the people of Bolton.
Kirith Entwistle
I thank hon. Members from both sides of the House who have taken part in this debate, and I thank the Minister for her response, in which she touched on a broad range of subjects.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) for highlighting the regional inequalities, which are particularly important, and for touching on the impact of child poverty and the importance of good-quality nutrition. I will not reiterate the impact that the last Conservative Government had on Bolton, but I commend the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for his work on mental health, and specifically men’s mental health, which is such an important area.
Finally, I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for her tireless support—the three Bolton MPs have a strong partnership. I was struck by her statement that primary care needs consistency to provide support, not just capacity. That is a strong message.
I am grateful to hear that the Minister has met the CEO of Bolton hospital, and I am pleased to hear that we are making progress, which is being felt. However, I will continue to work with my fellow Bolton MPs to ensure that Bolton is not left behind, and to ensure that we continue to make progress in the right direction.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered healthcare in Bolton.
Gaming Machines and Bingo Venues: Licensing Consultation
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend, the Minister for Museums, Heritage and Gambling and DCMS Lords Minister, Baroness Twycross:
The family entertainment sector makes an important contribution to local communities, particularly in seaside towns, and bingo venues are a traditional cornerstone of the leisure sector enjoyed across the country. However, commercial pressures mean we have seen a number of closures of licensed family entertainment centres and bingo clubs in recent years. The Government are keen to explore ways to support both sectors, preserving the heritage of family-run amusement piers and bingo halls while supporting innovative and vibrant new offerings, and to ensure that the regulatory regime that applies to them is fit for purpose. Doing so will help to support our wider growth mission, and help to ensure a sustainable and socially responsible land-based gambling sector.
I therefore wish to inform the House that we have today published a consultation on category D gaming machines and licensing for bingo venues.
Stake and prize limits for category D gaming machines
Family entertainment centres predominantly site category D gaming machines. These are low-stakes machines, categorised by the Gambling Commission as suitable for under-18s to play, and include seaside staples such as crane grabs and penny pushers. Stakes and prizes for category D machines have not changed since 2014, while inflation has limited the ability of operators to offer appealing prizes. As this category encompasses a wide variety of machines, we are seeking views on maintaining or increasing current stake and prize limits, in order to support commercial sustainability and operator investment in venues housing category D machines. In line with this, we are also seeking feedback on proposals to adjust the sub-categories for certain category D machines, to reflect new game mechanics and distinguish machines that more closely resemble adult gambling activities from lower-risk games. This will ensure that any changes to stakes and prizes to support growth in the sector are underpinned by an appropriate and proportionate framework.
Age limit for “cash-out” slot-style category D machines
The Government are also consulting on an age limit for certain category D gaming machines. The Gambling Act review concluded that machines which mirror adult slot machines and pay out in cash—also known as cash-out slot-style category D machines—should not be available to children. Therefore, we are proposing to make it a criminal offence to invite, cause or permit anyone under the age of 18 to play these particular types of machines. This builds on the existing voluntary commitment implemented in 2021 by Bacta, the amusement and gaming machine industry trade body, banning under-18s from playing this type of machine in their members’ venues, by introducing the same protections across the whole sector.
Licensing for bingo venues
Recent years have seen change and innovation in the bingo sector: this includes new concepts combining bingo with nightlife, electronic terminals allowing customers to play on a tablet, and smaller premises emerging alongside traditional bingo clubs. While we are keen to support innovation and the continued popularity of bingo, there are a growing number of licensed bingo premises which predominantly site gaming machines and are difficult to distinguish from adult gaming centres.
To support the sector and provide clarity for customers in the changing landscape of land-based gambling, the Government are seeking views on measures to create a clearer distinction between adult gaming centres and bingo premises. This will ensure that all premises have a licence type that is appropriate to their offering. The key proposal we are consulting on is requiring a “bingo area”. This would occupy a minimum proportion of venue floor space, in all licensed bingo venues, where customers can enjoy a bingo game, whether they play on paper or a tablet, in a linked or a local game. This will make bingo the primary option within such venues, protecting the offering to customers and supporting the industry. It will also close the loophole that permits the consumption of alcohol in machine-led venues, when this is prohibited in adult gaming centres. We are also consulting on rules for the bingo area, including prohibiting larger gaming machines and requiring a minimum number of positions for bingo.
I would encourage those in this House who care strongly about gambling policy, as well as relevant stakeholders, to share their views through this consultation. I will deposit a copy of the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS964]
Countryside Stewardship Mid-tier Agreements
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
Today, I announce that this Government will offer one-year extensions to more than 5,000 farmers with Countryside Stewardship mid-tier agreements expiring this year.
Countryside Stewardship pays farmers and land managers for environmental work alongside sustainable food production. This targeted, time-limited extension ensures they will continue to be rewarded for their vital role in sustainable food production and nature’s recovery.
With agreements set to expire on 31 December this year, one-year extensions are being offered while the Government develop the reformed sustainable farming incentive for 2026, refreshes the environmental improvement plan and rolls out the new Countryside Stewardship higher-tier scheme. This is part of our plan to give farmers long-term strategic certainty.
The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) will write to eligible farmers with details about their extension offer. The letter will contain details of how they accept their extension and the deadline they need to meet for it to be processed.
The one-off investment of up to £70 million from within existing budgets ensures more than 5,000 farmers, foresters and landowners have the support they need to continue their vital role in sustainable food production and nature’s recovery. It reflects our commitment to working with the sector to build a stronger, more profitable farming future.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds) and I will now review plans for the sustainable farming incentive to ensure the available funding is distributed more efficiently and more fairly. The Government will publish information on the next iteration of the scheme in due course.
Funding for farmers through the environmental land management schemes, which include the Countryside Stewardship mid-tier scheme, will increase by 150% to £2 billion by 2029, helping to boost rural economies, strengthen domestic food production and enhance the UK’s natural environment for future generations. This underpins the Government’s cast iron commitment to food security and creating more resilient farm businesses.
Through the Countryside Stewardship mid-tier scheme, farmers are planting wildflower margins to boost pollinators and managing hedgerows to create vital habitats for birds and small mammals—alongside sustainable food production.
Investing in nature through the Government’s plan for change is central to securing Britain’s future economic growth, developing a sustainable, resilient and profitable farming sector, and ensuring long-term food security.
[HCWS965]
National Institute for Health and Care Research: Applied Research Collaborations
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
Today I am pleased to announce an ambitious programme of applied health, public health and social care research through 10 National Institute for Health and Care Research applied research collaborations—ARCs. This will help power transformations in the health and social care systems that we have identified in our plan for change, for the benefit of the health and wealth of our nation.
ARCs will receive funding to both develop and deliver research, and support the implementation of research in practice, responding directly to the needs of the health and social care systems. Research is vital to supporting the required change to keep people healthier for longer through prevention, fixing the NHS and supporting the sustainability of the social care sector. There will be strong patient and public involvement to ensure what matters to our population is at the heart of everything they do. The new ARCs have a strengthened remit to respond nationally to tackle the biggest challenges in the system, as set out in our 10-year plan for health.
An NIHR ARC network will also be commissioned to provide strategic and operational co-ordination to optimise synergies, increase alignment and facilitate national working with key partners, including other NIHR infrastructure. Fast-track research and collaboration will be further supported over the lifetime of the programme, to respond to Department of Health and Social Care priorities.
ARCs will also work with industry to embed new treatments into care pathways, making it easy for the NHS workforce to deliver seamlessly in their busy working days. Enhanced health economic expertise will ensure the economic impact of evidence is better understood to support decisions on efficiency, productivity and growth. The plans we set out for growth and for health provide the solutions people want to see to the difficulties of their daily lives. Research is a vital part of ensuring we deliver on these. This investment supports the scale of transformation that is needed to have a health and care system fit for the future and there for everyone when they need it.
[HCWS968]
Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment: Reclassification
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
The Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment is an advisory non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Care.
COM’s members serve on a voluntary basis and are not remunerated. Their highly valuable independent expert advice informs policy decisions across Government on appropriate safeguards on health risks from mutagenic compounds in consumer products, for example restrictions or regulations on contaminants in food packaging.
Earlier this year, the Cabinet Office undertook a review of arm’s length bodies in line with the aims of the plan for change as set out by the Government. As part of the outputs of this review, COM will be reclassified as a departmental expert committee.
COM will continue to maintain the current remit, secretariat and membership to allow the continuity of its work and secure its critical functions with no disruption to its operations or expert advice.
[HCWS963]
Pride in Place
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
On 25 September, the Government announced our plan to restore pride in place.
We are a nation of a thousand neighbourhoods, where our identity, our sense of patriotism and feelings of belonging all depend on what we can see from our doorstep. A decade and a half of under-investment and neglect under the Conservatives has held back too many of our communities and bred a sense of decline. The impact of this has been corrosive. It has divided communities, deprived public institutions of trust and emboldened extremists to attack the foundations of our country.
The causes are not straightforward—austerity, deindustrialisation, an uncritical embrace of globalisation are all a part of it—but what connects it all is a style of government that deprived people of control of their own lives and their surroundings. Pride in place is a new way of governing, and it surpasses anything that has come before.
We will invest up to £5 billion through a new flagship pride in place programme to the 244 places that need it most. In hyper-local communities across England, Scotland and Wales, we will deliver up to £20 million of funding and support to be spent by a local neighbourhood board over the next decade to drive local renewal. A separate pride in place impact fund will deliver a cash injection of £150 million to an additional 95 places, to be spent by the local authority to improve high streets and community spaces.
Investment is being targeted in neighbourhoods with both the highest deprivation levels and weakest social infrastructure, but we are also taking steps to ensure every community has the powers to renew their local area. Our pride in place strategy introduces an action plan of new policies focused on three themes: building stronger communities, creating thriving places and helping communities to take back control of their own lives and areas. As part of this, we have given councils the power to take over the lease of boarded-up shops, creating opportunities for community businesses, and we will go further to establish a new network for neighbourhoods, refresh guidance on using clean-up powers and open a new co-operative development unit within the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
When the decline in pride in place so often stems from a “we know best” attitude from those at the top, the answer can only be found in communities themselves. The cure for our problems today is in the pit villages, where hands that once took coal from the ground also built welfare halls for their families to make memories. The cure is in the classrooms, where under crumbling roofs, parents put on after-school clubs and summer fêtes. The cure is Sunday league football grounds, where the next generation support their town with the same passion as they would support their nation in the world cup. This is our alternative to the forces trying to pull us apart. This is our answer to those who feel silenced, ignored and forgotten.
[HCWS967]
National Infrastructure Planning: Data Centres
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government are committed to ensuring that the planning system effectively facilitates development to meet the needs of a modern economy, including supporting essential digital infrastructure such as data centres.
In December last year, following consultation on how the national planning policy framework could better support economic growth in key sectors, we announced plans to enable certain large-scale projects within knowledge, creative, high technology and data-driven industries to be directed into the nationally significant infrastructure projects consenting regime process.
The Government are now taking an important step towards ensuring that they can do so. I can confirm that applicants wishing to request that projects to develop large laboratories or gigafactories be directed into the NSIP consenting regime process may make a request to the Secretary of State under section 35 of the Planning Act 2008 under the existing industrial process or processes and research and development of products or processes descriptors prescribed in the Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) Regulations 2013.
Furthermore, I have today laid the draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations in Parliament. This draft statutory instrument amends the 2013 regulations to provide that data centres are prescribed projects capable of being directed into the NSIP consenting regime under section 35 of the 2008 Act.
The draft regulations are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. Subject to parliamentary time and approval, we hope to make these regulations and for them to come into force later this year or early next. This will then enable developers of certain proposed data centres on request to opt into the NSIP consenting process, provided the Secretary of State thinks that the project or proposed project is one of national significance and the development meets the other requirements set out in section 35 of the 2008 Act.
To support this change, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will prepare a new national policy statement for data centres. This will set out the national policy for this sector and the policy framework for decision making for data centres. It will also include the parameters, thresholds and other relevant factors which may indicate whether such a development is of national significance and capable of meeting the requirements of section 35 of the 2008 Act in order to be directed to proceed through the NSIP consenting regime.
[HCWS966]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 33rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 10 July 2025. The Government are committed to the remediation of residential buildings with unsafe cladding in England. Our remediation acceleration plan sets out how we will remove barriers so that buildings are fixed faster. Crucially, this will allow residents to be and feel safe in their homes.
The Government have already committed £5.1 billion of taxpayers’ money to the cost of remediation. We want to protect leaseholders and residents from further costs that are not of their making. The building safety levy is an essential step in achieving this. The purpose of the levy is to fund the Government’s building safety remediation programme. We estimate that we need to raise around £3.4 billion over 10 years. The draft regulations enable the levy to be imposed. The levy will be charged on certain building control applications for new residential floorspace in England. Subject to the approval of the Committee, it will start being charged from 1 October 2026.
Local authorities will collect the levy on behalf of central government. They are well placed to carry out this role as custodians of local building control, with tax collection expertise. I thank local authorities for the vital role they will play and for the steps they are already taking to prepare. My officials are supporting local authorities to ensure that they are ready for the levy launch. We will provide collecting authorities with grant funding for set-up costs. All ongoing costs will be recoverable from the levy revenue received.
The levy provides essential funding to deliver a safe built environment that meets residents’ needs. It complements our broader housing goals, including the delivery of 1.5 million high-quality homes over this Parliament. The levy is designed to minimise detrimental impact on housing supply while securing the required revenue. To achieve this, there are different levy rates for each local authority, which reflect local house prices. This protects viability in areas where house prices are lower. The differential rates are set out in the instrument. Development on previously developed land will benefit from a 50% discount rate. This discount compensates for the often higher cost of developing this type of land, ensuring that more sites remain viable.
The Government are committed to getting Britain building again. Small and medium-sized builders play a crucial role in driving up housebuilding rates but have faced significant challenges in recent years. In fact, just before I came here, I had a very interesting meeting with a round table of SME builders, so I know the immediate challenges they are facing. We are therefore helping SME developers by exempting developments of fewer than 10 dwellings from the levy charge.
Earlier this year, we announced the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation. The building of more good-quality, affordable housing must be accelerated. With this in mind, all affordable housing is exempt from the levy charge. However, we have gone further, and any housing built by a non-profit registered provider of social housing is also exempt. Profits from sales of such homes are often reinvested into the provision of further much-needed affordable housing. Supported housing and other types of important community facilities, such as hospices and care homes, are also exempt from the charge. We will keep the rates and processes under review and will report at least every three years. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation of this substantial SI. Although the formula on page 15 may have deterred the casual reader, I found the Explanatory Memorandum at the end a helpful summary of what is proposed.
I welcome the measure as it is a key part of the package proposed by the previous Government to fund remediation costs after the Grenfell tragedy. Although there is an element of rough justice here, in that developers which were not even around at the time of the Grenfell tragedy will have to pay, the alternative—the remediation costs in those cases where the developer was not remediating the building falling entirely on the taxpayer and/or the leaseholder—was even less palatable.
As the Minister said, this SI originates from the Building Safety Act 2022. At first sight, a delay of four years before it is introduced and a further delay before any money is paid are difficult to justify, given the urgent need to make progress with remediation. However, that does not matter; perhaps the Minister can confirm this. Although the taxpayer contribution is capped at £5.1 billion, the Treasury is, as I understand it, prepared to lend the department additional funds should that cap be reached; it will then recoup the money from future levies. As there is no sunset clause, the levy will remain in place until the Treasury is back in funds.
I have two main concerns about the building safety regime: the speed at which it is happening and the exemptions from the Building Safety Act. I made these criticisms of the previous Government, as noble Lords who were there may recall, and tabled amendments—unsuccessfully—to a variety of Bills. So there is nothing partisan about my remarks.
First, on speed, the department published its remediation portfolio dashboard showing the position as at the end of August this year. Of the 5,554 buildings covered by the Act—buildings are still being uncovered—35% had had their work completed and 14% had work under way. This means that, more than eight years after Grenfell, work has not actually started on over half of the buildings at risk.
The dashboard does not label this as “work not started”. Instead, there is a Whitehall euphemism describing it as “in the programme”. The next time my wife asks me why I have not unloaded the dishwasher, I will say that it is in the programme. Seriously, though, this means that thousands of people are still trapped in unsellable homes with unsafe cladding and fire safety defects, often with high service charges and high insurance—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord but the House is about to divide; the Bells will ring in a moment so this would be an appropriate time to adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I was explaining that the publication of the remediation portfolio dashboard showed that thousands of people are still trapped in unsellable homes with unsafe cladding, fire safety defects and, often, high service charges and insurance. That is why, writing in the British Safety Council magazine in July, the organisation End Our Cladding Scandal said:
“But on the ground—in the eyes of residents and leaseholders who remain trapped—nothing has changed”.
It went on to say:
“Labour … is failing to deliver on its manifesto commitments on building safety”.
Those are its words, not mine. The Government have a target to complete remediation by 2029 for high-rise buildings and by 2031 for 11-metre to 18-metre buildings. Some 14 years after the tragedy, surely we can do better than that. The Government’s initiative is called the remediation acceleration plan, so might we have some acceleration?
My second point concerns exemptions. The original proposition was that leaseholders, who bear no responsibility at all for what has gone wrong, should not have to bear the costs of putting things right, but that principle has been eroded: some buildings, leaseholders and defects do not qualify. For example, buildings under 11 metres do not qualify even if they have the same cladding as the Grenfell Tower.
The previous Government argued that, in those cases, there was no threat to life as people could escape. But that left the leaseholders in difficulty. In one case, Aviva insisted on cladding removal within 4 months as a condition of insurance cover, with no one else prepared to quote. Leaseholders had to pay £45,000 each. There are many other examples, such as insurers wanting combustible balconies replaced or people being unable to sell because their lender insisted on an EWS certificate, which could not be provided. Those leaseholders have no protection.
The latest RAP—remediation acceleration plan—announces the Government’s intention to
“provide funding in those exceptional cases where multi-occupied residential buildings under 11 metres have life-critical fire safety risks from cladding and do not have an alternative route to funding”.
However, what the insurers and lenders insist on is often not “life-critical”, but the property is unsellable or uninsurable without the work, so the leaseholders have to pay to put the defects right.
There is a separate category of non-qualifying leaseholders—people who invested their life savings in a small number of buy to lets. Where the block is being remediated not by the developer but by the building safety fund, they are exposed to the full costs of non-cladding remedial work—often a high five-figure sum. As this work is carried out at the same time as the cladding, this can hold up remediation for everyone, as the freeholder will not have the cash to pay if a non-qualifying leaseholder cannot pay or sell. In Wales, there are no non-qualifying leaseholders. Those leaseholders are no more responsible for the defects than any other leaseholder. It is a distinction that should be removed, not least to accelerate the progress of remediation.
Some defects are not covered. The 2025 update to the remediation acceleration plan refers only to “unsafe cladding”, often leaving leaseholders exposed to other costs. Again, that is a distinction that should not be there. The leaseholders have no more responsibility for the non-cladding defects than the cladding defects. Those leaseholders who enfranchised, encouraged by successive Governments, are now in a worse position than those leaseholders who did not enfranchise—another inequity.
I make two final points. The Government said in their manifesto:
“We will put a renewed focus on ensuring those responsible for the building safety crisis pay to put it right”.
This SI is about the developers, but what about the construction materials industry, found by the Grenfell inquiry to have been guilty of “systematic dishonesty” and “making false claims” and by which not a penny has been paid? Eight years after Grenfell, the latest update tells us that the Government are consulting on
“robust sanctions, penalties and liabilities for manufacturers”.
Again, progress has been far too slow.
Finally, we know that the Government plan to legislate to address some of the problems I have been outlining. On 6 October, the Secretary of State wrote to End Our Cladding Scandal, saying:
“This will include a new Bill in Parliament to ensure that delinquent buildings get fixed”.
I understand that the Bill will have a hard end date for remediation, with criminal prosecution if it is not done. But this suggests that delinquent buildings will not get fixed until we have the Bill, implying yet further delay. We are told it will be introduced when parliamentary time allows, but that sits uneasily with the Government’s commitment to move things at a faster pace.
Does the Minister understand the frustration of those who, through no fault of their own, face hardship and risks? What can she do to reassure them that the Government will address with renewed urgency the problems that confront them?
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a freeholder of a mixed-use building, 15 metres tall, constructed in 2018—post Grenfell—in Norwich. Addressing the consequences of the use of aluminium composite materials in pre-Grenfell tall buildings is the priority that the Building Safety Act is meant to resolve and a commitment that should remain undimmed. Unlike my noble friend Lord Young, I will constrain my comments to the effect of the proposed regulations, which are contemplated to be introduced on 1 October, on the construction of new homes, not existing homes. That does not mean I do not care about the existing homes, but I think we need to view part of these regulations through the lens of the construction industry.
It is common ground that we need more homes, driven not only by the UK population, which the ONS tells us is now just shy of 70 million, but because you cannot sell capitalism to people who cannot accumulate capital—and the best way of doing that, for most families, is by building a stake in their own home. Nothing we do should discourage or disincentivise the need to build the homes our nation needs.
There are enough headwinds in construction already and the Minister probably has some of those ringing in her ears from her lunchtime meeting with SME builders. There are more headwinds to come. The BSA levy is potentially one of those headwinds and could chill construction still further at a very delicate fiscal moment. That is important because if there is no building, there is no levy and there is no money to fix the cladding.
We know that there is a crisis of confidence in London’s building industry. I will focus on London for the moment because a lack of housing starts in London is going to imperil the Government’s nationwide housebuilding ambitions. All historic sources on housing starts point to London being in crisis. The Molior data shows that just 2,000 private homes were started in the first half of the year—a record low. MHCLG data shows that the total number of homes started in the entirety of the 12 months to quarter 1 2025 is 60% lower than the previous record low, set in 1990. The GLA’s affordable data shows that only 347 homes were started in Q1—a record low, following lows in 2024-25. Right up to date, the interim statistics show that in the last quarter for London new starts were 40% lower than the previous low point, with nothing over 18 metres started anywhere.
Developers in London are on strike, and if we cannot sort out building in London, we will never get roofs over people’s heads nationally. This is not just about the levy holding things back; house prices have risen in the capital by 1% since 2015, a previous high point. Berkeley Homes tells me that the bill costs have risen by over 40% in the same period—directionally, half on materials and half on regulatory burdens. So we know that viability is under threat. Planning has previously been fingered as the hold-up for development, but now if you get your planning consent, you need to get building safety regulator approval before you start digging foundations for all the dwelling homes that are excluded from the levy. It is therefore the building safety regulator that is putting speed bumps in the way.
These regulations provide for applications to be made to the regulator before 1 October next year or the levy will apply. That sounds like a long way away, but I am told it is currently taking 44 weeks, at best, for the regulator to reply to an application. More often than not, that reply is in the negative. I have heard of a refusal from the regulator that was evidenced by a single word: “Roof”. That is just not good enough. It is already too late to apply and hope for an approval, with just 50 weeks to go until 1 October 2026. That is also not helping many of the thousands of already completed homes in London that are doing nothing but eating their heads off in interest for want of a final approval.
I have done some research and learned that the reasons for all this relate to the fact that staffing and the transition have not been sorted out between the HSE and the building safety regulator. There is far too much subjective interpretation between professionals, each of whom may be correct in their difference of preference, but either option could be safely implemented. The regulator’s IT system is incompatible with the software that all developers use, particularly because it does not use the indexes. That is important because rather than someone going online, clicking on the screen and being transported instantly to one of the thousands of A0 plans through the index, the regulator’s IT system—I am told—means that you have to search manually through all 1,000 sheets. It is hardly surprising that it is taking so long. We then have the numbers: an additional £60 to £70 per square metre in London—and up to £90 in Fulham—and directionally £25 to £35 elsewhere.
I have consulted developers. More than ever, time is money. Reluctantly, they are prepared to accept the levy—that is good news; there is an alignment on the need and the willingness to pay. But their view— I agree with this, and I ask the Minister whether she does too—is that, before the levy comes into play, the building safety regulator needs to sort out its relationship with the HSE. The software needs to be made compatible with BIM, so that we actually get some productivity. We have to agree to objective, accepted standards for what is an acceptable way of building new homes, rather than be subject to arbitrary preference. There needs to be a response within four weeks and not 44 weeks.
