Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I reiterate my deepest sympathies to all those who have experienced harm following vaccination and to their families. I recognise many of the concerns that campaigners have raised regarding the vaccine damage payment scheme. Their input will shape our ongoing consideration of reforms to the scheme and I will keep Parliament updated as appropriate.
Mr Bedford
My constituent Kelly Hatfield sadly lost her father Ken Purnell as a result of the covid-19 vaccination. The family received a vaccine damage payment, yet the sum, which has not increased since 2007, falls short of the loss, trauma and long-term financial impact on these families. Will the Minister explain why that one-off payment has not been inflation-adjusted and will she commit to reviewing its adequacy and fairness?
Ashley Dalton
The vaccine damage payment scheme is not a compensation scheme but a one-off payment. It is important to state that. As I have said, we recognise that there are concerns, which campaigners have raised, and their input is shaping our ongoing consideration of reforms to the scheme. All vaccines in the UK are authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which is an independent body recognised globally for its high safety standards. This Labour Government base our decisions on scientific fact, unlike Reform, which has still not apologised for platforming dangerous anti-vax conspiracy theories. I can only assume that it is less interested in protecting people than it is in alarming folk for political advantage.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
This Government have invested an extra £26 billion in the NHS, delivered 5 million more appointments in our first year and cut waiting lists by more than 200,000. We are also tackling the NHS postcode lottery. Patients should not have to wait longer for worse care because of where they live. Our new NHS league tables shine a light on the poorest performers so they receive the extra support and accountability needed to turn them around. The best leaders are being sent into the most challenged trusts to turn them around, failing managers will have their pay docked and persistent failure will lead to restrictions on boards, as we saw in Leeds this week. We will not tolerate failure.
Shaun Davies
In Telford and wider Shropshire, we know that the NHS has an absolute mountain to climb after years of underperformance. We have begun that journey with falling waiting times, increased Government investment and plans for Telford’s first ever cancer treatment unit. Will the Secretary of State ensure that trusts that show signs of improvement are backed to catch up with the rest and continue their improvements, particularly with investment in technology, research and infrastructure?
Wes Streeting
Absolutely. My hon. Friend deserves real credit for championing Telford and Shropshire and helping to get the trust the investment it needs. He is right that local services have not been good enough for a number of years. We will not turn a blind eye to that failure; we will do something about it. There is a long way to go, but we have already delivered an extra 94,000 appointments and cut waiting lists by over 14,000 at his local trust since the general election—so a lot done, but lots more to do.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I see the Health Secretary is having a bust-up with the Chancellor over who pays his £1.3 billion redundancy bill for breaking up NHS England. Will he guarantee that, once he has resolved his differences with the Chancellor, not a single penny will be taken from delivering frontline health and social care services or from underperforming NHS trusts to pay for making staff redundant?
Wes Streeting
The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything he reads in the newspapers. I make no apology for trying to cut unnecessary bureaucracy in large national organisations to redeploy savings to frontline services. His Government really should have taken a leaf out of our book.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State need look no further than Homerton university hospital in Hackney for good performance: it has managed to increase productivity by over 11%. What is he doing to support great leaders who deliver great progress and to make sure that they have the funding they need to continue with that?
Wes Streeting
I was delighted to meet my hon. Friend only recently to hear about the really impressive productivity gains being made at her local trust. I am keen to learn more. We need to incentivise and reward leaders for that kind of outstanding performance and we also need to get some of that best practice to some of our poorest performing trusts.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Oxford university hospitals trust is one of just three trusts that do not provide givinostat for Duchenne through the early access programme. Last week, I attended a roundtable at which one of my constituents, Alex, advocated on behalf of his son, Ben, who is not getting the treatment. We discussed lessons learned from the early access programme. Will the Secretary of State meet me, Duchenne UK and the all-party parliamentary group on access to medicines and medical devices so that we can share those lessons with him?
Wes Streeting
I have had the privilege of meeting some of the campaigners, and particularly the young people affected by that cruel condition, and I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustrations. I know that the medication is being put through the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence process, and I hope that that will deliver a positive outcome. I would be delighted to keep him apprised of progress.
Mr Speaker
Can I just suggest to Members that their supplementary question should relate to the tabled question? That would be helpful. I call the shadow Minister.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
With reports of over £1 billion in costs for integrated care board redundancies and the chief executive officer of NHS England warning that services could have to move to plan B, could the Secretary of State set out what plan B is?
Wes Streeting
We are absolutely committed to delivering the transformation that we have outlined, and we are working with ICB leaders and NHS leaders to do that in a timely way. Those savings will deliver better value for money and enable us to redeploy resources to the frontline where they belong.
Dr Evans
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but waiting lists have risen for three successive months now, doctors are on strike, GPs are in formal dispute with the Government, and the ICBs are cutting 50% of their staff and do not have £1 billion to pay for it, all while the NHS 10-year plan has been published but with no delivery chapter. When will the Secretary of State come to the House with the delivery plan for the NHS 10-year plan?
Wes Streeting
Not only have the Conservatives failed to get in the news, but they have clearly not been reading it either. There have been no doctors strikes in the NHS since before the summer, and we have sat down with resident doctors and their new leadership to try to avert future strike action. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the action taken by the previous committee—unnecessary and irresponsible as it was—has impacted on waiting lists in the last few months, as have higher levels of demand than anticipated. I say that by way of explanation, by the way, not by way of excuse. I am determined to make sure that we hit our target, as outlined in the Government’s plan for change, and I think he will find that in the coming months we will be back on track and well on course to achieving something that the Conservatives failed to do when they had the chance.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
I am deeply concerned by the state of maternity care that we inherited in the NHS. That is why I have asked Baroness Amos to chair an independent investigation into NHS maternity and neonatal services. Families deserve truth and justice, there must be accountability for failings, and services must improve. I am committing to doing whatever it takes to provide patients and babies with safe, comfortable and dignified care.
I should also inform the House that this week I have announced an inquiry into failings at the Leeds teaching hospital trust. I am working with the families affected to agree on a chair and terms of reference, and I will keep the House updated on next steps.
Samantha Niblett
Pregnancy can be a worrying time for any expectant parent, and knowing they can access their GP to see a person face to face is hugely important. That was denied to my constituent, Hayley Johnson, who sadly went on to lose her baby, Evelyn, when she was delivered in an emergency at 26 weeks and six days due to a huge misdiagnosis given over the phone. With regard to maternity support specifically, what is the Minister doing to ensure that excellent maternity care is delivered in local communities so that that never happens to another family, and that when the very worst does happen and parents are suffering the loss of a baby, the support also extends to bereavement counselling?
Wes Streeting
I thank my hon. Friend for the work she is doing to campaign for better support in this space and for raising these tragic cases, not just today but in her powerful contribution to last week’s debate. She is right to say that GPs are critical for supporting women during pregnancy, providing compassionate physical and mental health care and signposting relevant services, which is why continuity is important. I am happy to report to her that, in terms of mental health and bereavement support, a record number of women accessed a specialist community perinatal mental health service or maternal mental health service in the 12 months to July 2025, but clearly there is much more to do. We have announced a £36.5 million package for bespoke perinatal mental health and parent infant relationship support as part of the continuation of the family hubs and Start for Life programme, but as we heard in last week’s debate, although a lot has been done, there is so much more to do.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Safe maternity care depends on adequate staffing, and we on these Benches have been calling for better recruitment and retention of staff in women’s health services for a long time now. Can the Secretary of State outline what specific measures the Government are taking to address the shortage of midwives and specialist neonatal nurses across England?
Wes Streeting
We need to make sure that there is better staffing and that we have the right people in the right place. I should just caution the House, though, because in recent years there has been an increase in staffing but not a corresponding increase in the quality of care, so we have to make sure we are looking at this issue in a nuanced way. It is about having the right staff in the right place at the right time to deliver safe maternity and perinatal services, and that is exactly what we will do.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Our maternity wards are in a state of crisis, with death and injury rising at an alarming rate. Sadly, this issue is not confined to Shropshire, and there has been a steady drumbeat of maternity scandals, with review after review finding consistent failings across the NHS. Can the Secretary of State explain to me and the many mothers I have met who have faced tragedy and unacceptable trauma why the Government are cutting national service development funding—ringfenced funding to improve maternity care—by more than 95% and why the immediate and essential actions from the Ockenden review into the failings at Shrewsbury and Telford hospital trust, which were to be implemented nationwide, are still not in place more than three years later?
Wes Streeting
We really are not; what we have done is devolve funding and responsibility to local level, which we think is the right thing to do. If I may say so, it is quite irresponsible to suggest that maternity funding and funding for services has been cut in the way that the hon. Lady describes. I think it causes unnecessary concern. We are taking into account the recommendations made by Donna Ockenden, as well as a wide range of other reviews and inquiries, as part of Baroness Amos’s rapid investigation, because I, like the hon. Member, want to see rapid improvement in maternity services across the country.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Ind)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
Children’s hospices provide crucial support, but for too long they have faced the cliff edge of annual funding cycles. I am really proud that we have provided certainty with a three-year funding settlement of £80 million, giving children’s hospices the stability and predictability they need to plan properly and focus on caring for seriously ill children and their families and loved ones. I am sure that the hon. Member will join me in welcoming the certainty that we have delivered for the sector.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I absolutely welcome the Government’s announcement last week that funding for children’s hospices will be extended for the next three years and will rise in line with inflation. Julia’s House is one such hospice that serves families in my constituency. However, children’s hospices still face challenges in accessing funding from local NHS bodies and councils, addressing workforce shortages and holding integrated care boards to account for the way in which they commission children’s palliative care, so what reassurance can the Minister give that children’s hospices will benefit from sustainable financial support both now and in the future?
Stephen Kinnock
I am delighted that Julia’s House hospice received £525,000 from the allocation. I am sure that was very welcome to the staff and the families. It is also worth noting that, of the £100 million allocation that we made to capital funding, £12 million went to children’s hospices. That is an increase on top of what we have just been talking about. Of course, there are challenging times for funding, but we have also provided the sector with a huge amount of certainty and stability.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
This funding is welcome, but hospices such as Mountbatten in my area are still making cuts because of the budgetary choices that the Chancellor made and ICB practices. This is a multi-year funding settlement, but multi-year funding settlements need to be longer. Will the Minister commit to including all hospices in a longer multi-year funding settlement for stability in the sector?
Stephen Kinnock
I find it quite extraordinary that Opposition Members come to this House and lecture us on the sustainability of funding, given the way in which they crashed the economy and left us in a dire fiscal position. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that, rather than the annual funding cliff edge that they left for vital children’s hospices services, we have moved to a three-year funding settlement. His criticism beggars belief.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
The Conservative Government’s promise of 40 new hospitals by 2030 was a fantasy—there was no funding beyond last March. In January, we published a realistic plan that put the programme on a credible and sustainable footing. We are committed to delivering all the schemes in the programme and are moving at pace with funding in place for design work, construction activity and business case development.
Steve Darling
The Conservatives still have not apologised for the appalling state that they left our NHS in. Torbay hospital is the third oldest hospital in the United Kingdom. It has a tower block wreathed in scaffolding to stop bits of it falling off rather than it being under repair, and it has sewage leaks throughout. Sadly, it needs significant investment, which has been kicked into the long grass. A senior manager described the situation only this week as “dire”. Will the Minister meet me and hospital representatives to explore how we can achieve the investment to turn this round?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Member makes an excellent point; it was echoed by Lord Darzi in his report about the state of our hospitals, and I know many hon. Members have similar problems. I have visited many such hospitals and would be happy to discuss the matter with him further. I remind him that, of course, the Torbay and South Devon NHS foundation trust has been provided with £7.3 million from the estates safety fund for works at the hospital, and we are absolutely committed to ensuring that it will be developed in line with the programme.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
We are putting the final nail in the coffin of the hon. Member’s party’s disastrous Lansley 2012 reorganisation—so bad that it made me become an MP. We are abolishing the world’s biggest quango, NHS England, along with 200 other bodies. The question is: why did the Conservatives not do that when they had the chance?
Rebecca Smith
Yesterday I met Lila, a sixth-form student at Coombe Dean school, who raised the issue of long waiting lists for mental health services for children and young people across Devon. What action has been taken as a result of the Government’s policy of reorganising the NHS to reduce the unacceptable delays in mental health diagnosis and treatment for children and young people, particularly in constituencies such as South West Devon?
Karin Smyth
All of us as constituency MPs are fully aware of the state of mental health services, particularly for young people, which is why my hon. Friend the Minister for Care is working at pace on our manifesto commitments to support young people, particularly through schools. We also understand the difficulties that her ICB in particular has with its financial situation—something we are also targeting as part of our reforms to ensure that ICBs develop services for local people in line with the expectations that we have set them.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
Likewise, in York, children and adolescent mental health services are just not working for children, who are left on waiting lists often with no management or treatment. In order really to achieve reorganisation in our NHS, would our Government look at local authorities commissioning mental health services, to deliver such services and to meet the holistic needs of young children’s development and mental health wellbeing?
Karin Smyth
Again, I echo comments on the state of mental health services, as the hon. Member has done. As it says in our manifesto, we are committed to those 8,500 extra mental health support workers in local areas such as hers. It is important that commissioners work closely with their local authorities on mental health services, and I know my hon. Friend the Minister for Care is ensuring that that happens as part of the reforms we are undertaking.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I am concerned that the disruption caused by an uncosted, unplanned simultaneous reorganisation of NHS England and the ICBs is affecting patient care. Before the summer, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation recommended that the RSV vaccine should be given to those over 80 and those in adult care homes. In July, I asked the Secretary of State to confirm that this vaccine will be available in time for the winter season, and he said,
“I can certainly reassure the shadow Minister on this.”—[Official Report, 22 July 2025; Vol. 771, c. 677.]
The winter vaccine programme started three weeks ago. Why has he not delivered on his promise?
Karin Smyth
As my right hon. Friend has just said, we have delivered on that commitment. The hon. Member talks about the reorganisation being a distraction. If her party had focused taxpayers’ money on patient services rather than ballooning bureaucracy, with costs increasing both among providers and through ICBs, we would not have inherited the mess that we did, and would be able to roll out programmes more effectively. We have committed to doing that.
Dr Caroline Johnson
I thank the hon. Lady for her answer, but I would like her to check and perhaps update the guidance for GPs and the websites that continue to say that it is only available to 80-year-olds who turned 80 after 1 September 2024, which is not all people over the age of 80.
Reorganisation is affecting delivery elsewhere, too. The Secretary of State also promised that the continued roll-out of fracture liaison services would be one of his first priorities. How many new fracture liaison services have opened since the general election?
Karin Smyth
On the hon. Lady’s first point, this Government, unlike the previous Government, do believe in experts, and we follow the clinical advice that we are given. On her second point, as she is so keen on reading our manifesto commitments, the commitment was to do that by 2030. It is currently 2025. Our reforms to ICBs and providers, bringing NHS England inside the Department of Health and Social Care to make it more democratically accountable for taxpayers, will reverse the shocking increase in funding that the previous Government put into a leaky bucket. We are fixing the foundations of the NHS. We are targeting resources at people in line with our 10-year plan.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
The NHS online hospital will connect patients with clinicians anywhere in England through the NHS app. It will deliver up to 8.5 million appointments in its first three years—four times more than the average NHS trust—finally bringing the NHS into the digital age. We are cutting waiting times and providing patients with more choice and convenience.
Natasha Irons
The wellbeing of our nation’s young people remains in crisis, with one in five having a probable mental health condition and the number being referred to emergency mental health care continuing to rise. In communities like mine in Croydon East, where young people are waiting months and sometimes even years for help, families are desperate for support. How will NHS online help young people access the mental health support they need, and what impact will it have on reducing the waiting times for children and adolescent mental health services?
Dr Ahmed
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this crucial issue to light. Early access to high-quality support is critical for young people struggling with their mental health. That is backed by us with an extra £688 million this year. We are hiring more staff, expanding support teams in schools and boosting support in new Young Futures hubs so that children can get the best possible start in life. Although initially not focused on CAMHS, the scope of the NHS online hospital is a personal priority for the Prime Minister and has the capacity to grow, and we will consider incorporating it when safely able to alongside other services.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Whatever the impact of these new online services, the Opposition Front-Bench team have drawn attention to the fact that waiting lists in England have risen for the last three months. I can inform the House this morning that waiting lists in Scotland are coming down. Would the Minister like to explain why that is the case?
Dr Ahmed
I am so glad the hon. Gentleman took the time to ask that question, because while we invest in digital services, Scotland and Scottish patients are still waiting for the most basic digital infrastructure. While we invest record amounts in Scotland’s budget, the SNP’s excuses keep rising. What he needs to answer is why Scottish patients are living in a digital desert, while patients here in England are getting more and more sophisticated NHS digital services.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
This Government are investing an extra £26 billion in the NHS, opening up community diagnostic centres at evenings and weekends and delivering 5 million more appointments to catch cancer earlier. We are making progress: 135,000 more patients have already had cancer diagnosed or ruled out within the 28-day target compared with the previous year—a lot done, and a lot more to do.
Dr Sullivan
A local teacher went to her GP with clear symptoms of a facial tumour but was told it was simply the effects of age. It took almost two years to receive a confirmed diagnosis, including eight months lost in the system after an urgent referral. Does the Minister agree that reducing times for cancer diagnosis must start with strengthening systems to support early recognition and follow-up, so that no one is left waiting? I wish the Minister well with her own cancer battle and thank her for bravely sharing her experience of living with cancer.
Ashley Dalton
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her well wishes. We are taking cancer detection seriously in general practice, and there is work to do. It is why we have recently launched Jess’s rule, which is a patient safety initiative that means when patients return three times with worsening or undiagnosed symptoms, GPs must reflect, review and rethink. That could include a second opinion, episodic continuity of care or ordering additional tests. I wish her constituent the very best and offer her my sympathies in her diagnosis.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
The Government claim that they wish to reduce NHS waiting times, but I have written confirmation from the Government that they have slashed funding for community diagnostic centres. The consequences of Labour’s funding cuts mean that brand new facilities, such as those at Queen Mary’s hospital in Sidcup, for which I secured £9.6 million of funding from the last Conservative Government, can now open only two days per week. Will the Minister urgently review that funding cut, so that more patients in Bexley and across the UK can get their diagnostics quicker?
Ashley Dalton
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I think he might be mistaken. We are opening more CDCs than ever before—I have lost count of the amount of CDCs we have been invited to open—and we are making sure that people have access to diagnostics in their community, from hospital to community, with the most access that there has been for some years.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
Thanks to the decisions taken by the Chancellor at the Budget, we are investing an extra £1.1 billion in general practice—the biggest increase in a decade. That funding has allowed us to recruit an extra 2,000 GPs, agree a contract for the first time in four years, and introduce online access. Does the hon. Member welcome that investment, or would she cut it?
Katie Lam
GPs surgeries across the Weald of Kent, including in Woodchurch and Charing, tell me how much they struggle with rising staff costs, and the national insurance increases in last year’s Budget put huge pressure on them. Alongside the investment that the hon. Gentleman just mentioned, what discussions have he or his colleagues from the Department of Health and Social Care had with Treasury colleagues about protecting GP partnerships from further NI burdens in the upcoming Budget?
Stephen Kinnock
Again, I find it extraordinary that Conservative Members have the brass neck to ask those kinds of questions. They created the mess, and now they are criticising us—it is a bit like the arsonists heckling the firefighters. Patient satisfaction in general practice has risen from 67% last year to 75% this year, and the proportion of patients reporting difficulty contacting their practice has fallen from 18.7% in July 2024 to 10.6% in May 2025. We are just getting started, and I did not hear the hon. Lady welcome the investment.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
This Government are committed to improving survival for blood cancers, including acute myeloid leukaemia. We are raising awareness, delivering more research, and improving early diagnosis. Blood cancer is the third biggest cancer killer, and the fifth most common cancer in the UK. That is why we are committed to developing a national cancer plan, with patients at its heart, covering the cancer plan from referral and diagnosis to treatment and ongoing care. Having consulted with key stakeholders and patient groups, I confirm that that plan will be published early in the new year.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I thank the Minister for her response. My constituent Ruth Wake, who lives in Brewood, was tragically diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia in January last year. She has gone through chemotherapy and a stem cell transplant, and while she has made good process and is in remission, sadly the stem cell transplant has failed after nine and a half months. Under the current rules, if it fails in under a year she cannot have a second stem cell transplant. I know the pressures that the Minister is under in terms of her time, but my constituent has so little time. Could she look at this particular case, and also look at guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which were written over 12 years ago? Science and treatment have moved so rapidly, and I wonder if the Minister could look at both those points.