If the builders are making that proposal, I think that it is a fair bargain and that the Government should accept it. Unless they do, the developers’ strike will continue and then no levy will be created at all. That does not help anybody, still less the people for whom my noble friend Lord Young is most concerned.
It is important that we think also about the cash flow. I have looked carefully at the regulations and the implementation. I am concerned that, particularly for a large-scale flatted development, should one go ahead, the entirety of the levy—remember, that it is £90 per square metre in Fulham—would be paid on the entire development at the point at which the very first part of that development had a completion certificate. Just at the point at which the developer is suffering greatest cash stress, the entire bill would be due. I am concerned for the cash-flow viability of these organisations, noting that the Financial Times has reported that, in the entirety of London—a city of 10 million people—in the last quarter, fewer than two dozen new flats have been sold. That is a real crisis point.
Will the Minister recognise that until the system is working smoothly, nobody will start anything over 18 metres and that unless we can get the workability, timescales and IT right, the strike will continue? Will she give a commitment that, at the point at which the levy is introduced, approval times will be down to, say, a reasonable four weeks, because time is money and money is risk? On that basis, there will be a grudging acceptance—but an acceptance none the less—by the industry that we can move forward, and then the people for whom my noble friend Lord Young is most concerned can be remediated more quickly. Unless we get an accommodation between the Government and the development industry on going forward positively, this will not be sorted out and the Government will stand zero chance of meeting their ambitious housing targets, which we should all endorse.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I was interested to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. I note his concerns and hope the Minister will respond to them, but this is such a fundamental issue that it is important that I state that we support the substance of the levy as set out. Indeed, I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, said that there is a general acceptance by the industry, despite some of the problems that the Minister will need to address.
I support entirely every point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the conclusions that he has reached. I share his concerns about the speed of action—it has been too slow—and the fact that for many leaseholders, nothing in practice has changed. As we have heard, there are deadlines, of 2029 and 2031, which are not far off. However, I hope the Minister will be able to confirm the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, that the Treasury might be willing to increase the level of loans to the department. I very much hope that that will prove to be the case.
I have two specific questions for the Minister before I say a few further words. First, I have not understood from the Explanatory Memorandum why there is a three-year review period, as opposed to a shorter one. In the context of what the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Fuller, said about speed, reviewing after three years seems to be too long a period. Secondly, why does the purpose-built student accommodation have a threshold of 30 bed spaces for exemptions, as opposed to some other number? Why was the figure of 30 decided on?
These are vital regulations, as they implement one of the cornerstones of the Building Safety Act that was the response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy. As we know, the purpose of the levy is to provide funding for remediation that is essential in many residential properties in order to assure the safety of residents. This statutory instrument provides the considerable detail needed, including, for example, exemptions for small developments and social housing, which seem to us to be reasonable.
It also seems right that the levy is based on square metres of floor space, that brownfield sites will have a levy at a lower rate, and that the levy varies according to general property values in a local authority area. The Government broadly have the approach right. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, so rightly identified, the problem is that many leaseholders are still being penalised by freeholders and managing agents where properties have not yet been remediated. The penalties imposed are via the substantial increases in service charges and, on top of this, innocent leaseholders are paying huge household insurance costs. Will the Government review their approach to defining those buildings at risk? These are not the same as the assessment made by the insurance market, and it is leaseholders who then pay the price, as well as finding that the value of their property has plummeted.
In conclusion, will the Government commit to a review of at-risk properties and the external wall system assessment to provide some hope for leaseholders caught up in a nightmare that is not of their making?
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. Fortunately, we do not have many high-rise buildings in rural areas.
In response to the Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025, the principle is absolutely right that those who have profited from residential development should contribute to the cost of making homes safe. It is both fair and necessary. This levy was set up by the Building Safety Act 2022 under the previous Conservative Administration, and it is an important part of wider efforts. I make very clear that we support this, but some issues need addressing.
The Government anticipate that the levy will raise approximately £3.4 billion over the next decade to help fund remediation of historic safety defects, including dangerous cladding. For too long, thousands of residents have lived in buildings that they know are unsafe. They suffer the stress and emotional toil of being in an unsafe building and, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham pointed out, they are unable to sell and to move on with their lives. The situation is not of their making. My noble friend made a number of points, and it is crucial that this is done faster and better. I would very much like to know whether the Minister believes that the two deadlines of 2029 and 2031 will be achieved given that, as my noble friend pointed out, around half have not even started. I cannot remember the exact phrase—
Lord Jamieson (Con)
In programme was the phrase; well, we need “in action” rather than “in programme”. We welcome the levy. It has been designed with care and certain exemptions are in place, particularly for smaller developers, social housing providers and community- focused schemes. Those exemptions are vital and they ensure that the supply of affordable and socially beneficial housing is not inadvertently undermined.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s findings are that the overall impact on house prices and supply is expected to be modest and that the administrative costs are proportionate to the revenues raised, but I want to come on to some of the issues that were raised by my noble friend Lord Fuller. There are two aspects to this: the first is the safety of the people who are in unsafe buildings, which is crucial; the second is that we need to ensure that we are still building buildings for people who do not have a place to live.
Concerns raised by the National Federation of Builders and others about the cumulative impact of regulatory pressure on housebuilding should not be dismissed out of hand. This has its greatest impact on London. My noble friend gave a number of statistics, but Molior’s current analysis suggests that only 15,000 to 20,000 homes will be under construction in London in January 2027. That compares to a target of 82,000 and that was a reduced target. There are 185,000 people living in temporary accommodation in London and over 350,000 in the UK. We need homes, and we need to ensure that whatever we do helps to deliver new homes in a safe and meaningful way, and that there is no cumulative impact from this.
The second part of this—the resourcing and performance of the building safety regulator—is really important. Since July 2024, over 2,000 applications have been submitted for building control at gateways 2 and 3. Of these, 283 have been approved, 670 have been either declared invalid or rejected and 997 are still awaiting approval. Those are delays to buildings. In fact, Building Magazine estimated that one in four that hit stage 4, which is the final approval, are not yet approved: that is hundreds of empty apartments that could be occupied. Therefore, I am again seeking assurance from the Minister on what will be done to speed up the building safety regulator. As my noble friend Lord Fuller also said, the process is somewhat complex; how can we make it more transparent and accessible, so that we can get stuff done more quickly?
Delays or bottlenecks at this stage are slowing down vital safety work and much- needed development alike. As my noble friend Lord Fuller raised, the cash flow impact means that schemes become increasingly unviable, and I have heard a developer say, “We are not starting with this”; not because they are not willing to build safe buildings, but because of the financial risks of unforeseen and unnecessary delays in trying to get through the building safety regulation scheme, and because banks are charging increased interest rates because of that risk to developers. Getting this right is a win-win: we will have more safe buildings and more homes for people. We need to take that into account.
I would like to take a moment to reflect on the wider context. The Grenfell Tower fire was more than eight years ago, and it continues to cast a long shadow in the profound systemic failings in regulation, in oversight and in the way residents’ voices were ignored. Progress has been made since that tragedy, but we must continue to push forward with urgency and determination. The promises made to affected communities must be honoured in full, and the culture that allowed such failures to occur must be permanently changed. In that spirit, we support the introduction of this levy. We believe it is a proportionate and necessary measure, and we will continue to hold the Government to account for how it is implemented. I thank the Minister for bringing forward these regulations and commend the work of all those across both Houses and across all parties who have contributed to this important legislation.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for those very helpful contributions to this debate and for the broad support that these regulations have received from all noble Lords who have spoken. I completely understand the stress and emotional upset that these issues have caused to all those affected by them, not least because I have a building in Stevenage called Vista Tower, which was profoundly affected by the issues. It was not a cladding issue, it was a different issue, but I have dealt with that over the years since those issues were discovered.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that for those affected by the Grenfell Tower disaster it has been a very long time indeed. We need to move things on as quickly as we can, not just for all those who are still suffering from the impact of the building safety issues, but for those people at Grenfell who have very bravely and courageously, in my view, used the awful experience that they went through to champion the cause of others who have been affected. I hope we can accelerate this plan so that we can get through these issues as quickly as possible. Indeed, as all noble Lords have recognised, this building safety levy is part of the mechanism to help us do that.
I will pick up some of the individual points that noble Peers have made. If I miss any, I am sure they will stand up and ask me again or I will reply in writing.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to Treasury support and the ongoing funding for this. Remediation funding is already being provided, and the levy launch date does not affect the pace of remediation, so we are not going to slow it down and wait for the levy to kick in. The Government are committed to remediating buildings as quickly as possible, so levy receipts will cover the remaining remediation costs once taxpayer contributions, industry pledges and contractual obligations have been taken into account. It is our intention to keep going within an accelerating plan, not wait until the levy comes in to carry on with this work.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to the scope of the levy. The scope of the levy does not imply responsibility on behalf of levy payers for historic building safety defects. I think the noble Lord was broadly supportive of putting this levy across the board. Developers have to make a full contribution to the overall cost of making buildings safe, reflecting the wider benefit that they derive from a well-functioning market and the substantial funding support the Government continue to provide to the housing market. So, it is being applied across the board.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, and other Peers mentioned the remediation acceleration plan. Clearly, eight years on from Grenfell there is no justification for any building to remain unsafe. Our goal is clear: to remove the barriers to remediation, to get buildings fixed faster and to allow residents to, at last, feel safe in their own homes.
An update on the remediation acceleration plan was published in July and outlined our plan to bring forward a remediation Bill in order to create a hard endpoint for remediation. A proposed legal duty to remediate will compel landlords to remediate buildings within fixed timescales or face criminal prosecution.
The RAP set timescales to provide greater clarity to residents on when they might expect their buildings to be remediated. As noble Lords have recognised, we expect that, by the end of 2029, every building over 18 metres in a government funding scheme will be remediated and every building over 11 metres with unsafe cladding will either have been remediated or have a date for completion, or else its landlords will be liable for penalties.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
In the comment she just made, the Minister said that all buildings over 18 metres will be done by 2029 and that all buildings in the second category will, by 2031, either be done or have a completion date. The completion date could be one or two years away.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is expected to be a reasonable date. We are not going to let people push it forward another 10 years, for example; that would be unreasonable.
I note noble Lords’ comments about the insurance industry. We continue to work with the insurance industry on this matter. I understand that this is a difficult issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked about non-qualifying leaseholders; I know that this matter has been a very sore point with such leaseholders. The leaseholder protections were designed to protect people living in their own homes. That is why the threshold was set at ownership of three properties in total: to distinguish between owner-occupiers and those who have made investment decisions. However, there is still substantial support. All leaseholders benefit where a responsible developer has been identified or where the freeholder is or was associated with the developer, and all leaseholders benefit from protections in relevant buildings if it is their principal home.
Where no responsible developer can be identified or made to pay, the cladding safety scheme funds eligible cladding remediation for buildings over 11 metres, ensuring that leaseholders do not face cladding bills. The law also allows for the recovery of costs for interim measures and expert reports via remediation contribution orders, placing costs with those responsible rather than residents. Even if some leases are non-qualifying—those for investment properties, for example —a leaseholder’s principal home on 14 February 2022 in a relevant building can still be a qualifying lease and benefit from protections if it meets the statutory criteria.
On the issues around construction product manufacturers, the power to charge the levy in the Building Act 1984 do not allow for it to be charged on construction product manufacturers. In February 2025, the Government published the construction products Green Paper, setting out comprehensive proposals for system-wide reform of that construction products regime. We are reviewing consultation responses, including on measures to introduce sufficiently robust sanctions, penalties and liabilities in order to hold economic operators, including construction product manufacturers, to account. The Government are committed to ensuring effective redress for manufacturer failings, whether they are historical or arise in future.
The cost of remediation must be shared equitably among those who have profited from or have an interest in the development and construction of unsafe buildings. It is unacceptable that some construction product manufacturers have not yet made a fair contribution to resolving this building safety crisis; I want to be very categorical about that. The Building Safety Act introduced new provisions in Sections 147 and 151 to enable developers, building owners and leaseholders to bring a claim against construction product manufacturers and suppliers where a product has been mis-sold or is inherently defective; Section 149 allows claims for historical defects where cladding products have rendered a building unfit for habitation. These provisions create redress routes where no direct contractual relationship exists.
Developers sit at the apex of the industry and are therefore well positioned to take the lead in funding and co-ordinating remediation works. Once they are complete, developers can seek to recover costs from the other parties involved in the supply chain. We are currently reviewing those sections of the Building Safety Act to make sure that the redress routes are robust, support effective cost recovery and promote accountability. We will provide an update on that later this year.
On the protection for buildings over 11 metres or five storeys—we have had this discussion before—evidence shows that problems with historical fire safety defects are concentrated in medium and high-rise buildings, where the risk to life tends to increase with height. By contrast, buildings under 11 metres typically present lower risks and can often be managed with other proportionate mitigations rather than remediation schemes. I know that there is a dispute with the insurance industry over that and, as I said, we continue our dialogue with it.
Leaseholders in collectively owned buildings are excluded from the leaseholder protections because the freehold is owned by some or all of the leaseholders, and the protections would therefore not have their intended effect. Collectively owned buildings are still eligible for the Government’s cladding safety scheme and the responsible actors scheme, and they can also bring remediation contribution orders against former owners, developers or associated persons. We are committed to reviewing how better to protect leaseholders from costs.
The noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, raised the pace of housebuilding and its impact. The levy has been designed to minimise potential housing supply impacts while balancing the need to raise the revenue required to make homes safe. All the issues raised with me at the SME round table I attended earlier this afternoon are already being explored and looked at, and I will continue that dialogue with those people. I have undertaken to give them some feedback.
Developers have had plenty of notice that the levy is coming and to include it in their viability plans. It was announced in 2021, and developers have had 15 months from being provided with the detailed design until the launch in 2026. Levy measures to minimise the housing supply impact—I mentioned these in my introduction—include variable levy rates at local authority level, the discount on developments on previously developed land, exemptions for affordable housing and developments of fewer than 10 dwellings. We expect that the cost of the levy will, in time, be reflected in the price that developers pay for land. Affordable housing is exempt from the building safety levy, and the Government are unlocking housebuilding at an unprecedented level. We have already taken urgent action through the planning reforms, which we will discuss next week, and through the £39 billion of investment for social and affordable housing.
I will make some comments on the building safety regulator because it is really important and noble Lords have mentioned it. Local authorities will administer the levy even when the building safety regulator is the Building Control Authority. The levy has been designed to minimise additional responsibilities imposed on the BSR. On 30 June, we announced a new phase for the BSR, including strengthening the leadership of that organisation, tackling operational challenges and moving it from the HSE to a stand-alone body. The building safety regulator has been open and transparent about the challenges of implementing a significant shift in the way building safety is now regulated in high-risk buildings.
The BSR has implemented a range of operational improvements, and it will recruit over 100 new staff to strengthen capacity by the end of the year. Over the past three months, the BSR has made major changes to improve the processing of gateway 2 applications, including a new fast-track innovation unit. Early indications suggest that the new model is working effectively. We expect the model to start to deliver improvements in processing times in the coming months, and we continue to commit to the highest standards of safety. The fast-track process is about refining a new system, not stepping back on commitments. I take the noble Lord’s point about the quality of responses; it is clearly not acceptable to send a response back with just “roof” written on it. I will take that back. His points about digital compatibility are well made. I will take those back and reply to him in writing.
On the payment point, I understand that the levy is paid at building control application, and in a major development that would probably be phased, so the building levy would be applied in that phased way. The noble Lord asked for a delay to the introduction, but developers have already had 15 months after being provided with the detail, so I do not think that that would be justified.
On the SME point, we are still consulting on the issue around medium-sized developments. I will respond in due course, once we have analysed those responses.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked about reviews. They can be more frequent—the minimum is three years—and there will be a continual review process. We need a balance, providing certainty with an ability to amend in the light of changing circumstances. We will continually keep this under review. In response to his question about PBSA, 30 bed spaces in PBSA are roughly equivalent to 10 dwelling-house thresholds, so that is why it has been set at that rate.
In conclusion, we think that the building safety levy is essential to fund the remediation of these historic building safety issues without further burdening residents and leaseholders, who have already suffered quite considerably through all this. The Government are committed to delivering 1.5 million homes to meet the country’s long-term housing needs and to unlock growth. That must work in parallel with our commitment to remedying the building safety failures of the past. The industry that contributed to such problems must pay to remedy them. The draft regulations set out a fair approach to collect the required funds, while ensuring minimal impact on housing supply and industry.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
The Minister very kindly commented on the improvements in the speed and transparency of the building safety regulator—that is very good. Is there a timetable of targets for how quickly it will turn around gateway 2, gateway 3 and gateway 4? I do not expect an answer now, but, if so, would the Minister be kind enough to write to us on that?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. A new person—Andy Roe—is in charge of the building safety regulator. It would be helpful for me to ask Andy to draft a letter for noble Lords to set out our progress on making the BSR more effective.
Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee do consider the Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 34th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, noble Lords will wish to know that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered a draft of the order before it was laid and then gave informal pre-laying approval. After the draft order was laid on 16 July, it was formally cleared by the Joint Committee. Likewise, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee formally cleared the draft order. The committee raised no specific concerns about this instrument, although it noted it as an instrument of interest, the reasons for which will be addressed later in my speech. Prior to this, the department had responded to preliminary inquiries from the committee’s clerk to the satisfaction of the committee.
This instrument amends existing aviation safety regulations to update and rationalise requirements for the maintenance and repair of aircraft, and to clarify the Civil Aviation Authority’s powers of delegation. These amendments ensure that UK law remains clear and proportionate.
I will start by providing some background information about these regulations. UK airspace and airlines are among the safest in the world. Even with this success, we are not complacent, and the Government are committed to maintaining and improving the high safety standards in aviation. The UK is therefore committed to ensuring that technical requirements remain up to date, and in line with international standards and best practice set by the International Civil Aviation Organization. The Civil Aviation Authority is the UK’s independent safety regulator, responsible for advising the Government on amendments to technical aviation safety requirements and regulations.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive outline of this topic. I seek clarification on two areas.
In paragraph 6.4 of the EM, reference is made to low-risk parts. Paragraph 5.4 also talks about allowing
“certain aircraft components to be installed without needing a Form 1, as long as they are declared safe by the design organisation”.
I want a little clarification here on what is defined as a low-risk part. I ask this for the right reasons, having spent 25 years in the industry—much of that time onboard aircraft—and having dealt with primary legislation for many years as a Member of the European Parliament.
In 1990, there was an incident involving a BAC 1-11. When a windscreen was replaced, the incorrect screws were used. That caused what we would have called a rapid decompression; they called it an explosive decompression. I knew the crew. The captain survived; he was swept out of the window. Since that accident, there was also a rise in fake parts, about which the industry was very concerned. Barcoding was introduced to ensure that the equipment, parts and components were all absolutely authentic.
My point is that the component that caused the accident was a tiny screw. You would look at it in the round as being a fairly low-risk component. It was just a general thing; it was nothing complex. I ask the Minister: what do the Government consider “low-risk parts”? Would they be used on certain parts of an aircraft that would not require a Form 1? We cannot be too general about these things because there is always a chain of events; the smallest component can cause a technical incident or accident. That is my first point.
My second point concerns drones. I drafted the drone report in the European Parliament in 2015. It was about the civil use of drones and the rise in the industry. The CAA has been extremely good. We have a fantastic organisation in it—as well as an excellent Department for Transport, if I may say so, having worked closely with many members of that department over time. My question is: does the CAA intend to delegate the assessment of drone pilot competency and of drones’ flightworthiness to third parties? The CAA has introduced excellent training for drone pilots—it did that itself—but who would these third parties be, in terms of taking over the role that the CAA currently holds, in which it is absolutely diligent in giving out licences?
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, following on from my noble friend Lady Foster, I will touch on the second point she raised, because it is relevant. We have a situation where the CAA’s delegation and decision-making powers are being changed because of the nature of the arrangements with the European Union.
This whole set of regulations is part of a much broader project led by the CAA at the moment, which deals with, among other things, the simplification of the licensing and training of general aviation pilots—of which I am one. The issues around the changes in licensing are very important, because they bring about the ability of someone, who, like me, flies a single-engine piston aircraft, to fly an electric aircraft. I will not go into the shock-horror that the likelihood of me flying an electric aircraft is equivalent to my enthusiasm for driving an electric car, which is rather limited at the moment.
My question, which follows on from the point raised by my noble friend Lady Foster, is about the delegation of powers to the CAA. She raised a very good point on drones, but I would like the Minister to set out for us whether there were any changes as a result of these circumstances in the agencies, which can have a delegation from the CAA to make decisions, and whether that is adequate in terms of who looks into which agencies can have those delegated powers.
I will raise another point. This statutory instrument does not appear to have happened through impact assessments or anything else; it is a usual statutory instrument where nothing seems to have been necessary to draw to anyone’s attention. To what extent are the resources of the CAA being tested, as a result of these regulations or of ones that have been envisaged? As I think we are all aware, the CAA is short of cash. It is already doing a considerable number of functions, including coming up to date on the things that I have referred to: technology, licensing, the training of pilots and so on.
There is also the question of safety, which develops inexorably as we go along due to the rise of new-generation aircraft. There is also the issue around airports, including the changes in the control zone basis of airports, which must be costing the CAA considerable sums of money. Can the Minister also confirm that there are adequate resources for the operation of the CAA to pay agencies or others to which it delegates powers, and that he is satisfied that we will not need to go back to the Treasury and ask it for more cash? Safety in the air—the safety of training and the other uses of pilots et cetera—must be paramount if our skies are to be secure.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I express my gratitude to the Minister for arranging a very helpful briefing by officials.
Like my noble friend Lady Foster of Oxton, I had some concern about the abandonment of the use of Form 1 for certain non-safety critical parts. We can rely only on the personal assurance of the Minister that, in proceeding in this route, he and his department will take full responsibility for the consequences of that decision. As my noble friend pointed out, the notion of a non-safety critical part can be deceptive because of the close integration of every working part on an aircraft. We cannot challenge the statutory instrument on that basis; we have to accept that the Minister and his department know what they are doing and that they are willing to accept the responsibility that falls on them from pursuing this proposal.
I also share the caution expressed by my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate about the delegation of Civil Aviation Authority powers, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that. Beyond that, and with those reservations, the Official Opposition have no objection to this instrument, which consists largely of consolidation and clarification. We have no objection to it, but we would like to hear the Minister’s response on those areas that cause us some potential concern.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for attending the debate and for their input. I listened intently to the highly experienced noble Baroness, Lady Foster. She raised a valuable point about the minute parts that might cause a serious failure. I recall the example used, albeit not as a practitioner. The answer to that is that type certificate holders will have a design process in place to establish the potential failure impact of every part, and that design process has to be established by the CAA as adequate. Any potential failure must be shown to have a negligible effect on the functioning of the aircraft. The screw that the noble Baroness referred to, part of the assembly of a windscreen, would be considered within the design process so that it would not be excluded from form 1 if the design process for the more major component was safety critical. You could not exclude the screws and still have the windscreen assembly—that is the practical answer to that question.
The noble Baroness asked who the CAA will delegate to. I cannot give her the names of the third parties, but the CAA has set out stringent requirements for third parties to be qualified entities. Qualified entities will be subject to an audit regime to ensure continuing compliance with the CAA’s requirements. They will clearly need sufficient subject matter expertise and regulation capacity, and the CAA will accredit and monitor their performance to ensure continuing safety. The CAA has to set out in detail how it intends to assess the competence of qualified entities for drone flightworthiness, assessment and training. It has experience of doing that in respect of how it dealt with the pilots of fixed-wing and rotary aircraft, so we are entitled to conclude that those processes are robust.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, referred to the delegation of powers. The criteria are more or less what I have just said, but if there is any omission from the explanation that I should have given as a consequence of his question, I will write forthwith. As for the testing of adequate resources for the Civil Aviation Authority, I believe that it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that the resources are adequate and that it has adequate resources to pay the agencies to which this work should be delegated. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I will write to the noble Lord and confirm that that is the case in respect of this element of these regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, rightly asked whether the department, and I as the Minister proposing these regulations, take responsibility for them and for the proposal to delegate. The answer to that is, of course, yes. The department should not propose such regulations without feeling confident that it is competent to propose them and that what it is proposing is the right thing to do.
I believe that I have answered all the points raised. I conclude by saying again that the safety of aviation and of the travelling public is a priority for the Government. My department is committed to ensuring that aviation remains safe. The draft regulations form part of an important legislative programme which implements proportionate best practice in aviation safety regulation. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
When I referred to the screws, the noble Lord quite rightly pointed out that we were looking at the design, et cetera, which makes sure that it is a bona fide part. The air accident that took place was not because the screws themselves were badly designed, or that they failed because of what they were, it was when they were fitted—it was the incorrect component. There is a differentiation here between something failing because of a design fault and something failing because the incorrect component has been fitted into a specific, probably critical, area of an aircraft. Could I just leave that with the noble Lord? I thank him.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am very happy that the noble Baroness leaves it with me. I will make sure that I write to her. I recognise the issue that we are dealing with—the incorrect fitment of correct components.
Companies (Directors’ Report) (Payment Reporting) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leong
That the Grand Committee do consider the Companies (Directors’ Report) (Payment Reporting) Regulations 2025.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, late payments are estimated to cost the UK economy close to £11 billion per year. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, employing millions of people and enriching our lives. Late payments lead to 14,000 business closures each year—an average of 38 businesses per day.
The Government have already taken action to improve payment practices. In February, the new Fair Payment Code was launched, and we introduced secondary legislation requiring construction businesses to publish reports on their retention payment practices. In July, we launched a public consultation considering additional legislative measures to hold businesses to account on payment performance. This will go even further and will be the most significant legislation to tackle late payments in over 25 years and will give the UK the strongest legal framework on late payments in the G7.
These regulations will further increase transparency around the payment practices of large businesses, building on existing regulations that have already helped to improve payment times across the United Kingdom. We want to continue that trend by introducing payment data headlines into directors’ reports. Large companies are already under a duty to report biannually on their payment practices and performance. These regulations will require large companies to disclose payment reporting data within a directors’ report required under the Companies Act 2006, further increasing the transparency of payment performance to their boards, shareholders and auditors.
As a former business owner myself, I know all too well the importance of paying small businesses on time, and that is why I am proud that the Government are bringing forward these regulations as a means to tackle this issue and to support small businesses across this country.
I will now outline the key elements of this statutory instrument. These regulations amend Schedule 7 to the Large and Medium-sized Companies and Groups (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2008 and introduce a requirement for large businesses to report information about their payment practices within their directors’ reports. The payment data headlines will include statements on payment practices, including the average time to pay, as well as the percentage and sum of payments made before 30 days, between 31 and 60 days, and after 60 days. It will also include the sum and proportion of payments that were not paid within the agreed payment period.
This data will publicly illustrate a company’s approach to payment. This is only a small ask for large businesses, which will help with the continuous improvement of payment times. The Government are committed to ensuring that this legislation continues to work, and this instrument will be subject to a review within five years. I hope that everyone present today can see the benefits that these regulations provide and agree with the introduction of this affirmative statutory instrument. I beg to move.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. I have a few questions for him, mainly because I have been unable to answer them for the businesses that have written to me about the statutory instrument.
First, can the Minister confirm that the payment practices disclosure regime—the PPRR—still remains in place, and that the directors’ report is an additional place where this information will need to be disclosed? If so, that means that SMEs will need to look in more than one place to find out what a particular large entity’s payment policy is. Would it not have been better to streamline the policy and have it all in one place? That would have at least reduced the search costs for businesses.
Secondly, this legislation appears to have a very limited scope. For example, it does not apply to the public sector. Do their SME creditors not matter? Do they not need to know the disclosures? The disclosures in the directors’ report regime do not seem to apply to medium-sized companies, which have thousands of SME creditors.
Thirdly, does this apply to LLPs? My reading of the SI appears to suggest that it does not. Private equity operates through limited liability partnerships, and some of those entities are larger than many of the large companies, yet they are not being required to disclose the payment policy either. Can the Minister clarify why the SME creditors of those entities should not be informed of the payment policies? The economic landscape is shifting and, in particular, private equity operating through LLPs is becoming more powerful. I hope that the Minister will not say that it would cost more to require medium-sized companies or LLPs to publish this information, because any business worth anything would already know the schedule and analysis of its creditors.
There is also an issue about who will check this. There is no check on the authenticity of disclosures. If the disclosures were in the notes to the annual accounts, external auditors would have to corroborate that information; in other words, they would need to verify whatever management has disclosed. However, the Government have chosen to put these disclosures in the directors’ report. The directors’ report is not explicitly subject to an audit, so anyone can dream up any number when they are analysing the age of the creditors and put it in the directors’ report—there is no way of knowing.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, describe this SI as looking persuasive, as nothing he said prior to that indicated that that was how he felt. I will pick him up on one point on auditors, having been responsible for the content of dozens of annual reports at a corporate level: although the auditors may or may not have had a legal responsibility for directors’ reports and strategic reports, there is not a single directors’ report or strategic report for which I have been responsible where the auditors did not pick up and verify the points within. I am merely observing this; I do not think we need a debate on it because it is not relevant to the statutory instrument. It was just because the noble Lord brought it up.
Late payment remains a significant issue for UK businesses, as the Minister said—particularly small businesses but other businesses too. Our calculations show that, in 2024, small businesses were owed an average of £21,400 in late payments. This clearly has a significant effect on cash flow and it creates a real challenge.
Without cash flow, business viability is threatened and people are unable to invest in their businesses. Late payment undermines growth and drives some firms out of business. Some businesses use their suppliers’ balance sheets to fund their cash flow. We have seen notorious examples of this; for example, it seemed that Carillion’s entire business model was based on funding its activities through the cash flow of its supply chain. This sort of statutory instrument should be able to identify those operators effectively.
This legislation goes some way to strengthening transparency around how large companies pay suppliers. Here, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sikka: it is not a universal panacea but a small step, and we should be careful not to invest too much in this step. Businesses have been expected to report on a number of issues, such as their environmental performance and the number of women in particular roles, for many years, yet change at the corporate level has been very slow despite the transparency that was earned through legislation.
This SI should enable investors, auditors, shareholders and potential suppliers to get a better idea of what a company is about, as much thematically as definitively. If a company always files late numbers, that tells you something about how the business is managed; in some cases, one-off things may make that happen. As the Minister set out, though, there is more to be done. However, he did not mention the role of public procurement, which is vital to driving the right behaviours in business. I would like the Minister to talk about that and accept that the Government have a strong leadership role around public procurement and that there is still a lot of work to be done.
That said, taking into account its limited objectives, we support this statutory instrument.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, so do we.
As the Minister rightly outlined, this instrument introduces new requirements for large companies to report annually, through their directors’ reports, on their supplier payment practices and performance. Although the content of these disclosures remains broadly in line with the existing reporting framework, the shift to include them in the directors’ report—alongside their existing publication on the government portal—is a notable development in terms of transparency and scrutiny.
We recognise the intent behind these regulations and support the objective of improving payment practices, particularly given the long-standing and well-documented impact of late payments on small businesses. At this point, I was going to take a detour into some statistics, but the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has shot my fox and quoted them already. We do have a few questions, though; they follow on from those asked by both of the previous speakers.
First, how will these new reporting obligations interact with enforcement? Transparency is important, but it must be coupled with accountability. Will the Government monitor compliance with these new requirements? Are there plans to review their impact in due course? I think I heard the Minister say that there is a plan to review these measures in due course; I would be grateful if he could confirm that.
Secondly, although the inclusion of this data in the directors’ report means that it will be seen by shareholders and auditors, does the Minister expect this alone to drive behavioural change? Beyond disclosure, what further steps are the Government considering to tackle poor payment practices where they persist?
Thirdly, we note that the instrument does not introduce changes to the underlying payment terms or practices; it merely brings reporting into a different format. Do the Government believe that there a risk that companies may comply in form but not necessarily in substance?
None the less, from these Benches, we continue to press for action to support small businesses and ensure that they are paid fairly and on time. On that, we share the ambitions of the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Sikka. The problem of late payment is persistent, and while the measure may support transparency, it must not become a substitute for enforcement or cultural change. On that basis, we do not oppose these regulations. We urge the Government to treat them as part of a broader, ongoing effort to improve business practices and protect small suppliers.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I am really conscious of what is happening in the Chamber, so I will try to be as comprehensive as possible and brief at the same time. I am really grateful to noble Lords across the Committee for their contribution. It is evident that we all agree that tackling late payments is crucial for driving the economy forward and I thank all those who have spoken in this debate. I will try and answer as many of the questions as possible, especially those from my noble friend Lord Sikka. If I have not answered all his questions, I will go through Hansard and write to him.
My noble friend Lord Sikka asked why there are so many places where businesses have to report on their payment method. This gives businesses two places where they can look for the same information. It should not increase costs, and it basically gives flexibility and the choice for businesses as to where they look for this information. I would say it is good that there is not only one place but various places that they can look for such information.
The noble Lord asked who enforces company law. I am sure that he will know that Companies House is also an enforcement agency, and we have invested a fair bit to ensure that it is able to enforce company law accordingly.
The point about directors’ reports not being audited is not correct. Auditors do audit directors’ reports under the Companies Act 2006. They must say whether information in the directors’ report is consistent with the annual accounts and must highlight any material misstatements or inconsistency.
The noble Lord also pressed on the Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance Regulations 2017, which also applies to LLPs. This requires large business in the UK to publish information biannually about their payment practices and performance to the GOV.UK portal. Initially introduced in 2017, these regulations were amended in 2024 and 2025 following a 2023 consultation. The current regulations do not apply to LLPs because LLPs do not publish a directors’ report.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about enforcement. The Financial Reporting Council has a responsibility to review the annual reports and accounts of large companies for compliance with accounting standards under the Companies Act 2006. Where potential non-compliance is identified or suspected, the FRC can write to the company for further clarification and will aim for voluntary amendment of the disclosure in subsequent periods. Where this is not possible, Section 456 of the Companies Act 2006 gives the FRC the power to apply to the court for a declaration that the directors’ report does not comply with the Act. In such circumstances, the court can order that the preparation and distribution of revised accounts be carried out at the directors’ personal expense.
The data produced by this report is analysed by the Department for Business and Trade and used to evaluate whether payment practices are improving. We can use this information to determine how beneficial the relations have been and where we can do more to help improve payment times. This regulation will be subject to statutory review on or before 6 April 2029.
Further, the Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance Regulations 2017 requires that large companies report their payment performance twice a year.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, a Division has been called. The Committee will suspend for 10 minutes.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I want to add to the point about enforcement that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about. We have stepped up enforcement of these regulations and are currently writing to companies that we have identified as failing to comply with their reporting requirements. Out of the more than 500 companies contacted so far, over half have already returned to compliance or committed to do so. If necessary, we will take forward criminal prosecutions for non-compliant companies, which could result in an unlimited fine and criminal records for responsible company directors.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Sikka asked about public procurement. Ministers from the Department for Business and Trade and the Cabinet Office have jointly written to government departments reminding them of their obligations to comply with the Procurement Act 2023, which compels public sector bodies to pay their suppliers within 30 days. It is vital that government leads by example. Government departments publish information about their payment performance in line with transparency requirements. The latest report shows that the Department for Business and Trade pays 96% of invoices within five days and 99% within 30 days.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked what additional measures we are taking. As I said in my opening statement, we launched a public consultation in July 2025, including primary legislation measures that have not been consulted on previously. In this consultation we are proposing to increase the role that audit committees play in assuring payment performance data and to introduce measures to set maximum payment terms at 60 days without exception. Furthermore, we are consulting on the mandatory payment of interest-only invoices. We are also consulting on strengthening the Small Business Commissioner with additional powers to investigate poor payment practices and resolve late payment disputes. More importantly, we are also consulting on the practice of withholding retention payments, especially in the construction sector, to either prohibit the use of retentions or require firms to protect retentions from insolvency or non-payment. We will do more and are consulting to do more.
This Government are committed to tackling late payments. We want to make the UK the best place in the world for businesses. We believe that this legislation is an important step towards improving businesses’ payment practices and tackling the scourge of late payments. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy and as part of these regulations and the wider package of measures, we are delivering the biggest reform to payment regulations in 25 years. These regulations are just the first step in a wider package of measures that will be the most significant legislation to tackle late payments. I commend them to the Committee.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, may I take a few moments to respond to a couple of things that have been said?
Lord Sikka (Lab)
I will be. A point was made about the auditors looking at the directors’ report. The law requires auditors to see that the directors’ report is consistent with the view given by the audited financial statements, but it does not require auditors to audit the directors’ report. There is a fundamental difference between examining and auditing. The Minister made a point about Companies House. Companies House is a giant filing box: it does not verify the contents of the financial statements, and no one at Companies House will be checking to see that the directors’ report has the information required by this statutory instrument.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I am afraid I disagree with my noble friend on the point about auditors. Auditors have to audit the entire company’s accounts and what is published in the directors’ report and form a view as to whether the directors’ report reflects what is happening in the company. On the point about Companies House, it is an enforcement agency and it has powers to enforce the law itself.
Unpaid Carers
Baroness Pitkeathley
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they are taking steps to ensure the NHS gives more support to unpaid carers.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, we recognise the vital contribution of unpaid carers and are committed to improving support through the NHS and social care. The 10-year health plan sets out how we will systematically capture data on unpaid carers, ensuring recognition and support and involving them in care planning. The plan commits to introducing a My Carer feature on the NHS app, enabling carers to manage appointments and engage with clinical teams, improving experience for carers and for those they support.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. It is indeed good news that the 10-year plan is considering the needs of carers, but the latest survey from Carers UK shows that carers’ rights are being ignored when the person they care for is discharged from hospital. Only 14% of the carers surveyed were asked about their ability to provide care after discharge—and those rights, as some in this House will remember, were hard won for carers. Ignoring carers’ rights in this way is not only against the law but very short sighted: if carers really break down and cannot provide care, it results in the readmission of the person they look after.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her long-standing commitment to the cause of unpaid carers and for contributing to strengthening their rights under the Health and Care Act 2022. I reassure her and the House that the Government recognise the concerns raised in the recent Carers UK report. The Hospital Discharge and Community Support Guidance states that NHS bodies and local authorities have a duty to involve parents and carers, including young carers, at the earliest opportunity in discharge planning for adults who are likely to need care and support. The Care Quality Commission is assessing local authority performance against the Care Act 2014. If the CQC identifies that a local authority has failed or is failing to involve carers in discharge planning, the Secretary of State can intervene.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I was told in a discussion with a carer coping with the day-by-day, hour-by-hour demands of looking after someone with severe dementia that when they got a hospital appointment, the doctor spent a great deal of time looking at the screen and firing off questions to the patient. Frankly, the patient did not recognise where she was, and when the carer intervened to help, they were made to feel that their only job was to act as chauffeur to get the patient to hospital. Surely the time has come to recognise the tremendous contribution of unpaid carers in our society, and to support them, value them and help them to feel valued.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Lord, as always, goes right to the heart of the issue. I reassure him that, through the 10-year plan, all the issues that he has raised are recognised. Through all the aspects, enhancing the position of carers is paramount. It cannot be right to have the situation he outlined whereby the carer’s wishes, understanding and insights are not taken seriously. The golden thread running through all the planned improvements is that the rights of carers will be recognised. Through the My Carer app, for example, no medical professional can have any excuse for not recognising the vital role that they play.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, there are over 1 million young carers in this country, many of whom are still at school. There are 15,000 school- children giving care for more than 50 hours a week, 3,000 of whom are aged between just five and nine. They are most at risk of missing school and being suspended, and at the moment, it takes three years on average before they are identified and given support. What can the Government do through primary care and children’s services to identify those children earlier and give them a better start in life?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Lord’s point is well made. There is nothing more heartbreaking than when a school does not know that a child is a young carer and makes them stay for detention, for example, because they were late on account of their caring responsibilities. It cannot continue, and I am pleased to inform the House that this issue is being taken very seriously. It is crucial that young carers are known, but, most importantly, that all the relevant agencies work together at a local level to share their knowledge of the young person, very much along the lines of the family group conferencing model that is working so well in children’s social care. It is a huge issue. Many young carers, as we know, do not want to divulge that they are indeed carers because they are worried that it might result in the family being split up. There is a lot of work to do in raising confidence, but everyone working together is the way forward.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
In the recent survey by Carers UK, which has already been referred to, some 51% of unpaid carers said that they need more support from the NHS—a figure that has risen in recent years. Under the Care Act 2014, it is the responsibility of local authorities to provide an assessment of carers’ needs. Can the Minister therefore say what proportion of unpaid carers have received such an assessment, what sort of support they have received and what has happened to expenditure on unpaid carer support in the last three years? If she does not have those figures to hand, can she write to me?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. I do not have the precise figures to hand, but the more work we do in this area, the more we are exposing what needs to be done. The fact is that the confidence of carers is quite low, and we need to make sure that all the support comes together to wrap around them. All the evidence that is gathered by the different agencies on the ground is exceptionally welcome and will inform the routes forward. I will get the precise information she has asked for to her after this discussion.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, we all know that being an unpaid carer is a profoundly challenging role that can take a serious toll on people’s physical and emotional health as they care for someone else—often, a relative, as we heard from my noble friend, or a young person. They are selfless individuals who put their own needs last. Can the Minister set out what steps the Government are taking to ensure that carers are made aware of their rights, as alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and the existence of the support available to them, so that it can be accessed easily? This is perhaps a question for a written reply, but have the Government given any thought to the challenge set out in the amendments to the Renters Rights’ Bill concerning access to accommodation for carers supporting a landlord or their family?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Lord highlights a crucial point. We are saying all the way through that there needs to be greater coming together at a local level. NHS England is taking this exceptionally seriously, working with local authorities, GPs and ICBs, for example, to make sure that they come together. One of the most important aspects of its work—for example, the conference it is setting up—is that the voices of carers themselves are heard, that the incredible importance of their experience is recognised, and that no assumptions are made about what should be done on their behalf. It is critical that they are at the centre of all the work going forward. I will indeed write to the noble Lord on his last point.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, many of the children and other young carers, referred to in a previous question, depend on charities. Are the Government content that the balance is right between what the state offers and charitable support?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate raises a very good point. These issues are at the centre of all the discussions that are going forward to make sure we get the right balance, that everyone who has a say gets an opportunity to be heard, and that we get a much better package of support for all the unpaid carers who need it.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the current value of the carer’s allowance does not reflect the extraordinary value of unpaid carers’ work? Does she therefore support an urgent review of the allowance in the social care review of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has already started the work, and I am delighted to inform the House that one of the first meetings she had involved carers. She has opened a portal so that information can be fed in, and I know this will be one of the areas that raises a lot of interest and concern.
Modular Nuclear Programme
Lord Spellar
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the announcement of a modular nuclear programme, what steps they are taking to ensure the manufacturing involved is undertaken in the United Kingdom.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
Following a report on procurement based on fairness and transparency, Great British Energy-Nuclear has selected Rolls-Royce SMR as its preferred bidder to partner with and deploy the UK’s first SMRs, subject to final government approvals and contract signature. The Government’s long-term ambition is to bring forward one of Europe’s first SMR fleets, with GB-Nuclear’s ambition being to deliver over 70% of UK contents—and this is not to mention the jobs already created under the nuclear skills plans. A policy framework is being drawn up to help get SMRs to market and will be published shortly.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply but draw his attention to the statement put out by the Government on 15 September, Golden Age of Nuclear Delivers UK-US Deal on Energy Security. I tabled this Question because although the statement was most welcome, it had significant gaps. It highlighted the construction and operation jobs that will be created but was strangely silent on manufacturing sites and the wider supply chain, especially the government-owned Sheffield Forgemasters. What are Ministers doing to ensure that British firms and British workers continue to lead the world in this technology and play a key role in rebuilding our industrial economy?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that very important question. Look at Sizewell C, for example, where over 1,500 apprenticeships will be created. Each SMR will have 3,000 jobs at peak construction and hundreds of operational jobs, as he pointed out. The nuclear skills plan has already generated 4,000 early career starts and the recent deal that he mentioned will positively impact the global nuclear industry, including the plan for 12 advanced modular nuclear reactors in Hartlepool, which will bring 2,500 jobs. The deal has the support of the UK industry. Not all of this will happen overnight, but we are setting the foundations for a golden era of nuclear.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister update the House as to the efforts and timetable for removing Russia from the supply chain for nuclear fuel?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Under the agreement that we have just signed with the USA, that is going to happen as soon as possible, but no later than 2028.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Given that Hinkley, the French-designed nuclear project, has been billed as the most expensive the world has ever seen, and the plan is to repeat that in a replica at Sizewell, can the Minister tell us what thoughts the Government had on an alternative design at Sizewell of small reactors, which would be quicker to build, cheaper, attract more private investment and vastly reduce the demand on government funds?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The Sizewell C position is that it will create many jobs in construction and apprenticeships, and for the next 60 years will supply energy to around 6 million homes. It is absolutely right that the idea of the SMR programme is to create a modular reactor which is easy to assemble and duplicate and will keep down costs into the future. It is imperative that we keep ahead of the curve on this.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, given that SMRs will not come online until the mid-2030s, I take this opportunity to ask the Minister what actions the Government are taking to ensure the demand for data centres does not end up with increased use of inefficient and polluting gas. What actions will the Government take to ensure that the energy demand does not end up increasing domestic energy bills?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The noble Earl asks an interesting question. We want to expedite the introduction of SMRs. If we can possibly bring them forward to 2030 then we will do that. The way to deal with this, to keep prices down, is to keep out of the market for fossil fuels and ensure that we have a variable field of renewable energy, be it solar, wind or nuclear. As I said, we are at the beginning of a golden age for nuclear energy. We will set the plans out now, so that in 10 years’ time we will feel the benefit.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, in Britain we are persisting with the development of pressurised water reactors, both large and small. However, the future of nuclear technologies rests with fourth-generation advanced modular reactors that are endowed with passive safety, which will allow them to be close to clusters of population and industrial applications. In recent months, three projects that were pursuing the development of such reactors in the UK have either closed or moved to more welcoming countries. What can the Government do to ensure that we will not be dependent on foreign suppliers to provide the next generation of nuclear reactors?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
As part of the initiative with the United States, we are looking at setting up 12 AMRs at Hartlepool, which will provide a lot of energy for the area for industry and around 3 million homes will benefit as well. It will create a lot of jobs in the area and bring great economic benefit to the region, into the millions of pounds.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, under the previous Government a commitment was made that 70% of the value of contracts for Sizewell C would go to UK companies, so the recent announcement about Urenco having the contract to supply Sizewell with nuclear fuel is welcome and a good start. I have two questions. How will the Government ensure that future nuclear fuels for the new industries are both produced and made competitive within the United Kingdom? Can the Minister assure the House that a similar 70% content commitment will be made in respect of not just the small modular reactors but the advanced technologies, in which we have a fighting chance still of leading the world?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I welcome the questions from the noble Baroness. To answer both, we still intend on making sure that we have 70% of content as far as the supply chain, for example, is concerned. Nuclear fuel is obviously an issue for the private sector and the developers there. As I said, we are not going to rely on Russian fuel after 2028.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
The announcement that the SMR contract was to be awarded to Rolls-Royce was welcome, but the impact on UK manufacturing is also important. Have the Government made an assessment of how many suppliers in the supply chain are going to be first-tier companies supplying directly to Rolls-Royce, rather than simply second-tier companies?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I will write to the noble Lord on that question. As I said, we want to ensure that 70% of the supply chain is in the UK. We have designed the nuclear plan for skills, which is highly important. We have already 4,000 early career starts entering in 2024-25 and we want to ensure that we have the right skills set to do that. I will write to him on that issue. I will continue to say that we are at the beginning of a golden age for nuclear in this country and are putting down the foundations for that. We want to make sure that we fulfil what we are setting out to do in the years to come.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, wind turbines are modular—they are manufactured in factories and built on site—and modular reactors will be the same. We do not want to make the same mistake with modular reactors that was made over decades with wind turbines. There are 11,000 wind turbines on these islands, nearly 5,000 of them in Scotland. Not one of them was manufactured in Scotland and very few were manufactured elsewhere in the United Kingdom—I cannot find any evidence of any being manufactured here. These are key jobs. Are we going to build manufacturing plants—that is, factories—that will make the modular parts of these reactors? Is that the deal we made with the US?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The deal that we made with the US is to ensure that we have a global industry in nuclear energy. We are setting up the foundations in this country to ensure that we have the manufacturing jobs, skills set, supply chain and secure investment into the future so that we can benefit from it over the coming years.