Ashley Dalton
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and offer my best wishes to his constituent Ruth in her treatment. I thank him for bringing her story to my attention. I really do appreciate—perhaps more than most—the urgency of the matter. Although I am unable to comment on individual cases, I understand that one of my ministerial colleagues will be writing to the right hon. Gentleman directly on this matter in the very near future.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
This week we learned about the incredible results of the Galleri trials, which allow the early identification of many tumours by looking at DNA circulating in the blood. Indeed, I was a volunteer in this trial. Will the Secretary of State join me in recognising the central importance of medical research?
Ashley Dalton
Absolutely. The new progress, particularly around circulating tumour DNA, is really interesting, and we are moving forward with more investment in research so that we can bring forward more such treatment.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
We strengthened the NHS front door with £1.2 billion for general practice, the biggest cash increase in over a decade. We promised to recruit an extra 1,000 GPs in our first year—we recruited 2,000. Patients are now able to request appointments online, which is a huge step towards delivering our manifesto commitment to end the 8 am scramble.
Olly Glover
Great Western Park has added 3,000 homes to Didcot, in my Oxfordshire constituency, and Valley Park, which is under construction, will add 4,000 more. However, the new GP surgery promised in 2008 remains a barren patch of land and existing facilities cannot cope. The integrated care board is supportive, but progress has stalled due to NHS England’s involvement. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that integrated care boards should have the authority to direct primary care funding, and will he meet me to help to unblock the new GP surgery my constituents desperately need?
Wes Streeting
Let me come back to the hon. Gentleman after I have found out what has gone wrong in this case. As he points out, ICBs are responsible for commissioning, planning, securing and monitoring GP services within their health system, through delegated responsibility from NHS England, and capital is allocated to ICBs on a basis that takes account of annual population growth. I can understand his frustration and that of his constituents, so let me find out what has gone wrong and come back to him.
Michelle Welsh
After 14 years of a Conservative Government, poor access to GPs is something that we have come to know well in certain areas of my constituency of Sherwood Forest. In Hucknall, demand for GP appointments is overwhelming to the point that one practice has had to close its online system. Promises of a super-healthcare system were made by the previous Government but never delivered. Meanwhile, local Ashfield independent politicians have disgracefully used this as a political football. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that there has been far too much talk and not enough action, and that it is now time that both the integrated care board and Ashfield district council deliver on this?
Wes Streeting
It is of no surprise to me that my hon. Friend raises yet another example of Conservative broken promises, and the hot air that comes from independents, who have all the luxury of being commentators but none of the responsibility of ever having to deliver anything. I would be happy to meet her to look into what has gone wrong here. This has gone on for far too many years, and I can well understand her frustrations.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
Let me be clear: this Government will always protect the NHS and have the service free at the point of use for everyone. This Government are determined to shift health out of hospitals and into the community, as set out in the 10-year plan, and neighbourhood health services will be fundamental to delivering this shift, so it is right that we look at a range of options to provide the best care for people across the country. Let me reassure hon. Members that all proposals are subject to robust, value-for-money assessments to ensure taxpayers get the best possible return on investments in our health services.
Ian Lavery
May I begin by congratulating the Secretary of State on his actions in trying to repair our cherished NHS following 14 years of Tory destruction? We must learn from past mistakes. The private finance initiative was a huge, expensive mistake—an absolute disaster—with £80 billion repaid for an investment of £13 billion. Will the Minister reassure the House that the lessons of PFI have been well learned, and that they are well and truly in the past and in the dustbin?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for his words of encouragement and congratulation. I assure him that lessons have been learned; we will ensure value for taxpayers’ money in all future proposals.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I meet regularly with GPs in my constituency, and they have highlighted that they do not yet have clarity or certainty about the role and resources that they will have in the roll-out of services from hospitals to communities and neighbourhood health services. Will the Minister meet me to provide that clarity to our GPs and assure them that they will be at the table during that roll-out?
Karin Smyth
It is absolutely the role of the hon. Lady’s local integrated care board to ensure that it involves all partners, particularly primary care, in the exciting roll-out of neighbourhood health services, which I think they welcome. I am happy to discuss that further with her.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
As well as the record investment that we put into the NHS, we are ensuring that we get a better bang for the taxpayer’s buck. Under the Conservatives, for example, the NHS was paying £3 billion to recruitment firms for agency shifts. We have cut agency spending by a third and are abolishing it altogether, with the savings reinvested in staff pay and treatment for patients. That is just one example of how our reform agenda is good for patients and for taxpayers.
Richard Burgon
Private finance initiative deals did huge damage to NHS budgets. Despite receiving just £13 billion in assets, NHS trusts were saddled with more than £80 billion in PFI debts—most of that is still being paid back. We have even seen some hospitals spending more on PFI debts than on medicines. If they really want to cut out waste and avoid a PFI-style disaster 2.0, will the Government rule out using private finance for the new network of new NHS clinics, as has been floated?
Karin Smyth
As I answered in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), we will absolutely ensure that we learn the lessons of the last Government’s failure.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Does the Minister agree that it is completely wasteful to make cancer patients who need to go for chemotherapy in Carlisle on a Wednesday but who live in, say, Kirkby Stephen to have to travel to Carlisle on the day or on the day before to get their bloods taken? Why is that? Because the local hospital will no longer fund the local GP surgery in Kirkby Stephen or Appleby to take their bloods there. Is it not wrong that those GP surgeries can no longer provide secondary healthcare blood services in their own settings in people’s own communities?
Karin Smyth
As he often does, the hon. Gentleman highlights in his own very rural constituency some of the fundamental problems at the heart of our NHS. That is why we are reforming it, ensuring that we move hospital services from hospitals into the community and developing neighbourhood health services. We are also looking at the financial flows in the system that lead to these sorts of perverse incentives and funding arrangements, which do damage to his constituents, as they do to many others and to rural and coastal communities. That is why we highlighted that in the 10-year plan. We need to see the end of such examples.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
We have already made excellent progress, turning commitments in the women’s health strategy into tangible action. We are delivering 5.2 million extra appointments, which includes tackling gynaecology waiting lists. We know, though, that more needs to be done for women experiencing the menopause and on improving awareness and access to treatment. Menopause Mandate has long campaigned, alongside many Members in this House, for the menopause to be included in the NHS health check. I hope to be able to say more soon, but rest assured that we have heard those calls.
Josh Newbury
Earlier this year, a constituent came to speak to me about shortages of the one hormone replacement therapy drug that was working for her after years of misdiagnoses and ineffective treatment. She told me that GPs have very low awareness of menopause and often recommend alternatives that cause adverse reactions, leaving her and many other women paying for private advice and treatment and taking time off work. Will the Minister update the House on what the Department is doing to address HRT shortages and to improve training for GPs so that millions of women get the support that they need?
Dr Ahmed
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting this crucial issue. The majority of the more than 70 HRT products are in good supply, but we are aware of shortages affecting certain estradiol patches, and we are engaging with suppliers to expedite deliveries wherever we can. We have issued guidance to healthcare professionals under the serious shortage protocols methodology to enable community pharmacists to supply alternatives where appropriate. Furthermore, we are committed to funding research into women’s health, and we have invested approximately £5 million through the National Institute for Health and Care Research scheme into menopause research, including studies for new treatments to improve outcomes for women experiencing the menopause.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is being reported in the press this week that women are being exploited by a menopause “gold rush”, enabled by tech giants such as Instagram. What steps can be taken to ensure that women have access to the very best of information and that misinformation on the internet is brought under control?
Dr Ahmed
I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting this issue. The best way to do that is to beef up NHS digital services, as we are doing to the NHS digital app, so that women and all patients can have confidence in the advice that they receive.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I welcome the Chair of the Select Committee back from parental leave and greatly look forward to working with her again. Virtual wards allow patients to get hospital-level care in the comfort of their own home, speeding up their recovery while freeing up hospital beds for the patients who need them most. We are rolling out virtual wards further, so that they become the norm for managing many conditions at home.
Layla Moran
Earlier this year, I visited the “hospital at home” team at the John Radcliffe hospital, who run an incredible virtual ward. I saw them deliver care to Mavis, who is 91. She was so emotional and grateful for the work they did—we all ended up in tears. Imagine my disappointment that while I was off, we got an email from the team saying that the funding for that incredible service is no longer there and that they face closure. This is an example of the best of the NHS. We want it rolled out to the rest, but if the funding is not there for these nascent services to find their footing, how can we ensure that best practice can be spread across the whole of Oxfordshire and beyond?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Lady makes a very valid point: this is about the shift from hospital to community, which we have to drive forward. In September 2025, 12,522 virtual ward beds were available—an increase from 12,497 in September 2024. Slowly but surely, we are increasing the number of virtual ward beds and the capability of virtual wards, but there is still a long way to go. I absolutely accept the point that the hon. Lady makes.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
The Darzi investigation found that NHS resources are too focused on hospitals at the expense of community care. Our reforms will turn the NHS into more of a neighbourhood health service. We have already recruited an extra 2,000 more GPs, we are rolling out 700,000 extra dental appointments, and we have agreed a new contract of investment and reform for community pharmacy. As part of our 10-year plan, we will be rolling out neighbourhood health centres across the country, starting with the places that are in the greatest need.
Jas Athwal
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, and for the brilliant work that the whole team is doing to put the NHS 10-year plan into action. Transferring care into the community will give many more patients quick and easy access to specialist care when they need it. However, access to Parkinson’s nurses—who are worth their weight in gold—remains deeply unequal. Too often, patients are left without nurses and have to travel a long way to see a specialist nurse. Worse still, the few Parkinson’s nurses who are available are predominantly funded by Parkinson’s UK. Can the Minister set out what steps are being taken to increase equitable access to Parkinson’s nurses across the country?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and congratulate him on his work campaigning on this issue. Regular support and advice from a Parkinson’s disease nurse specialist is highlighted as a key intervention in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on Parkinson’s disease in adults. The forthcoming 10-year workforce plan will support the 10-year health plan by addressing workforce shortages and skills gaps. This will be crucial to delivering quality and accessible care for those with Parkinson’s.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Ironically, getting care out of hospitals and into the community very much depends on a functioning hospital. Last month, I met the group chief executive officer of Hull University teaching hospitals NHS trust, following news that it had been placed in segment 4 of the NHS acute trust league table. She acknowledged the urgent need for improvement and expressed clear ambition for change, but she will not be able to deliver the transformation of that important hospital alone. Could I meet the Secretary of State or Ministers to discuss what more can be done to support that hospital on its road to transformation and improvement?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I am not familiar with the details of that case, but if he would not mind writing to me, I would be very happy to take that issue forward. He is right that there is a mountain to climb, not least because of the mess that was left to us by the previous Government, but we are climbing that mountain step by step. The 10-year plan is a big step in the right direction; it is now all about delivery, and that is what we are doing every day.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Since I last answered questions in this House, the Government have announced: half a billion pounds for a fair pay agreement for care workers; NHS Online, the first ever online-only hospital trust; and £80 million for children’s hospices. We have announced an independent inquiry into maternity services in Leeds, introduced Jess’s rule, implemented online requests for GP appointments, opened the 100th community diagnostic centre, made the chickenpox vaccine available on the NHS, and published NHS league tables—a lot done; a lot more to do.
Gurinder Singh Josan
We promised 2 million more appointments, and we have delivered 5 million, along with 2,000 extra GPs, 6,500 more mental health workers, 7,000 more doctors, and 13,000 more nurses and midwives. The cancer diagnosis standard has been met, GP satisfaction is up and waiting lists are down. The brand-new Midland Metropolitan University hospital has opened in my constituency. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is the difference that a Labour Government make, and that we are only just getting started?
Wes Streeting
Why stop there? We have 15,000 more home adaptations for disabled people through the disabled facilities grant and 135,000 more suspected cancer patients receiving a diagnosis on time. We have more than 200,000 cases off the waiting list, £500 million for the first ever fair pay agreement for care workers and the biggest uplift in carer’s allowance for a generation. The Tories did not do it, and Reform would undo it. That is the difference that a Labour Government make.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
First, it is great to be in this new role. I genuinely want to be part of a constructive Opposition, but equally I want to do my role in holding this Government to account. I note the lack of detail in the Secretary of State’s answers on reorganisation, so can I ask the basics again? How many people will be made redundant, what will it cost and who is paying?
Wes Streeting
I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to his place. It is good to hear from the Conservative Front Benchers; I had almost forgotten they existed. The Conservatives created a complex web of bureaucracy. It is a bit rich to complain we are not abolishing their creation quickly enough. We have had a number of expressions of interest in voluntary redundancy across my Department, NHS England and the integrated care boards, and we are working through that as we speak.
Stuart Andrew
Again, the Secretary of State cannot answer. His answers are too vague. He is very good at making promises, but the facts are that he is presiding over a reorganisation that has stalled, creating uncertainty for staff. Waiting lists are up 50,000 in the past three months, hospices are in crisis because of national insurance contribution rises, and we have had strikes again—despite big pay rises—with the threat of more. If the Secretary of State wants the leadership in the future, perhaps he should show leadership in the NHS now, and tell us not just the plans, but when he will give the details and how he will deliver on his promises to patients.
Wes Streeting
Waiting lists are lower now than when Labour took office, and that is in stark contrast with the record of the Government in which the shadow Secretary of State served; waiting lists increased every single year they were in charge. This is the first year in 15 that waiting lists have fallen. That is the difference that a Labour Government make. We are only just getting started. As for leadership changes, we all know why they are calling the Leader of the Opposition “Kemi-Kaze”.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
We know that there have been issues with the urgent emergency care response. We are absolutely committed to supporting ambulance trusts to continually improve the patient experience. The urgent emergency care plan for 2025-26 is backed by nearly £450 million of funding. I am happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Every year we come here to discuss the winter crisis in the NHS, but this summer saw record waits at accident and emergency, with more than 74,000 12-hour trolley waits in June and July. That used to be unheard of. With winter looming and the potential for the A&E permacrisis to be even worse this year, what package of emergency measures is the Secretary of State putting in place to ensure that patients are not left to suffer on trolleys or worse in our hospital corridors this winter?
Wes Streeting
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point out that the NHS is already running hot ahead of winter. We brought forward our winter planning for this year to get ahead. We are making sure that all NHS trusts and systems have developed plans that have been tested regionally. The flu vaccination programme is well under way, the autumn covid-19 vaccination began on 1 October, and we are driving improvements in urgent and emergency care. This will be a challenging winter—we are not complacent about that—but we are getting the system ready for it.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
As my hon. Friend will know, the consultation closed on 19 August. We are now considering the outcomes, and expect to publish a response very shortly. These reforms will improve support for patients with complex or urgent needs by better incentivising dentists to deliver this care on the NHS.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Stephen Kinnock
I did not hear the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that we provided £100 million—an unprecedented amount—in capital funding for hospices, and £26 million a year and £80 million over three years for children’s hospices. We recognise that hospices benefit from being rooted in their communities, with amazing charity and philanthropy support, but of course we know that the Government need to do their bit as well, and that is precisely what we were doing. I was very pleased to visit Noah’s Ark children’s hospice in Barnet last week and to speak to the chief executive, who warmly welcomed the stability and certainty that the three-year allocation has provided.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the House’s attention. It is appalling for coffee shops to be commandeered as spaces for the care of patients, and we will not accept it. I am happy to look at the case that my hon. Friend has mentioned. We will also be publishing figures on corridor care so that we can hold the system to account, and the public can hold us to account, to improve the situation that we inherited.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Stephen Kinnock
As I have pointed out, we are providing unprecedented levels of funding for hospices, but there is clearly a challenging fiscal position. I note that in their manifesto the Liberal Democrats proposed to spend only an extra £8 billion on health and care, whereas we have invested £26 billion. Before calling for more spending, they should tell us what they would cut.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
Stephen Kinnock
Through a £160 million investment in the additional roles reimbursement scheme, we have recruited more than 2,000 new GPs nationwide, but we recognise the inequities in funding that can exacerbate regional inequalities in access to services. I have launched a review of the GP funding formula to ensure that funding follows the needs of the population. The National Institute for Health and Care Research has begun a review of the Carr-Hill funding formula, which will conclude in six months’ time.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Wes Streeting
The hon. Gentleman draws to our attention the appalling state that the NHS was left in by the previous Government. We are working at pace to introduce EPRs across the system. I am sure that Ministers would be happy to look at the case at his local hospital to clean up the mess that the Conservative party left behind.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
As a migraine sufferer, I am afflicted about once a week by debilitating symptoms, which always include partial blindness, and sometimes include numbness in my fingers, nausea, brain fog, sensitivity to light and sound, a pounding headache and even an inability to speak—heartbreaking for a politician. I am very lucky, though, that my migraines generally only last half an hour; other people’s can be much worse and last days. What steps is the Minister taking to improve support for migraine sufferers like me?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
At national level, a number of initiatives support service improvement and better care for patients with migraine. The Getting It Right First Time neurology programme published a national specialty report that made several recommendations to improve recognition and diagnosis of migraine by GPs. Additionally, the RightCare toolkit sets out key priorities for improving care for patients with migraine, including correct identification and diagnosis, and NHS England has established a multi-year, clinically led neurology transformation programme—so, lots.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Minister, I like your style, but your answers are far too long for my health.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a serving Norfolk county councillor.
It is two years since the Conservatives in Norfolk oversaw the closure of two convalescence facilities: Benjamin Court in Cromer and Grays Fair Court in Costessey, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis). This was done without public consultation, and it has been met with outcry from local residents. This short-sighted move will only worsen the backlogs at local hospitals and reduce options for my constituents who need extra support. Will the Minister meet me and his hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South to discuss how we can ensure that these vital convalescence facilities will not be lost?
Stephen Kinnock
I do not know the details of that case, but if the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I can certainly come back to him on it. That sounds like a vital service that needs to be protected.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
In the Secretary of State’s list of what has happened since his last oral questions, he failed to mention the appointment of our hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) as a Minister. He is particularly looking at life sciences. Without life sciences and drug trials, we will not see an improvement in outcomes for rare cancers. Can the Secretary of State make a statement on what will be done about rare cancers?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his place. I will be honest: in effect, he has been a Minister since we came into government. We very much welcome the work that he has been putting in.
We are determined to do more on rare cancers, working with my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). All the work that she is doing, particularly on rare brain cancers, is much appreciated.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Most young people referred to gender identity services are same-sex attracted, neurodiverse and/or traumatised. Looked-after children are also over-represented in this cohort. Is the Secretary of State really comfortable with children being given puberty blockers, which essentially chemically neuter them, for the purposes of the PATHWAYS clinical trial?
Wes Streeting
Within days of taking office, I upheld the judgment made by my predecessor. We need to tread carefully and be sensitive in this space. We need to take an evidence-based approach to trans healthcare in our country, and that is the approach that this Government will take.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
As you may be aware, Mr Speaker, Reform-led Lancashire county council has opened a consultation on the future of care homes across Lancashire, including the proposal to close Woodlands care home in my constituency of Hyndburn. Will the Minister join me in urging Lancashire county council not to take forward these proposals, to protect much-valued local services, and to keep care close to the community and to the amazing staff who support our residents in Woodlands care home?