Lord Harrington of Watford (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Make UK, which has about 26,000 manufacturers as members, including most of those in the nuclear sector. In 2017, I was the nuclear Minister and made a big announcement that the Government were going to get involved in small nuclear reactors and were funding a competition to decide which company would do it. Now, nine years later, the Government have made another announcement that this is going to happen. Our members, naturally, are a bit cynical about when and how this is going to take place. Can the government side alleviate their fears and let them know when this is actually going to happen?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. It will take a Labour Government to ensure that it happens. We are nine years on from 2017 and we have made the commitment. We know what we are doing about this. We will ensure that we have a great future for our manufacturing sector and the people with the skills, and will promote the industry and the economic good for this country in the years to come.
Waste Crime
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beamish
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to tackle waste crime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to tackling waste crime. We are preparing significant reforms to the waste carriers, brokers and dealers regime and the waste permit exemptions regime. We are also introducing digital waste tracking to make it harder than ever to misidentify waste or dispose of it inappropriately. We have increased the Environment Agency’s funding, including the amount available to tackle waste crime, to continue to increase the pressure on illegal waste operators.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I asked her a Question about what evaluation has been made of the joint waste crime unit. Her reply was that there has been none. I also asked the justice department about the incidence of prosecutions for landfill tax fraud over four years, only to be referred to a website with statistics that does not categorise landfill tax fraud as a crime. The 2022 NAO report into waste crime said that waste crime costs the economy £900 million a year, £200 million of that in landfill tax fraud. It also said that 41 of the 60 organised crime groups in the UK are involved in waste crime. When are we going to get really serious about this? I have been campaigning on this for many years, not only because of the cost of fraud to the economy but because of the cost to the environment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right to say that this is a really serious problem, and the Government need to get to grips with it. That is why we are taking specific actions to try to start making a real difference in the amount and impact of waste crime in order to genuinely start to reduce what is a terrible blight on our country. We want to crack down. As I said, we have increased the EA’s budget for waste crime enforcement by over 50% this year. The Joint Unit for Waste Crime has nearly doubled in size due to the extra funding we have given. The Environment Agency has been able to increase its front-line criminal enforcement resource. We are also looking for further recruitment to enable enforcement work in the new duties that they will be given. The Environment Agency’s economic crime unit was launched last year and is specifically targeting the financial motivations behind waste crime, which are often huge, so that we can bring in asset freezing and freeze the proceeds of crime actions. We are looking to do a number of things to genuinely get to the bottom of this and tackle the outcomes.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will no doubt be familiar with the case of Hoads Wood in Kent that was exposed by the BBC a while back. Hoads Wood is a site of special scientific interest in which trees were cut down and 30,000 tonnes of illegally dumped waste were deposited. It took four years for the Environment Agency to impose a restriction order to prevent this continuing, and now we are faced with a £15 million bill for clean-up. The Environment Agency has said that there are six other sites like Hoads Wood where illegal waste dumping is happening on a large scale. Can the Minister please tell this House, either now or in writing, where these sites are and what is being done to clean them up and prevent continued illegal waste dumping?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I will have to write to the noble Lord and the House about exactly where the sites are because I do not have that information in front of me. When we came into government, we acted to put pressure on to get that area, Hoads Wood, dealt with, because it had been dragging on for far too long, as the noble Lord is aware. That is also why we have brought in the changes that we are making, increasing the Environment Agency’s budget and looking to do more about enforcement, because we do not want these situations dragging on. The blight on the countryside is just too grim.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister share my concern that, despite the excellent work of the Environment Agency, a report in July showed that only 27% of waste crimes, and 12% of crimes on private land, are reported? What can the Government and the Environment Agency do to ensure that these waste crimes, often connected to organised crime, are reported and acted on at the earliest opportunity?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a really good point. One of the issues around non-reporting is that people think it is pointless. That has been the case in the past. There has just not been enough action taken, not just in tackling waste crime but in supporting people who are victims of it. That is why we are investing in the new schemes, why we are looking at data tracking to better understand it and why we are hoping that the investment in the Environment Agency is going to improve enforcement. If people can believe that it is worth reporting, they are more likely to. That is one of the reasons why we need to get people to trust that if they report a crime, something is going to happen about it.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that we cannot continue, in effect, to subsidise organised crime in England on waste, costing our taxpayers £1 billion a year? Will the Government ensure that the Environment Agency can use environmental permitting income and start to tackle this criminality, given that so far we have not had a single conviction?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, the lack of convictions has been a problem, which returns me to my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. This is the fundamental reason why we have increased the Environment Agency’s budget for front-line criminal enforcement: so that we can actually start to do this. The purpose for having that specific funding is to exactly address the issue the noble Baroness raises.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, Clause 9 of the Crime and Policing Bill grants Ministers the discretionary power to issue guidance to local authorities on fly-tipping enforcement. As we all know, fly-tipping is a serious problem, blighting communities, impacting everyone’s quality of life and polluting our natural environment. Can the Minister give the House a timeline for the issuing of new guidance and explain why Clause 9 will not come into effect on Royal Assent? I refer the House to my registered interest as a landowner.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise the issue of fly-tipping. A lot of people think it is just a mattress dumped in a hedge, but it can be incredibly serious and expensive and challenging for landowners to clear up. In specific answer to his question, following Royal Assent the intention is to consult. We will consult, as required by Clause 9, prior to publishing any statutory guidance. We want to make sure that any guidance that we produce and publish is as useful as it can be, and we want to hear the views of local authorities and others to ensure that it is going to be effective. Once we have had the responses and the opportunity to analyse them, we will then publish it as soon as practical—as soon as we can. The clause will be commenced ahead of the guidance being finalised.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, to continue the theme of fly-tipping, do His Majesty’s Government recognise the unfortunate link between environmental regulation, fly-tipping and the regrettable decrease in permissive access to rural areas? As regulation of waste increases, so does the cost of disposing of it and therefore fly-tipping increases, which requires landowners to fence and barbed-wire access points to nature that might otherwise be enjoyed by local communities. I note my interest in the register as a victim of fly-tipping.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Earl is absolutely right that this can be a really dreadful problem for landowners, and it can be very expensive and difficult to clear up. He may be interested to know that we are working with a range of interested parties to specifically look at these issues through the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group. That includes organisations such as the National Farmers’ Union, the CPRE, the Countryside Alliance and the CLA, because we need to work with landowners on how they can prevent fly-tipping on private land. I know it is not always possible, but the better guidance people have and the more they can work with organisations, the better. We are also developing practical tools on how councils and others can then bring robust cases to court, because that is important as well. We have a large fly-tipping issue, and it is important that the perpetrators are punished.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, one way to reduce waste crime is to reduce waste. Have the Government set a date for a ban on single-use plastics?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Government are working hard on reducing waste, particularly through the circular economy strategy that we are developing at the moment. We are committed to reducing the amount of plastic waste, and the noble Baroness will see progress and development on that as time goes on.
Equality Act 2010: Meaning of “Sex”
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they expect to lay before Parliament the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s code of practice for implementing the Supreme Court judgment on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are considering the draft updated code and, if the decision is taken to approve it, the Minister will lay it before Parliament. Parliament will then have 40 sitting days to consider the code when it is laid. It is important that the correct process for laying the code is followed.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer, but the Equality and Human Rights Commission has today had to write to the Minister for Women and Equalities, reminding her that it is six months since the Supreme Court judgment, which confirmed that “sex” in the Equality Act means biological sex, and six weeks since the commission submitted its draft of the new code of practice for implementation of a judgment that the Home Secretary reportedly regards as “beyond reproach”.
Does the Minister think it is satisfactory that the pitfalls of delay in producing the statutory guidance include that service providers continue to rely on the existing 2011 code, which is now partly illegal and must be quickly revoked and replaced, and that many organisations continue to drag their feet, wrongly claiming that they need to wait for the code, and risk breaking the law in their treatment of women and same-sex attracted people?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The code is absolutely important. That is why it needs to be dealt with properly and appropriately. The draft code, which is over 300 pages long, was submitted on 4 September and it is really important that the Government consider this across Whitehall. We also have a duty, as specified in the Equality Act, to consult the devolved Administrations, too. So the timescale the noble Baroness is talking about is not a delayed process. It is absolutely important that we ensure that the Supreme Court ruling is properly applied in the draft code of conduct, and we will ensure that it is done properly.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that six weeks, which included the summer, is actually not a very long time? Does he agree that the crucial matter here is to ensure that the guidance is right, respects the dignity and rights of individuals and groups, places an equality duty on public bodies and businesses, in scope with our legislation, and ensures that legal challenges are avoided by not rushing into this matter through being bullied by the EHRC, editorials in the Times, and others?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend is right. As the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who is in her place, acknowledges in her letter, it is important that the Secretary of State can take a fully informed decision. That is also why, although the letter was received today, officials have approached the Equality and Human Rights Commission, requesting additional material that needs to be reviewed as part of giving a thorough consideration of the code. It was acknowledged in today’s letter that the request for additional information is necessary. Obviously, we have not received this information from the EHRC.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Does the Minister agree that it is highly desirable that the guidance, or codes of practice, when published, should be as sensitive as possible about the needs and interests of those individuals who have by long usage or certification acquired a gender different from that of their birth gender?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As the noble Viscount acknowledges, we have a duty under the Equality Act to ensure equality of treatment, including for trans people and others. It is important that that is understood. The Equality Act remains in place and providers should continue to follow the law. Practically, this means that providers should consider the needs of all their service users when designing and delivering services. If they are uncertain as to how to apply the Equality Act to their specific services, they should obtain legal advice.
Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)
My Lords, I serve on the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I have not had any dealings with the Commissioner for Human Rights, but is the Minister aware that yesterday he shared his observations that inconsistencies between the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act could leave some trans people in an “intermediate zone”—a problem that was identified in 2001 and led to the Gender Recognition Act? How will His Majesty’s Government ensure that the code of practice prevents that discrepancy?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I understand that many trans people may have read the human rights commissioner’s correspondence. I reread it this morning. It will undoubtedly raise concern among trans people. We have been clear that the laws to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment will remain in place. Trans people will still be protected on the basis of gender reassignment, a protected characteristic within the Equality Act.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, according to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Government received the full revised code of practice on 4 April. Only three chapters of it were altered in the updated version following the Supreme Court ruling. Can the Minister explain why there has been such a delay to review only three chapters and how much longer it is expected to take?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not accept the noble Baroness’s assertion. The department received the final draft code on 4 September. It is 300 pages long. That code needs detailed consideration because, as my noble friend pointed out, we want to avoid uncertainty. We want to ensure, as the Equality and Human Rights Commission is absolutely concerned to ensure, that there is absolute clarity on the Supreme Court decision. That is why we will take the necessary time to ensure that, when it is presented for full consideration by Parliament, it is as accurate and legally proofed as possible. There has been no delay.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
Can the Minister indicate how the Government plan to monitor future case law in this area to ensure that statutory codes remain accurate and up to date, particularly if the courts further clarify the relationship between sex and gender reassignment under the Equality Act?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Put simply, that is why we have the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and that is why it has a responsibility independent from government to do precisely that. That is why we will give full and proper consideration to the draft code. It is important that we maintain that balance and understand our respective roles and responsibilities under the Equality Act.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, given the gross misrepresentation of trans people as a threat to others, I urge the Minister to encourage the Government to take all the time that is necessary to get the guidelines absolutely right, so that we can reverse the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court and the subsequent misrepresentation of that judgment. Furthermore, I urge the Government urgently to address the Equality Act to ensure that trans people maintain the protections that they have within the legislation.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. Of course, we recognise that the application of the Supreme Court ruling is, in some settings, complex, which is why it is important that this code is given full and proper consideration. That is why the independent EHRC code of practice is so important, and we will do that. I will allow the noble Baroness to intervene at this late stage.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I have enormous respect for the Minister, who has given very fulsome answers today. He referred to me. Therefore, I would just like to clarify for the House, because I know the Minister would not wish to mislead the House, that the time period needed for the code to be laid in Parliament is not 40 sitting days: it is 40 calendar days under Section 15 of the Equality Act. The further point that I want to clarify is that we were asked to provide the equality impact assessment last Friday. We provided it to the Government on Monday. We are here to serve the Government with any information that they need at pace.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As the noble Baroness knows, I have huge respect for her and the responsibility she has. It is a very serious responsibility. From her letter to the Secretary of State today and the debate we have had this afternoon, it is clear that we have to consider this matter seriously and take into account all possible risks and issues to ensure that we have a legally proofed code that is understood by everyone in respect of their responsibilities under the Equality Act. In respect of the 40 days, I must admit that my briefing does say 40 sitting days—but I am prepared to be corrected and I thank the noble Baroness.
Business of the House
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 21 October to enable the Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day and that, in accordance with Standing Order 47 (Amendments on Third Reading), amendments shall not be moved on Third Reading.
Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:22 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 194 - Amendment 2 agreed.
17:59 - Division on Amendment 21 - Ayes: 139 / Noes: 186 - Amendment 21 disagreed.
Baroness Kramer
“(e) creating a whistleblowing reporting channel for cases of fraud against public authorities which—(i) guarantees confidentiality and anonymity if requested,(ii) includes clear definitions of who is a whistleblower in cases of fraud against public authorities,(iii) provides a process to update whistleblowers in cases of fraud against public authorities, and(iv) protects whistleblowers in cases of fraud against public authorities from retaliation and detriment.”
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 1 and 20 in this group to raise again the issue of whistleblowing. Sadly, I do not think it is necessary to repeat in any detail why the existing whistleblowing framework is completely inadequate. We have to look only at the scandals of the Post Office, contaminated blood, Letby, the Hillsborough cover-up, the fake costings for HS2, the mis-selling of PPI, mini-bonds and now car finance. Those are just a few of the very real outrages and tragedies that could have been nipped in the bud if we had had a system that, in actuality and effectively, protected whistleblowers who spoke out and ensured the investigation of their disclosures. Most importantly, the victims of these many scandals would have been spared, but also the taxpayer would have been protected from huge compensation payouts.
I believe strongly that the Public Sector Fraud Authority, sitting as it does under the Cabinet Office and with its investigative powers, is very well placed to be the hub of a proper framework—I would call it an office of the whistleblower, but that is not a precious issue—and at least to act as a hub for whistleblowing protection and investigation across the whole of the public sector. It could provide proper guidance to government departments and agencies, set standards for proper whistleblowing protection and redress, ensure investigation when appropriate, and provide the consistency, clarity and ease of use that are essential to effectiveness.
I realise that the amendments I have tabled are inadequate to this task, and what I seek from the Government is a conclusion that there is real progress in this direction. The Government have increasingly recognised the importance of the issue, and the Minister herself—I have to give her real credit—has commendably talked about the importance of whistleblowing. Collectively, the House has made progress in the Employment Rights Bill on limiting the abuse of non-disclosure agreements and in the Armed Forces Commissioner Act in developing a whistleblowing framework for the commissioner which will possibly extend to all of defence.
In the context of fraud and whistleblowing, we currently await the second part of the Fisher review of disclosure and this Bill contains provisions for an independent review of the Minister’s functions, so there are tools available to the Government. For this Government, as for any other, there is always the risk that, without change, new scandals will occur and those would then be laid directly at their door. Nobody wants that. This is an area where all parties should be co-operating and not competing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply and hope to conclude that progress is seriously being made.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking both Ministers opposite, and noble Lords from across the House, for their engagement with us on the substance of this Bill since we entered Committee. We have had some very valuable discussions and I welcome that the Government have approached this with a view to compromise and listening to noble Lords from across the House on the Bill. I hope we can conclude Report in the same spirit and I look forward to the discussions we shall have in these sessions.
We on these Benches welcome that we are starting Report by discussing an important issue, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for bringing forward these two amendments. Both amendments speak to a common principle that individuals who come forward with evidence of wrongdoing should be able to do so safely, confidently and with the assurance that their actions will lead to meaningful action rather than personal detriment.
The decision to do the right thing and report wrongdoing is far from an easy one for anyone to make. To come forward with evidence of fraud is often to put oneself at considerable risk of losing employment, damaging one’s reputation or straining relationships. If we expect people to do the right thing then it is incumbent on us to ensure that the system does right by them in return. Whistleblowers are very often the first line of defence against fraud. They can identify irregularities and provide information that would otherwise remain hidden—information that the Public Sector Fraud Authority will need in order to act swiftly and effectively. That is why it is so important that individuals know that they will be listened to, supported and protected. Only then will they feel able to come forward and only then will we be able to tackle fraud before it escalates.
In addition to the channels set out in Amendment 1, this principle links directly to the second amendment before us, Amendment 20, which proposes the establishment of an office of the whistleblower for public sector fraud. The purpose of such an office would be to oversee and safeguard the process of whistleblowing, to ensure that concerns are acted on and that those who raise them are not left exposed or ignored. We understand that the noble Baroness has likely brought this proposal to emphasise the importance of the issue rather than to suggest this particular structure as the final answer. We shall, of course, be very interested to hear how the Minister will meet the challenge set on this question.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, set out, whistleblowers can operate effectively only when they know that their efforts will not be in vain, that the authorities will respond and that the risks they take will not go unacknowledged. In the specific context of this Bill, that raises a very practical question that relates to the amendment we have brought to Clause 2. If a whistleblower were to bring actionable evidence of fraud to light, would the Public Sector Fraud Authority be able to act on it directly, or would it still have to wait for a formal invitation from the relevant department or authority before beginning an investigation? Our reading of the Bill suggests the latter, and if that is the case then the system risks leaving whistleblowers stranded, even when they have provided precisely the sort of information that this legislation is intended to uncover.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, so we begin Report. I thank all noble Lords for their genuinely constructive engagement on this important Bill, as we seriously engage in efforts to protect taxpayers’ money—something I know every Member of your Lordships’ House cares vehemently about. I especially thank the Opposition Front Benches, who have given much of their time to make sure this works. I hope that they will see, through the responses from the Government today, that we have tried to listen and make as many amendments as possible to make sure this Bill is effective and will work in practice.
Once again, I warmly welcome the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on the important issue of whistleblowing, as I did in Committee. The noble Baroness is committed and diligent in this area. As ever, she has proved to be tenacious and determined, but with due cause, ensuring that we can prevent some of the appalling scandals she named.
It is clear that protections for whistleblowing are a key aspect of counterfraud investigations. A 2023 National Audit Office report into whistleblowing showed that a total of 41 organisations employing civil servants recorded and reported 939 concerns over a three-year period. Fraud was consistently the most common category, representing 39.9% of all concerns across the three years. It is only right that the PSFA closely considers its role in this landscape. As such, I am pleased to have an opportunity to place on record our efforts since your Lordships last debated the issue. We are listening to your Lordships’ House. We are doing everything we can to ensure that both this legislation and the work of the PSFA are as effective and impactful as they can be.
Officials across government have come together to understand what can be done in the public sector fraud whistleblowing space. In particular, the PSFA Bill team has worked with the other Bill teams, where this important issue has also been raised recently in your Lordships’ House, to ensure that departments work in partnership to deliver a coherent response.
As a result, I am pleased to give the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, a series of commitments this Government can make. First, to ensure that this important issue continues to be taken forward effectively, officials will continue co-ordinating across the whistleblowing landscape to identify areas where the PSFA can add value, such as joint guidance documents on public sector fraud. The PSFA will also seek to work closely with officials in the SFO and HMRC. HMRC has deployed a whistleblower incentivisation scheme and the SFO has developed proposals for a similar scheme. The PSFA and the SFO have already agreed to identify areas where they can support each other’s work on whistle- blowing. Once Jonathan Fisher’s review is published, the PSFA will work with other government departments to consider, and where possible adopt, his whistleblower recommendations.
I am also pleased to announce that as soon as is practicable—likely to be within 12 months of the powers being first used—the Government will ask the independent reviewer, who will be appointed under Clause 65 of this Bill, to conduct a review of the PSFA’s use of whistleblowing in cases of public sector fraud.
The PSFA will also endeavour to publish updates on whistleblowing in public sector fraud in its annual reports, where appropriate. Those reports will be used as an opportunity to communicate routes available for whistleblowers on public sector fraud. Also, once this Bill becomes law, PSFA will seek a place on the DBT prescribed persons list under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
I look forward to future engagement on this issue. Given the commitments I have outlined and the necessity of maintaining the focus of this legislation, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, will not press her amendments.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has described some real momentum. As I say, we would always want more; when we put down amendments, we have an ideal target in mind, but this is an area where progress matters. I thank the Minister and I will indeed withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Finn
“whether at the request of that public authority or, where the Minister considers it necessary in the public interest, on the Minister’s own initiative.”Member's explanatory statement
This would enable the Minister for the Cabinet Office, through the PSFA, to undertake proactive investigations or recovery actions in respect of suspected fraud against a public authority, without requiring a prior request from that authority, while preserving the authority’s own fraud functions under subsection (5).
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I began by thanking the noble Baronesses opposite for their constructive engagement with us on the Bill. Our meetings with the Ministers have been genuinely useful, and I welcome the spirit of good faith and collaboration with which the Minister has approached our discussions. Tackling fraud against the public purse is a shared ambition across this House and it is in that constructive spirit that we have brought forward the amendments in this group.
As drafted, Clause 2 provides that the Minister may
“investigate or take enforcement action in respect of suspected fraud against another public authority … only at the request of that public authority”.
In other words, the Public Sector Fraud Authority can act only if invited to do so; indeed, that was the word used by the noble Baroness in Committee. This is an extraordinary limitation to place on an organisation whose very purpose is to root out fraud across government. The Bill seeks to confer considerable powers of investigation and enforcement upon the Cabinet Office, yet the exercise of these powers is ultimately hamstrung by the restriction in Clause 2. The effect is to create a PSFA that is at once empowered and yet toothless: an authority that has wide-ranging powers on paper but which cannot use them unless those potentially under scrutiny choose to permit it.
It cannot be right that a public authority suspected of fraud has the power to decide whether to be investigated. To rely on departments or agencies to invite in the PSFA to look at themselves or their work is, frankly, far too weak. There are obvious disincentives: the reputational risk, the potential embarrassment and the possibility of drawing attention to failings that might otherwise have gone unnoticed. As my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham notably observed in Committee, assuming that departments will voluntarily expose their own shortcomings is a triumph of hope over experience.
If we are serious about protecting the taxpayer, the PSFA must be able to act proactively—to initiate investigations where credible concerns arise and not to wait passively for a polite invitation that may never come. I have been in government and I know how these things work. We cannot rely on good will; we must be both forthright and proactive in tackling this issue, which is an offence against every single person in this country.
Fraud against the taxpayer is not a matter to be settled or not by an informal phone call between Permanent Secretaries, as we were told could currently happen. Such a situation must be backed up by a statutory mechanism that ensures action is taken swiftly and decisively. Of course, such discussions can and should happen in the first instance, but there needs to be a way to compel such action if necessary. Our amendment would therefore enable the Minister for the Cabinet Office, through the PSFA, to undertake proactive investigations or recovery actions in respect of suspected fraud against a public authority on their own initiative, where it is in the public interest to do so. It would preserve the authority’s own internal fraud functions under subsection (5) but would finally give the PSFA the power it needs to do its job properly.
This amendment is not about centralising control or creating a culture of interference. It is about closing a glaring loophole, one that every complacent official and every fraudster will otherwise see coming a mile off. It is about ensuring that when the PSFA becomes aware of fraud that awareness marks the beginning of an investigation and not the point at which the system grinds to a halt while waiting for consent to be granted.
Alongside this, and in the same spirit of strengthening accountability, we have tabled a second amendment—one which we raised in Committee and return to today—as we believe the Government should take this opportunity to outline how they are working to create a counterfraud duty and culture across public authorities. Amendment 19 would require that, where a recovery made under Clause 10 exceeded £50,000,
“the public authority on whose behalf the amount was recovered must conduct an internal review into the circumstances giving rise to that recovery”
and provide that review to the Minister within three months of completion.