Stephen Kinnock
I absolutely agree. It has been very interesting to see that all the rhetoric of many Reform-led councils has come crashing down as they face the reality of the situation. Adult social care plays an absolutely vital role in the shift from hospital to community, and I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Alton and Petersfield hospitals give excellent step-up, step-down and end-of-life care. The trust is introducing more home-based care, which is good, but it also proposes closing a ward in one of the community hospitals. Will the Minister ensure that there remain sufficient beds and sufficient capacity in our local community hospitals for those patients who need them?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
In September, Hampshire Hospitals NHS foundation trust reported step-down immediate care capacity as the primary reason for discharge, and at Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS trust, the discharge figure was 13% lower than the average. As important as immediate care is, we know from the evidence that getting home is better; we are putting record amounts of money into the better care fund to make that possible.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I draw Ministers’ attention to the Prostate Cancer Research report published last week. It busts the myth that a screening programme for prostate cancer would cost the NHS too much money. It would focus on the people most at risk—in other words, black men over the age of 45, and those who, like me, have a history of it in their family. Will the Secretary of State join me in commending this report to the UK National Screening Committee?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and the inequalities to which he draws our attention. We will look at that report carefully. I am awaiting the recommendation of the UK National Screening Committee. We will look carefully at that, and I will report to the House on our decision.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The secure supply of medical radioisotopes is critical for the treatment and diagnosis of many conditions. Is this the Department’s responsibility, and does it support the Welsh Government’s Project Arthur scheme at the nuclear licenced site in Trawsfynydd in my constituency?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the right hon. Member for that question. Security of supply is obviously of importance to the entire Government. My portfolio includes pharmacy, which is a very important part of that. I would be very happy to meet her to discuss further the matter she has raised.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
In my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, I recently ran a survey, which had a whopping 99% response rate, in support of an urgent treatment centre in my constituency. Would the Minister agree to meet me to discuss urgent treatment provision in my constituency?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend does an excellent job in her constituency. I meet her regularly to discuss issues in her constituency, and I am very happy to discuss the provision of urgent care centres with her.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Greater transparency about NHS data should be used to drive improvements, so what assessment has the Health Secretary made of the impact on the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King’s Lynn of being forced to make savings of £18 million this year? What impact will that have on the need to reduce waiting times for A&E and cancer treatment, as identified in the league table that he published?
Wes Streeting
We are putting £26 billion more into the NHS this year, which is investment that was opposed by the Conservative party.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dyslexia—an issue on which I have campaigned for many years—I remain alarmed at the high number of dyslexic people who still need to use mental health services. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can better serve dyslexic people in Broxtowe and across the UK, and will he consider measures to prevent more dyslexic people from needing mental health services?
Dr Ahmed
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing her personal experiences, and I would be delighted to meet her.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I welcome the approval of plans for a new dental school at the University of East Anglia. What arrangements and incentives will the Minister put in place to keep dental graduates in the most poorly served areas, such as my constituency of Waveney Valley?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Member for that question. He will have seen that, in the 10-year plan, we have committed to tie-ins. Once the current cohort is through its studies, new cohorts will be tied into doing NHS dentistry for a period after graduation. I am sure that he welcomes that very important measure.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Jules Fielder is a young woman from Hastings who has tragically been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer after doctors repeatedly missed the early symptoms. Jules is now channelling her personal tragedy into action and campaigning to raise awareness of early symptoms, and she wants shops like Boots and Superdrug to use their shelf space to raise awareness. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to Jules’s amazing campaigning work?
Ashley Dalton
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and I offer my sympathy and best wishes to Jules and her family. Of course, I commend her awareness-raising work, which is really important. Her experience is one of the reasons why we are rolling out targeted lung screening and starting to use artificial intelligence to detect discrepancies in screening.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Children in Runnymede and Weybridge are waiting on average two years to get a diagnosis of autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder from Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS foundation trust. The trust is deviating from national guidance on new developmental pathways, and waiting times are even greater if children need medication. Does the Secretary of State share my concerns, and will he investigate the trust and make sure that children and families get the support that they need?
Dr Ahmed
The hon. Gentleman has considerable expertise in this field, and I am grateful to him for bringing this matter to light, but he was part of the previous Government, who let waiting lists get out of control. He will appreciate that I am unable to directly interfere in ICB decisions, but I am very happy to write to the board to ask for an update, and to update him when it replies.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituents’ baby, Bran Tunnicliffe, sadly died last year. His parents shared their experience with me, and described the wait for a coroner’s report as a lottery that depends on which hospital, pathologist and coroner is involved. I know that there is a shortage of pathologists in the UK. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss my constituents’ experience?
Wes Streeting
I am so sorry to hear that having experienced such unimaginable heartbreak, the family then had to go through that additional trauma. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and look at what we can do together with our friends at the Ministry of Justice to improve the experience for families in that awful situation.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Some progress has been made in the early diagnosis of prostate cancer. Will the Secretary of State ensure that when the further progress that we all hope to see is made, it will be shared quickly and efficiently with the devolved regions?
Wes Streeting
I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that commitment. I work very well with my counterparts across Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, regardless of party affiliations. I think he makes a very sensible suggestion.
Points of Order
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am concerned that the Health team may have inadvertently misled the House. In July, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation noted that respiratory syncytial virus vaccines were so effective that they should be extended to all those over 80 and those in adult care homes. The Secretary of State reassured this House in July that the recommendation had been accepted, and provision would be in place for this winter. When I asked about that today, the Secretary of State said from a sedentary position that he had delivered on that promise, and the Minister for Secondary Care then confirmed that. However, Government and NHS guidelines still show that availability of the vaccine has not been extended. How can I ensure that the record is correct?
Mr Speaker
First of all, you cannot continue the debate, but you have certainly put that on the record.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before beginning my questions, I meant to pay tribute to our former colleague Oliver Colvile, who sadly passed away last night. He served as the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport between 2010 and 2017 and was named by Conservative Home as one of a minority of Conservative MPs not to have voted against the Government, which, as a previous Whip, I thought was exceptional. He was a true gentleman whose eccentricities endeared him to many. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with his family.
Mr Speaker
We all remember Oliver Colvile very fondly. He really was a good MP and a nice kind of guy to meet. I knew Oliver way before he came to this House. We are all saddened to hear the news.
Wes Streeting
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Government and Labour Members, I associate myself fully with the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew). Oliver Colvile was a decent man and a wonderful public servant—we all share that view. I am sure that my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches will absolutely follow his example when it comes to following the Whip.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Oliver Colvile was loved by Members from across this House. As it will soon be the 175th anniversary dinner of the Lords and Commons cricket team, it is worth remembering one of the most famous wickets ever taken, when Oliver Colvile bowled and took that wicket in India, on live television, watched by tens of millions. I had never seen a triumph like it. He will be much missed. He was always loved and respected in this House.
Mr Speaker
His brother is the famous Sky cricket commentator.
Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry
(1 day, 14 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
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the recent criticism of the statutory inquiry into the rape gang scandal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
As stated in my previous statement to the House on 2 September and in my letter to the Home Affairs Committee yesterday, the Government remain resolute in delivering Baroness Casey’s recommendations following her national audit of group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse. These crimes committed by grooming gangs are among the most horrific imaginable. Baroness Casey’s report exposed more than a decade of institutional inaction, and we are determined to ensure that such failures are never repeated.
Central to our response is a statutory national inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. It will oversee local investigations and will have full powers to compel evidence. It will also be time-limited to three years to ensure that victims and survivors receive answers swiftly. The inquiry will examine safeguarding systems, accountability and intersections with ethnicity, race and culture, identifying failures and good practice. The inquiry will work alongside Operation Beaconport, a national police operation.
The appointment of the chair is at a critical stage, and we hope to confirm its conclusion soon. Victims and survivors have been at the heart of the process, with trauma-informed opportunities to share their views. We have engaged with them on the chair appointment and the terms of reference, which will be shaped by the chair in public consultation with stakeholders. As has been widely reported in the media, victims and survivors are meeting prospective chairs this week—today, in fact. This process, contrary to the reporting, was managed not by the Home Office but by the independent child exploitation charity NWG Network. We are gathering views to ensure that the perspective of victims and survivors remains central.
We must avoid delays, as were seen in the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and we are progressing as swiftly as thoroughness allows. Misinformation undermines this process. Allegations of intentional delay, lack of interest and a widening or dilution of the inquiry’s scope are false. The inquiry will remain laser-focused on grooming gangs, as Baroness Casey recommended.
Chris Philp
This scandal arose because young, mainly white girls were systematically gang-raped and it was covered up by those in authority because the perpetrators were mainly of Pakistani origin. It is all the more shocking that when calls for a national inquiry became public in January, the Prime Minister smeared campaigners as
“jumping on a far-right bandwagon”.
Comments like that are a disgrace and are what led to this scandal being covered up in the first place. Months later, just two days before facing a vote in Parliament, the Government finally agreed to the inquiry, but it is clear that they never wanted this inquiry and were forced into it. Perhaps that is why, months later, the Government have said nothing substantive publicly and their inquiry is descending into chaos.
What we have heard publicly is that victims and survivors on the liaison panel have no confidence in the Government or the inquiry. In the last 24 hours alone, two have resigned. Fiona Goddard resigned from the panel, saying that
“the secretive conduct and conditions imposed on survivors”
—by the Government—
“has led to a toxic, fearful environment, and there is a high risk of people feeling silenced all over again.”
Hours later, Ellie-Ann Reynolds also resigned, saying that the remit of the inquiry had been widened to
“downplay the racial and religious motivations behind our abuse.”
The Minister shakes her head, but that is what Ellie-Ann Reynolds said.
Fiona also raised the issue of Sabah Kaiser, who has been acting as a liaison officer on behalf of NWG. Just two years ago, Ms Kaiser described calling out the fact that the majority of perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage as “destructive, distracting, irresponsible”. Given those frankly appalling views and the complaints about them by survivors, will the Minister ensure that Ms Kaiser plays no further role?
Victims and survivors have also questioned the suitability of former police officers or social workers to chair the inquiry. They do not believe that people from the professions that failed them so badly are suitable. Will the Minister accept this feedback and appoint a judge to lead the inquiry? Will the Minister confirm that the scope of the inquiry will not be diluted, as both Fiona and Ellie-Ann say is now happening, and that it will focus on the cover-up of the rape gangs scandal because of the fact that the majority of perpetrators were of Pakistani origin?
Finally, Fiona said this yesterday:
“I just won’t be gagged and controlled by the Government while they turn this inquiry into a cover up.”
Will the Minister apologise to Fiona and Ellie-Ann?
Jess Phillips
The right hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to my remarks at all if he is suggesting that the Government have silenced anybody. The Government have not handled the process; it has been handled by a grooming gang charity. He cited and named a victim of crime.
If the right hon. Gentleman had done anywhere near the level of work that I have done, he would know that not all victims and survivors are of the same opinion. They are not one homogeneous group of people who all think the same thing, who all want the same exposure and who all want their identities known. I have spoken to Fiona Goddard many times, and I will continue that relationship with her, should that be what she wishes. Every single survivor who has been engaged with—there have been many—will have different feelings on the subject.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman requiring a judge, Baroness Casey said to the House in the Home Affairs Committee that she did not want a traditional judicial-led inquiry. She was explicit about that. Can anyone in the House find me an institution that did not fail these girls over the years? That includes our courts, which took children away from the grooming gang victims and which criminalised some of them. There is no institution in our country that has not failed.
Today, I will meet many of the victims and get their feedback, and I will continue to progress with that in mind. I will engage with all the victims, regardless of their opinions, and I will listen to those who have been put in the media and are put in panels. I will always listen, and I will speak to all of them.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Oldham has stepped forward to take on a local inquiry, and it has been waiting to understand what the move to the national inquiry means for its work. The same is true of victims and survivors, whose bravery and strength in the most difficult circumstances have been truly remarkable. What arrangements have been put in place to ensure that there is a clear front door, offering support that is fully independent of councils and police forces? While local deep dives are clearly essential, can we have an assurance that if the evidence takes an investigation beyond council and police force boundaries, it will be followed to the fullest extent?
Jess Phillips
I will not be chairing the inquiry, so I can only say to my hon. Friend that the terms of reference—I am not sure this is usual—will be consulted on in public. That is because of the issue of bad faith and the concern about transparency. The remit of the inquiry will be decided by the chair, living within those terms of reference. Having been part of various different inquiries or watched them from a distance, I know that no stone will be left unturned. Whoever chairs the inquiry will feel empowered to do what they think is best.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It has been four months and longer since the Home Office announced the national statutory inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation. I know that Ministers will have wanted quicker progress. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches do, too. We still have no chair, no terms of reference and, most importantly, no justice for the victims who have already waited years. Now, two members of the victims and survivors liaison panel have stepped down after raising concerns about shortlisted chairs. They seem to have lost confidence in the process before it has begun.
The Home Office must listen to and act on the concerns of victims—I know that the Minister will agree—and get the inquiry off the ground. That is the only way to ensure that it proceeds with integrity and the trust of those it is meant to serve.
Now is the time to prioritise justice and prevention over political point scoring—I know that the Minister will agree with me on that, too—because this is an extremely sensitive matter, particularly for the victims. Will the Minister commit to publishing the terms of reference along with full details of the inquiry’s budget and staffing and a timeline by the end of the month? If not to that deadline, when will that be published?
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Gentleman for both his tone and his approach. As per the Inquiries Act 2005, the terms of reference have to be set and consulted on with the chair. The chair is being decided on.
I have to say, it is not taking any longer than the covid inquiry or the infected blood inquiry, which I think each took seven months from their announcement to the appointment of the chair. I do not remember huge amounts of criticism or bellyaching about that, because we wanted to get those things right. Actually, getting this right means dealing with lots of different stakeholders and victims with different views. The process has to be followed that the terms of reference go through the chair. We have already done some of the work on the terms of reference with victims’ groups, but we cannot publish those—we will do that publicly, as I said—until a chair is appointed. I will not rush that, because I will take note of all the feedback I receive.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
Today, the Government have announced that they will take parental responsibility away where a child is born of rape. That will protect grooming victims. Children in this country will no longer be the only proceed of crime that criminals can have lifelong access to. Does the Minister agree that survivors were failed for too long by a Conservative Government who did not prioritise giving them justice? That party is led by the Leader of the Opposition, who did not mention grooming when she had the power to do something about it. Instead, survivors have had to wait for victims and activists to be on the Government Benches, and for the fiercest of advocates to be at the Dispatch Box.
Jess Phillips
I thank my hon. Friend. I think she mischaracterises me as the fiercest of advocates because she, as a grooming victim, with a child born of rape, is the fiercest and bravest. I could cry, I feel so proud that the Government sought to get her elected. I have been campaigning for the thing she has fought for with grooming gang victims for nearly a decade. I met with Ministers of the then Government and nothing was done. [Interruption.] The exact thing that she has campaigned for was asked for repeatedly and nothing was done. I am incredibly proud of her, as it is because of her and this Government that today I can say that that will change.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I have a copy of the Government’s response to the developments last night addressed to the Home Affairs Committee, and I find the response completely unacceptable. Are the Government seriously implying that Fiona and Ellie, who have been disbelieved and called liars by the British state their entire lives, are spreading “misinformation” about a process they have been directly involved in? That would be a deeply damaging thing for any Government to imply.
Worse, there is a line in the letter about the Government’s proposed inquiry in Oldham that says that the Government
“have been in discussions with Oldham Council about the right approach for Oldham”.
How can that possibly be right? How can the Home Office discuss the right approach with the very local authorities being investigated? It would be like the Post Office inquiry sitting down with the Post Office to negotiate how it should be investigated. Will the Minister explain how the Government will restore trust right now in the process, given the contents of the letter that she sent to the Home Affairs Committee last night?
Jess Phillips
Can I be completely clear? I am suggesting that I will listen completely and utterly to the feedback from the victims who were on the panel and those who still are. They are not spreading misinformation at all, but the hon. Member’s interpretation is a brilliant case in point.
I will be completely honest. The conversation with Oldham is: do we not think it might be better for Oldham just to take part in a statutory inquiry? It has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that Oldham is telling me what to do. The more people on the Conservative Benches—[Interruption.] Oh, the hon. Member can hold up his letter and have a smug face all he likes, but the fact of the matter is that there is no council in this country that will tell the inquiry where it can and cannot go. I have said that 1 million times from the Dispatch Box, yet the same thing gets peddled again and again.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I know that the Minister will not want to comment on individual candidates to chair the national grooming inquiry. However, may I put on record that Jim Gamble is a highly regarded police officer with a long experience of dealing with this matter? His leadership of the child exploitation and online protection centre proved what a fearless and fiercely independent figure he was, with a real track record of tracking down sick paedophiles online and off. Does the Minister agree that the chair of the inquiry must be someone who can earn the trust of those who have been let down by those in positions of authority for far too long? Will she confirm—I hope that she will—that the inquiry will not shy away from issues of race or class and will follow the evidence wherever it leads?
Jess Phillips
First and foremost, I absolutely confirm that that will not happen. Not only that, but I confirm that the Home Office has asked police forces across the country to collect data on ethnicity. That was not done before. I will not be drawn into his point about the chair; it is not up to me. However, I will say that the gentleman my hon. Friend mentions resigned from a previous role in this field because he thought that the then Government were not invested enough in tackling child sexual exploitation.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The victims of these crimes were vulnerable children who were ignored, gaslit and dismissed. Two victims have now resigned because of the process, its failure and their lack of faith in it. Yet, I hear what appears to me to be an aggressive and defensive tone from the Minister.
Dr Johnson
She should remember that those people are watching. Will she listen to the victims and does she regret that those two individuals have resigned from the process?
Jess Phillips
I absolutely regret that they have resigned from the process. Funnily enough, in the particular instance of one of the people, I have had no involvement in that process. I do not know who are on the panels of victims; it is entirely independently managed by a grooming gang charity. One of my only interventions was to ensure that the names of some of the voices that I thought deserved to be heard were included. I have done that on a number of occasions.
I will, of course, listen to them. Actually, I am meant to be with those panels of victims, hearing their response, right now. As I have said, I will take the feedback of anyone, both publicly and should they want to speak to me, as I have approached them. I am always sad when victims feel that they cannot take part in a process—of course I am. There are many different victims and they have many different views. There are ones that we hear publicly. But I want to make it clear that there are many different victims and we have to ensure that all their voices are heard equally, whether they are part of the process or not.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
The Minister has reiterated time and again that victims must be at the centre of an inquiry. Will she tell us what she intends to do to ensure that that aim is fully implemented?
Jess Phillips
While the inquiry is ongoing, that will be a matter for the chair. However, I know from the inquiries that I have been involved in that were successful and victim-centric that there always has to be a system for supporting the victims, both with taking part in the inquiry and with the trauma that might be brought up. Usually, those two things are separate, but I will say this once again: I will not be the chair of this committee. Undoubtedly, it is about ensuring that victims are protected throughout the process. Should they want to go out and speak publicly both negatively and positively about that process, I would absolutely welcome that. People should never be prevented from speaking. We have to ensure that support is available, regardless of how they wish to gain it.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
There should be nothing more precious in the eyes of this Parliament than the protection of children, particularly those who suffered at the hands of these barbaric individuals. Many of us are parents, aunts, uncles and grandparents and this cuts very deep. I know that the Minister cares and is a caring person, but today we need decisive action. Given that one of the victims has walked away from the inquiry—
Carla Lockhart
Given that two of the victims have walked away from the inquiry, will the Minister clearly state how she will ensure that a fully independent inquiry can take place and that it prominently includes victims?
Jess Phillips
All I can say is that there is a reason that I cannot stand in front of the victims, who I am meant to be getting feedback from right now, and definitely say when the chair will come. I could have just put my finger in the air and picked out some random judge—we could have done that—but I am listening to victims’ feedback. Again, I have to stress that that process is not easy. There are difficult dynamics within groups of people and the people who we have asked to engage are dealing with difficult things, so undoubtedly, that is not uncomplex. As anyone who has worked with groups of people who have been wronged, shamed and treated badly will know, it would be a lie to stand here and tell them that there is a straight line and a simple answer—and I am not willing to do that.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her continued work. All victims and survivors have not had their voice heard for too long. We need to ensure that that happens and I am sure that the Minister is doing that. Will she confirm what resources are available to ensure that survivors are properly supported through the process? On system delays, we know that there are still issues with court delays and ensuring we go after all the perpetrators. Will she give an update on that and on the Jay inquiry recommendations?
Jess Phillips
I will chair an interministerial cross-Government group next week to push through the other recommendations. Baroness Casey made 12 recommendations, but people rarely speak about any of the others. This was not her most pressing one; instead, she gave primacy to the policing-related recommendation around Operation Beaconport. As I said in my previous statement on 2 September, the work on the 216 cases that moved forward is ongoing and runs alongside this. That is where justice will be served: in our courts—if only they had not been horrendously degraded so that rape victims wait for years and years.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I think we all agree that the voices of survivors have to be at the heart of this. It is worrying and concerning when two of those survivors do not feel as if the process is properly looking after them and ensuring their voice is heard. Will the Minister commit to speaking to both Fiona Goddard and Ellie-Ann Reynolds to try and encourage and reassure them that this is a process that really will listen to their voices?
Jess Phillips
That opportunity has already been presented to them and I would be more than happy. I know one of them but not the other. That opportunity is always available, and one of them has my phone number. On the idea that I do not listen and have not been making myself available, I have tried to keep the process fiercely independent of Government intervention so that it can happen and victims can feel safe in that, but of course I feel sad that this is how it has ended. Actually, I hope that this is not how it has ended and I will commit to making sure that this is not the end. My door is always open to them.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
In 2012, a Bangladeshi national was sentenced in my Carlisle constituency for attempting to recruit four girls, aged 12 to 16, into prostitution. In his summing up, the judge described how the man’s conduct had corroded
“the foundations of decency and respect by which all right-thinking people live their lives whatever their ethnic or religious background.”
Will the Minister take the opportunity to again reassure all right-thinking people that this inquiry will look at everything to find answers, including the role of ethnicity?
Jess Phillips
I say again and again that it will not shy away from findings where they are present. Anybody who has done the work in this space will know that that is going to be found, as the case in my hon. Friend’s constituency highlights. There is absolutely no sense that ethnicity will be buried away. Every single time that there is an apparently needless delay—even though it took seven months to put in place chairs for both the covid inquiry and the blood inquiry, and nobody moaned about that—it gets used to say that we want to cover something up. That is the misinformation I am talking about. It will not cover things up. We are taking time to ensure that that can never happen.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The hon. Lady has been an outspoken champion for the victims, and will continue to be so, but she must be concerned that two members of the panel have withdrawn, and we understand that one of the candidates to be chair of the inquiry has withdrawn. Clearly, there is concern across the House that institutions such as the police, social services, councils and the courts are all in a position where they have failed. Whoever chairs the inquiry must, therefore, have full rigour over services that they may have been involved in. So there is an issue of confidence. Can she update the House on how the inquiry will report back to the House and what scrutiny the House will have over the actions of the inquiry and the terms of reference?
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is in a unique category of always asking a question that leads me to further questions that are pertinent. An inquiry does not usually report to the House while it is ongoing, but I will take that away to see if there is an appetite for that. All I can say is that there is no institution in the country, including this one here, that does not have skeletons. Do I think all politicians would not be robust in this? No, I do not. I think some would. I can guarantee that I can point at people, the hon. Gentleman included, who would show absolute rigour even against his own. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, IICSA, had a judge leading it and it lost the confidence of the victims. Three people lost the confidence of the victims. It took two years. There is not an institution that did not fail those girls. That is the whole point. There is no clean skin, but there are brilliant people who whistleblew and who tried, in every one of those institutions. That is essentially where we are left with this, but I promise rigour in the same way that, when I saw things happening in here, I was rigorous.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I commend the Minister for her formidable personal leadership on this, and I am proud to sit on these Benches alongside other formidable campaigners, too. The Minister has reiterated that the inquiry must be trauma-informed, and I know from speaking to victims in my constituency just how vital it is that we are cognisant both of the initial trauma that they have experienced and also of the retraumatising effects of going through the process of seeking justice for themselves and others. Can the Minister set out more about how she will ensure that this trauma-informed approach is woven through the ongoing inquiry?
Jess Phillips
As the inquiry is set up—as with previous inquiries with very vulnerable groups of people, such as IICSA—things will have to be put in place to ensure that people can freely give their evidence, and that will have to be done in a trauma-informed way. The twelfth of Baroness Casey’s recommendations was that all the recommendations should be fully funded by the Government, and this Government have absolutely committed to that. I very much expect that, when the chair is in place, those conversations about exactly how that will look will begin. The only thing I do control, I suppose, in any of this, is that this Government will pay for it.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
The cover-up continues. We have a Prime Minister who never wanted a national inquiry, we have a Minister who never wanted a national inquiry and we have the Labour Back Benchers who never wanted a national inquiry. Does the Minister agree that the victims of these horrific crimes will never get the justice they deserve, as long as we have a Labour Government in charge?
Jess Phillips
It is quite impressive that the hon. Member says that after a grooming victim has stood up and spoken from these Benches, but I have learned to expect it. He talks about a cover-up—maybe he is doing it for clicks; I do not know—and I understand that he thinks he is doing God’s work in fighting this issue, but the idea that it is easy to find a chair or to find people who want to step forward and take part in this process, given the level of bad faith and when the issue is mired in political point scoring of the type he has just done! He should really question his own morality.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
Ellie Reynolds has said that financial dependency has made people stay silent when they should speak, and also alleged that people on the panel were isolated by having contact with each other discouraged. The Minister has been extremely clear that this is a fully independent process and has not had Government involvement, but how does she propose to handle the very complex relationship between the concerns that Ellie Reynolds has spoken clearly about and ensuring that the process retains the faith of everyone involved?
Jess Phillips
As I have said, I would very much hope to hear those concerns directly from Ellie herself and to see what can be done. I only know the victims who I have worked with—when they have been on the panel, they have spoken to me, because I have personal relations with them—and what I can say is that there are differing views about the levels of confidentiality. The confidentiality is not to silence people or prevent them from speaking about their own experiences. It is necessary because there are people in those rooms who have never shown their faces who are also victims. Having run an agency myself, I know about trying to manage that. I can see why somebody might say that we should not seek out people outside the meeting, because others might have said they do not want that, but they are not going to say that in public. I can imagine all those things. I am trying to get across the idea of how complex these situations are, but I am more than happy to listen to Ellie and see what has gone wrong in the process for her and seek to make it better. I am absolutely happy to do that.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
We have heard what the Minister said about diverse views among victims, but is she concerned that some survivors of these terrible crimes have described the process as a toxic, fearful environment and warned that there is a high risk of people feeling silenced all over again? What is she going to do to reverse that failure?
Jess Phillips
I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer. As I have said a number of times, I am going to speak to those involved and look into the process. It is not a process that I have personally been part of, and I can only speak to the victims who I happen to have known before, if they tell me that they are part of it—not the other way around. I cannot ask who is involved. That is confidential by its very nature. Of course I am going to listen to that feedback and, like I have said, I will speak to those victims involved.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Victims must be at the heart of the grooming gangs inquiry. Does the Minister agree that getting the right chair is absolutely key to ensuring that that happens? Does she also agree that we have to avoid the scenes that we saw under the last Government, who appointed three chairs who then withdrew from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse—an inquiry that took two years to start?
Jess Phillips
My hon. Friend, who I know has some experience of inquiries from her previous life, is exactly right. People do not remember it now, but there were victims going out in the press complaining about what was going on with IICSA. It went through numerous chairs. There is already much worse faith in this instance, both rightly and wrongly. For me to allow the same to happen during this inquiry would just make people shout “Cover-up!”, so we are trying to do everything possible to ensure that the mistakes made by the previous Government are not made again.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
The credibility of the national inquiry rests on placing the voices, experiences and needs of victims and survivors at its very centre. Can the Minister show victims in Wales how this inquiry will be guided by their best interests, given that survivors have such grave concerns that they feel they must resign from the panel?
Jess Phillips
To go back to the previous answer, the chair of the inquiry will set the tone for the inquiry. That is why we have to put in place the right chair and a system for victims who want to take part in the inquiry that will care for and look after them, and that is what we are working to achieve.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her responses, and I absolutely agree that it is crucial to get this right, so can she be absolutely clear that the inquiry will not be watered down, particularly in its focus on grooming gangs and ethnicity, including on models of grooming where groomers focused on the ethnicity of victims, whether that be young white girls or even Sikh girls?
Jess Phillips
Absolutely. I absolutely pay tribute to the community response in my hon. Friend’s local area to recent incidences of very hideous sexual violence, and I put on record my love to the families and victims involved. I absolutely agree: this is a grooming gangs inquiry, and it will follow what Baroness Casey stated. As I said in my statement, it will be three years long, it will not shy away and it will be a grooming gangs inquiry.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I acknowledge the Minister’s commitment to get to justice on this issue, and I recognise the frustration that she expresses, because I was responsible for the infected blood compensation scheme, which involved meeting a diverse group of 40 different charities and representative bodies that did not agree with one another. However, I gently and respectfully say to her that we face a credibility gap on this issue, and I urge her to examine how she can get ahead with the communications so that she can continue to demonstrate her commitment to get to justice. Frankly, we as Members of Parliament have to come to this place when things get into the media and public concerns are expressed. I understand her frustration, but getting the communications right and maintaining a pathway to the delivery of justice is critical.
Jess Phillips
I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Most of what I see reported on anything in this space is largely inaccurate and often comes with an agenda, more so than in the case of the infected blood scheme, although I absolutely take my hat off to the job that he had to do. There is a balance between wanting to give a complete and utter running commentary on a very complicated thing and making sure that people feel like something is going on, because nature abhors a vacuum and so does misinformation.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The Minister has heard me implore her many times to move as speedily as possible to address the challenges of the victims of these awful crimes, but on this occasion I implore her to take the right time to find the right judge. It is not a normal public appointment; this is someone who has to command the confidence of the House, the public, and most importantly, survivors. They must leave no stone unturned and investigate everything, whether that is ethnicity, class-related or institutional, and make the Minister’s life harder if they have to do so. Will the Minister take the time to find the right judge and not repeat what we saw with the child sexual abuse inquiry several years ago?
Jess Phillips
I absolutely will, and my hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to say that, no matter who is picked, there will be people unhappy with it. Like most politics that we deal with, let us just call a spade a spade and stop pretending that there is a perfect situation. There is only the best situation we can have. Funnily enough, in the conversations that I have had with some of the prospective chairs, the main thing I have wanted them to take away is the feeling that, if they have to slag me off all day long, then that is exactly what they should do, and I would say the same to the victims.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
The Minister obviously feels very deeply about this issue. I think we all agree that anyone who was involved in these awful and horrific crimes must be held to account, and we must shine a light on anyone who turned a blind eye and ensure that it does not happen again. Can the Minister provide a commitment that the inquiry will not be politicised, particularly after multiple local authorities have attempted to block investigations? That is a really important question, because we see that happening. Everyone needs to be investigated on this—it does not matter which party they are from; this is too important.
Jess Phillips
Absolutely—100%. Far be it from me to speculate about where I would like the inquiry to go, but if I had my way and I was the chair, I would have grave concerns about the area where I live—Members will not be surprised to hear—because that is where I worked. The fact that it has a Labour council would not stop me from wanting to look there. In fact, if the House will excuse my unparliamentary language, I could not give a toss about—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry the Minister felt she had to push it. She is doing an excellent job. She does not need to push it; she is better than that. I call Alison Hume.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I thank the Minister both for her statement and for the passion and rigour that she brings to her role. Even if sometimes she might say things that she has to apologise for, we greatly appreciate her dedication to the role.
Mr Speaker
Actually, I granted the urgent question—that is why we are here.
Alison Hume
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Every survivor’s experience of abuse is unique. Does the Minister agree that taking the time to find the right chair will enable them to ensure that every story will be fully told?
Jess Phillips
I really hope so, but I am not going to do what other people seem to want to do in this circumstance and pretend that there is a guarantee and that I have some sort of magic weapon. That is the process that I am undertaking: I am trying to get the very best chair, who is supported alongside the victims who have been taking part in the process.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Getting this right is both important and extremely difficult. I have two questions for the Minister. If, when she meets Fiona and Ellie-Ann, she finds that they are right and that there is something wrong, what powers does she have to intervene? Secondly, will she provide assurances that the inquiry will not be staffed—she may be able to comment on her powers and the power to influence—by individuals who previously dismissed the concerns of survivors and campaigners as racist slurs?
Jess Phillips
In answer to the first question, I have every power to intervene in the panel’s process, but the decision I made was that it should be independent of me and my offices, and would be better handled by experts in the field. When I speak to those involved, of course I can raise things and make decisions about how this goes forward. I very much hope that we will be drawing to a conclusion and that soon I will have much less involvement.
To the right hon. Gentleman’s other question, victims and survivors of this crime all have different political opinions. They all have different views on the substantive. They have different views about whether it should be called “grooming” or whether it should be called “grouped”. They have different views on all these things. I will not stand here and say that I would eliminate any victim or survivor working on this based on their political views, and I will continue to say that as it is. Many of them do not like me very much. Imagine if I just did not let the people who did not like me very much have their voices heard. Well, frankly, I would be guilty of a cover-up.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
The Minister has made it clear that women and girls were failed by every institution, and it is a positive step that the failure has now been acknowledged by Government and that the acknowledgment is leading to action after years of inaction. But in Scotland we have had absolutely no acknowledgment or action. What advice would the Minister give me and others across Scotland who are becoming increasingly angry that the Scottish Government are doing all they can not just to block an investigation, but to block any kind of independent scrutiny or case review of organised child exploitation?
Jess Phillips
First, while the inquiry is in England and Wales, one of the victims who we have been hearing about today—Ellie—lives very much in the borderland of our two great countries of England and Scotland. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that some of the things that may get found in the inquiry will have findings across the border. Unfortunately, the trafficking of young girls does not follow lines on a map as easily as we might think it does when we administer inquiries. My hon. Friend should continue to work with survivor groups up in Scotland to push for what exactly it is that they want to see in Scotland.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers. I know her heart is in this to get justice, and I do not think that there is any doubt about that. However, it is difficult to hear the news that these victims, who have already been denigrated and treated as voiceless and worthless during their initial abuse, have been made to feel that way once again in this inquiry, and the Minister will understand that it is also difficult for us to accept that this is taking place on the Government’s watch. Does she agree that the inquiry is not getting this right? Will she instruct that immediate action is taken to give those young women their voice back to ensure that justice is served and that safeguards are in place to prevent such abuse from taking place on British soil ever again?
Jess Phillips
I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s upset and frustration on the matter. He knows that when I say that I will do whatever I can to ensure that these problems are sorted out, where they can be, that is what we will seek to do, and we will continue to try to do that. What we have to do with this inquiry is not just look at what went wrong and hold people to account; we have to ensure that it cannot happen again.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I say to Opposition Members that their relentless politicisation of the issue is no doubt making it much harder to find a chair because it will be putting candidates off.
As the inquiry gets under way, we must keep up progress on implementing the recommendations of the Jay IICSA inquiry. I raised concerns on Report during the Crime and Policing Bill that the Government’s proposals to implement mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse do not go quite as far as IICSA wanted, and those concerns were raised again in the other place last week by Baroness Grey-Thompson. Will the Minister ask her colleague Lord Hanson to meet me and Baroness Grey-Thompson to discuss how we can remedy that in a way that works for everyone and that protects children?
Jess Phillips
The simple answer is yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on his first point. What we should all seek to be doing throughout this is to try to grease the wheels so that we can have the best possible inquiry. We should all be seeking to do that while holding people to account with as much scrutiny as is needed. I will absolutely do that, and obviously I have met Lord Hanson a number of times. Getting mandatory reporting right is vital and, much like in the survivor group, there are different views on either side.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Blackpool continues to live with the scars of Charlene Downes and Paige Chivers, two young girls in Blackpool who never came home and were subject to grooming. Will the Minister confirm to my constituents that the grooming gangs inquiry will be thorough and comprehensive, and committed to a full and transparent investigation, ensuring that every avenue is examined to uncover the truth?
Jess Phillips
I absolutely will. Funnily enough, this morning I spoke to one of my hon. Friend’s constituents, a grooming gang victim, to assure her of similar things. Quite a lot of this process causes quite a lot of nervousness, and there is a need to manage lots of different people’s emotions, but I absolutely make that commitment to him, as I made it to one of his constituents this morning, and I make it to the House.
Points of Order
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I invite you to examine column 652 from yesterday’s Hansard, during the exchange about Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters travelling to Aston Villa. In reply to my question, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said she agreed with me about the safety of everyone walking the streets, but she went on to say:
“Perhaps he might make that point to the people he now associates with on his left and right, because that is not what we have heard from them in the last few weeks.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 652.]
There is a suggestion in that that my colleagues have done something other than say that everyone should be able to walk the streets safely in our society. They were concerned about the danger from football supporters acting in a hooliganistic way at the Aston Villa game. I think the Secretary of State should correct what she said—
Mr Speaker
Order. Jeremy—come on. You have certainly put your view on the record, but what we will not do is continue the debate. You know that as a long-standing Member of this House who has great respect. I will leave it at that, because you have certainly ensured that we are all aware of that correction.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), despite the Safeguarding Minister’s best efforts to explain whether she is involved concerning the response to the urgent question that you have granted, Mr Speaker, I am genuinely more confused and think that many constituents will be too. Despite the Minister saying that she is not looking to provide a running commentary, May I ask that she update the House clearly to assist on these matters, so that we can avoid urgent questions such as this one?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure what the hon. Member is confused about. A victims panel was set up to look at both the terms of reference and the appointment of a chair. There is a variety of different groups of people. Some of them have done both; some of them have taken part in just one or the other, usually depending on time and logistics, as she might imagine. That has been managed by an organisation called NWG. I have not taken part in those sessions, other than to feedback on chairs. The feedback on the chair’s appointment comes to me. I do not have to go to that, but I go and sit and listen. Usually, that is the first time I know who has been on the panel, when they have been interviewing chairs. The process is entirely managed. Because of my years of experience, I happen to know quite a lot of the people, and so I do speak to some of the people who are on the panel because I have personal relationships with them and have supported them over the years. I hope that clears that up.
Cyber Extortion and Ransomware (Reporting)
Tuesday 21st October 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberCyber Extortion and Ransomware (Reporting) Bill 2024-26 View all Cyber Extortion and Ransomware (Reporting) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require a company that meets a specified criteria to report any cyber extortion or ransomware attack on the company to the Government within a specified time after the attack; to make provision about the content of such reports, including a requirement to provide information about any payments made; and for connected purposes.
This is a timely and pressing matter. Illegal activity across the nation is on the rise, and cyber-attacks are no exception. The National Cyber Security Centre has reported a 50% increase in British cyber-incidents deemed “highly significant” over the past year. Furthermore, of the 429 incidents the NCSC was called upon to assist with, at least half were considered of “national importance”. Among the significant threats identified in the NCSC’s 2025 annual review are hostile states such as China, linked to a co-ordinated campaign involving three China-based companies targeting foreign Governments and critical networks, and Iran, which the NCSC assessed as a highly likely threat to UK entities.
UK IT leaders are understandably alarmed. Research from Armis has revealed that 74% of UK IT leaders cite China and 71% cite Russia as their top cyber-security concerns. If that is not enough, recent espionage trials have thrown a harsh spotlight on the scale and intent of state-sponsored cyber-operations. The threat is undeniable. We must act with urgency to safeguard UK-based companies and critical infrastructure before these escalating menaces begin to seriously disrupt the functioning of our nation.
Under current legislation, cyber-attacks need only be reported in limited circumstances: organisations handling personal data must report cyber-attacks that pose a likely risk to individual rights; essential service operators and relevant digital service providers must disclose incidents with “substantial” service impact; and a few regulated bodies, such as the Financial Conduct Authority and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, follow their own cyber-incident reporting requirements. Notably, there is no requirement for companies to disclose when a ransomware payment has been made, despite the significant financial burden such payments can impose.
Cohesity’s “Global cyber resilience report 2024” found that 59% of companies targeted by ransomware chose to pay, with an average cost of £870,000 and some reaching as high as £20 million. The reality is clear: cyber-crime, particularly extortion and ransomware, has outpaced existing legislation. It has allowed dangerous gaps to emerge in our intelligence gathering—gaps that criminals are likely to exploit—and has weakened the defences of our national critical infrastructure against these escalating threats.
The Cyber Extortion and Ransomware (Reporting) Bill seeks to close those gaps and reinforce the UK’s resilience against cyber-crime. Following Australia’s implementation of a mandatory ransomware payment reporting regime, which has so far been successful, it is imperative that the UK follows suit. The Bill would mandate any British company registered under the Companies Act 2006 that has an annual turnover above £25 million or is responsible for critical national infrastructure to inform the Government within 72 hours of becoming victim to a cyber-extortion or ransomware attack, with a further report being required if any payment is made by the company or a third party on its behalf, within 72 hours of the transaction taking place.
We have all witnessed the shocking headlines about major British companies under siege from cyber-attacks, resulting in severe disruption and millions in lost revenue. From M&S to the Co-op, Harrods to Jaguar Land Rover, these attacks have been crippling, and yet the Government currently have no legal right to know whether a ransom payment was made to restore their systems. What if that payment was made to a terrorist organisation? What if it was sent to a hostile state? It is not the fault of the companies who, under immense pressure and with limited options, choose to pay to regain control of their operations. The fault lies in the gaps in our legislation—gaps that allow ransom payments to go unreported, potentially fuelling even greater threats against our nation.