This is a practical, proportionate proposal to ensure that public bodies learn from their mistakes. It seeks to prevent the creation of a pass-the-buck-to-the-PSFA mentality. The PSFA cannot and should not become a convenient dumping ground for departmental failures. Fraud and error often originate within the systems and processes of individual departments. Responsibility for preventing and detecting it must therefore remain with them. I hope, in her remarks on this Amendment 19, that the Minister can set out to this House how this culture is being created, and how authorities are going to be held accountable for the mess in their own houses without simply leaning on the PSFA.
This is a big opportunity for us to get this right. If we want to tackle fraud, then we cannot create a mighty but toothless body with expansive powers on paper but which has no power to go after fraud when it should. We risk creating a situation in which the PSFA is legally unable to tackle fraud, and where it goes unchecked when it is known about but not formally referred to the PSFA. The noble Baroness may stand up and say that she expects many cases to be referred to the PSFA, but this misses the central point, which is that the PSFA must be able to tackle all fraud of which it becomes aware and can have a role in stopping. It is not a question of which cases are referred to the PSFA, but which cases will be missed because the PSFA was not invited to go in after it. This is simply not good enough. We must be really clear now in giving the PSFA the power to tackle wrongdoing proactively. I beg to move.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I speak very briefly in support of Amendment 2. Before I start, I would like to echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, about the exemplary engagement on this Bill, which has been extremely constructive. I am very grateful to both noble Baronesses for that.
The Bill as it is currently written creates a range of powers for the Minister of the Cabinet Office to investigate fraud against public authorities and to recover amounts, but the Minister can use those powers only in relation to other public authorities if requested to do so by that public authority. That does seem somewhat perverse. It is not uncommon for those who manage organisations to hide the fact that they have been subject to fraud, because they could be criticised for allowing that fraud. We could have a situation where the Minister has reason to believe that a public authority has been the victim of fraud—perhaps a whistleblower has tipped them off, as in the last group—but, despite having reasonable suspicion, the Minister would not be able to use these new powers. I do not see how that makes sense. If these new powers are to be effective in reducing fraud, it must make sense that the Minister can use them in any situation reasonably considered to be in the public interest, not only when the public authority requests them.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I find myself in a difficult position: I am not usually one to want to give more power to Ministers of State or bodies like the PSFA. However, I am very sensitive to contemporary events in which local authorities have not necessarily always been open about things happening on their watch. I am thinking of things like the grooming-gangs scandal: things happen, and they are covered up. I therefore want to be in a position where the correct authorities can intervene if they suspect something wrong is happening. In that sense, I do with some trepidation support Amendment 2.
However, I also want to emphasise the importance of the second amendment in this group, Amendment 19, because one of the things that is absolutely crucial to building trust—which I know the Minister has emphasised this Bill can do—is that we have transparency, that we are able to see wrongdoing and that it is open for the public to find out what is happening locally. Otherwise, a culture of secrecy could well continue. These amendments are sensible in engendering real trust in the process moving forward.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, our principle generally is that the lowest level of government should make those decisions. To put it up to central government would be overloading central government. It would be like “Yes Minister” with a row of civil servants—bless them—dealing with something that has been sent up from the local authority or public body which did not need to be sent up. Although I have sympathy with what the amendments are trying to do, the idea of loading central government with issues that can be dealt with responsibly at a lower level seems to be against what we are trying to do in this House. So, respectfully, we will not be supporting these two amendments.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, fraud against the public sector takes money away from vital public services, enriches those who seek to attack the Government and damages the integrity of the state. This Bill is part of the Government’s response to this urgent and challenging problem. The Bill gives functions and powers to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, which will be exercised by authorised officers and investigators based in the Public Sector Fraud Authority.
I hope it will assist your Lordships’ House if I remind noble Lords of the PSFA’s mission. The PSFA is the UK Government’s centre of expertise for the management of fraud and associated error against the public sector. It leads the Government’s counterfraud function, which brings together the approximately 16,000 people who work in government departments and public bodies to fight fraud. The standards and guidance that the function creates, led by the PSFA, must be used in central government and can be used more widely in the public sector and beyond to improve the robustness of how we understand, prevent and respond to fraud.
These two amendments would make significant changes to the Government’s intention in bringing forward this Bill on how the PSFA works. They would change the impact of the Bill and are unnecessary to be put into law, so we cannot accept them.
On Amendment 2, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, offered a version of this amendment in Grand Committee that simply deleted line 10, which I resisted because removing that line without putting something else in its place would have created uncertainty and potentially conflicted with the preservation of public authorities’ own fraud functions in Clause 2(5). It is clear this draft has been influenced by the debate on the original, and I thank the noble Baroness for it; however, the new version goes further and dramatically changes the impact of the Bill.
Amendment 2 would create an extensive new power for the Minister for the Cabinet Office and change the relationship between the PSFA and the public authorities it works with. The Government’s intention is that the PSFA offers a public sector fraud service, collaborating with public authorities which have been attacked by fraudsters to take action to investigate, enforce and recover the funds. Collaboration is vital in the Government’s fight against fraud. Noble Lords will be aware that last month the Government announced that, in the previous 12 months since April 2024, over £480 million was prevented from going into fraudsters’ pockets. Driving this kind of cross-government collaboration is what the PSFA is for. We can do more, which is why we need the Bill, but the PSFA is already working.
I firmly believe that the normal mechanisms of government can ensure that counterfraud co-operation happens, as it is already happening in the work of the current pilot unit in PSFA. In issues of national importance, there will also be some moral and public pressure for something to be done, so I believe it is not necessary for the Minister to have a directive power in law to investigate on their own initiative. We truly believe that the collaborative approach outlined in the Bill combined with the normal operations of government will ensure the PSFA has the access it needs.
The definition of public authority in Clause 71 is broad and this amendment would affect different public authorities differently. For central government departments, it would mean that a Minister below Secretary of State level could direct and override Secretaries of State. For local authorities, the amendment would mean a new power for central government to take over a responsibility without their consent. The Local Government Act 1999 already has powers to this effect, and we do not want to create a new one specifically for fraud.
Amendment 19 would require departments to conduct an internal review if, following a PSFA investigation, it is confirmed that they have lost more than £50,000 to overpayment or fraud. All losses on this scale should already be investigated and reported on. There are established audit, assurance and reporting processes for this. In addition, the facts of this case would already have been established by the PSFA, and learning taken from it would be shared across government to aid the prevention of fraud. This amendment would create an extra burden on the department and replicate the work of the PSFA. It is unnecessary, as its core aim will be addressed through other activities. Therefore, after my very persuasive arguments, I encourage the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, to withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Finn (Con)
I thank the Minister for her incredibly persuasive arguments. We are clear that this is an unacceptable settlement if the PSFA can act only if invited by the very body that may have failed. That is not a system of scrutiny; it is an invitation to inertia. It cannot be right that officials in a department where fraud is suspected should have the power to decide whether to be investigated. The DWP does not wait to be invited before it goes after benefits cheats, and there is no reason why public officials should be held to a different standard.
The Government are proposing to create an authority with wide powers on paper but no real agency in practice—a watchdog told to bark only when asked. In short, it should be called out for what it is: a farce. Fraud against the taxpayer is not a matter for polite phone calls between Permanent Secretaries; it demands action that is statutory, swift and unambiguous. When credible evidence of fraud arises, that must be the starting gun for any investigation, not the moment the system looks away.
Our amendment gives the PSFA the ability to act proactively, with proper safeguards, wherever fraud occurs. If we are serious about protecting public money, we cannot design a system that waits to be asked before doing its job. I am not satisfied that the response from the Government meets the conditions set out, and therefore I want to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Finn
“(4A) Where an information notice names or describes a person in accordance with this section, the notice must include a clear statement that the person specified is not necessarily guilty of the suspected fraud.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure information notices issued to banks and financial institutions include a clear statement that the person to whom the information relates is not necessarily guilty of suspected fraud.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 3 and 4, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie. Both concern the information-gathering and information-sharing powers in this Bill, and both are designed to ensure that those powers are exercised with fairness, clarity and restraint.
The first amendment to Clause 3 would require that any information notice issued to a bank or financial institution includes a clear statement that the person named or described in that notice is not necessarily guilty of the suspected fraud. This is an important safeguard. As noble Lords will recall, Clause 3 enables investigators to issue information notices to banks when there is a reasonable suspicion of fraud. That is a proper and necessary power which is central to the operation of the Bill, and we do, of course, accept that. However, it is equally vital that the use of that power does not inadvertently imply culpability on the part of the individual concerned. Particularly in the early stages of implementation, when departments and financial institutions are still adjusting to these new processes, there is a real risk that an information notice could be misinterpreted as a formal accusation of wrongdoing. A simple, clear statement of non-culpability within the notice would prevent that risk. It would protect innocent individuals from reputational harm, ensure that they are not subject to debanking or any action from the side of the bank, ensure transparency in the use of investigatory powers, and demonstrate that the Government are determined to act fairly as well as firmly in the pursuit of fraud.
This is a small addition, but one with significant practical effect. What may seem a technicality in legislation can have a tangible effect on people in the real world—those who will be affected by the words we use and that we approve in this Bill. Clarity on this question would be a small change for the Government, but it could avoid risking some serious and damaging circumstances for those outside this place who have done nothing wrong, but who may nevertheless be presumed to have done so without the sort of clarifications we are suggesting. We therefore hope the Government will look closely at how such a clarification might be built into the final version of the Bill.
The second amendment, to Clause 5, concerns the disclosure of information once it has been gathered. As the Bill stands, Clause 5 allows the Minister to disclose information to another person for the purposes of exercising the powers in the Bill, but it gives no definition of or limitation as to who that other person might be. That is an extraordinarily broad formulation. Our amendment would simply require the Secretary of State to specify, by regulations, the persons or categories of persons to whom such information may be disclosed. This would provide a transparent and accountable framework that allows for flexibility but still ensures that Parliament has visibility of how and where sensitive data can be shared.
We are not seeking to obstruct the legitimate flow of information between public bodies. On the contrary, we recognise that effective information exchange is essential to combat fraud across the public sector, but we must ensure that these powers are not open-ended. We trust the present Minister to use them responsibly, but as noble Lords have often reminded us, we are legislating for future Ministers and Governments, and the safeguards we build in now will protect individuals for years to come.
These are not amendments on which we intend to divide the House. We bring them back to ensure that these important issues are not lost as the Bill progresses, that the Government meet the challenge they raise, and that appropriate assurances or refinements are provided before the Bill leaves this House. Both proposals are constructive. One protects individuals from being unfairly stigmatised when information about them is sought; the other ensures that personal information, once obtained, can be shared only within clear, regulated limits. Together, they speak to a single principle: that strong powers must always be matched by strong safeguards. We therefore hope that the Minister will take these concerns in that spirit and consider how best to address them as the Bill moves forward. We look forward to hearing her response. I beg to move.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to add my support for Amendment 3, which would require any information notice to include a statement that the notice does not imply that the person named is guilty of fraud. This is important because a bank that believes a person is guilty of fraud must take actions that may include closing or freezing accounts, issuing suspicious activity reports, and so on.
This has been an area of much discussion as the Bill has gone through Committee, and I know that the financial services industry has raised a number of concerns. Many of those concerns have been dealt with by amendments tabled by the Minister, but this amendment would put it beyond doubt. It adds no onerous obligations, so I urge the Minister to accept it.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, throughout Committee, concerns were raised about the amount of information-gathering power the state will have, particularly the relationship between banks and the information that could be gained. I cannot emphasise enough the plea that these amendments make, particularly Amendment 3: that it is important when such power is being accrued that we do not forget very important principles such as “innocent until proven guilty”.
There is no doubt that if you have information that suggests that somebody could be guilty of fraud, that does not make them guilty. Unless there is a constant reminder that they are being investigated or information is being gathered, they will potentially be subject not only to stigmatised attitudes but to debanking measures and discriminatory actions, as we have just heard.
I really hope the Minister can reassure us that we are not going to be glib about the impact of the powers the Bill accrues to the state, which could destroy innocent people’s lives. That might not be the Government’s intention, but it could be an unintended consequence. Therefore, this amendment is very important, and we need guidance or reassurance, or to hear the ways in which this could be dealt with.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, we are in a world of information-sharing and information-gathering, and this is where that starts and stops. Amendment 3 would ensure that
“information notices issued to banks and financial institutions include a clear statement that the person to whom the information relates is not necessarily guilty of suspected fraud”.
Amendment 4
“would limit the persons to whom information may be disclosed by requiring the Secretary of State to specify eligible persons in regulations”.
In our view, these are sensible safeguards and regulations. On that basis, we on these Benches broadly support the amendments.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, bringing forward these amendments again. I find myself agreeing with the concerns outlined by the noble Baroness and other Members of your Lordships’ House. I reassure all noble Lords that we are already undertaking this work, and that the safeguards are in place.
On Amendment 3 and the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, we will be including specific information in guidance for authorised officers to ensure that information notices advise the information-holder that the investigation is ongoing, and no inference should be drawn that the individual specified on the notice is guilty. This amendment is therefore not required as it is already our intention to do this, and it will be achieved in guidance.
Turning to Amendment 4, I again assure the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and other Members of your Lordships’ House that I agree with the intention of the amendment, which is why there are already safeguards in the Bill that restrict the disclosure of information. Clause 5 details that:
“Information can only be disclosed for the purpose of exercising the core functions”.
This restricts to whom and for what purpose the information can be disclosed. However, also including a prescriptive list of persons who can have information disclosed to them would further restrict the intent of the clause and the effectiveness of its scope in exercising the core functions detailed in Clause 1 of the Bill.
I hope to further reassure noble Lords that the PSFA’s enforcement unit would also have memoranda of understanding for each person it would be sharing information with, as well as maintaining a data protection impact assessment to ensure that this information is shared and held in adherence to data protection legislation. We have taken every step to ensure that there are appropriate safeguards in the disclosure of information, while balancing this with making the powers relevant and effective for an investigation. I hope that this reassures noble Lords and that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response, to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for his support, and to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for their support for Amendment 3.
These are, on the face of it, small and technical matters, but they go to the heart of how the Bill will operate in practice. The smallest drafting choices, the subtlest omissions, can have real consequences for individuals caught up in these processes. We cannot allow the system to treat people as wrongdoers when nothing has been proven or concluded. The language of the Bill must make that absolutely clear. What may seem a flippant technicality in this Chamber can, in the real world, determine whether someone is wrongly stigmatised, denied banking services or placed under suspicion without cause. That is why these details matter, because fairness, clarity and restraint are not afterthoughts; they are the foundation of public confidence in the powers that this Bill creates. I thank the Minister for her engagement and hope that, as the Bill progresses, these small but important safeguards might be reflected in the final drafting. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Finn
“(5) Within six months of the day on which this section comes into force, the Minister must prepare and publish guidance setting out the process by which authorised investigators are appointed in accordance with section 7(3).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clause would require the Minister to set out the process by which authorised investigators are appointed in statutory guidance.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, this amendment, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie, seeks to insert a new subsection in Clause 7 requiring the Minister to publish, within six months of Royal Assent, statutory guidance setting out the process by which authorised investigators are appointed under this part of the Bill.
Clause 7, as it stands, is one of the most powerful provisions in the Bill. It confers on authorised investigators a suite of powers drawn from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—powers that are usually reserved for police officers. These include the ability to apply for search warrants, seize property and access computerised information. These are not trivial powers; they allow the state to enter homes and businesses, seize personal possessions and compel the disclosure of data. Yet, as currently drafted, Clause 7 defines an authorised investigator as
“an individual who is authorised by the Minister to exercise the powers conferred by this section”.
It is, in effect, circular: an authorised person is whoever the Minister authorises. There is no clarity, no set of criteria and no publicly available process to explain how these individuals are selected, trained or held accountable.
If we are to grant powers of this magnitude—powers that mirror those of the police—Parliament and the public are entitled to know who will wield them and on what basis. The police are subject to detailed recruitment standards, codes of ethics and training requirements, all of which are set out in published documents such as the National Recruitment Standards-Eligibility Criteria for Police Recruitment and Consistent Recruitment Practices. Those standards exist for a reason: because with greater power comes greater responsibility. We should expect nothing less from the Public Sector Fraud Authority or from any civil servants who are to exercise PACE powers on behalf of the Minister. The public will rightly expect the same degree of rigour, impartiality and transparency that they would from a police officer acting under similar authority.
The amendment therefore asks for something very modest: a requirement that the process by which such authorisations are made be set out in guidance published within six months of this provision coming into force. That guidance would need to explain who is eligible, how individuals are assessed, what qualifications or training they require and what oversight mechanisms apply. In doing so, we would provide reassurance to Parliament and the public that these powers will not be exercised lightly and that those who wield them will be suitably qualified, appropriately vetted and properly accountable. We are, after all, creating a precedent here. These powers will not exist in isolation; they could endure for decades, exercised by future officials in future departments. It is therefore essential that we get the governance right at the outset and that we put clear expectations on the record and, ideally, in the Bill.
This is an area where guidance can make a real difference. It would strengthen the operational credibility of the new regime, improve transparency and protect the reputation of the PSFA. It would also provide Ministers with a clear framework to defend and justify their appointments in future. I hope, therefore, that the Government will look carefully at this proposal and, if they cannot accept it today, that they will bring back their own amendment at Third Reading to ensure that the appointment and oversight of authorised investigators meet the same professional standards and ethical safeguards that we rightly demand of our police. I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, after Committee this was one area of the Bill that I literally had nightmares about. I think a really dangerous precedent is being set here. I am rather disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, will not divide the House on this, because this is one area where inadvertently handing over police powers to civil servants could completely backfire and cause real, serious problems.
I was talking recently to a group of people about some of the problems within the police force. Even though we have vetting and training, there are serious and well-documented problems of corruption, in some instances, or misbehaviour—I hardly need rehearse them. These police officers are charged with enormous privilege to act on behalf of the state. Therefore, we know that even when we have such safeguards in place, people with power can abuse that power.
In this instance, this Bill, however well meaning, intends to give similar powers to people when we have no idea what their training will be, whether they will be vetted and what qualifications there will be. Therefore, this amendment is entirely appropriate. It is rather modest, but it does at least seek to provide some safeguards for what is happening here, which is that the state is setting up a civilian population to act as police officers. To be honest, the public do not know about it. It is shocking. Whenever I have told anyone that this came out in Committee and that it is contained in the Bill, it is the thing that has shocked people the most. I hope not just that we can receive reassurances but that concrete responses are brought forward by the Minister as to what can be done to ensure that this does not go very badly wrong and backfire.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, clearly, it would be best if something such as who these investigators are was in the Bill so that we have more detail. What we are being offered by these amendments is to require the Minister to outline in statutory guidance the process for appointing authorised investigators. This is by no means as good as having it in the Bill, but I believe that statutory guidance has to be carefully considered, because who is appointed to investigate should be decided not just with a flick of a pen but with more careful consideration. We on these Benches are broadly supportive of this amendment, because we believe it would add additional transparency to the appointment process.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, it is essential that any individual authorised to use the powers enshrined in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is competent to discharge their duties under the law. We are committed to ensuring that this is the case for the authorised investigators created by the Bill. However, for legislation to require the publication of guidance on an internal appointment process is not only unnecessary but inconsistent with established practice in this area across other government departments. Government departments with similar investigative powers—for example, HMRC, the Home Office, Defra and even the Food Standards Agency—are not required to and do not publish statutory guidance on this point.
Let me reassure your Lordships’ House that Ministers take their responsibilities seriously. It is for this reason, as we have consistently affirmed, that no investigator will be authorised to exercise these powers until the Minister is entirely satisfied that they possess the requisite training and expertise. This training will cover: proficiency in relevant aspects of PACE, particularly the legal framework and applications of Section 8 and Section 9, and PACE codes of practice as far as they apply to the PSFA’s powers; proper procedures for applying for and lawfully executing warrants, including entry, search, seizure and handling digital information; and proper handling and retention of and access to evidence. Crucially, they will be trained in safeguards for individual rights during investigations and warrant execution, and in the proper handling and retention of and access to evidence.
Training will be provided by the College of Policing by means of a series of bespoke training courses, the first of which has commenced this week. Individuals will be required to demonstrate proficiency in all relevant facets of PACE before the Minister will authorise them as authorised investigators, with particular emphasis on the legal framework alongside its accompanying codes of practice. These authorised investigators will be members of the government counterfraud profession, and they will be required to meet the appropriate professional standards.
Therefore, I urge noble Lords to consider that the existing framework, bolstered by our commitment to rigorous training, already provides necessary assurances and that an amendment to codify this is unnecessary. I reassure and remind noble Lords that these powers cannot be exercised in any specific case unless a court has granted a warrant—the ultimate safeguard. I hope that this explanation reassures noble Lords and that the noble Baroness will therefore withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, we will not seek to divide the House on this amendment. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for whose support I am very grateful, but we will look in later groupings today at safeguards on the PACE powers granted to civil servants.
The amendment speaks to an important point, one that we have raised repeatedly throughout the passage of this Bill. We are granting serious powers to officials under this legislation—so-called authorised investigators, who will be able to exercise these powers, some of which are drawn from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. We can never forget that these are not minor administrative tools; they are police-level powers to search, seize and compel. If we are to trust such authority to civil servants then Parliament and the public deserve full oversight of how those powers are used and, quite simply, by whom. That is the question this amendment asks and it is one that must be answered clearly before this framework is implemented.
The process for authorising investigators, the standards they must meet and the accountability mechanisms that apply are not small matters of drafting detail; they go to the heart of public confidence in this regime. We appreciate that the Minister can tell us now how this process will work, but some sort of formal, documented statement setting this out would be immensely helpful as a way of us having this beyond the Minister’s word. While I trust the noble Baroness completely, we do not know if we can always trust her successor or her successor after that. Setting this out would allow everyone to know the standards and process and would ensure that these are being met, not only now but in the future.
In short, I am grateful to the Minister for her response, but I hope the Government will reflect seriously on this issue and possibly come back with something at Third Reading. The powers in Clause 7 are significant and so too must be the safeguards that accompany them. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and my amendment to clause 9, page 7, lines 38 and 39, would remove provision that is no longer needed because of the general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, which was inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and came into force on 20 August 2025.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I was on my honeymoon last week, which is why our amendments were tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. This time last week I was in Santorini—I told the noble Baroness I would get that in—and I think I have done awfully well to get to group 5.
The provisions of a Bill that recently passed in your Lordships’ House have a direct impact on how we draft and interpret legislation across government, including this Bill. As a result, we no longer need to state in the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill that provisions authorising the processing of information do not override existing legislation. This is now a routine requirement across all government Bills. We are therefore making a series of amendments across Part 1 and Part 2 of the Bill to ensure that the rules and safeguards set out in the new Act are properly implemented throughout the Bill. The amendments to the PAFER Bill are a necessary step to align with this new legislation, bringing legal clarity and consistency across all legislation. These are technical but required amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, we understand that these amendments are technical in nature, designed to ensure that the Bill is properly aligned with the changes made by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. We therefore appreciate that these are tidying amendments that do not alter the policy substance of the clause but simply ensure legal coherence. I thank the Minister for bringing them forward—and I hope she enjoyed her honeymoon.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, my honeymoon was fabulous.
I am grateful for the support of the House on these consequential amendments, following the Data (Use and Access) Act coming into force. I hope that noble Lords will provide their support to these amendments.
Baroness Sherlock
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 9, page 7, lines 32 to 34.
Baroness Sherlock
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 19, page 12, line 32.
The Minister of State, Department of Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot help thinking that if one of us was in Santorini and the other one was here tabling amendments, I may have got the raw end of the deal—although it is possible that my noble friend’s husband might not agree with that.
The government amendments in this group contain a series of further safeguards for individuals who are subject to the new debt recovery powers in Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, specifically in relation to direct deduction orders to recover from bank accounts and deductions from earnings orders to deduct from PAYE salaries in Part 1. Before I address them, I add my thanks to noble Lords from around the House for what has been a constructive consideration of the Bill so far. I hope that these government amendments will help to add to that sentiment.
Government Amendments 8, 9, 93 and 94 seek to clarify the obligations of financial institutions not to disclose that they have received an information notice under the new power enabling direct deduction orders—DDOs. Under the debt recovery provisions in Parts 1 and 2, financial institutions are prohibited from informing account holders that the PSFA or the DWP has requested account information. This is to militate against attempts to avoid the powers—for example, by moving money out of the account before a DDO is issued.
These amendments clarify that the prohibition ends three months after the notice is given to the bank, or sooner if a pre-deduction notice is subsequently given. Three months is long enough for the DWP or the PSFA to have assessed a debtor’s ability to repay and the affordability of repayments, and to issue a first notice as appropriate. These amendments remove any doubt as to how long the prohibition lasts, ensuring the requirement is proportionate and not overly burdensome.
It is only during the time that account information is being considered that the prohibition applies. Once the information has been properly assessed and any pre-deduction notice given to the bank, account holders can be told that the information was requested. Where a DDO is proposed, the account holder, and a joint account holder if applicable, will be notified in writing by the PSFA or the DWP of their right to make representations regarding the proposed deductions before any are taken.
Government Amendments 12, 13, 98 and 100 are in response to our further engagement with the financial services sector. They seek to clarify the responsibilities of the PSFA, the DWP and financial institutions with specific regard to legal deputies who might be managing the affairs of a debtor subject to a DDO. Since Committee, we have continued to benefit from the insight provided by the financial services sector, and we want to provide as much clarity as possible on respective roles and responsibilities. These amendments will help ensure that the implementation of these measures is straightforward and that the Government can recoup money lost to fraud and error in an efficient and effective manner. Government Amendments 12 and 13 simplify the drafting of Clause 37 and remove redundant provisions. Amendments 97 and 98 do the same thing for Schedule 5.
Government Amendments 14 and 99 are consequential to Amendments 11 and 96, limiting the suspension of DDOs, which I will come to in a moment. They mean that, where an order has been suspended for two years and is revoked, the PSFA and the DWP will now have an obligation to inform a deputy, if there is one in place.
Government Amendments 15 and 100 create a requirement for a bank to provide the PSFA and the DWP with the details of any deputy acting on behalf of an account holder, where these are known to the bank, when certain notices or orders are issued to them. This was implicit before but, at the request of the banks, we are making it explicit that this includes the name and address of the deputy.
Collectively, these amendments are important to ensure that roles and responsibilities are clear for the minority of cases where there is a legal deputy in place when the PSFA or the DWP uses DDOs.
Government Amendments 11, 18, 96 and 99 address an issue raised at Second Reading by lots of noble Lords. I am happy to be able to respond to those comments here. The Government are committed to being fair and transparent in the use of these new powers, and it is completely reasonable that, where an individual has an order in place and it is suspended, it should not be suspended indefinitely. We are therefore introducing new provisions under government Amendments 11, 18, 96 and 99 to remove that uncertainty for those individuals so that they know exactly where they stand and to ensure that an order cannot be restarted if the suspension goes on for more than two years. I am grateful to noble Lords for having raised this.
It was never the Government’s intention for a suspension to be indefinite, but it is right to offer greater clarity and certainty in the law itself. The PSFA or the DWP will inform debtors of any changes to their payment arrangements. If an order is suspended, the debtor will be notified. In cases where a DDO is revoked, both the account holder and the relevant bank will receive written confirmation from the PSFA or the DWP. That reflects our continued commitment to supporting individuals in managing their debt and introduces important safeguards to ensure transparency and fairness.
I turn to the final government amendments in this group, Amendments 10 and 95. I again thank those in the financial services sector who have worked closely with us in the development of this Bill. We are committed to working collaboratively with the sector to ensure that the Bill enables banks to meet their legislative obligations while minimising burdens where possible.
The cost of meeting obligations under the Bill has been an area of interest to the House, and noble Lords have made the point in earlier debates that those helping to enforce the law must be supported. I agree with them on this. Therefore, these government amendments remove from Clause 26 and Schedule 5 the requirements on financial institutions to prevent account holders closing their accounts upon receipt of a pre-deduction notice or DDO from the PSFA or the DWP.
The original policy intent was to reduce opportunities for debtors to frustrate the DDO process, and that remains our objective. However, this requirement would not stop debtors who are persistent in evading repayment simply redirecting their funds to another account. We know from our engagement with the financial sector that complying with the requirement to prevent account closures risks creating a significant burden for some banks.
We reflected on that feedback and the fact that both parts of the Bill already contain further safeguards against bad actors who might wish to take action to frustrate a DDO. In Part 1, Clause 27 places a restriction on the account holder not to do anything that might frustrate the effect of the pre-deduction notice or the order. If they do, they become liable to pay a civil penalty. In Part 2, Schedule 6 contains provisions for the DWP to apply to the court for a suspended disqualification from driving order in the most serious cases where, for example, someone persistently fails to pay by frustrating a DDO.
Removing the requirement for financial institutions to prevent account closure upon receipt of a pre-deduction notice or DDO avoids placing new, costly burdens on some banks while still enabling the DWP and the PSFA to address effectively the small number of debtors who deliberately and persistently evade repaying taxpayers’ money. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, obviously we are pleased to see these amendments. We want to look much more closely to understand how far they go to meet some of the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Palmer earlier in the process of the Bill. I have an amendment in a future group that reflects our deep concern, particularly at the absence of transparency. The very thought that the original legislation essentially meant that people would have no idea that account statements had been handed over to the investigators—not only during the period when the investigation might be active but they would be permanently kept uninformed that their information had been handed over—felt to us like a complete breach of the rights of the individual, fundamentally breaking the bond of trust between a banking institution and its account holders.
We will want to look closely at these amendments and their implications. We may return to this issue at a later stage, but at this point we are glad that the Government are taking steps to deal with some of the features that most concerned us.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I expressed considerable concern about this part of the Bill in Committee. I have studied the amendments that have been put forward and, like the noble Baroness who has spoken on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, will reserve my position, since we can come back to this. The amendments, which we have been told came forward last week, seem like an improvement, but the question is whether they are sufficient. It is easy to spot what is there; the most difficult part of the process is spotting what is not, and I need a bit more time to achieve that. So, although I am in no sense speaking against the amendments, I am reserving my position on the overall effect of this clause and the objections that I raised in Committee. I will say a bit more on the next group of amendments, which are more germane.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group all relate to the duties placed on banks and other financial institutions in connection with debt recovery and information notices. Broadly speaking, the amendments represent a constructive and welcome set of clarifications from the Government. They respond directly to a number of issues raised in Committee about transparency, fairness and proportionality in the way that these powers are exercised.
On the Government’s amendments limiting the period during which a bank is prohibited from informing an account holder that it has received an information notice, we on these Benches see that as a largely sensible change. The amendment means that after three months or sooner, if a further notice is received under Section 21, the prohibition on informing the account holder will lapse. That is an improvement. It ensures that investigations cannot drift indefinitely in silence, while still protecting the integrity of live inquiries.
However, we would welcome confirmation from the Minister that when no action has been taken within that period then the department considers the case effectively closed or dormant. If a person is made aware that an information notice has been issued in respect of their account and they were in fact involved in some sort of fraud, then being made aware of this fact would compromise an investigation if it was ongoing, as that person could take action to avoid scrutiny. If the Minister could therefore clarify for us that, after this three-month period, a live investigation would not be affected through the sharing of this information then we would be content with this proposal.
I turn to the Government’s amendments removing the requirement for banks to prevent an account being closed outright where a deduction order has been made. This achieves the same policy outcome as the original drafting, ensuring that sufficient funds remain available for recovery, but it does so in a more proportionate and administratively practical way. The bank will still have to preserve the specified sum, but without being forced into the position of acting as an involuntary custodian for the rest of the customer’s affairs. That strikes the right balance between protecting public money and minimising unnecessary interference in personal banking arrangements.
We warmly welcome the amendment addressing suspended direct deduction orders. This is one that we pressed strongly in Committee, and we are very pleased that the Government have responded and taken us up on our suggestion, which was also supported by many other noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
As drafted originally, the Bill would have allowed an order to be suspended indefinitely, potentially leaving someone in limbo for years, uncertain whether it would ever be reactivated. That was clearly unsatisfactory. The new provision rightly ensures that, if an order has been suspended for more than two years, it must be treated as revoked and all relevant parties notified. That is a fair and proportionate solution that restores clarity and finality for the individual concerned.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for that constructive response, and to other noble Lords for giving us the benefit of the doubt here. I can assure my noble friend Lord Davies that the government amendments were tabled a week ago, as is the requirement. If it gives him any encouragement, they have been seen by UK Finance, which welcomed them. We were seeking to respond to concerns that were raised.
I will pick up on a couple of points made by noble Lords. I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that we are talking here specifically about action in relation to the recovering of debt from debtors. I want to reassure the House that this does not mean that a DWP debtor will not be aware that action might be taken. Clause 91 of the Bill requires the debtor to be told in advance, in writing, that bank statements may be obtained without further warning to assess whether money can be taken directly from their bank account via a DDO if they do not contact DWP to discuss repayment.
In response to other queries, these measures do not stop a bank telling a debtor if no action is proposed. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, we believe that three months is enough notice for DWP and PSFA to reach a conclusion, either that we issue a pre-deduction notice or a DDO, if we need it. We believe that that is sufficient, which is why that number is there.
Somebody—and I am afraid I have already forgotten who; do not be my age—asked what happens if an order has been suspended for two years. It cannot be restarted: it will be legally revoked. Where appropriate, the process can be started again from the beginning. For direct deduction orders, that would mean fresh bank statements had to be obtained to carry out a current affordability assessment rather than relying on ones from the beginning, and all relevant correspondence would have to be sent out again.
Where a suspended order is subsequently revoked by DWP or PSFA, a notice will be sent to the debtor and any other relevant parties, informing them that this has happened. If an order were revoked and DWP or PSFA were no longer pursuing an action, in the case of a DDO, DWP or PSFA would notify the account holder and the bank in writing, setting out that the order has been revoked. Debtors will also be told if their order has been suspended and an equivalent process applies to PSFA in respect of deduction from earnings orders.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, made an important point about deputies being in place. That is absolutely right. I can reassure her that DWP has clear processes for flagging vulnerability and making sure that that is taken into account. But obviously, in a sense, once the deputy is in place they have the obligations that would originally have been there for the debtor, so the debt has to be pursued in the appropriate way.
I hope that has answered the questions noble Lords have raised. Again, I hope it shows the Government’s willingness to engage and to be constructive in amending the Bill where possible. I hope that those clarifications will reassure noble Lords that the protections in the Bill operate as intended and that we will work effectively with our banking partners. As such, I hope noble Lords will support these amendments.
Baroness Sherlock
“(9A) The prohibition in subsection (9) ceases to apply—(a) at the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the day on which the account information notice or general information notice is given to the bank, or(b) if earlier, when the bank is given a notice under section 21(1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would limit how long the prohibition on a bank telling an account holder that it had received an information notice in respect of the holder’s account has effect.
Baroness Sherlock
(a) secure that no transaction takes place (except for any deduction under the order) which would result in the amount in the account falling below the specified amount, or, if the amount in the account is already below that amount, falling any further, or(b) take the action set out in subsection (2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the requirement for banks to prevent the closure of an account when given a notice under clause 21(1) in relation to a proposed direct deduction order, or a direct deduction order under section 17.
Baroness Sherlock
“(3) Where the requirement is suspended for a continuous period of two years the regular direct deduction order in question is to be treated as having been revoked at the end of that period.(4) Where a regular direct deduction order is treated as having been revoked by virtue of subsection (3), the Minister must give notice to that effect to—(a) the bank to which the order was given,(b) the liable person, and(c) in the case of a joint account, each of the other account holders. (5) Subsection (3) does not prevent the Minister making a further regular direct deduction order in respect of the same liable person and account.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that where the requirement to make deductions and payments under a regular direct deduction order made by the Minister is suspended for a continuous period of two years it may not be re-started.
Baroness Sherlock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 37, page 22, line 30.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes an unnecessary provision.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 32, page 19, line 31.
“(4) Subsection (5) applies where—(a) a bank is given—(i) an account information notice or a general information notice under section 19,(ii) a notice under section 21,(iii) a further information notice under section 31, or(iv) a direct deduction order, and(b) a deputy acts on behalf of an account holder of an account to which the notice or order relates.(5) The bank must give the Minister the name and correspondence address that it holds for that deputy (unless the bank has already provided that information).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a bank to give the Minister details of any deputy acting on behalf of an account holder to which certain notices or a direct deduction order relate.
Baroness Finn
“(6A) The outcome of consultations conducted under subsection (6) must be laid before Parliament before any regulations under that section may come into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the outcome of consultations required by section 38(6) is laid before Parliament prior to the implementation of regulations.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group focus on one central theme: ensuring proper scrutiny, transparency and accountability in how the powers granted under this Bill are exercised. These amendments are about ensuring that, as we build a powerful new framework for tackling public sector fraud, we also build in the right checks, balances and reporting duties, not only for Ministers but for the departments, banks and public bodies that will have to deliver the regime day to day.
The first of these amendments to Clause 38 would require that the outcome of any consultations held before making regulations on deduction orders be laid before Parliament before those regulations come into force. That is a reasonable step. Clause 38 already obliges Ministers to consult such persons as they consider appropriate, but, as things stand, there is no requirement to publish the results of explain how the Government have responded to the views expressed. This amendment simply ensures that Parliament can see the evidence and feedback underpinning any regulatory change. Banks and financial institutions will be at the forefront of implementing these powers: their experience and operational insight will be vital. Parliament should therefore be able to see what those institutions have said, what works, what does not, and what the likely impact of proposed changes will be before new rules take effect.
Alongside that sits our amendment requiring that any future regulations under Clause 38 be accompanied by an impact assessment covering the projected costs and effects on banks and financial institutions. As we have said throughout the passage of the Bill, the partnership with the financial sector must be one of collaboration, not imposition. An impact assessment is not an obstacle: it is a basic instrument of good governance. It ensures that decisions are informed by evidence, that burdens are proportionate and that Ministers, Parliament and industry all have a shared understanding of the practical consequences of what is being proposed.
Our third amendment, after Clause 64, would take that principle one step further. It would require the Minister, within 12 months of these provisions coming into force, to conduct a review of the administrative and compliance costs imposed on the banks by this Bill, including staffing, reporting and opportunity costs. This is about fairness and being realistic. We are asking the financial services sector to play a major operational role in this new system: to respond to information notices, process deduction orders and help recover public funds. That is legitimate for the purposes of the Bill, on which all noble Lords broadly agree, but it comes with a cost. Parliament has a right to know what that cost is and whether it is being managed proportionately and effectively.
At a higher level of oversight, our next two amendments would introduce annual reporting requirements. The first would require the Minister to publish an annual report on the use of the powers conferred under Part 1 of the Bill, setting out how often they have been used, in what context and with what results. This is about shining a light on the operation of the regime itself, how these new powers are working in practice, how effective they are in recovering public money and how proportionately they are being exercised.
The second would require an annual report on the overall extent of public sector fraud: a single, authoritative assessment of the scale and nature of the problem across government. The Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and indeed the Government themselves have all acknowledged that the current picture is fragmented and inconsistent. Without reliable data, it is impossible to design effective policy, measure progress or target resources where they are most needed. An annual report would help close that gap, improve accountability and ensure that both Parliament and the public can see whether we are making headway against the problem.
None of these proposals is designed to delay or frustrate the Bill. We are not seeking to divide the House on these amendments. What we seek is assurance that the Government recognise the importance of these issues, that the machinery of the Bill will operate transparently, that Parliament will be kept informed and that those upon whom these duties fall will be treated fairly and proportionately. They are therefore constructive and common-sense measures. They would strengthen parliamentary oversight, improve the evidence base for future policy and help ensure that the strong powers created by the Bill are matched by equally strong safeguards and accountability.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will reflect on these proposals in that spirit and that, as the Bill proceeds, the Government will bring forward their own commitments to embed these principles of transparency, consultation and reporting in the way that these powers are used. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I have already taken the opportunity to reiterate the concerns I have expressed about parts of the Bill. I find myself in the somewhat against-the-grain position of agreeing with much of what was said on behalf of the Opposition. Amendment 26 seems to me entirely reasonable, given the level of concern that has been expressed about the extension of government powers over matters that are essentially personal. Although we are not going to vote on these amendments, I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister, in replying to the debate, will give a clear assurance that these workings—which, it has to be said, go into new areas of state control—will be looked at on a continuing basis and not automatically become a matter of routine.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I am generally supportive of all the amendments in this group, but particularly Amendments 17 and 22. This Bill, and particularly this part of it, impose a range of onerous obligations on the banks and other financial institutions that are affected by it and that have to respond to information notices and so on. But nowhere does the Bill provide for how the costs that arise from those obligations should be dealt with, or for how to ensure that they are proportionate.
Amendments 17 and 22 simply add an important level of review and transparency, which would allow us to ensure that the costs being imposed on those institutions are reasonable and proportionate. The very fact of the requirement to prepare impact assessments and to review the costs of compliance should of itself ensure that these costs are kept at the forefront of the Government’s mind when using these powers. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will accept Amendments 17 and 22.
On Amendment 26, I absolutely support the concept. I am just slightly confused as to whether it is not already covered by Clause 65, but I support the principle.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, there are five of these amendments. Amendment 16
“would ensure that the outcome of consultations required by section 38(6) is laid before Parliament prior to the implementation of regulations”.
Amendment 17 is a proposed new clause, which
“would ensure that changes to the means through which deduction orders are processed are accompanied by an impact assessment”.
Amendment 22, which has received some support, would require the Minister to undertake yet another review:
“of the costs banks are having imposed upon them by Part 1 within 12 months of the new section coming into effect”.
Amendment 26 proposes another new clause, requiring the Minister
“to publish an annual report on the use of powers conferred by Part 1 of the Bill, which must then be laid before Parliament”.
Finally, Amendment 112 is a proposed new clause that
“would require the Minister to publish an annual report on the estimated scale of fraud against public authorities”,
which must again be laid before Parliament.
This would be a pretty hefty tome of things to be laid before Parliament: a book all by itself. Whereas these Benches welcome measures that increase clarity and accountability, is it necessary to prescribe additional reporting mechanisms beyond those already established? Our focus has been on ensuring that existing processes are effectively implemented. I do not think they always are, but that is what has to be done. They also have to be accessible, rather than imposing formal obligations that may not meaningfully enhance anything. I understand the thrust of these amendments, but they would produce a tome of regulations—with a line of civil servants to deal with that—yet provide no meaningful improvement.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for raising the important issues around annual reporting and the PSFA—both the use of powers conferred on it by the Bill and the extent of fraud against public authorities—as well as her point on the implementation of direct deduction orders, particularly concerning the regulations, the publication of consultation outcomes and the impact these powers may have on the banking industry. While I agree with the intent behind these amendments, unfortunately they are duplicative or would otherwise create an unnecessary burden for the PSFA. I will address each in turn.
Amendment 16 would require that the outcome of any consultation required by regulation-making powers for direct deduction orders in Clause 38(6) is laid before Parliament prior to the implementation of regulations. This amendment is duplicative: where a consultation is required, the Explanatory Memorandum of the relevant statutory instrument must detail and consider the outcome of that consultation exercise. Furthermore, the Cabinet Office consultation principles also set out that where a consultation concerns a statutory instrument, His Majesty’s Government should publish responses before or at the same time as the instrument is laid. We completely agree with the noble Baroness, which is why the provisions are there.
Amendment 17 seeks to hold the PSFA to commit to
“an impact assessment covering projected costs and effects on the operational capacity of banks”,
should any changes be made to the means by which deduction orders are processed by way of regulation, as set out in Clause 38. This amendment is also duplicative, as statutory instruments require that the impact on the relevant sector is considered and set out in the Explanatory Memoranda—even if that is to say no impact is expected—with reasons given as to why. Where the impact is expected to exceed £10 million, a full and separate impact assessment must be prepared and published alongside the SI.
The Government are extremely mindful of the burdens this Bill places on businesses, including the banking sector. We too want to ensure that they are not subjected to disproportionate burden or costs in complying with these measures, and we want to assure noble Lords that the PSFA is working on how to effectively operationalise the recovery powers in partnership with representatives of the banking sector. Throughout the development of the Bill, we have tried to strike the right balance between requiring actions from banks in a fair and proportionate way and achieving our policy intent of recouping vital public funds lost to fraud and error. That is why there has been sustained engagement with key representatives of the sector including UK Finance, individual banks, building societies, His Majesty’s Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority. We know that the sector is supportive of the Bill’s objectives from the evidence provided by UK Finance in Committee in the other place. We have benefited from the sector’s operational insights and, as discussed on the previous group, we have tabled a number of amendments as a direct result, to ease the implementation and delivery of the recovery powers.
Amendment 22 would require the PSFA to undertake a review after 12 months on the cost to banks of complying with provisions under Part 1 of the Bill. The Bill’s published impact assessment—which sets out all expected costs to business, including banks, from the PSFA’s measures—has been green-rated by the Regulatory Policy Committee and sets out, where it has been possible to do so, the minimal expected costs to businesses, including banks, of the measures in Part 1 of the Bill. Provisions already exist under Clause 24 for banks to be able to deduct administrative costs that would offset what the review would report on. This amendment would create disproportionate administrative burden on the PSFA when, candidly, it should be using its resource to pursue those who defraud the public purse.
Amendment 26 would require a report on the use of powers by the PSFA to be published and laid in Parliament. I know the noble Baroness genuinely cares about ministerial oversight and accountability of officers using these new powers. I assure her that in addition to the reports that will be commissioned from inspectorates —such as His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services—the independent person appointed in line with Clause 65 will proactively review the PSFA’s investigative use of the powers, including their efficiency and effectiveness. We have previously stated that these would be annual reports, and they will be laid before Parliament.
Lastly, I turn to Amendment 112, on annual reporting. This would require the PSFA to publish and lay in Parliament an annual report on the extent of fraud against public authorities based on the Government’s internal estimates. The PSFA already oversees the counterfraud performance of ministerial departments and public bodies and already publishes a report on the extent of fraud against public authorities through its fraud landscape reports. These set out levels of detected, prevented and recovered fraud and error as reported by departments and public bodies to the Government’s Counter Fraud Function’s centre of expertise. For transparency, these are now published online. We expect the next one to be published before the end of the financial year and can commit to sharing this with Members who have spoken in this debate.
I think I have touched on all the points raised, although there was a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, on other safeguards. It may be helpful to reassure your Lordships’ House that we have the following additional safeguards in place. Authorised officers and investigators will be trained extensively and will be permitted to use the powers only once the training has been completed. They will follow detailed procedures and have strong guidance; for instance, on how to assess and handle potentially vulnerable suspects. There will be rights to make representations, request an internal review and appeal decisions through First-tier and Upper Tribunals across the civil penalty, debt recovery and information gathering powers. In addition, we will consult on and publish a code of practice detailing the calculation and application of penalties issued where fraud is found and where there is non-compliance with the information sharing and gathering requirements and debt recovery powers within the Bill.
I hope that reassures your Lordships’ House and the noble Baroness that we are already taking steps to achieve the same aim, and she can therefore withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her remarks. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Brixton and Lord Vaux, for their support for some of the amendments. I thank the Minister for the consideration she has given as well.
At the heart of this debate is a simple but important point: if we are to make the system work, we have to work with the banks, not simply through them. They are, in effect, being recruited as operational arms of the state, helping to investigate, enforce and recover public money. That partnership brings responsibilities on both sides. These amendments were never about creating obstacles; they were about ensuring that transparency, consultation and accountability are built into the process. The banks are being asked to play a vital role, and we must show them that their experience, concerns and costs will be reflected in how the Government engage with and implement the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sherlock
“(3) Where the requirement is suspended for a continuous period of two years the deduction from earnings order in question is to be treated as having been revoked at the end of that period.(4) Where a deduction from earnings order is treated as having been revoked by virtue of subsection (3), the Minister must give notice to that effect to—(a) the liable person, and(b) the employer to which the order was given.(5) Subsection (3) does not prevent the Minister making a further deduction from earnings order in respect of the same liable person.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment means that where the requirement to make deductions and payments under a deduction from earnings order is suspended for a continuous period of 2 years it may not be re-started.