The proposed threshold of an annual turnover exceeding £25 million or those responsible for critical national infrastructure has been carefully considered. It captures approximately 78% of medium-sized businesses and all large corporations, while avoiding the overwhelming influx of reports that a lower threshold would trigger due to the high number of small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK. National critical infrastructure comprises all 13 sectors defined by the Government: chemicals, civil nuclear, communications, defence, emergency services, energy, finance, food, government, health, space, transport and water. These criteria capture the vast majority of companies whose compromise through attack or ransom payment could pose a serious risk to the UK. It also reflects the volume of reports our resources can realistically manage, while establishing a clear, accessible threshold so that companies are not forced to navigate complex policy during the stress of an active attack.
Another imperative component of this approach is the inclusion of all payment types, whether monetary, intellectual property, exchanges of gifts or services or other forms of benefits. This broader scope will enable law enforcement to trace criminal networks, identify patterns and disrupt the flow of illicit funds. It will help to inform better resource allocation, as well as holding the potential to foster collaboration across sectors that would result in faster alerts and stronger resilience.
I understand that many companies may have reservations regarding the requirement to report incidents and ransom payments. It could leave them vulnerable to reputational damage from potential leaks, damaging their business further. This proposal is pro-business, and that is why robust legal protections would be established to ensure that any reports made to the Government remain strictly confidential, with no right of publication, unless it is deemed to be in the national interest. This will give companies the assurance they need to report without fear and the support they deserve to help their recovery.
What happens if a company fails to report within 72 hours of a cyber-extortion attack or neglects to submit a follow-up report within 72 hours of making a ransom payment? Quite simply, it will face a civil monetary penalty. Mandated reporting is essential to our national security and collective wellbeing. Non-compliance must be actively discouraged. It is in the company’s interest, the public’s interest and the Government’s interest.
The absence of mandatory reporting, especially for ransom payments, leaves a dangerous blind spot in our national security. When companies report these payments, our security agencies gain vital intelligence—intelligence that helps us to understand who is being targeted, how attacks are evolving and where our vulnerabilities lie before they are exploited. Espionage today is not confined to spies and stolen documents. It is digital, it is silent, and it is relentless. The grey zone exists. Cyber-extortion and ransomware attacks are fast becoming the preferred weapons of hostile actors seeking to destabilise our institutions and exploit our vulnerabilities. Their attacks are becoming progressively more complex, often leaving companies with no viable alternative but to make ransom payments. From individual hackers to organised criminal gangs and state-backed attacks from overseas, we cannot afford to fall behind in the race of technological defences and expose ourselves to increasingly sophisticated cyber-extortion attacks.
While I acknowledge that the Government referenced the introduction of a cyber-security Bill in the King’s Speech, it is deeply concerning that, despite the urgency of the threat, the Bill has yet to even be brought before Parliament. Cyber criminals are not slowing down, and their methods are not becoming simpler. On the contrary, attacks are growing in complexity, scale and impact. Although I recognise that sound policy requires time to develop, we cannot afford to proceed at our current glacial pace. Delay only deepens our vulnerability, particularly in the light of recent events. We must act decisively and without hesitation to safeguard British businesses and protect our national security.
The choice before us is stark: either we allow ourselves to become increasingly exposed as criminals outpace our outdated legislation and other nations fortify their defences, or we rise to meet the moment with urgency, resolve and the protections our country demands. It is time for us to send an important message: we will not allow cyber criminals to continue operating in the shadows, unchecked and unchallenged.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Bradley Thomas, Tom Tugendhat, Alison Griffiths, Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst, Joy Morrissey, Saqib Bhatti, John Glen, Greg Smith, Ben Obese-Jecty, Lincoln Jopp, Sir John Hayes and Jim Shannon present the Bill.
Bradley Thomas 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 315).
Sentencing Bill
Tuesday 21st October 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberSentencing Bill 2024-26 View all Sentencing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 21 October 2025 - (21 Oct 2025)
17:56 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 105 / Noes: 381 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:11 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 389 / Noes: 102 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:29 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 182 / Noes: 307 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 167 / Noes: 313 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:55 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 104 / Noes: 317 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:07 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 77 / Noes: 390 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I remind Members that in Committee, they should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair and Madam Chairman are also acceptable.
Before I call the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) to move amendment 46, I should advise the Committee that once that amendment has been disposed of at the end of the debate, I am provisionally minded to call the following amendments and new clauses for separate decision: amendment 24, in the name of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan); new clause 6, in the name of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty); new clause 9, in the name of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle; and new clause 30, in the name of the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller).
Clause 1
Presumption of suspended sentence order for sentences of 12 months or less
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out “not more” and insert “less”.
The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences of less than 12 months.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 47, page 1, line 14, after “months” insert
“before any credit is given for a guilty plea”.
The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences before credit is given for a guilty plea.
Amendment 50, page 1, line 17, after “order” insert
“with the maximum operational period”.
This would mean that all suspended sentences given in place of immediate custody would be suspended for the maximum period.
Government amendments 2 and 3.
Amendment 48, page 3, line 8, after “individual” insert “or the public”.
The presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put an individual or the public at significant risk of harm.
Amendment 49, page 3, line 8, after “at” leave out “significant”.
The presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put an individual or the public at risk of harm.
Amendment 51, page 4, line 3, leave out “not more” and insert “less”.
The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences of less than 12 months.
Amendment 52, page 4, line 3, after “12 months” insert
“before any credit is given for a guilty plea”.
The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences before credit is given for a guilty plea (typically one third).
Amendment 55, page 4, line 6, after “order” insert
“with the maximum operational period”.
This would mean that all suspended sentences given in place of immediate custody would be suspended for the maximum period.
Amendment 36, page 4, line 11, at end insert
“, or the court is of the opinion that, having considered the basis of opinion provisions in section 77 Sentencing Act 2020, it should mitigate the sentence to one of a community sentence as provided for in that section.”
Government amendments 4 and 5.
Amendment 53, page 5, line 15, after “individual” insert “or the public”.
The presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put an individual or the public at significant risk of harm.
Amendment 54, page 5, line 15, leave out “significant”.
The presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put an individual or the public at risk of harm.
Clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
Amendment 29, in clause 3, page 10, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert—
“(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), “monthly income” means monthly income after deduction of—
(a) such amounts as are required to be paid or deducted from the offender’s income under, or by virtue of, any enactment, or
(b) such amounts as may be specified in the regulations.”
This amendment changes the definition of “monthly income” for the purposes of income reduction orders so that any amount of money that is required to be paid or deducted from an offender’s monthly income as a result of other enactments (such as child support maintenance payments or under an attachment of earnings order) is not counted for those purposes.
Clause 3 stand part.
Amendment 1, in clause 4, page 14, line 4, after “(including victims of crime” insert “, ensuring their protection from further physical or psychological harm”.
This amendment would amend the statutory purposes of sentencing to incorporate safeguarding victims from further physical or psychological harm.
Clauses 4 and 5 stand part.
Amendment 30, in clause 6, page 14, leave out lines 29 to 32 and insert—
“(1) This section applies if—
(a) a court is passing sentence for an offence,
(b) the court has indicated that it appears the offence may have involved domestic abuse, and
(c) having regard to any evidence and any representations that are made by or on behalf of the offender or the prosecution, the court is of the view that the offence involved domestic abuse.”
This amendment introduces two procedural safeguards before a court can record that an offence involved domestic abuse: first, the court must have indicated that it appears the offence may have involved domestic abuse; and, second, the court must have given an opportunity to the offender and prosecution to adduce evidence and make representations before coming to the view that an offence involved domestic abuse.
Government amendments 6 to 8.
Amendment 31, page 15, leave out lines 9 to 12 and insert—
“(1) This section applies if—
(a) a court or officer is passing sentence for an offence,
(b) the court or officer has indicated that it appears the offence may have involved domestic abuse, and
(c) having regard to any evidence and any representations that are made by or on behalf of the offender or the prosecution, the court or officer is of the view that the offence involved domestic abuse.”
This amendment introduces two procedural safeguards before a court can record that a service offence involved domestic abuse: first, the court must have indicated that it appears the service offence may have involved domestic abuse; and, second, the court must have given an opportunity to the offender and prosecution to adduce evidence and make representations before coming to the view that the service offence involved domestic abuse.
Government amendments 9 to 11.
Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.
Government amendment 12.
Clause 8 stand part.
Government amendment 13.
Clauses 9 to 12 stand part.
Government amendments 14 and 15.
Clauses 13 to 15 stand part.
Government amendments 16 and 17.
Clauses 16 to 19 stand part.
Amendment 24, in clause 20, page 37, line 14, at end insert—
“(ab) but sections 244ZA(8)(a) and (aa) do not apply to any person convicted of—
(a) rape;
(b) assault by penetration;
(c) rape of a child under 13;
(d) assault of a child under 13 by penetration;
(e) inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity;
(f) paying for the sexual services of a child aged under 13;
(g) kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence;
(h) creating or possessing indecent photographs of children;
(i) grievous bodily harm;
(j) grooming;
(k) stalking;
(l) causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable child or adult; or
(m) death by dangerous driving, and
(ac) but sections 244ZA(8)(a) and (aa) cannot come into force until the Secretary of State has consulted on and ensured exclusions for all offences considered to be serious violence, offences against children, sexual offences and domestic abuse offences, and”.
This amendment would disapply the clause 20 early release provisions of the Bill in relation to those convicted of the offences listed in the amendment, and would require the Secretary of State to consult on and ensure exclusions for those convicted of other serious violent and sexual offence categories.
Clauses 20 to 23 stand part.
Amendment 41, in clause 24, page 46, leave out lines 20 to 23.
This amendment would leave out the Bill’s provision to give probation officers more discretion in relation to licence conditions.
Amendment 34, page 46, line 23, at end insert—
“(c) after subsection (4A) insert—
‘(4B) In exercising any power under subsection (4)(b), the Secretary of State must have regard to any representations made by the offender.’”
This amendment introduces a right for those being made subject to licence conditions to make representations as to their necessity and proportionality.
Amendment 35, page 46, line 23, at end insert—
“(c) after subsection (4A) insert—
‘(4B) The Secretary of State must not include a condition under subsection (4)(b)(di) (a restriction zone condition) in a licence, either on release or subsequently, or vary or cancel any such condition included in a licence, unless the Board directs the Secretary of State to do so (and must, if the Board so directs, include, vary or cancel such a condition).’”
This amendment introduces a requirement for the Parole Board to have oversight of new restriction zones which will confine offenders to specific areas in the community while on licence.
Amendment 44, page 48, line 17, at end insert—
“(10) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations commencing subsection (4) of this section, undertake an assessment of the potential effects of a driving prohibition condition on a person’s ability to attend—
(a) employment,
(b) education, or
(c) a rehabilitation programme.
(11) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of the assessment carried out under subsection (10) including recommendations on—
(a) offender rehabilitation,
(b) offender reintegration, and
(c) any other matters that the Secretary deems appropriate.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State, before commencing the driving prohibition provisions in the Bill, to publish a report on their potential effects on the ability of ex-offenders to attend employment, education and rehabilitation providers.
Amendment 45, page 48, line 17, at end insert—
“(10) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations commencing subsection (7) of this section, undertake and publish an assessment of the potential effects of a restriction zone condition on a person’s ability to attend—
(a) employment,
(b) education, or
(c) a rehabilitation programme.
(11) The court may provide for exemptions in a restriction zone condition to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme.
(12) A probation officer may vary a restriction zone condition imposed by the court to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme.
(13) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, each year, a report on—
(a) the number of people subject to a restriction zone condition,
(b) the number of cases where a restriction zone condition has included an exemption or modification to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme, and
(c) evidence on the effects of restriction zone conditions on reoffending and rehabilitation.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State, before implementing the relevant provisions, to assess the potential effects of a restriction zone condition on an ex-offender’s ability to attend education, employment or a rehabilitation programme. It would allow for exemptions to restriction zone conditions, and require an annual report on their use and effectiveness.
Clauses 24 and 25 stand part.
Amendment 33, in clause 26, page 50, line 3, at end insert—
“(1A) In section 254 (recall of prisoners while on licence), in subsection (1) after ‘prison’ insert—
‘where there is evidence of consistent non-compliance with licence conditions or a specific and imminent risk of harm.’”
This amendment gives effect to the recommendation 4.3 of the Independent Sentencing Review for “stricter criteria and thresholds” for recall.
Clauses 26 to 28 stand part.
Amendment 22, in clause 29, page 55, line 5, leave out “both” and insert “more”.
This amendment is linked to NC5 and amendment 23.
Amendment 23, page 55, line 27, at end insert—
“(8A) The third condition is that the basis for P’s recall is that P has breached a license condition, civil order, or criminal order in relation to the victim of the crime for which P is serving the sentence in question.”
This amendment is linked to NC5 and amendment 22.
Clauses 29 to 34 stand part.
Amendment 32, in clause 35, page 65, line 33, at end insert—
“(7) Before making regulations under section 46 to bring this section into force, the Secretary of State must issue a code of practice giving guidance to providers of probation services about how to discharge those functions lawfully having regard to—
(a) section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and
(b) the data protection legislation (see section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018).
(8) The Secretary of State may not issue a code of practice under subsection (7) unless—
(a) the Secretary of State has consulted providers of probation services and any other person the Secretary of State considers appropriate about a draft of the code,
(b) the Secretary of State has laid a draft of the code before each House of Parliament, and
(c) each House of Parliament has by a resolution approved the draft of the code.”
This amendment prevents clause 35 from being brought into force until the Secretary of State has issued a code of practice to providers of probation services about how to take and publish photographs lawfully in light of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the data protection legislation. Before issuing a code of practice, the Secretary of State must consult providers of probation services, lay a draft before Parliament and obtain approval from both Houses.
Clauses 35 to 44 stand part.
Government amendment 19.
Clause 45 stand part.
Government amendment 20.
Clauses 46 and 47 stand part.
Government new clause 1—Deportation of foreign criminals—
New clause 2—Electronic monitoring: oversight—
“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.
(2) In Part 14 of Schedule 9, in paragraph 31 (Electronic monitoring: person responsible for monitoring), after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
‘(3) Regulations under this section must ensure that—
(a) electronic monitoring is overseen by the Probation Service;
(b) the fitting of necessary apparatus for the purposes of electronic monitoring may only be undertaken by those in the employment of an organisation with responsibility for delivering electronic monitoring; and
(c) the fitting of necessary apparatus may not be undertaken by an employee of HM Prison and Probation Service unless the responsibility for the delivery of electronic monitoring is held solely by HM Prison and Probation Service.’”
This new clause would ensure that the probation service oversees electronic monitoring, and that prison officers would not be responsible for fitting tags unless tagging contracts are brought into the public sector.
New clause 3—Unpaid work requirements: community work—
“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 9 (Restriction on imposing unpaid work requirement), after sub-paragraph (1)(b) insert—
‘(c) that the unpaid work is work undertaken for a non-profit organisation, social enterprise, voluntary organisation or local authority.”’
This new clause would prohibit private sector involvement in unpaid work as part of a community sentence.
New clause 4—Probation capacity: independent report—
“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, a report must be published and laid before Parliament by HM Inspectorate of Probation (‘the Inspectorate’) determining whether there is adequate capacity in the Probation Service to meet provisions of this Act anticipated to increase levels of demand on the Probation Service.
(2) If the report under subsection (1) determines that the capacity of the Probation Service is inadequate, provisions of this Act anticipated to increase levels of demand on the Probation Service may not come into force until a further report determines that the Probation Service has adequate capacity.
(3) Following a report under subsection (1), the Inspectorate must publish and lay before Parliament a further report, no less than once every twelve months, determining whether there is adequate capacity in the Probation Service.
(4) If a report under subsections (1) or (3) determines that the capacity of the Probation Service is inadequate, the Inspectorate may direct that a prioritisation framework must be issued to the areas in which the capacity concerns apply, in order to provide local services with guidance about which activities to deprioritise.
(5) The Secretary of State must, within two weeks of the laying of a report under subsections (1) or (3) with a finding of inadequate capacity, make a statement to Parliament setting out how probation capacity will be increased to an adequate level.”
This new clause would ensure that the provisions of this Bill likely to increase demand on the Probation Service cannot be implemented until HM Inspectorate of Probation determines that there is adequate capacity to address those demands, and would enable the Inspectorate to trigger the issuing of a prioritisation framework to help local areas to identify which activities to deprioritise.
New clause 5—Further release after recall: offenders eligible for risk-assessed release—
“(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 255C, after subsection (3) insert—
(3A) Subsection (3B) applies if the basis for P’s recall is that P has breached a license condition, civil order, or criminal order in relation to the victim of a crime for which P is serving a sentence.
(3B) Where this subsection applies—
(a) at the end of the period of 56 days beginning with the day on which P returns to custody, P must be considered for referral for executive release rather than automatic release;
(b) if P is referred for consideration for executive release, the Secretary of State may release P again on licence, and
(c) if P is not referred for consideration for executive release, or if P is denied executive release, the Secretary of State must refer P’s case to the Board.”
This new clause, along with amendments 22 and 23, would ensure that offenders who have been recalled to prison on the basis of a breach of license condition or of an order related to the victim are risk-assessed, to determine whether it is safe for them to be re-released into the community, rather than being automatically released after 56 days.
New clause 6—Lifetime driving ban for death by dangerous or careless driving and related offences—
“(1) This section applies where a person is convicted of an offence under sections 1, 2B, 3ZB, 3ZC or 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
(2) Where this section applies, notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 8 of the Sentencing Code (Driving disqualification), the driver must be banned from driving for life.”
This new clause would mean that anyone who causes death by dangerous or careless driving (or related offences) would be banned from driving for life.
New clause 7—Under-18 anonymity for cases involving serious crime—
“(1) This section applies where a person (‘P’) aged under 18—
(a) has been convicted of an offence; and
(b) will receive a custodial sentence of four or more years.
(2) Where this section applies, prior to delivering sentencing remarks, the court must lift any reporting restrictions identifying P.
(3) This section applies notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter IV of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.”
This new clause would require reporting restrictions to be lifted at the point of sentencing for young offenders who have received a sentence of four or more years.
New clause 8—Victim personal statements—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue revised guidance on the content of victim personal statements.
(2) The revised guidance issued under subsection (1) must stipulate that when making a victim personal statement, a victim shall be able to say anything they wish about the defendant, provided it is not contrary to any statutory limitations on free speech, makes allegations of untried criminal conduct or is disorderly language.
(3) The court must disregard any prejudicial comments made during a victim personal statement.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review how to make victim personal statements less restrictive and clarify what can be included.
New clause 9—Duty to collect and publish data on sentencing—
“(1) Within 24 hours of the conclusion of the passing of a sentence, the relevant court must provide HM Courts and Tribunals Service (‘HMCTS’) with information regarding—
(a) the offence category;
(b) the sentence length; and
(c) such information about the sentenced individual as the Secretary of State may specify in regulations, but which must include—
(i) nationality,
(ii) sex at birth,
(iii) country of birth,
(iv) method of entry to the United Kingdom,
(v) visa route,
(vi) visa status, and
(vii) asylum status.
(2) HMCTS must collect and record the information set out in subsection (1) in a safe and secure manner.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish statistics on the information set out in subsection (1) no less than once every three months.”
This new clause would require HMCTS to collect data and other information on sentencing and sentenced offenders, and would require the Government to publish statistics on that data every three months.
New clause 10—Court transcripts of sentencing remarks—
“(1) All transcripts of sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court must be published within two sitting days of being delivered.
(2) All published sentencing remarks must be made freely available, including online.”
This new clause would require all sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court to be published and made available to all.
New clause 11—Prohibited steps orders—
“(1) The Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 8 (Child arrangements orders and other orders with respect to children), in the closing words of subsection (3), after ‘include’ insert ‘proceedings in the Crown Court or Magistrate’s Court under section 10A or’.
(3) After section 10 insert—
‘10A Duty of a sentencing court to make a prohibited steps order in respect of sexual offences
(1) This section applies where an offender has parental responsibility for a child and the offender is convicted of a sexual offence involving any child victim.
(2) Where this section applies, a court must make a prohibited steps order when sentencing the offender.