Baroness Finn
“Fraud risk management duties for public authorities(1) This section applies to public authorities responsible for spending schemes or programmes involving total annual payments or disbursements exceeding £100 million (“relevant spending schemes or programmes”).(2) A public authority to which this section applies shall—(a) register each relevant spending scheme or programme with the Minister for the Cabinet Office via the Public Sector Fraud Authority before the start of each financial year;(b) conduct and submit to the Authority a fraud risk assessment for each registered scheme, detailing identified fraud risks and planned mitigations;(c) prepare an annual fraud measurement plan specifying the methods by which fraud rates will be determined, including representative sampling or comparable statistically valid methods, to ensure robust estimation of fraud and error rates.(3) The Authority shall—(a) independently verify each public authority’s reported fraud rates annually, employing rigorous audit, sampling, or comparable statistically robust methods;(b) publish annually, in a dedicated report laid before Parliament— (i) the fraud rates reported by each public authority;(ii) the independently verified fraud rates determined by the Authority;(iii) an assessment of the accuracy and effectiveness of each public authority’s fraud risk management measures.(4) Each public authority shall publish in its annual accounts—(a) its submitted fraud risk assessment;(b) the fraud rates as determined independently by the Authority;(c) an evaluation rating (Red-Amber-Green) assigned by the Authority reflecting the public authority’s compliance with and effectiveness of its fraud risk management duties.(5) The evaluation rating assigned by the Authority under subsection (4)(c) shall assess—(a) adequacy and accuracy of fraud rate measurement methodologies;(b) effectiveness of implemented fraud risk mitigations;(c) compliance with statutory duties set out in this section.(6) Where the Authority finds significant discrepancies between reported fraud rates and independently verified fraud rates, or otherwise finds significant discrepancies in the public authority’s fraud management practices, it shall issue a notice requiring the public authority to—(a) submit within 30 days a detailed action plan specifying corrective measures;(b) implement corrective measures as directed by the Authority within a timeframe specified in the notice.(7) Compliance by public authorities with their obligations under this section shall be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and the findings shall form part of their reports to Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to impose stricter fraud risk management duties on public authorities that oversee spending schemes exceeding £100 million annually, by requiring these authorities to register schemes, conduct fraud risk assessments, measure fraud using robust methods, and publish findings. The Public Sector Fraud Authority would verify reported fraud rates, publish comparisons, assign performance ratings, and enforce corrective actions for poor performance. Compliance would be subject to independent audit and parliamentary scrutiny.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, this amendment, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie, seeks to insert a new clause establishing clear fraud risk management duties for all public authorities that oversee major spending programmes—that is, those involving annual disbursements exceeding £100 million. The purpose of this amendment is straightforward but fundamental. It is to ensure that the Public Sector Fraud Authority does not become, as it very easily could, an external body to which departments can simply outsource responsibility for managing fraud risk, rather than taking ownership of it themselves.
We have heard a great deal, rightly, about the scale of public sector fraud and the cost to the taxpayer, but as we look to the future, the real question is not simply how the PSFA will investigate or recover those losses; it is how we build a culture of counterfraud across the public sector—one in which every department, agency and accounting officer takes personal and institutional responsibility for preventing fraud at source.
This amendment aims to do exactly that. It would require all public authorities responsible for large spending schemes—those worth more than £100 million a year—to register those schemes with the PSFA, conduct fraud risk assessments and prepare annual fraud measurement plans. Those plans would have to use robust, statistically valid methods to estimate fraud and error rates, such as representative sampling or equivalent techniques. The PSFA would then independently verify those reported figures, publish an annual report comparing departmental self-assessments with its own verified data and assign each authority a red, amber or green rating to reflect the adequacy of its fraud management arrangements. Those ratings and the underlying data would then be published, both in each department’s annual accounts and in the PSFA’s report to Parliament.
Finally, where there are significant discrepancies or failings, the PSFA would have the power to require the relevant authorities to submit an action plan within 30 days setting out how they will correct the deficiencies. Compliance with these duties would then be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, bringing this entire framework within the scrutiny of Parliament.
This is a serious proposal that goes to the heart of what we have been saying throughout the passage of the Bill. Fraud is not a problem that can be solved by a single agency, however capable. It must be the business of the entire public sector. We cannot allow a situation to develop where departments and public bodies come to see the PSFA as an external safety net—somewhere they can pass the buck to when something goes wrong. If we are not careful, that is precisely what will happen. Officials will say that fraud is the PSFA’s job, Ministers will reassure Parliament that the PSFA is on the case and, in the meantime, the very culture of accountability that we are trying to build will start to erode.
This amendment reverses that logic. It would make counterfraud a statutory discipline—something that must be embedded, measured and reported on within each department and public authority. It would give the Minister for the Cabinet Office the information and oversight that they need to see at a glance where problems lie across government, and it would allow Parliament, through the Comptroller and Auditor-General, to see how public money is being protected and where it is being put at risk. In short, it would ensure that no official, no Permanent Secretary and no department can hide behind the PSFA. It would place responsibility exactly where it belongs—on those who spend and manage public money.
This approach also has a longer-term benefit. If departments develop and strengthen their own internal counterfraud capability, the need for PSFA intervention should gradually decline. That is what success should look like: not a PSFA burdened with firefighting every scandal across government but a public sector that has learned, embedded and internalised the discipline of fraud prevention. That is the culture shift we need. It is how we stop treating counterfraud as an emergency response and start treating it as an essential part of good public administration.
This amendment would give practical effect to that ambition. It would give the PSFA oversight, the Minister visibility and Parliament the means to scrutinise what is and is not being done across the system. If the Government are serious about tackling fraud at scale, then this is how they can demonstrate it: not by concentrating power in one central authority but by building a resilient, accountable and transparent network of fraud management across the public sector.
The amendment would strengthen not just the Bill but government itself. It would embed responsibility where it belongs and ensure that accountability, transparency and culture change go hand in hand. I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, one reason why I support the intention of the Bill is that I have become concerned that major fraud with public money has gone unchallenged for too long. One of my worries about the Bill is when it goes after low-hanging fruit—that is much more in relation to people on benefits, which we will discuss later on Report.
This amendment seems prepared to challenge what has become complacency about public money and waste and seeks to find a mechanism to ensure that it does not become yet another box-ticking bureaucratic exercise. While I am worried about even more bureaucracy, the intention behind the amendment is serious and rightfully puts the focus on where we should be worried: where people in public life have become utterly negligent with the taxpaying public’s money and feel that they will not be penalised. I am happy to go along with this, because I too worry that the PSFA will otherwise simply be a box-ticking exercise—somewhere where these matters will not be fully accounted for and discussed with the public. I will support the amendment should it be pushed further.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I found it difficult to believe that this was being required of us today. Amendment 21 requires each public authority’s reported fraud rates annually, employing a rigorous audit and sampling comparably statistically robust methods. That assumes that public authorities are not running any systems whatever themselves. The whole principle of government is that you do not do everything centrally, from central government, but you pass some things down to the individual public authorities.
For many years, I served as the chairman of the audit committee on the London Borough of Barnet, where we rigorously looked at spending proposals, as I imagine do all public authorities. The amendment says that the public authority must
“register each relevant spending scheme or programme … before the start of each financial year”.
It is meant to be for those exceeding £100 million annually, but for most schemes from public authorities—think of the new railways, for example—the figures never stack up by the time you get to the end of the programme. If it is expected that they will have to identify them at the beginning of the programme, numerous exceptions will be found to those programmes.
This amendment does not hold water. It takes away from all the public authorities the authority and vigilance that they are meant to assume themselves. We cannot support this amendment.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, is entirely right that public authorities responsible for spending taxpayers’ money must manage their fraud risks carefully. While we expect the enforcement powers in this Bill to be a powerful force against public sector fraud, prevention of fraud by designing spending programmes and fraud controls in the first place is the most important tool that we have.
I shall set out the work that the PSFA already does to hold public authorities to account for their fraud risk management performance and set out some ways in which we can go further. I hope that, in doing so, I shall convince the noble Baroness that her amendment is unnecessary. It is already a requirement for major new areas of public spending to have a fraud risk assessment; that is set out in both Managing Public Money, which tells accounting officers their duties, and the Treasury’s Green Book, which details how to appraise a project. The PSFA scrutinises those fraud risk assessments, holding departments to account both for the absence of risk assessment and for fraud risk assessments that do not meet the standard. Some 31 organisations have so far been through the PSFA’s rigorous assurance regime.
The highest-risk government schemes receive additional scrutiny of their fraud risk management practices on a regular ongoing basis. The highest risk here is not justified only with reference to the size of spending, although that is important, but with the scale of fraud risks that a programme faces. That is in addition to the PSFA’s broader scrutiny of departmental performance and capability. The PSFA assesses and holds public bodies to account for: their compliance with the counterfraud functional standard; the make-up of their counterfraud workforce and level of investment; the ambition and performance against their impact targets; and their ability to collect and report to the PSFA on all frauds against them.
The PSFA publishes the fraud landscape reports. These outline the main risks and issues across government, including the levels of detected fraud and corruption, and associated areas in departments and public bodies, excluding tax and welfare, as these are published elsewhere.
However, publishing fraud risk assessments, as this amendment calls for, would provide a how-to guide for fraudsters. The PSFA works closely with the National Audit Office, which can, as it chooses, offer independent scrutiny and has done so in reports, such as Using Data and Analytics to Tackle Fraud and Error, in July, and An Overview of the Impact of Fraud and Error on Public Funds for the New Parliament 2023-24, in November last year. In short, much of what the noble Baroness calls for in this amendment is already happening, but she is quite right—as this is fundamentally a question of protecting taxpayers’ money—that we can go further, so we are.
First, fraud measurement is most sophisticated in HMRC and DWP, where detailed audits and sampling are possible and proportionate. In other areas of government, effective fraud measurement is typically prohibitively expensive. Fraud is a hidden crime, but the noble Baroness is right that we need to do more here. The PSFA is pressing for a fraud measurement plan to be put in place for the highest-risk schemes across government, and we will make those highest-risk schemes report to the PSFA on their levels of fraud and error. This will include what has been estimated, detected, recovered and prevented. We are now also asking the highest-risk schemes to report on levels of counterfraud resourcing so we can assure that resourcing matches the threat.
Secondly, accountability is critical. The PSFA will redouble its efforts to hold departments to account for substandard fraud risk management. Where fraud risk assessments are of poor quality, where departments are falling behind on the counterfraud standards or where counterfraud workforces are insufficient or made up of the wrong skills, Cabinet Office Ministers and their departmental counterparts will ensure accountability and drive improvement. The action that the noble Baroness calls for is therefore already under way or is something that we recognise as a gap and are taking action on.
The noble Baroness is right to call for action, but the appropriate place to pursue that action is not in this legislation but through the PSFA’s published mandate, which we will look at again in light of the noble Baroness’s points to check that it is fit for purpose. I would welcome a discussion with her and my officials on what changes to our published mandate would achieve her goals—the invitation will obviously also be open to all noble Lords who have an interest.
We are trying to make sure that the counterfraud landscape is fit for purpose across departments. We are both listening to the comments of your Lordships’ House as well as progressing with the Bill. I therefore hope that that provides reassurance to your Lordships’ House and specifically to the noble Baroness, and I hope that she can withdraw her amendment.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I listened with the close interest to the Minister’s response, which it seems to me can be crystallised in a few words: that my noble friend Lady Finn is absolutely correct; her amendment is on the button, but officials in the Cabinet Office regard it as simply too much work to implement and do not want to have this actually in the Bill, but to have some sort of arrangement, some side deal or side letter to address it. When we are dealing with sums of public money as significant as those acknowledged in the legislation, surely it would be better to accept the amendment because the Minister has acknowledged that it is spot on and there is not a single element in the logic put forward by the Opposition Front Bench with which she takes issue.
The only possible objection that the Minister raised is that a public assessment of fraud risk would be a how-to guide for fraudsters. Surely the fraudsters do not need support; it is other departments that need support in dealing with this issue. If she cannot accept the logic and power of the amendment, will she commit to coming back to the House within six or 12 months and reporting, if it is the case that the proposal that she puts forward is inadequate, that she will accept the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lady Finn? As is clear from the paucity of the arguments provided for her by her officials, there is no gainsaying the force with which my noble friend Lady Finn made her case.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I have a huge amount of time and respect for the noble Lord, which is why I am smiling. He knows better than to suggest that I can bring forward and accept an amendment in 12 months’ time, after the legislation has already passed. However, he is right, and I agree with the principle and intention of everything the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, proposes. My argument is that this is wrong vehicle. It is the published mandate and the role of the PSFA as it exists—which was established by the previous Government—that we should open up, to ensure that it is fit for purpose as a cross-government vehicle and outlines its clear objective. That is the offer that I made to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her remarks and the careful consideration she has given this issue. I am really disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has decided that he can no longer support the amendment. He warmly welcomed a similar amendment in Committee, describing it as
“a comprehensive and rigorous approach to fraud risk management for public authorities overseeing significant spending schemes”.—[Official Report, 11/6/25; col. GC 243.]
At its core, this amendment is about building a culture of responsibility and transparency across government—one in which fraud prevention is owned by every department and every accounting officer, not simply outsourced to the PSFA. We cannot afford a system in which the authority becomes a convenient safety net, while departments step back from the task of managing their own risk. As we said in Committee, let us return to first principles: public money must be protected, not just recovered after it is lost. This must be a whole-of-government effort, driven by evidence, accountability and openness. Departments need to know how they are performing and Parliament needs to be able to see this. That means regular, comparable data that is published, verified and available for scrutiny by both Houses.
We appreciate the Minister’s response and the spirit in which it was given, but I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Gove: we do not believe that the reporting requirements set out in her answer are adequate. We need to see real movement on how these efforts are assessed—which departments are performing well, which are falling behind and how that performance is being improved. This information must be made public and open for review, and we know that this can be done without compromising ongoing investigations.
Transparency and accountability are not threats to enforcement; they are its foundation. This amendment goes to the very heart of what this Bill should be about: creating a genuine culture of responsibility across the public sector when it comes to tackling fraud. For too long, fraud management has been treated as a technical or procedural exercise, buried within internal reporting chains and obscured by bureaucratic complexity. The effect has been that too many departments and agencies see fraud as someone else’s problem, something to be passed up to the centre or delegated down to a third-party body such as the PSFA. However, the fight against fraud cannot be subcontracted. It has to begin and end with the public authorities themselves, which are entrusted with billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.
Our amendment seeks to ensure that accountability is clear, transparent and public. It would require departments not merely to report internally but to publish their own risk assessments, have their fraud rates independently verified and be held publicly to account for their performance. In the long run, the success of the PSFA should not be measured by how much it does but by how little it needs to do because public authorities have developed the systems, culture and leadership to manage fraud effectively themselves. Yet as the Bill stands, that is not the direction of travel. This amendment is therefore essential to shift the incentives away from centralised dependency and towards departmental ownership, transparency and responsibility.
I am extremely grateful for the offer of further discussions from the Minister, but this is a matter of principle and effectiveness. We cannot have great power, as the Government are proposing, without great responsibility. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment to clause 66, page 35, line 30, would mean that the Minister must provide information where the information is reasonably required for the purposes of independent reviews carried out under clause 65.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I now turn to government Amendments 23, 24, 68 and 69, regarding the disclosure of information to the independent reviewers. These amendments rightly respond to the challenge put forward in Committee by noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Finn and Lady Kramer, to provide all relevant information to independent reviewers. I am pleased to make these amendments today to demonstrate this Government’s commitment to supporting the independent reviewers in the PSFA and the DWP to carry out robust and transparent reviews.
On the PSFA side, government Amendments 23 and 24 will oblige the Minister to disclose all reasonable information to independent reviewers appointed under Clause 65 for the purposes of carrying out the review. The independent reviewer will determine what information is reasonably required. With regard to the DWP, in Committee my noble friend Lady Sherlock made it clear that the DWP Secretary of State will provide the independent reviewer of eligibility verification measures with all relevant material so that they can carry out their review. Recognising the underlying concern and to clarify our intent, we are today bringing forward government Amendments 68 and 69, which oblige the Secretary of State to disclose necessary information to the independent reviewer of EVM for the purposes of carrying out the review.
To be clear, for both sets of amendments substituting the word “must” for the word “may” does not signal a change in our approach. The Government have always been committed to providing all relevant information that is reasonably required to the respective independent reviewers to support the open and transparent use of powers and to promote accountability. These amendments today reinforce that commitment and make it crystal clear.
I hope that these amendments reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government will provide all relevant information to the independent reviewers, and I encourage noble Lords to back them. I beg to move.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, we have a lot of discussions in this House about the difference between “may” and “must”. I think in this case it is very important. It is essential that the independent reviewers, who are such an important safeguard throughout this Bill, are provided with all the information that they require, so I am delighted and thank the Minister for putting forward those amendments. My joy, however, is not unbridled, because she has caveated the “must” with
“where the information is reasonably required”.
Nowhere in this does it tell us who decides what is reasonable in this case. That opens the possibility of disagreement between the independent reviewer and the department, or the Minister, as to what is reasonable. That is regrettable. It would be better if the independent reviewer decided what they wanted, was given everything they required and it was up to them to decide what was reasonable. This provides the opportunity for doubt and disagreement, and we will come on to that in a later amendment next week. However, overall, I welcome these amendments.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches warmly welcome these amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. They reflect the very same concerns that we raised in Committee about the scope and strength of the independent reviewer mechanisms provided for in the Bill, specifically the ability of those reviewers to request and be granted access to the information they need to do their job properly. We are grateful that the Government have recognised this point in relation to the Cabinet Office section of the Bill.
The amendment before us to Clause 66 ensures that, where information is reasonably required for the purposes of an independent review under Clause 65, the Minister “must” provide it rather than “may”. That is a critical distinction, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, pointed out. A reviewer cannot be independent or effective if their access to information is discretionary, subject to the good will or convenience of the department being reviewed.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions of noble Lords to this group. I will respond specifically and reassure the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, about who will decide and how it will be decided what constitutes relevant material for the independent reviewer under Clause 65 and what happens if they disagree.
The independent reviewer under Clause 65 will determine what information is reasonably required from the PSFA. They must be able to demonstrate to the Minister that the information requested will allow them to carry out the review and how. What is and is not relevant for the independent EVM reviewer is a matter of fact. Information must be given to the reviewer only if it will allow them to carry out their functions as prescribed by Section 6 of new Section 121DC of the legislation. If required, the independent EVM reviewer must be able to demonstrate to the Secretary of State that any information they request will allow them to carry out their review.
There may be rare examples of information that the Minister or Secretary of State may not share, such as information relating to national security, should they deem that it would be unreasonable to do so. Should there be a disagreement between the Minister and the independent reviewer, a resolution mechanism will be agreed between the reviewer and government. Ultimately, the Minister may not disclose the information, and in extreme cases, any ministerial decision to withhold information could be subject to judicial review. The independent reviewer will also be able to comment on any information withheld from them in the report which will be laid before Parliament.
In response to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, as to why “must” is not across the Bill and why the DWP has not echoed this requirement in Clause 89, this is, as the noble Baroness has mentioned, going to be debated in a forthcoming group. However, I note that this divergence arises from the construction of Part 1 of the Bill. Unlike the DWP, the PSFA has one clause, Clause 65, relating to all independent reviewers. We have noted that we intend to meet the duty of Clause 65 by appointing a new independent reviewer to review PSFA use of powers and by commissioning HMICFRS—I am not sure what is easier to say, the full name or the acronym—to conduct inspections of our new investigative powers and end-to-end case processes.
We are keen to let the independent reviewer whom the Government will appoint have access to all reasonable and relevant information, which may include live cases. We would not want HMICFRS to consider live cases given the significant disclosure burden. However, in the PSFA’s case, given the small volume of cases, we believe that we can handle that challenge should an issue arise. With DWP, it really is in terms of scale and access to live cases. With the PSFA, we think that we can manage the difference.
I hope that those points have reassured noble Lords. Obviously, we will continue to debate some of these issues next week. I am grateful for this short debate and any support for the government amendments. I hope others will support these important amendments, which will help to improve transparency and promote accountability.
Baroness Sherlock
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 66, page 35, line 29.
Baroness Finn
“Independent reviewer: reviews under Part 1(1) The Minister may by regulations establish a body to serve as an independent reviewer for the purposes of undertaking reviews under Part 1 of this Act.(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must provide that any person appointed as Chair of the body must attend any pre-appointment scrutiny hearing held by the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, or any successor committee.(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would allow the Minister to establish an independent review body to undertake reviews under section 34.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the main focus of my remarks in this group will be on Amendment 35. This amendment, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie, would insert a new clause after Clause 70 to require the appointment of an independent reviewer to assess how the Public Sector Fraud Authority uses the PACE powers—the investigatory powers derived from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which the Bill proposes to confer upon it.
Under the amendment, the independent reviewer would be tasked with examining how these powers are used in practice, including their effect on police time, their operational impact, whether they have improved the efficiency of investigations and whether any complaints or disciplinary issues have arisen in relation to their use. The reviewer would report to the Minister within five years of the powers coming into force and annually thereafter, with those reports laid before both Houses of Parliament.
We have brought this amendment forward as a genuine compromise. We on these Benches want to work with the Government to ensure that the Bill succeeds in its purpose, which is to strengthen our national effort to combat fraud and to deliver a substantial and lasting reduction in losses to the public purse. We are not opposed to giving investigators the tools they need to do that job, but if the Government are still intent, as we understand they are, on extending PACE powers to civil servants within the PSFA, then those powers must be accompanied by robust and transparent oversight.
This amendment is designed to provide precisely that. It is a balanced and proportionate measure that ensures accountability without hampering operational effectiveness. The Government have been clear in their reasoning for granting these powers. They have said that it will save police time and resources, that it will allow investigators to act more efficiently, and that powers will be used responsibly and, where necessary, in conjunction with the police. Our amendment would simply hold the Government to those assurances. It asks them to demonstrate through an independent review mechanism that that these powers are indeed delivering on the objectives they have set out.
If the Government are confident that the PSFA will use these powers effectively and responsibly, and I have no reason to doubt their confidence, then they should have no hesitation in supporting this amendment. It would help them prove their case. The amendment gives the Government five years before the first review—ample time for the new arrangements to bed in, for the PSFA to become established, and for the data to show whether the powers are working as intended. Thereafter, annual reporting would ensure continued transparency and accountability.
It is clear that this amendment is not an attempt to frustrate the Bill—quite the opposite. It is an attempt to make it stronger, fairer and more credible. Oversight and review are not obstacles to effective governance; they are its foundation. If these powers are to be trusted, they must also be tested. We are therefore offering the Government a constructive path forward to accept a mechanism that ensures evidence-based assessment of how these powers are used, whether they are proportionate, and whether they are delivering measurable benefits.
If the Government’s case is correct that these powers will save police time, strengthen enforcement and be exercised with care, then this amendment would simply enshrine a process that will confirm that success. It is a sensible, good faith proposal that supports the Government’s stated objectives and ensures that Parliament and, indeed, the public can have confidence that this expansion of powers is justified, proportionate and effective.
If the Government are confident in their case, they will support this amendment. It is drafted to aid them, not to hinder. It is to help them demonstrate transparently and independently that these powers are being used well and wisely. If they are not minded to support us, I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to set out to the House what alternative proposals the Government are considering to address these concerns. If the Government have no alternative, then I ask the Minister whether we on these Benches might come back at a later stage with a new amendment designed to address them. We cannot forget that we are talking about substantial powers which will be wielded against people in this country outside these walls. If we do not legislate responsibly now, we risk the well-being of those people to whom we all owe a duty. I beg to move.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, it could almost be that we are back in Committee. It is the “Baroness Finn, Baroness Anderson show”. I do not think many people would pay, but still.
I welcome the continued and unwavering commitment of the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, to independent oversight. I once again reassure her that the Bill as it stands delivers rigorous and robust safeguards and oversight, addressing the intent behind these amendments efficiently without the need for duplicative amendments.