(3) A prohibited steps order made under this section must—
(a) cease to have effect if an offender is acquitted on appeal for the offence in relation to which the prohibited steps order was imposed; and
(b) continue to have effect during an offender’s licence period after release for the relevant offence.
(4) A prohibited steps order made under this section is to be treated for the purposes of section 31F(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (Proceedings and decisions) as if it were made by the family court.’”
This new clause would require the courts to make a “prohibited steps order” (PSO) – preventing a parent from taking a specific action or set of actions regarding their child – after the conviction of a person with parental responsibilities for a sexual offence involving a child victim.
New clause 12—Unduly lenient sentences scheme: victims—
“(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 36 (Reviews of sentencing), after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) An application may be made to the Attorney General to review any sentence passed by a Crown Court under the terms set out in this section.
(2B) An application under subsection (2A) must be made within—
(a) one year of the sentence being passed, if the application is made by—
(i) the victim of the offence for which the sentence was passed; or
(ii) the next of kin of a deceased victim or a victim who lacks capacity; or
(b) 56 days of the sentence being passed, if made by any other person.
(2C) The Crown Prosecution Service must write to—
(a) any victim of any offence for which a sentence has been passed in the Crown Court; or
(b) the next of kin of any deceased victim;
within 10 working days of a sentence being passed, to provide details of the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme, the application process for the scheme, and the deadlines set out in subsection (2B) of this section.’”
This new clause would extend the deadline for applications to the Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme from 28 days to 56 days, or for a year for victims of crime (or the next of kin of deceased victims). It would also require the CPS to notify victims about the scheme.
New clause 13—Sexual offences: offender personality disorder pathway—
“(1) The Prison Rules 1999 are amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 20 (Health services), after sub-paragraph (1), insert—
‘(1A) Provision under subsection (1) must include access, for all eligible prisoners serving custodial sentences for sexual offences, to services provided under the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway.’”
This new clause would require the Government to provide access to the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway to all eligible prisoners serving sentences for sexual offences.
New clause 14—Sexual offences: chemical suppression—
“Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on how most effectively to introduce mandatory chemical suppression for certain individuals serving sentences for sexual offences, with appropriate legal and clinical safeguards.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish a report on mandatory chemical suppression for certain sex offenders.
New clause 15—Sentencing Council: abolition—
“(1) The Sentencing Council (established under section 118 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009) is abolished.
(2) The Secretary of State may prepare—
(a) sentencing guidelines which may be general in nature or limited to a particular offence, particular category of offence or particular category of offender;
(b) sentencing guidelines about the discharge of a court's duty under section 73 of the Sentencing Code (reduction in sentences for guilty pleas); and
(c) sentencing guidelines about the application of any rule of law as to the totality of sentences.
(3) The Secretary of State may prepare sentencing guidelines about any other matter.
(4) When developing sentencing guidelines, the Secretary of State must—
(a) promote understanding of, and public confidence in, the sentencing and criminal justice system;
(b) consult Parliament on all draft guidelines; and
(c) publish the reasons for proposing any guidelines that could result in an offender receiving a shorter sentence than that set out in an Act of Parliament.
(5) The Secretary of State may report, from time to time, on the impact of sentencing guidelines on sentencing practice.
(6) The Secretary of State must monitor—
(a) the application of the sentencing guidelines; and
(b) the impact on victims of sentencing decisions.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.’
This new clause would abolish the Sentencing Council, give the Secretary of State the power to publish Sentencing guidelines, and impose various requirements linked to consultation and monitoring.
New clause 16—Whole life order: murder of a police or prison officer—
“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 21 (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence for murder etc), in sub-paragraph (2)(c), after ‘duty,’, insert ‘or if the motivation for the murder was connected to the police officer or prison officer’s current or former duties,’”
This new clause would expand the circumstances in which it is appropriate to apply a whole life order for murdering a prison or police officer, to include murder motivated by the victim's current or former duties.
New clause 17—Management of offenders: devolution to Wales—
“(1) Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) In Paragraph 175 (Prisons and offender management)—
(a) omit sub-paragraph (2); and
(b) in sub-paragraph (3), omit ‘probation’
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.”
This new clause seeks to devolve probation services and offender management to Wales, by removing it from the list of reserved matters in the Government of Wales Act 2006.
New clause 18—Reporting on use of electronic monitoring requirements—
“In the Sentencing Code, in Part 14 of Schedule 9 (electronic monitoring), after paragraph 35 insert—
‘36(1) The Secretary of State must as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each calendar year prepare a report on the imposition of the electronic monitoring requirements during that year.
(2) The report must set out—
(a) the number of electronic monitoring requirements imposed during the year;
(b) the number of electronic monitoring requirements imposed on offenders under 18 during the year;
(c) the rate of compliance with the electronic monitoring requirements during the year;
(d) the cost of administering the electronic monitoring requirements during the year;
(e) the average amount of time taken during the year to activate a device used for the purposes of an electronic monitoring requirement after such a requirement took effect;
(f) the number of devices used for the purposes of the electronic monitoring requirements that malfunctioned during the year.
(3) The Secretary of State must—
(a) publish the report, and
(b) lay a copy of the published report before Parliament.’”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report each calendar year on the use of electronic monitoring requirements. The report must include the number of electronic monitoring requirements imposed each year, the rate of compliance and the cost of administering the requirements each year. The report must be laid before Parliament.
New clause 19—Re-sentencing those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection—
“(1) The Lord Chancellor must make arrangements to ensure that every person serving an IPP sentence, whether in prison or the community, has been re-sentenced in accordance with this section within 24 months of the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) The Lord Chancellor must establish a committee to provide advice regarding the discharge of the Lord Chancellor’s duty under subsection (1).
(3) The committee established by virtue of subsection (2) must—
(a) include a judge nominated by the Lord Chief Justice; and
(b) within 12 months of being appointed, lay a report before Parliament on the process of re-sentencing individuals serving an IPP sentence.
(4) The Lord Chancellor may disband the committee established under subsection (2) after a report has been laid under subsection (3)(b).
(5) The Lord Chancellor must disband the committee once all those serving IPP sentences have been re-sentenced under this section.
(6) Subject to subsection (8), a Crown Court designated by the Lord Chancellor (“the re-sentencing court”) must re-sentence a person serving an IPP sentence in relation to the offence or offences for which they were previously sentenced to an IPP sentence.
(7) The re-sentencing court must not impose a sentence more severe than the notional determinate sentence upon which the IPP sentence was based.
(8) The re-sentencing court may confirm the IPP sentence only if—
(a) the re-sentencing court determines that, at the date of the original sentencing, ignoring the alternative of an IPP sentence, the person serving the IPP sentence might appropriately have received a whole life order under section 321 of the Sentencing Act 2020; and
(b) at the date of re-sentencing, there is a substantial risk of P committing a further offence if released.
(9) The re-sentencing court may only confirm an IPP sentence where the judge hearing the matter is authorised to try cases of murder.
(10) The re-sentencing court may recommend that the re-sentenced person may be subject to an extended licence, if the re-sentencing court considers this appropriate.
(11) In relation to the exercise of the power in subsection (6)—
(a) that power is to be treated as a power to re-sentence under section 402(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020;
(b) the Sentencing Code applies for the purposes of this section (and, accordingly, it does not matter that a person serving an IPP sentence was convicted of an offence before 1 December 2020).
(12) The Lord Chancellor must, at the end of every twelve-month period beginning with the day this section comes into force, lay before Parliament a report that sets out—
(a) the number of persons who have been re-sentenced under subsection (6);
(b) the number of persons who have had their sentences confirmed under subsection (8).
(13) For the purposes of this section, “IPP sentence” means—
(a) a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; or
(b) a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; or
(c) a sentence of indeterminate imprisonment or detention passed as a result of sections 219 or 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006;
(14) This section comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would implement the recommendation of the Justice Select Committee’s 2022 Report that there should be a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals, and to establish a time-limited expert committee, including a member of the judiciary, to advise on the practical implementation of such an exercise.
New clause 20—Provision for a prisoner to apply to the Parole Board for a licence termination review following expiry of the qualifying period on annual basis—
“(1) The Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 31A (imprisonment or detention for public protection: termination of licences), after subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) Where—
(a) the prisoner has been released on licence under this Chapter;
(b) the qualifying period has expired; and
(c) if his case has been considered for termination previously by the Parole Board and a period of at least twelve months has expired since the disposal of that application,
the prisoner may make an application to the Parole Board under this subsection.’
(3) In subsection (4)—
(a) after ‘reference’ insert ‘or application’;
after ‘subsection (3)’ insert ‘or (3A)’.”
This new clause would allow a prisoner whose licence has not been terminated by the Parole Board two or three years after their first release to make an application annually to the Parole Board for termination. This would increase the opportunities for licences to be terminated.
New clause 21—Further release after recall: requirement for a review—
“(1) Before sections 27 to 30 come into force, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the effectiveness of Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025, including but not limited to—
(a) an evaluation of its impact on—
(i) public protection;
(ii) rehabilitation;
(iii) reconviction;
(iv) probation capacity and resource; and
(b) an assessment of how any learning from the evaluation specified in subsection (1)(a) will be applied to the implementation of the provisions of sections 27 to 30 of this Act.
(2) A copy of the review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause provides an opportunity for the current legislation for recall to be reviewed prior to new legislation being rolled out, to ensure it is effective and adequately protects the public.
New clause 22—Review of sentence following a change in law—
“(1) Where a person is serving or subject to a sentence imposed for an offence, and—
(a) the offence has been abolished, or
(b) there has been a change in the law which materially alters the sentence that would be imposed for the same offence following that change in the law,
that person may apply to the sentencing court, or to such other court as may be prescribed, for a review of the sentence.
(2) On such an application, the court may—
(a) quash the sentence and resentence the person in accordance with the existing law; or
(b) make such other order as necessary in the interests of justice.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the procedure and eligibility criteria for applications under this section.”
This new clause would allow a person still serving a sentence under a law that has changed to seek review or resentencing in line with the existing law.
New clause 23—Review of the impact of a change in the law on unspent convictions—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report reviewing—
(a) the effect of changes in the criminal law, whether legislative or judicial, on those serving sentences for offences that would attract a different sentence following the subsequent changes to the criminal law; and
(b) the adequacy of existing mechanisms for addressing any perceived injustice arising from such changes.
(2) The Secretary of State must thereafter lay a further report under subsection (1) every three years.
(3) A report made under this section must include—
(a) recommendations for legislative or administrative steps to prevent any instances of injustice arising from changes in the law; and
(b) data on the number of persons serving sentences in the scenario set out in subsection (1)(a) and, of those, the number who remain imprisoned.”
This new clause would create a statutory duty for the Government to review, on a recurring basis, how changes to the law affect those already convicted or sentenced.
New clause 24—Sentencing Council—
“The Sentencing Council of England and Wales is abolished.”
New clause 25—Deportation of foreign criminals—
“(1) A foreign criminal who has been sentenced to—
(a) a custodial sentence of at least 6 months; or
(b) a community sentence of at least 6 months,
must be the subject of an immediate deportation order, subject to subsection (2) below.
(2) The Secretary of State may determine, in exceptional cases, that a deportation order under subsection (1) does not apply.
(3) In this section, ‘foreign criminal’ means a person who—
(a) is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen, and
(b) is convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence.”
This new clause is intended to replace Clause 42. It would apply an automatic deportation order to foreign criminals sentenced to at least six months’ imprisonment or a six month community sentence.
New clause 26—Criminal cases review—
“(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 36 (Reviews of sentencing), insert—
‘Part IVB
CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW (PUBLIC PETITION)
36A Scope of this Part
(1) A case to which this Part applies may be referred to the Court of Appeal under section 2 below.
(2) Subject to Rules of Court, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under section 36B shall be exercised by the criminal division of the Court, and references to the Court of Appeal in this Part shall be construed as references to that division.
(3) This Part applies to any case—
(a) of a description specified in an order under this section; or
(b) in which sentence is passed on a person—
(i) for an offence triable only on indictment; or
(ii) for an offence of a description specified in an order under this section.
(4) The Secretary of State may by order provide that this section shall apply to any case of a description specified in the order or to any case in which sentence is passed on a person for an offence triable either way of a description specified in the order.
(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) In this Part, “sentence” has the same meaning as in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, except that it does not include an interim hospital order under Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983, and “sentencing” shall be construed accordingly.
(7) In its application to Northern Ireland, this section shall have effect subject to the modifications set out in subsections (8) to (11).
(8) Subsection (2) shall not apply to Northern Ireland.
(9) In this section—
“offence triable only on indictment” means an offence punishable only on conviction on indictment;
“offence triable either way” means an offence punishable on conviction on indictment or on summary conviction; and
any reference in subsection (4) to the Secretary of State must be construed as a reference to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.
(10) For subsection (5), in Northern Ireland an order under subsection (4) shall be a statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (and not a statutory instrument), and any such order shall be subject to negative resolution (within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954).
(11) References in subsection (6) to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983 shall be respectively construed as references to Part I of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 and Part III of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.
36B Criminal cases review (public petition)
(1) If it appears to any adult British citizen aged 18 or over—
(a) that the sentencing of a person in a proceeding in the Crown Court (“the person sentenced”) has been unduly lenient or unduly harsh; and
(b) that the case is one to which section 36A applies,
that British citizen (“the petitioner”) may refer the case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (“the Commission”) for it to review the sentencing of the person sentenced, in accordance with section 36C below, and if the Commission refers the case to the Court of Appeal, upon such a reference the Court of Appeal may—
(i) quash any sentence passed on the person sentenced; and
(ii) in place of it pass such sentence as they think appropriate for the case and as the lower court had power to pass when dealing with the person sentenced,
provided that the petitioner has filed the reference with the Commission in writing, signed by at least 500 signatures (“the co-petitioners”) including his own.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations stipulate the information and form that the petitioner must provide when filing the reference.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the condition specified in paragraph (a) of that subsection may be satisfied whether or not it appears that the judge—
(a) erred in law as to his powers of sentencing; or
(b) failed to comply with a mandatory sentence requirement under section 399(b) or (c) of the Sentencing Code.
(4) For the purposes of this Part, any two or more sentences are to be treated as passed in the same proceeding if they would be so treated for the purposes of section 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.
(5) Where a reference under this section relates to a minimum term order made under section 321 of the Sentencing Code, the Court of Appeal shall not, in deciding what order under that section is appropriate for the case, make any allowance for the fact that the person to whom it relates is being sentenced for a second time.
(6) No judge shall sit as a member of the Court of Appeal on the hearing of, or shall determine any application in proceedings incidental or preliminary to, a reference under this section of a sentence passed by himself.
(7) Where the Court of Appeal has concluded its review of a case referred to it under this section, and given its judgment thereon, the Court of Appeal, the petitioner or the person sentenced may refer a point of law involved in any sentence passed on the person sentenced to the Supreme Court for its opinion, and the Supreme Court shall consider the point and give its opinion on it accordingly, and either remit the case to the Court of Appeal to be dealt with or itself deal with the case.
(8) A reference under subsection (6) shall be made only with the leave of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court and leave shall not be granted unless it is certified by the Court of Appeal that the point of law is of general public importance and it appears to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court (as the case may be) that the point is one which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court.
(9) For the purpose of dealing with a case under this section, the Supreme Court may exercise any powers of the Court of Appeal.
(10) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland—
(a) subsection (2)(b) shall read as if for the words after “failed to” there were substituted “impose a sentence required by—
(i) Article 70(2) of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004,
(ii) paragraph 2(4) or (5) of Schedule 2 to the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006,
(iii) Article 13 or 14 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, or
(iv) section 7(2) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015”.
(b) the references to sections 11 and 35(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 shall be read as references to sections 10(2) and 33(1) of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980, respectively; and
(c) the reference in subsection (3A) to a minimum term order made under section 321 of the Sentencing Code shall be read as a reference to an order under Article 5(1) of the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001.
36C The Commission
(1) The Commission under section 36B is the same body as that established under section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 and the provisions of section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 shall apply to the role of the Commission under this Part.
(2) Sections 9, 10, and 12A to 25 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 shall apply to this Part.
(3) The Commission must review all cases referred to it within 8 weeks of receiving any such referral and must, within that time, make its decision.
(4) If the Commission decides that the case should be referred to the Court of Appeal by reason of an unduly harsh sentence then, immediately upon receipt of the referral, the Court of Appeal must make an order that the person sentenced be released on temporary licence (“ROTL”) until further order of the court, and the Court of Appeal must also determine suitable bail conditions, if any and the person sentenced must remain ROTL until the Court of Appeal has determined the referral.”’
New clause 27—Foreign criminals: stalking—
‘(1) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 32 (Automatic deportation) insert—
“32A Deportation following stalking offences
(1) This section applies where a foreign criminal—
(a) has been convicted of an offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; and
(b) is subject to a deportation order under this Act.
(2) Where this section applies, prior to deportation, a risk assessment must be prepared to assess the likelihood after deportation of the foreign criminal—
(a) committing an offence which, were it to be committed in England or Wales, would constitute a further offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; or
(b) contacting or seeking to contact the victim of the offence for which the foreign criminal was convicted in England or Wales.
(3) A risk assessment prepared under this section must be shared, subject to the requirements of the Data Protection Act 2018, with the relevant authorities in the country to which the foreign criminal will be deported.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.’”
This new clause would require the preparation of a risk assessment for any foreign criminal being deported after a stalking conviction, and for the assessment to be shared with the authorities in the country to which the offender is returning.
New clause 28—Gambling treatment requirement—
“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.
(2) In section 201 (community order: community order requirements table), after the entry in the table relating to the alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement, insert—
‘(3) In Schedule 9 (community orders and suspended sentence orders: requirements), after Part 12 insert—
“Part 12a
GAMBLING TREATMENT REQUIREMENT
26A(1) In this Code “gambling treatment requirement”, in relation to a relevant order, means a requirement that during a period specified in the order the offender must seek gambling addiction treatment through the National Health Service.
(2) In this paragraph—
(a) “gambling treatment”, in relation to an offender, means—
(i) treatment provided through a specialist NHS gambling service or gambling clinic; or
(ii) another form of NHS treatment determined by a qualified clinician to have the best chance of reducing or eliminating the offender’s gambling addiction; and
(b) ”qualified clinician” means an NHS clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist with appropriate professional qualifications.
(3) Sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) apply to a relevant order which imposes a gambling treatment requirement.
(4) The order may specify separate periods comprising the period specified under sub-paragraph (1).
(5) For each treatment period, the order may specify the treatment provider but must not otherwise specify the nature of the treatment.
(6) In sub-paragraph (5), “treatment period” means—
(a) if the order specifies separate periods under sub-paragraph (4), any of those periods;
(b) otherwise, the period specified under sub-paragraph (1).”’”
This new clause would introduce a new gambling treatment requirement, requiring an offender to seek NHS gambling addiction treatment as part of a community order.
New clause 29—Gambling addiction: support for offenders—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on how the Government will ensure that—
(a) sentencing courts treat gambling disorder as a mental disorder for the purposes of section 232 of the Sentencing Code;
(b) sentencing courts have access to appropriate clinical advice on the impact of a gambling disorder on offending behaviour, where relevant; and
(c) offenders have access to treatment and peer support for gambling disorder, both in prison and in the community.
(2) Within twelve months of the publication of a report under subsection (1) above and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a further report on progress against the objectives set out in subsection (1).”
This new clause would require the Government to report to Parliament on how it will improve support for offenders with gambling addictions and ensure that gambling disorder is recognised as a mental health condition by sentencing courts.
New clause 30—Re-sentencing those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection—
“(1) The Lord Chancellor must make arrangements for, and relating to, the re-sentencing of all prisoners serving IPP sentences within 18 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) Those arrangements must include arrangements relating to the establishment of a committee to provide advice regarding the discharge of the Lord Chancellor’s duty under subsection (1).
(3) The committee established by virtue of subsection (2) must include a judge nominated by the Lord Chief Justice.
(4) A court that imposed an IPP sentence has the power to re-sentence the prisoner in relation to the original offence.
(5) But the court may not impose a sentence that is a heavier penalty than the sentence that was imposed for the original offence.
(6) In relation to the exercise of the power in subsection (4)—
(a) that power is to be treated as a power to re-sentence under the Sentencing Code (see section 402(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020);
(b) the Code applies for the purposes of this section (and, accordingly, it does not matter that a person serving an IPP sentence was convicted of an offence before 1 December 2020).
(7) In this section—
‘IPP sentence’ means a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of that Act (including such a sentence of imprisonment or detention passed as a result of section 219 or 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);
‘original offence’ means the offence in relation to which the IPP sentence was imposed.
(8) This section comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would implement the recommendation of the Justice Committee’s 2022 Report that there should be a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals, and to establish a time-limited expert committee, including a member of the judiciary, to advise on the practical implementation of such an exercise.
New clause 31—Use of funds raised through income reduction orders—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits and costs of directing the funds raised from income reduction orders into a fund that provides support for victims.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of using the monies raised through income reduction orders to fund support for victims.
New clause 32—Probation caseloads—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations to commence the provisions in this Act, establish maximum caseload limits for probation officers supervising individuals subject to—
(a) licence conditions;
(b) community orders; or
(c) any other form of court-imposed supervision by the probation service.
(2) The Secretary of State must, each year, lay before Parliament a report on compliance with the caseload limits set under this section.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set maximum caseloads for probation before implementation of the Act, and to report annually on compliance.
New clause 33—Access to rehabilitation and support services—
“(1) The probation service must ensure all individuals subject to licence conditions, community orders, or other court-imposed supervision have access to—
(a) NHS mental health and substance misuse services,
(b) education, training and employment support, and
(c) approved behaviour change or offender behaviour programmes.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, each year, a report on the availability and use of the services provided under subsection (1).”
This new clause would require the probation service to ensure people under its supervision can access mental health and substance misuse services; education, training and support; and approved behaviour change or offender management programmes, and to report annually on the availability and uptake of those services.
New clause 34—Digital systems for tracking offender progress—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the benefits and costs of implementing a digital sentence management system for prisoners and individuals who are subject to supervision by the probation service.
(2) The assessment must consider the following potential functions of a sentence management system—
(a) tracking offender progress,
(b) providing for the sharing of information between the courts, probation service, and other relevant agencies, subject to the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018,
(c) monitoring compliance with rehabilitation programmes, and
(d) any other functions that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of implementing a digital sentence management system for prisoners and individuals subject to supervision by the probation service.
New clause 35—Specialist teams for high-risk or complex offenders—
“(1) The probation service must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of establishing specialist probation teams to supervise—
(a) high-risk offenders,
(b) offenders with complex mental health needs,
(c) offenders with substance misuse needs, and
(d) young offenders who are transitioning to adult supervision.
(2) The assessment must consider the potential benefits of specialist probation teams having lower average caseloads per probation officer.
(3) The assessment must consider the potential arrangements for specialist probation teams accessing support from other relevant agencies.
(4) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under this section before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the probation service to assess the potential benefits of establishing specialist probation teams to supervise offenders who are high-risk; have complex mental health or substance misuse needs; and young offenders transitioning to adult supervision.
New clause 36—Domestic abuse aggravated offences—
“(1) A court must treat an offence committed in England and Wales as domestic abuse aggravated, if—
(a) the offender and the victim are personally connected to each other; and
(b) the offence involves behaviour which constitutes domestic abuse.
(2) In this section—
(a) ‘domestic abuse’ has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and
(b) ‘personally connected’ has the meaning given by section 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”
This new clause would require a court to treat a domestic abuse offence as aggravated.
New clause 37—Rehabilitative programmes for offences relating to violence against women and girls—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes about women and girls, for individuals sentenced for—
(a) assault;
(b) battery; or
(c) actual bodily harm
when the victim is a woman or girl.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under this section before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes about women and girls, for individuals sentenced for certain offences.
New clause 38—Screening for traumatic brain injuries—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential costs and benefits of screening all prisoners for traumatic brain injuries at the start of their custodial sentence.
(2) The assessment should consider—
(a) how screening for traumatic brain injuries could inform the management of a prisoner’s sentence,
(b) the health services and rehabilitation programmes available for prisoners with traumatic brain injuries, and
(c) any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment made under this section before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of introducing standardised screening for traumatic brain injuries for prisoners starting a custodial sentence.
New clause 39—Suspension of driving licences during bail for driving related offences—
“(1) This section applies where an individual has been granted bail in respect of one of the following offences—
(a) dangerous or careless driving;
(b) drink driving; or
(c) drug driving.
(2) The court may suspend the driving licence of the individual, pending the outcome of any criminal proceedings.”
This new clause would allow the court to suspend the driving licence of an individual charged for certain driving offences, pending the outcome of the trial.
New clause 40—Access to rehabilitation programmes and education for individuals held on remand—
“(1) Where an individual is held in custodial remand pending sentencing, the probation service must provide access to the same rehabilitative programmes that are available to prisoners after sentencing.
(2) Where an individual is held in custodial demand pending trial, the probation service must provide access to the same—
(a) education;
(b) therapy; and
(c) any other support that the probation service deems appropriate,
that is available to prisoners after sentencing.”
This new clause would allow prisoners held on remand to access rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support before the start of their sentence.
New clause 41—No presumption of suspended sentence—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen.”
New clause 42—Tagging of offenders receiving suspended sentences—
“Where a court has imposed a suspended sentence, it must impose a condition that an offender must be subject to electronic monitoring for the duration of that sentence.”
New clause 43—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 2)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is an offence under section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 or section 89 (1) of the Police Act 1996.”
New clause 44—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 3)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, either involves possession of or threatening with an article with a blade or point or an offensive weapon.”
New clause 45—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 4)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is aggravated by section 68A of the Sentencing Act 2020 (assaults on those providing a public service etc).”
New clause 46—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 5)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has committed or been convicted of three other offences in the 12 months preceding the offence.”
New clause 47—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 6)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has committed 10 or more other previous offences at the time of the offence or at the time of conviction for the offence.”
New clause 48—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 7)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has previously received a suspended sentence order for the same offence.”
New clause 49—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 8)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has previously received a custodial sentence for the same offence.”
New clause 50—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 9)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, has a mandatory minimum sentence.”
New clause 51—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 10)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, involves a firearm or ammunition including but not limited to the Firearms Act 1968 and the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.”
New clause 52—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 11)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is one of burglary.”
New clause 53—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 12)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, has a connection to terrorism, including but not limited to offences relating to terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Terrorism Act 2006 and the Explosive Substances Act 1883.”
New clause 54—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 13)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is one that falls under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme under sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.”
New clause 55—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 14)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has breached previous suspended sentence orders three or more times, either by failing to comply with the requirements of the orders or by re-offending during the order’s operational period.”
New clause 56—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 15)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, was committed while the offender was subject to a supervision order.”
New clause 57—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 16)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, was committed while the offender was on licence, or subject to supervision, under Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (release, licences, supervision and recall).”
New clause 58—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 17)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is an offence under section 6(1) or (2) of the Bail Act 1976 (failure to surrender to custody).”
New clause 59—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 18)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has a history of poor compliance with court orders.”
New clause 60—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 19)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender is being sentenced for three or more offences.”
New clause 61—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 20)—
“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has already been convicted of committing the same offence three or more times.”
New clause 62—Expiry—
“This Act expires at the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the day on which it is passed.”
Schedules 1 to 4 stand part.
Government new schedule 1—Sentence with fixed licence period in Scotland or Northern Ireland: consequential provision—
Government amendment 21.
Esther McVey
I oppose the whole idea of forcing courts to give suspended sentences when they should be sending offenders to prison. We all know that it is hard to get sent to prison in the first place, and judges and magistrates do not send people to prison lightly. In fact, they do not send people to prison enough, as far as I can see, so it is extremely worrying that we are to force them to send even fewer people to prison. My amendments seek to address this issue.
We cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, so it will not be possible to transform this disastrous Bill into a good one—all we can seek to do today is make it less bad. Hon. Members should be under no illusion: the Bill takes a sledgehammer to our justice system, and will dismantle law and order in this country. To call the Bill a “sentencing” Bill makes a mockery of us all. It should be called the “avoid a sentence” Bill, because it is a slap in the face to victims and will embolden offenders, who will quite literally be laughing all the way to their next crime.
Let me put on record my support for amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), particularly in relation to the abolition of the Sentencing Council and the deportation of foreign criminals, but because of time constraints I will speak only to those amendments tabled in my name.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Lady suggests that the Bill will bring law and order into question, but as a former prison officer I would say it was the previous Government running our prison system to a boiling point that nearly brought law and order crashing down, with fewer than 100 bed spaces available last summer. It might be poignant for Conservative Members to reflect a little during the debate on what they did to His Majesty’s Prison Service while they were in office—and while I was serving.
Esther McVey
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, although I would point out that under the last Government three prisons were built—HMP Five Wells, HMP Fosse Way and HMP Millsike—which added an extra 8,500 places. Three further prisons will also be built.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The active management of the prison service at those levels of occupation was of course hard work, but that hard work was absolutely necessary, and far preferable to simply taking a view that we will not have all those criminals in prison at all. The reality is that what we are doing now is much worse.
Esther McVey
I agree with my right hon. Friend. This disgrace of a Bill will not be sending people to prison, and at the same time it will be letting people out of prison.
Amendments 46, 47, 51 and 52 would change the length of sentences that qualify for the “get out of jail free” suspended sentences to those of less than 12 months and only before any credit is given for a guilty plea. Sentences of 12 months or more are obviously given for more serious offences. As the Bill stands, I understand that those for whom a sentence of 18 months would be appropriate could hit the jackpot, because the credit of a guilty plea will be taken into account. That will reduce the sentence to 12 months; therefore, those people will qualify for a suspended sentence under this Bill. Sentences of those lengths are not given for nothing, so I hope the Government will reflect on my amendments, which would reduce the maximum sentence that has to be suspended.
I did a quick scan of my local papers to see who had got an 18-month sentence, which could now become a suspended sentence. They included a lady who caused the unnecessary suffering of an animal and was in possession of a samurai sword, and a lady who glassed a pregnant friend in the face. Another sentence was for coercive and controlling behaviour, and that person also got a five-year restraining order. They could now all get suspended sentences.
The Bill currently states that the presumption in favour of a suspended sentence need not apply
“if the court is of the opinion that making the order would put a particular individual at significant risk of physical or psychological harm.”
Amendments 48 and 53 would extend that to include the public—who are, after all, a collection of individuals. They, too, deserve protecting. If the court is concerned that an offender is likely to be a danger to the public, it should absolutely have the right to ensure that that offender goes to prison, not back into the community on a suspended sentence.
Amendments 49 and 54 would change the risk level for not imposing an immediate custodial sentence by removing the word “significant”. I would have thought that any identifiable risk should be covered. We are talking about protecting people’s lives; we should not be playing a game of Russian roulette with them. Ironically, it seems that the Sentencing Council has seen things similarly, as it has previously listed this as a reason not reason to suspend a sentence.
Amendments 50 and 55 would mean that anyone not being sent to prison as a result of this change, who otherwise would have been, would have to be given the maximum length of suspended sentence. In other words, the sentence would hang over them for the longest possible time and they should not be given a shorter period, as could be the case with normal suspended prison sentences.
New clause 42 would ensure that those given the suspended sentences are electronically tagged throughout. Using a tag to monitor someone’s location out of prison could make them think twice about reoffending, and if they were to reoffend it could make detection and resentencing much easier.
Other amendments concern the type of offending that we are allowing to be included in this ridiculous prison avoidance legislation. So many offences will be covered by this exemption that is hard to know where to start. This has to be addressed, and I sincerely hope that the Government will accept my amendments. Most people will believe that we have completely lost the plot if we allow there to be some offences for which prison sentences cannot generally be handed down. New clause 44 would exclude knife crime from being one of those offences.
I cannot believe that I have to table an amendment to prevent a whole load of criminals who carry knives from being kept out of prison—yet without my amendment, that is what this Bill will do. Does no one anywhere think through what is being proposed and how it will affect public safety? It would be completely disgraceful for the Government ever to claim to be serious about tackling knife crime when, under the Bill, the presumption will be that many people carrying a knife will no longer be sent to prison. How will that help to prevent the loss of life on our streets?
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point, because many of us will have examples in our constituencies of families who have been tragically affected by knife crime. Some go on to do amazing work to educate young people, but at the same time it is important that where a sentence has been given, it is carried out and that that deterrent is in place. Yet again, we are seeing the removal of deterrent by the Labour Government.
Esther McVey
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that this Bill removes a deterrent.
Repeat knife offenders are supposed to get a mandatory immediate custodial sentence of six months, minimum—not a guarantee, effectively, that they will evade prison because their sentence is 12 months or less. Why would anyone think twice about carrying a knife if they know that they will not see the inside of a cell, and that the courts will be powerless to send them to prison?
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I understand and appreciate the effects of knife crime; we have all had cases in our constituencies that demonstrate the devastation that it causes. Does the right hon. Member agree that we should focus on rehabilitation, and on preventing people from carrying knives? Education on this issue is important. It is the way forward in ensuring that knife crime is decreased.
Esther McVey
Rehabilitation is key, but so is prison. Prison for people who have committed crimes is essential. Prisons are about removing a danger from society.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
We hear a lot about rehabilitation from Labour Members, and we hear a lot about recidivism. The most likely spur for recidivism is letting people out who will continue to do harm. We will be told by the Government that those people are being let out on licence, so will my right hon. Friend invite the Minister to predict how many people will be recalled while they are on licence? The Justice Secretary has already described that number as being too high, but will it rise as a result of these measures?
Esther McVey
My right hon. Friend makes his point clear. The Minister was listening, and I hope that he will answer that question in his remarks.
People cannot seriously think it is acceptable for those who commit offences involving firearms or ammunition, or even those who commit terror-related offences, to be eligible for a suspended sentence, but as things stand, those offences would be covered by the Bill. My new clauses 51 and 53 would amend that ludicrous position, and new clause 52 would exclude burglars. We do not see nearly enough burglars in court, because of a lack of detection of their crimes, so the ones we do see in court should routinely go to prison, not be spared jail, as they would be under these measures.
New clauses 43 and 45 would mean that those assaulting our dedicated police officers or emergency workers would not be eligible for suspended sentences; they are eligible for them under this Bill, and that is an absolute disgrace. When the Government were in opposition, they made a huge noise about how those who assault emergency workers, police officers and prison officers should be sent to prison. For example, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) introduced a private Member’s Bill that became the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, under which the maximum prison sentence for assault on an emergency worker was increased from six months to 1 year.
Part of the problem is that all too often people do not feel that there will be justice at the end of the process. When in opposition, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) said:
“the attitude…sadly exists across the criminal justice system…that being punched or kicked is somehow to be expected and accepted....we will never accept that people should be assaulted while they are doing their job and we will do everything in our power to protect them.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 1150.]
The hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) said:
“We must put legislation in place to guarantee that a tough line will be taken on anyone who assaults an emergency worker.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 1172.]
That is what Government Members said when they were in opposition, but they are ensuring the exact opposite now; these offenders will be let out on a suspended sentence. I cannot believe that Government Members would not join me in voting for new clause 43. I would like to test the will and the temperature of the House on that matter, and I will not back down on that.
The presumption in the Bill against immediate custody will also apply to those committing a host of other nasty, violent and sexual crimes, all of whom will be eligible for these get-out-of-jail-free suspended sentences, if they are sentenced to 12 months or less for their crimes. New clause 50 would mean that offences with a mandatory minimum sentence would not be included in the Bill; that would alleviate the damage in some cases.
New clause 54 would exclude from mandatory suspension sentences that can be appealed for being unduly lenient. The unduly lenient sentence scheme covers sexual offences; stalking; putting someone in fear of violence, serious harm or distress; controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship; and inflicting grievous bodily harm or unlawful wounding, among other offences. It would be nonsense for crimes included among the most serious under the scheme to be dealt with by way of a suspended sentence, instead of immediate custody. How would the measures in the Bill work on appeal? Would all sentences be overturned as being unduly lenient, or would the new law trump that scheme? My new clause would inject a bit of common sense and avoid all these questions.
My other amendments mainly concern the past of the offender. It is bad enough that a first-time offender who has committed a serious crime will avoid prison, but it is outrageous that under the Bill, serial offenders will be rewarded for reoffending. New clause 46 would mean that any offender who has committed three or more offences in the preceding 12 months would not be eligible for a mandatory suspended sentence, and new clause 47 would stop them from qualifying if they had committed 10 or more offences previously. People are committing multiple offences, yet the Government are letting them off with a suspended sentence.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Eighty per cent of offenders are reoffenders because of the 14 years of mess that this Government are having to clear up. The real travesty of justice is that there are no prison cells available for people who are convicted. The last Government failed to build the prison places that are needed; this Government will ensure that they exist, because they will always be needed. It is as though the Conservatives left the tap running and are whining about the flood that they let happen.
Esther McVey
I am glad that the hon. Lady raised that point. When I was brought back into the Cabinet Office, people in the left-leaning civil service, in the Ministry of Justice, said, “Let’s let people out of prison. It’s running too hot.” Thankfully, I stood firm and said no, and so did the Conservative Government, unlike this Government, who have let thousands of people out of prison and are destined to do so again. I am afraid that this is ideological. Labour Members do not think that more people should go to prison; they think that those people should be in the community. That is ideological, and certainly not logical. It does not support law and order in this country, and it is a slap in the face for victims.
Esther McVey
I will not.
New clauses 48 and 49 would mean that offenders would not be eligible for a mandatory suspended sentence if they had previously been given a suspended sentence or an immediate prison sentence for the same offence. If an offender commits a burglary now and goes to prison for it, and is convicted of committing another burglary after the measures in the Bill come into force, it would be ludicrous if, instead of being given a longer prison sentence—most people would think that was fair—they were given a suspended sentence; however, the courts would not have any other choice, in many circumstances.
New clause 55 would exclude criminals who had previously breached suspended sentences on three or more occasions from qualifying for a suspended sentence. It could be argued that those who have breached a suspended sentence once should not qualify. I completely agree, but I have decided that it should be “three strikes and you’re out”. People cannot keep committing offences and keep getting suspended sentences.
Another strong case for “three strikes and you’re out” is covered by new clause 61, which covers offenders who are convicted of committing the same crime three or more times. Someone who commits the same crime three or more times will now get only a suspended sentence. These people should be getting appropriate prison sentences, not a guarantee of no prison sentence at all.
New clause 59 lists
“poor compliance with court orders”
as a reason not to suspend a sentence. If a court can see that a criminal has not complied in the past with non-custodial alternatives and is therefore highly likely to breach a suspended sentence, it should have the option of imposing immediate custody on the offender. In fact, that is already what current and past sentencing guidelines say about considering an optional suspended sentence, never mind a mandatory one, which criminals will have if this Bill is brought into being. Under new clause 60, offenders being sentenced in court for three or more offences at once could not expect a presumption in favour of a suspended sentence.
All the examples I have given come from judges and lawyers. These are not possibilities, or scenarios that I have dreamt up; they are happening now. These people should go to prison—and they would have done, but the Government are letting everybody out. That is why I say that we will be dismantling law and order in this country if this Bill goes through. There is nothing to stop magistrates and judges handing out suspended sentences if they think that they are appropriate, but these amendments would not force them to hand them out when they are clearly not appropriate. That is what the Government are doing. They are tying the hands of the justice system.
The Government have already made amendments to earlier legislation after presumably realising that they had missed something. I hope that, on reflection, and having heard about some of the disasters that are about to befall the country as a result of this legislation, they will do likewise today. My new clause 56 is very similar to Government amendments 2 and 4, for example, which will exclude those who are already subject to a suspended sentence. They have seen one loophole, but the Bill is like a colander of loopholes, and I hope that they will see a few more.
The Government have not ensured that the Bill will not apply to those on licence. My new clause 57 says that those who have been released early from prison on licence should not be eligible for a presumption in favour of a suspended prison sentence if they offend again; really, they should be locked up.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What the right hon. Lady is putting forward is a very logical and sensible way forward, but I am conscious that young people in particular can do something wrong in life, and then return to the area that they came from. They are subject to peer pressure, and can be affected by all the things that happen in that community. Sometimes, they probably need help from outside the legal system. Has she considered that when putting forward her amendments? Do they ensure that people get a second chance, and get help where they need it—in the place where they live?
Esther McVey
We all believe in second chances, and that is where rehabilitation comes into play. We are possibly dealing with continual offending here. People have come before the courts, been given some kind of community sentence or been subject to tagging, and still repeat their crimes. We do not want them to think that there is absolutely no deterrent, and that they can commit crimes as often as they want because they will get only a tiny slap on the wrist.