On Amendment 25, internal reviews are important as they provide a straightforward and affordable way to present a challenge to decision-making. They are an impartial element of many review processes. Under the current drafting, internal reviews can be requested to challenge, for instance, whether a direct deduction order is the most appropriate form of repayment or whether the deduction amount is fair and affordable, as well as the use of other powers in the Bill. The reviewing officer will be a highly trained authorised officer of a higher grade than the original decision-maker. They may decide to uphold, vary or revoke the direct deduction order. This decision will be based on an assessment of the materials held and any relevant new information provided. Crucially, should a review not provide satisfaction, there are further independent appeal rights through the First-tier Tribunal.
On Amendment 35, the independent oversight of the use of the powers under Part 1, including PACE powers, is so central to the passage of this Bill that we already have clauses in place to mandate it. As we have said, Clauses 65 and 66 require that an independent person appointed by the Minister undertakes reviews of the use of powers contained in this legislation. The independent person will conduct reviews to consider whether the exercise of the powers is in keeping with the legislation, codes of practice and relevant guidance. They will produce a report of their findings for the Minister, including any recommendations they deem appropriate. The Minister is then required to publish the report and lay it before Parliament.
As we have stated, the Government intend to meet the duty imposed by this clause in two ways. First, the Government will commission His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services—HMICFRS—to inspect the PSFA’s use of the new investigative powers, including end-to-end investigative processing. Secondly, the Government are creating a new position for an independent person to whom the PSFA oversight team will report. The independent person will carry out reviews and report on whether the PSFA’s use of the powers in this Bill is in keeping with the legislation, codes of practice and relevant guidance, and consider areas where HMICFRS or other oversight bodies have not already reported. The employment of an independent person will also fully comply with the Cabinet Office Governance Code on Public Appointments, which is overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Clause 66 provides for the arrangements of timing of reviews between the Minister and the independent person.
In summary, the amendments are duplicative at heart. The right to independent assessment is already built into the legislation, via appeal and in the form of the independent reviewer to be appointed to review the use of the Bill’s powers under Clause 65. These would not require the addition of extra costs, people or processes that Amendments 25 and 35 would entail.
However, the Government note that Amendment 35 specifies particular areas of focus for a reviewer beyond what is in the Bill. Your Lordships’ House has also raised other areas that it would like an independent reviewer to consider. We have been clear that the independent reviewer appointed under Clauses 65 and 66 will have discretion to decide how and where they focus their reviews. Even so, to ensure that the House’s concerns are heard, I am committing to compiling a list of all the concerns raised here and in the other place to put before the independent reviewer for consideration once appointed. I will also request that the independent reviewer meet with all parliamentarians who have raised areas where they think his or her work should be focused. That way, the independent reviewer and the report they will lay before Parliament will be certain to meet Parliament’s priorities for scrutiny of the use of these powers. Given these assurances and this additional option, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendments, as the purpose is already met by the Bill as it stands and the commitments that I have just made.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, as this is the final group today, I will be brief. I thank the Minister. I was going to say, “I wish to make it clear that we intend to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 35”, which will be called on the second day of Report. Given what the Minister has said, we will reflect on that, but I am giving notice that we may still intend to test the opinion of the House. We believe that this is a well-drafted and constructive proposal that seeks to work with the Government in their efforts, and that it should form an integral part of the Bill. We can see how what is proposed marries up with that.
The amendment goes to the heart of the balance between empowering members of the Public Sector Fraud Authority effectively and ensuring that the use of powers is subject to proper, transparent oversight. We believe, as the Minister has said, that there is genuine scope for compromise. Our aim has always been not to constrain the Government but to ensure that, where such significant investigatory powers are granted, they are exercised with the appropriate safeguards, transparency and oversight that we think are essential if we are to maintain public confidence and protect individuals while still enabling the PSFA to pursue fraud effectively.
The Government have chosen a test and learn approach to the Bill—sorry, I have to do this—which has replaced the former proof of concept. Such an approach must be accompanied by clear provisions to report and evaluate those tests, ensuring that the learning happens in the right way. Meeting the Government’s own test for the use of PACE powers is a key part of that framework, and that is what our Amendment 35 seeks to achieve. But I thank the Minister for her words, and we will reflect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Manchester Terrorism Attack
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it has been almost two weeks since Manchester was left reeling from yet another terrorist attack. The events of 2 October not only ended the lives of Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz but left our entire Jewish community worrying about their safety. We are in an appalling situation now where we have to have armed police and security patrols outside synagogues and Jewish schools simply to ensure that British Jews can go about their daily lives safely. In the immediate aftermath of such an attack, such measures are, of course, necessary, but our places of worship and our community centres should be places of safety. No British citizen should have to live in perpetual fear simply because they are Jewish.
I have an observation to make. Whenever we speak in this House and elsewhere of terrorist attacks, atrocities and acts of extreme violence, we often offer our thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families. It has also become commonplace to repeat the refrain, “Never again”. We have said these words too many times; we hear them too often. We must move on from simply offering hollow words of condolence. Thoughts and prayers do not revive a grieving wife’s husband, do not prevent future attacks and do not save lives. These attacks happen again and again.
Beyond expressing our condolences, it is our duty as legislators to work together to tackle the evil that lay behind this attack. We must be clear that this terror attack and the rise of Islamic extremism and increasing antisemitism are inexplicably linked. This year has seen the second-highest number of antisemitic incidents ever recorded in this country. Hate-filled marches, ostensibly in the name of the pro-Palestine movement but frequently entering the territory of being anti-Jew, have filled our streets. For as long as we fail to tackle the growth of radical and violent Islamic extremism, both at home and abroad, attacks such as these are likely to continue. We must not shy away from calling this what it is—an extremist ideology linked to Islam—and we must ensure that we are always able to call out such an ideology.
Unfortunately, the Government’s working group on Islamophobia could serve to actively stifle free debate on the nature and prevalence of Islamic fundamentalism. This has been criticised by the National Secular Society, the Free Speech Union and the Network of Sikh Organisations, which is planning to bring a judicial review against the Government if the new definition goes ahead. So will the Minister implore his ministerial colleagues to drop these plans and ensure that free and open discussion about the dangers we face as a society from Islamic extremism is never curtailed?
I appreciate that this is a live legal investigation, and as such there is a limit on what the Minister can tell us. However, several questions arise from the particulars of these events. First, the attacker in question, Jihad al-Shamie, was a Syrian-born male who arrived in the United Kingdom as a child. He begged a woman to become his second wife, claiming that in Islam it is permissible for a man to have up to four wives, and then abused her mentally and sexually. At the time he carried out his attack, he was on bail for a rape he allegedly committed earlier this year. When he committed the Manchester attack, he called 999 and pledged allegiance to Islamic State. Despite all this, he was apparently not known to counterterror police. Does the Minister agree that more needs to be done to plug the gaps in the Government’s terrorism prevention programme? If so, are the Government looking into how they might do so?
Secondly, the Home Secretary, in her Statement, said she was looking to bring forward legislative changes to the Public Order Act 1986 to allow police forces to consider the cumulative impact of protest marches when deciding to impose those conditions. Indeed, we have seen the Government claim that they did not have sufficient powers to prevent the hate-filled marches across the country on the day after the 2 October attack in Manchester. However, Section 12 of the Public Order Act already permits senior police officers to place conditions on a public procession if it is held to cause intimidation to others. Is it the Government’s view that this existing test would not have been enough to place restrictions on those marches? Does the Minister think that the proposed new cumulative impact test will be sufficient? I look forward to his response.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the appalling attack on the Manchester synagogue is a stark warning of the persistent threat of antisemitic hate and the urgent need to unify against those who seek to divide us. Attacks based on race or religion are totally unacceptable and this attack is a chilling testament to the rising tide of division in our society, which has left many in the Jewish community frightened even to go to their synagogue. Antisemitic hate, or hate in any form, has no place in Britain. We must never allow the heat of public debate to legitimise, excuse, encourage or embolden such cowardly acts of terrorism. Anyone who incites hatred, or spreads it, against any faith or background must be held accountable under the law.
This crime was not a political statement but an act of pure violence designed to spread fear and drive communities apart. Nevertheless, all of us, across all political parties, share a responsibility to seek consensus and reduce division when addressing issues that provoke strong passions. As a society, we are becoming more polarised with public debate, whether about events in the Middle East, immigration or indeed any other difficult subject, too frequently descending into hostility and suspicion. We all must reject the language and the policies of division and commit to trying to rebuild a sense of common purpose.
As we mourn the victims of this atrocity, we must also guard against overreaction. The temptation can be to reach for more powers and more controls, even at the expense of our fundamental freedoms. The Prime Minister’s pledge to review public order powers in the wake of Manchester is understandable, but I urge the Government to approach with caution, because incremental curbs on protest will not stop antisemitic hate, but a “drip, drip” approach to legislation risks us becoming a society where people of all backgrounds and beliefs no longer feel safe or free to express their views. That would, in my view, hand victory to those who want to divide us, because the restriction of protest rights will not defeat antisemitism but risks damaging our democracy.
The best way to respond to hate is to defend everyone’s right to live, worship and speak freely, within the law, while refusing to compromise our commitment to an open and plural democracy. We must learn from this tragedy, so I ask the Minister what action are the Government taking to work more closely with grass-roots faith leaders, not only through funding and policing but through genuine, community-led, early warning and education work with Jewish and interfaith groups to strengthen local resilience, encourage reporting and tackle radicalisation at its roots?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful for the approach taken by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition and by colleagues from the Liberal Democrat Benches and for their condemnation of what is an evil act of antisemitic terrorism that targeted innocent worshippers on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. It was carried out by a terrorist pledging his allegiance to the warped ideology of Islamism. Like both noble Lords who have spoken, I pay tribute to the two men who were killed that day: Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby. Their bravery saved lives, their actions were commendable and the whole House should express our deepest sympathies, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary did in her Statement, to their families and friends.
It is important that we recognise today the worshippers, staff and volunteers, but also the emergency services, which responded in a superlative way and in a very quick fashion. The police officers took difficult decisions in dangerous circumstances and arrived at the scene of this terrible terrorist incident with speed.
An attack on our Jewish community is an attack on the entire nation and, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, said, there is no ambiguity around who was responsible for this attack. The attack carried out by Jihad al-Shamie, a 35 year-old British citizen of Syrian descent, was instigated by the influence of extreme Islamist ideology, as evidenced by the 999 call that he made during the incident and his pledging of allegiance to the Islamic State.
Our immediate response to this issue has been several- fold. The noble Lord mentioned sympathy. That is important but it is not enough, as was mentioned. Our immediate priority has been to enhance security, particularly within synagogue locations. Additional support has been made available to more than 500 locations and, as all noble Lords in the House will know, there is a long-standing commitment to fund the Community Security Trust to the tune of £18 million per year.
It is no coincidence—I put this again in relation to the question of Islamophobia—that this month has also seen a suspected arson attack on a mosque in Peacehaven in East Sussex. From my perspective I want to be clear, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was in the Statement, that violence directed at any community, be they Jewish or Muslim, of all faiths or none, is an attack on the fabric of this country and should be condemned.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, asked about the proposals that my right honourable friend has announced in relation to Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, also questioned whether that impacts upon freedom. That is a legitimate point to put and I accept that she has put it in good faith. The right to protest is a fundamental right in our society and it must be protected. But of the freedoms that we enjoy, none is more important than the right to live in peace and in safety. The Government have examined clearly the powers under Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act and have come to the conclusion that while the right to protest is a fundamental freedom, it must be balanced against the right of the public to have their safety and security.
In the conversations that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has had with community leaders of all faiths, and with community leaders of no faith, she has concluded, with support from the police, that it is clear that a balance has not been struck. For that reason, my right honourable friend has confirmed that she is now examining amending Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. Now, what does that mean? It means that the police will be able to take into account the cumulative impact of frequent protests. The police already have powers under Sections 12 and 14 of that Act to agree routes, times and a whole range of other conditions.
One of the things that we are examining, and we will bring forward proposals in due course, is ensuring that if a number of protests commence and continue on conditions set by the police, but ultimately result in intimidation or fear in a particular community, the police will have powers under those proposals to look at whether they—not the Government but the police—wish to put additional conditions to secure the support of the community. Those are important and, with the Home Secretary amending the Public Order Act, we will bring forward proposals shortly to examine those particular issues.
It is important to tell the House that, in the days since the attack, we have stepped up our efforts to tackle antisemitism wherever it is found, challenging misinformation and hatred in schools and looking at what is happening in universities, particularly to protect students of the Jewish faith and to ensure that patients and staff in the National Health Service are supported.
Terrorism seeks to do one thing and that is to divide us. I do not intend, nor does my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, to allow terrorism to divide us. We have a strong level of support for the Jewish community as a whole. We want to ensure that people can live their faith, whatever that faith, in peace and security. It is simply not acceptable to have incidents of this nature.
We need to look again—this is one of the key points that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made in his questions—at the individual who committed this terrorist act, murdering and attempting to murder individuals in the synagogue. That individual has no record of contact with authorities. For whatever reason, he has self-radicalised. There will be an investigation. I cannot go into further details, but police are continuing to investigate his background and further arrests have been made. Self-evidently, the security services need to look at where there are organised cells undertaking activity. We also need to look at the reasons for self-radicalisation and what it leads to, how it is formed and the processes that lead to it. It remains very difficult for an individual to be identified if they have had no contact on terrorist-related activity. This individual had contact with the police prior to the incident but not on a terrorist-related incident. The independent office of police complaints will investigate the police performance in the contact prior to the incident and will obviously investigate the circumstances of the fatality at the incident. It will produce a report, which I hope will colour our examination of some of those issues at a later date.
I hope that the Government as a whole will look at the issues that both noble Lords mentioned in their contributions. It is important that we maintain a balance. We must look at wherever citizens are threatened and give them support but I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that the measures we are taking in the proposals outlined by my right honourable friend still protect the right to protest and freedom of speech but give additional support to those communities of whichever faith, or none, that find themselves under persistent pressure from a particular protest group causing fear in their home community area and religious establishment.
The measures that we have discussed today will be brought forward in short order, and the report on lessons learned will allow the Government to reflect on these matters. I simply say at the end of my contribution that the Government have to be eternally vigilant on these matters. There are continually people who wish to do harm to sections of the community, for political and ideological reasons. We have a strong security presence and security service to identify that where possible. But we need to look—this goes to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made—at what leads to radicalisation in individuals and at better measures to pick that up at an early stage, so that the interventions that we have in place as a Government are applied to individuals who, for whatever reason, find themselves warping their minds. In this case, eventually that hatred led to acts of terrorism that meant people going about their ordinary, day-to-day lives, on the holiest day of the year, faced murder, disruption and fear, and ongoing concern about radicalisation. I hope the House will bear with me on these matters. We will examine the lessons and bring forward proposals in due course.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield
My Lords, my prayers are with the victims, their families and all our Jewish communities following this appalling attack. It is shocking that the ancient evil of antisemitism is currently resurgent in our society. We must remain vigilant against it and all forms of religious hatred. No one in this country should ever feel unsafe because of their faith, and particularly not unsafe in their place of worship.
At a time of rising religious hate crime, it seems more important than ever to create opportunities for connection between communities across religious and cultural differences so that understanding may replace fear. I echo the noble Baroness in asking the Minister what practical steps the Government are taking to work with and support faith leaders and interfaith organisations in efforts to help communities build relationships across religious divides to promote understanding and strengthen cohesion.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. It is really important that those of different faiths from the Jewish community stand with them and express their solidarity and support. These are attacks against an aspect of life—their religion and very being—that they cherish very dearly. It is simply not acceptable. In the wake of a number of recent incidents, the coming together of churches and people from the Jewish faith and of the Islamic faith has been extremely important in giving comfort and support to those who have been victims of those terrorist attacks. The Government, through Ministers in other departments—not the Home Office, which I speak for—are looking at how we bring together those faiths and how we build resilience.
The simple thing I want, which might be an ambition the whole House will share, is to have an open, tolerant society that recognises and cherishes our differences of approach to religion, community and faith. That means that people of all traditions should work together, and the Government can facilitate that. I am pleased to see my noble friend Lord Khan of Burnley in the Chamber, who put a tremendous amount of effort over the past 12 months in his role in government into reaching out to all faiths, including several hundred visits to mosques, synagogues and churches. I know that work was personally driven, but it is also important it was government driven, with the support of government, to try to do exactly what the right reverend Prelate said and what the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats said: to bring together communities to identify problems and challenges and, we hope, to have a concerted, collective approach to solving them.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, the Front Benches and the right reverend Prelate for the sympathetic remarks they have made, which will be much appreciated by the Jewish community. I also associate myself with the Minister’s remarks about the performance of the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, which again was very much appreciated by the Jewish and many other communities.
The Minister will appreciate that the Yom Kippur attack, appalling as it was, is not an isolated event. What does it say about our society that for several years, not just in the past two weeks, synagogues, Jewish schools and Jewish communal events have required security protection? This is not the sort of society that we want to live in. What can we do to address why it is that Islamists and their supporters threaten the Jewish community? They tear down photographs of the hostages, for whose release we are all deeply appreciative. Islamist doctors abuse Jewish patients and students chant “Zios should be buried in the ground”. How is it, I ask the Minister, that people brought up and educated in this country think it appropriate to behave in this manner?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful. I condemn all those actions that the noble Lord mentioned in his contribution. It is a worry as to how that has manifested itself, and that is a long-term issue that we the Government need to examine. People should be allowed to live their lives in peace and security in their communities, without physical security. But it is important that we provide—as we have done—some £18 million to the Jewish community this year through the Community Security Trust.
We have supplied an even larger amount of money to help protect mosques and places of religion of the Islamic community, because, as the Peacehaven arson attack showed, this is not something that is restricted to one side of the community. If people have differences of opinion on political issues—and there are differences of opinion on some of the political issues relating to situations in the Middle East—I want to see them resolve those through political process, not through violence, intimidation or harassment.
I say to the noble Lord that, as a Government, we will do what we can to ensure that we return to a position where political differences are resolved by discussion and where respect for other people’s lives and community activity is engendered in our society. But, until we can get to that stage, we have to provide—and the Government will provide—financial, political and material support to protect people to live their own lives.
I hope, when we do that, that the Jewish community, in this instance in particular, wherever it resides in the United Kingdom, will take comfort from the fact that the Government remain on its side to ensure that it can enjoy its life in whichever way it seeks to enjoy it without fear, intimidation or harassment. That is why we have not only brought forward the measures to date but are also looking at potential measures to improve security in relation to protests and parades.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I think all our thoughts are with the victims, their families and the Jewish community not just in Manchester but throughout the country. I echo the thanks to the security services, the police and other emergency services that reacted so swiftly to this event. I ask the Minister to pass on my thanks as chair of the ISC to the security services for the update we received this morning on the ongoing investigation. We will obviously be expecting other reports as the investigation continues.
The Jewish community in this country is clearly under attack from Islamist extremism, as well as state-backed terrorism—which was highlighted in our 2025 report on Iran—but also from extreme right-wing terrorism, as set out in our 2022 report. They are both threats to the peaceful Jewish community in our country. One thing that is quite clear in both is the online space. It is used not just for perpetrating the tropes that have been outlined but for the self-radicalisation of individuals both on the right and in the Islamist space. What more can be done to tackle that?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. As chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee of both Houses of Parliament, he will have access to information that gives greater detail and background to some of the threats that we face from people of both Islamist and right-wing neofascist tendencies. He will know that in this online space there is greater potential for the radicalisation of individuals who will sit in a bedroom and look at stuff and be drawn down a kaleidoscope of activity to reach areas where people who wish this country or individual communities ill will radicalise them downstream.
We introduced the Online Safety Act. As a matter of some urgency, we need to look at making sure that technology companies take down information that is poisonous, and we keep that under constant review. I would welcome recommendations and support from the Intelligence and Security Committee, which will see information that Members of this House will not see, to ensure that we improve the policy objective of ensuring that online radicalisation is as limited as it can be as a result of actions that the Government and tech companies on an international and national basis can take.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
First, I thank the Minister for the Statement, which was most helpful and comprehensive, and I echo the thanks to the emergency services on that day in Manchester, which was a most appalling event.
I shall raise two areas. Of course, we welcome anything that the Home Secretary can do to deal with these antisemitic protests, but, frankly, I do not think that we can wait. There are enough laws in place to prevent them continuing. This was an event that was waiting to happen, notwithstanding the escalation of these protests over the past two years—certainly since the 7 October attacks in Israel. I recall that we had meetings with the Metropolitan Police over 18 months ago, and we said to them, “How can we stop these protests?” These people were calling for jihad and the annihilation of the State of Israel and all Jews and anybody else that they could think of. It was overt—it was on the streets, where they carried placards about Nazism, and all of those things. We were told, “Well, of course, we can stop these protests if they reach a certain threshold”. My point was what threshold needed to be reached, if they were already calling for the death and destruction of citizens of this country. We are now another 18 months on, and I do not think that we can wait for further legislation to be passed. These protests now need to stop—and it was totally offensive that they continued after the attacks in Manchester. That was absolutely appalling. These people have no conscience and no moral compass. But let us see where we go with this.
My second point is on the radicalisation of Islam. The noble Lord, Lord Khan, can help here. What we are aware of is that we have clerics in mosques around this country, and they are actually purporting death and destruction to Jews. It is all there—it is on video, the police have the evidence and nothing is done. We know that there have been clerics coming from quite difficult countries such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, where we know that people there are preaching death and destruction, which is radicalising young people. My question then is—and the role that the noble Lord, Lord Khan, has played is very important—how are the services in this country dealing with these people? They are also, I am afraid, responsible for the actions that happened in Manchester and the continuing antisemitism, which is not going away, on the streets of cities in this country.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I am starting from the basis that protest is legitimate—and that can be protest on a range of issues. People can march and protest and make their point known. However, there are thresholds beyond which harassment, criminal incitement or physical incitement to activity are criminally sanctioned. The police have made arrests and will continue to do so on a range of issues, if people cross that threshold.
What we are looking at, which I hope will assist the noble Baroness, is that at the moment the police have powers to stop, reroute and time marches that are going through or appearing in areas where there could be additional heightened tension. We know what those examples could be—but at the moment the police can do that on a one-off basis. What we are saying in the legislation that we are potentially bringing forward is that, if that continues over a period of time, the police will have additional powers to look at putting in steps to protect the community. That is important, and we shall try to do that at some pace.
The noble Baroness mentioned individuals who might be seeking to radicalise others or cause others to take action of a criminal nature. There is a threshold to that in legislation, currently, and if that threshold is crossed, individuals can be taken to court for those offences.
As a side issue to that, the Government are establishing further an antisemitism working group to provide advice to the Government on antisemitism generally. We are working closely with the government adviser on antisemitism to look at the most effective methods to tackle antisemitism, and we want to ensure that we continue to challenge extremism and, if people go over that criminal threshold, they are brought to account.
That may not satisfy the noble Baroness today, but I hope that she will recognise that the prime objective of this Government is to ensure that people can live their lives in peace, free from intimidation, harassment and religious persecution. That is for any faith, but particularly in this circumstance today for those of the Jewish faith.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, my eight year-old daughter already has to go into and out of her Jewish school every day with a heavy security presence. There are security guards on the door and there are security doors in and out. She asked me if we should stop going to synagogue following the horrors of the Manchester attack. In the wake of this event—and I have listened to all the contributions—I think the ultimate priority of our Government must be to ensure that people of all faiths, including the British Jewish community, can worship and practice our religion without fear of being murdered on British soil. In that spirit, can my noble friend confirm when the Government are planning to publish an extremism strategy, what references it will have to previous publications, including the Shawcross, Khan and Walney reviews, and when they are planning to publish a hate crime action plan?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope my noble friend will accept that I find it very sad to hear her initial comments relating to her daughter. No child should have to go to school to be faced with people who are protecting her from those who are trying to kill her or her family. That is a deeply disturbing comment that my noble friend has made, but I understand why she has made it. It deeply saddens me that that is the society we have come to in certain parts of the United Kingdom.
I cannot give my noble friend specific answers on her points because it might sound glib if I say “shortly”, which is what I would say. I will certainly ensure that energy is put into the publication of further information to widen the response of government. I hope that further announcements will be made soon to ensure the protection of the Jewish community, particularly given the concerns that she has raised. As I have mentioned, we will be bringing forward a range of measures shortly, which were trailed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the Statement earlier this week.