People need to understand that their actions are unacceptable. There is a victim, and a price to pay. Some people will understand, go on the straight and narrow, and go on to have a good life, but not as a result of what is being delivered today. The Bill says, “Commit a crime and you will not do any time.” That is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is the wrong message to send out. That really should not need saying, but it seems that it does. How on earth can it be right that someone who has been released early from prison will get a second get-out-of-jail-free card? That will happen under this ludicrous legislation.
Under new clause 41, the presumption against prison would not apply to foreign nationals. If people come to this country and commit crimes serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence, they should not be left wandering around our streets freely as a result of this Bill. Foreign offenders should be deported, as protecting the public is one of the main duties of a Government—I will have to repeat that several times to the Government, who do not seem to understand that that is a major part of their duty—and in the meantime, those offenders should be locked up. While we have to put up with our own British criminals, I do not see why we should be lenient to those who have come to this country and committed offences. I do not think the public will agree with the Government’s Bill, either.
Sir Desmond Swayne
The importance of the sunset clause is that it relieves the monstrous contradiction we have had from the Government. They have presented this legislation as an emergency measure because the prisons are too full, yet at the same time they boast about their great, expansive prison-building programme. Clearly the two are at odds with one another. Who will be put in these prisons if this legislation persists? That is why my right hon. Friend’s sunset clause is so important.
Esther McVey
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. That is why I pointed out that the Bill is all about ideology; it is not about logic.
I mentioned the extra prisons that were started in 2020, when the previous Government gave £4 billion to expand prison capacity, and three of those prisons have been built. There was a delay and it was obviously slow—we were in lockdown for two years, which is why they are coming on board now—but another three prisons will be built.
If people are really serious about cleaning up our streets, getting crime down and supporting victims, they will not vote for this Bill. Prison places are either here or on their way. The Prisons Minister has said he thinks that only a third of prisoners should be in prison and that two thirds of them should be out on the street. That is why I say that this Bill is about ideology over logic and over the public.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
As I did at the start of my speech on Second Reading, I put on record the continuing crisis in our prisons. The prison population currently stands at 87,427, with usable operational capacity being 89,286. Prison population projections estimate that the population could rise to more than 100,000 by March 2029. That is an indictment of the previous Government and it gives the lie to their mantra that this Bill is soft on crime; we will have record numbers of people in prison. This Bill is a necessity, and we must make a virtue of that necessity.
I welcome the principles of the Bill and the reforms suggested in it. They are essential, both to reduce the prison population and to improve the way in which the justice system deals with punishment, rehabilitation and public safety. The measures in the Bill that derive from David Gauke’s independent sentencing review include varying suspended sentences and short custodial sentences, adopting the earned progression model for release, and changes to recall and licence. All have their risks, so the purpose of the amendments that I and other members of the Justice Committee have tabled—to which I now turn—is to reduce those risks and make practical improvements to the Bill. I have also tabled two new clauses relating to imprisonment for public protection prisoners, who are not currently considered by the Bill—in my view, wrongly.
The first amendment I have tabled is amendment 29 to clause 3, which relates to income reduction orders, or IROs. These will act as financial penalties for offenders, who will forfeit a percentage of their disposable income as a form of punishment and reparation. My amendment would change the definition of monthly income for the purposes of an IRO so that any amount of money that is required to be paid or deducted from an offender’s monthly income because of other enactments, such as child support maintenance payments or an attachment of earnings order, is not counted. This will ensure that IROs do not impact on an offender’s ability to pay outstanding debts or, in the case of child support maintenance, to meet their obligation to support their children and family members in the community.
My second set of amendments relates to clause 6, which introduces a statutory requirement for courts to make a formal finding of domestic abuse where relevant during sentencing. My amendments 30 and 31 introduce two procedural safeguards before a court can record that an offence involved domestic abuse. First, the court must have indicated that it appears that the offence may have involved domestic abuse. Secondly, the court must have given the offender and the prosecutor an opportunity to adduce evidence and make representations before coming to the view that an offence involved domestic abuse.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Chair of the Select Committee is talking about indications of domestic abuse. Does he agree that, particularly in cases of domestic abuse—as I have heard from constituents of mine—it is critical that resources are allocated through this Bill to the Probation Service and for electronic tagging? The legislation allows for it, but does he agree that it is very important that the Government make clear how they will adequately resource those two elements, so that victims of domestic abuse—who will have this indicator to identify that perpetrators have committed domestic abuse and violence—will be properly protected after the potential release of the perpetrator?
Andy Slaughter
I do agree with that, and in a moment I will talk about a new clause that deals specifically with tagging. I am rattling through my speech because I have a lot to get through, but what I am specifically talking about in relation to domestic abuse is simply the need for there to be due process. That is something that I think we all want to see. Amendments 30 and 31 would ensure that the requirements of clause 6, which are important in allowing police and probation services to track perpetrators of domestic abuse, are carried out in a manner that is as thorough and fair as possible.
My next amendment, amendment 32, relates to clause 35, which amends the sentencing code to allow for the publication of the photographs and names of offenders serving community sentences. The explanatory notes say very little about this clause, but the justification in the memorandum on human rights suggests that the Government believe that this measure will have a deterrent effect on criminals, although there is little evidence for that assertion. The measure engages the article 8 right to private and family life for the individual, their victims and their family. Some concerns have been raised about how this measure can be operated safety in the modern social media age, in which photographs and names can be readily and quickly shared.
My amendment would prevent clause 35 from being brought into force until the Secretary of State has issued a code of practice to providers of probation services about how to take and publish photographs lawfully in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998 and data protection legislation. Before issuing a code of practice, the Secretary of State must consult providers of probation services, lay a draft before Parliament, and obtain the approval of both Houses. That would ensure proper parliamentary oversight of this measure.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is indicating his diligence—as though any evidence of that were required—in tabling these technical but important amendments. However, will he deal with the fundamental issue? As he has just said, the Criminal Justice Act 2003—from memory, section 250—allows criminals who are released on licence to be subject to all kinds of conditions, but the truth is that if we let more dangerous people out, more people will be recalled, because they will do immense amounts of harm. Recalls are going to go up as a result of this legislation, and many more people are going to suffer because of those who are let out early.
Andy Slaughter
I have quite a lot to say about recall, which I will come to in a moment, but I have reflected on this question. Licence is an established part of the criminal justice system, as indeed is probation. Almost every prisoner, other than a handful of the most serious criminals, comes out of prison at some stage. The issue of public safety when people are released from prison is one that this Bill is trying to address. We may disagree on the means to that objective, but I am sure we agree on the objective itself.
I also tabled new clause 18, which relates to the provision of information to Parliament regarding offenders who are subject to electronic tagging and the operation of the tagging contract. The success of the measures in this Bill will rely heavily on the use of electronic monitoring, primarily through the use of tags. The Justice Committee has continually raised concerns about the performance of Serco, the Government’s current tagging provider. As a reminder, on 7 May, the Prisons Minister revealed to us that at that point, Serco had received financial penalties for poor performance every month since it took on the electronic monitoring contract on 1 May 2024. Ministers have assured us that Serco’s performance is beginning to improve.
New clause 18 would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report each calendar year on the use of electronic monitoring requirements. That report must include the number of electronic monitoring requirements imposed each year, the rate of compliance, and the cost of administering those requirements each year. The report must be laid before Parliament. This would improve transparency and allow parliamentarians to assess for themselves how successfully Serco or other providers are administering tagging contracts.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for giving way. New clause 18 makes the point that the cost of administering the electronic monitoring requirements during the year should be released. Does he agree that that should include the size of the fine that is imposed on the provider? When I have asked the Ministry of Justice for that information, it has not been able to release it. I think it is a matter of public interest to know what the fine for the provider’s failures is.
Andy Slaughter
I am delighted that my friend is still taking a strong interest in these matters and remains on the Justice Committee, even though he no longer has his Front-Bench responsibilities—we know that he has other responsibilities that he wishes to take on. I entirely agree with him; it is a point that we have made in Committee, and I hope the Minister has listened to it. I am sure that the words “commercial confidentiality” were used at some point, but this is not about commercial confidentiality; it is about us knowing how well electronic tagging is working, which is a very serious matter in the criminal justice system. That is very well illustrated by the level of fines imposed.
I have tabled two new clauses, new clauses 19 and 20, regarding prisoners who are subject to imprisonment for public protection sentences. It has been 12 years since the last IPP sentence was handed down, yet around 2,500 people are still serving IPP sentences in prison. It is now widely acknowledged that the nature of those sentences has severe consequences for those who are serving them and for their loved ones. New clause 19 would implement the recommendation of the previous Justice Committee’s 2022 report that there should be a resentencing exercise for all IPP-sentenced individuals, and that a time-limited expert committee that includes a member of the judiciary should be established to advise on the practical implementation of such an exercise.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for giving way and for speaking to his new clause. It contains similar wording to the new clause tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which Ms Nokes has indicated we may get a separate vote on. Does that mean that the Chair of the Select Committee will be voting with the Liberal Democrats and encouraging his Back-Bench colleagues to do the same?
Andy Slaughter
It means that I will listen very carefully, not only to what the hon. Member says but to what the Government say. I know that the Government are unlikely to accept new clause 19, because they have made their position on resentencing clear. Nevertheless, I wanted to set out that that is the best option, but I am just about to talk about other options, which might be more practical and which I urge on the Minister today.
The Justice Committee remains of the view that a resentencing exercise is the best and most comprehensive way to reduce the number of IPP prisoners in prison. Knowing, however, that the Government are yet to be persuaded of the merits of resentencing on the balance of risk, I have also tabled new clause 20, which would allow a prisoner whose licence has not been terminated by the Parole Board two or three years after their first release to make an annual application for termination to the Parole Board. This would increase the opportunities for the licences of IPP prisoners to be terminated, and would reduce the amount of time those prisoners have to wait in limbo between Parole Board hearings. In contrast to resentencing, this more modest amendment would enhance the process for IPP licence terminations. IPP terminations have been the single most effective measure in permanently reducing the stain of the IPP sentence. Some 28% of IPP sentences have been terminated by the Parole Board, ending the shadow of the sentence by cancelling it and removing the risk of recall for those who have been deemed safe by the Parole Board or complied with their licence for two years.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
On another form of recall, does the hon. Member have any sympathy with new clause 62, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), and the idea that there should be a sunset on this provision? However we look at the contents of this Bill, it is a bit of an experiment, so we should make sure that two years on we examine it and, if the circumstances require, renew it.
Andy Slaughter
We have to do something about recall and do it now. The number of prisoners on recall has more than doubled over the seven-year period from March 2018 to 2025. It was 6,000 then and it is now 13,500. That is a significant part of the prison population.
Andy Slaughter
I am not going to give way again, because I am taking too much time. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a difficult process to manage. That is why this Bill was presented on the same day that fixed-term recall 48 came into operation. FTR 48 is the recent provision mandating fixed-term recalls of 28 days in determinate cases of less than 48 months. The new 56-day recall model recommended in the Bill replicates FTR 48, with the exception that the default recall period is extended from 28 to 56 days. Prior to this new provision being laid, there has been no opportunity for the efficacy and impact of this model to be evaluated. New clause 21 would allow that evaluation to take place. I think I am trying to do the same as what he is saying, which is to ensure we look carefully and evaluate the effect. We are into new territory here, and there may be unintended consequences.
The sentencing review received numerous reports that offenders are recalled for breaches, such as their tag running out of power or a failure to keep in touch, and that breach and recall processes are overly punitive and often felt to be unfair. As the Bill stands, the legal test for recall remains unchanged. As more offenders will be released at an earlier date and the use of electronic tagging will increase, there is a greater risk that people may be recalled when there are minor problems with the tag or housing issues. Tightening the legal test for recalls would confine their use to instances where there is evidence of consistent non-compliance, or a specific and imminent risk of harm, as recommended by the review. Without amendment, there is a real risk that the prison capacity crisis will not be adequately addressed, and we could even see an increase in recalls, albeit for shorter periods. A tighter test would guard against unintended consequences from the overuse of 56-day recalls.
Amendment 34 to clause 24 introduces the right for those being made subject to licence conditions to make representations as to their necessity and proportionality. That could be an important safeguard, given the suite of new conditions in the Bill that enable a wide range of restrictions to be imposed in the community. Without safeguards, the use of these conditions could lead to increased recalls and increased pressure on the probation and prison systems. Giving offenders an entitlement to make representations about licensing conditions would assist in alerting the authorities to any unintended consequences, such as where conditions might impact on resettlement or other outcomes, including access to employment or healthcare.
I am coming towards the end, but not just yet. The last of my amendments is amendment 35 to clause 24, which concerns restriction zones. Amendment 35 would introduce a requirement for the Parole Board to have oversight of new restriction zones for offenders on licence. A restriction zone is, by its nature, highly restrictive and could impact on almost every aspect of an offender’s life, including their ability to work, receive medical care and see family. Any application to leave the zone places an administrative burden on the authorities. The amendment would introduce judicial oversight by the Parole Board of the extension of restriction zones. That oversight could act as an important safeguard before such restrictions are imposed, and may also provide an opportunity for victims to have a voice in setting out the potential impact on them before an independent body.
This is the first time that provision has been made to restrict offenders to a certain geographical area when released on licence without a requirement for judicial oversight or due process. The proposed restriction is akin to control orders, now replaced with terrorist prevention and investigation measures, but without the requirement for a gateway offence or judicial oversight.
Finally, I have put my name to amendment 36, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox). It would provide an important clarification of the powers of the court to impose a community sentence as an alternative to a suspended prison sentence, in circumstances where that may offer a more effective prospect of avoiding future offending or breach of licence conditions. It would likely be especially beneficial in keeping women out of prison.
To conclude, I repeat my support for the Bill and the Government’s approach to sentencing, which are the biggest changes in 30 years. I thank the organisations working with IPP prisoners, many of whom are relatives and friends of those incarcerated, including United Group for Reform of IPP and the IPP Committee in Action. I also thank the justice unions parliamentary group, the Prison Reform Trust, the Law Society and Justice, among others, for their briefing and assistance with proposing changes to the Bill. I hope the Minister will consider the amendments that we have tabled as ways to improve the Bill’s content and bring clarity where it is needed. I hope that he will respond to them in winding up and may even agree to adopt some of them. We survive on hope.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Minister.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of amendment 24 and the other amendments that I have tabled on behalf of the Opposition. I regret that we have not had the opportunity to hear from important voices on these incredibly important issues through a full Public Bill Committee. Victims groups of all different kinds care deeply about the measures in this Bill. We not only do not get to hear from them as MPs, but the nature of Committee of the whole House means that we do not have the opportunity to put forward for inclusion a whole range of measures that are worthy of our consideration and a vote in support. Anyone reading the amendment paper will see the richness and range of ideas that just will not get the level of detailed consideration they should. It would have been beneficial, and we may well end up giving this incredibly important Bill less than 15 hours of consideration in this House.
I cannot help but feel that the measures related to early release are so unpalatable that the Government are doing their absolute best to rush this Bill through the House to avoid proper scrutiny. I will try, though, to at least give some time and thought to some of the amendments, even if ultimately we will not be able to vote on them. New clause 12 relates to changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. At present, the ULS scheme allows anyone to appeal most sentences to the Attorney General’s Office if they consider them to be unduly lenient. I and other Members of this House have made use of this scheme, as have others. It can and does lead to sentences being changed, but there are two major problems with the scheme as it operates.
First, too many victims are unaware of the scheme and do not get long enough to make use of it. At this point, I pay tribute to the amazing campaigners who have done so much to raise this issue. Katie Brett secured thousands of signatures to a petition to change the scheme in memory of her sister Sasha. I pay tribute to Ayse Hussein and other members of the Justice for Victims group. The issue has also been raised for many years by Tracey Hanson, who I had the pleasure of meeting recently, in memory of her son Josh Hanson, who was the victim of an appalling murder. I know that other campaigners are similarly inclined. All of them are clear about the fact that the current scheme does not work. Our amendment will require the Crown Prosecution Service to notify victims, and also extend the time available to appeal to up to a year for victims and their families if the victim is deceased.
Sir John Hayes
I pay tribute to that campaign, and in particular to my hon. Friend’s commitment to victims, which I know is outstanding. Will he acknowledge, too, that many of the people who suffer are suffering at the hands of repeat criminals—career criminals? Sometimes people who have been let out on licence breach the licence conditions. For instance, in my constituency a young woman was killed by a dangerous driver, on licence, who had been banned from driving. There are many like her, and my hon. Friend is standing for them. Will he therefore impress on the Government that they are letting out people who cause grief, harm and hurt? That is just not good enough.
Dr Mullan
As my right hon. Friend says, we can do what we want when it comes to placing conditions on people and expecting them to behave differently, but the only place where we can be sure they are not out committing further offences is prison. Across the board, this measure will let very many serious offenders out of prison earlier, and I shall say more about that towards the end of my speech.
In respect of the undue lenient sentence scheme, the Government have previously said that they will await the outcome of a review of criminal appeals—a review that has already said that the system is working fine, and for the implementation of whose recommendations we have no timetable or plan. The opportunity to make that change is here, and I urge Ministers to take it.
New clause 8 relates to what are clearly unacceptable restrictions on what people can say in victim personal statements, often described as impact statements. This is a further issue that the Justice for Victims group and others have raised. The parents of Sarah Everard, Susan and Jeremy, have made it very clear that the people advising them on their statements were doing their best to act in their best interests, and to help secure the best possible outcome for justice for Sarah, but the system and the rules around this are leading to too many people, like Susan and Jeremy, being told that they cannot say what they should be allowed to say. Glenn and Becky Youens, also from Justice for Victims, had the same experience when making statements about their feelings towards the vile criminals who had killed their precious daughter Violet-Grace. Our new clause will ensure that the Government can help victims to secure the best possible opportunity to say what it is that they want to say, while recognising that the statement is still being made in a court.
New clause 16 is intended to close a loophole that I think all Members agree needs to be closed. Our current sentencing laws require a whole-life order to be passed for those who murder a police or prison officer in the line of duty. That is an important deterrent, and enables the delivery of justice for people who put themselves in harm’s way, dealing with violent criminals, should the worst happen. However, it is clear to me that the courts have not interpreted the meaning of that legislation as I—and, I think, most other Members—would have wanted them to.
In 2024 a former prison officer, Lenny Scott, was murdered. He was murdered by a seriously violent criminal for doing his job as a prison officer. Lenny had bravely stood up to threats from this criminal while he supervised him in prison, as he had reported that he had contraband. Years later, this despicable person came back for his revenge. He was convicted of Lenny’s murder, but the courts decided that the whole-life order tariff did not apply because he had not been actively on duty when the murder took place. I think that is counter to the spirit of the measure. Our new clause would remove the loophole, so that in future if a prison or police officer is murdered because of something they did in their role, whenever that might be, the sentence will be a whole-life order. I imagine that of all the measures we are proposing, that will secure the greatest amount of cross-party support—not at this stage of the Bill, but during future stages in the Lords.
New clause 10 supports greater transparency in our justice system by ensuring that sentencing remarks in the Crown court are available to everyone, and transparency is also at the heart of new clause 9. For too long, for the wrong reasons, we have not been transparent about criminals’ backgrounds. We know that political correctness led to the vile grooming gangs scandal going unchallenged, which should never have been allowed, for many decades. Part of the issue is that we did not have the data and the information that would have enabled us to understand what was happening and who was committing those offences. Why should we not have basic information about criminals that would enable us to have an honest debate about different patterns of criminal behaviour in different communities and different parts of the country, especially when we know that if we refuse to do this—if we refuse to be transparent—all that we do is give fuel to the wrong people? At best, indifference to the need to share this data is looking more and more like a desire to cover up what it might reveal. That has to stop, and our new clause will ensure that it does.
New clause 11 relates to steps that the courts should take to limit parental responsibility for those convicted of child sex offences. In the last Parliament my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) campaigned on this in support of a constituent who met Ministers in that Government to discuss it. In the current Parliament, the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) has joined the campaign, along with other Members. I understand that yesterday the Government tabled an amendment to the related Victims and Courts Bill, which is due for further consideration, and of course we will look closely at that to consider whether it meets the reasonable expectations of parents seeking to protect their children from child sex offenders. New clauses 13 and 14 also relate to child sex offenders.
Sir John Hayes
My hon. Friend is now coming to the nub of the issue. There are different views across the House. There are those of us who believe that the justice system should be retributive, that punishment matters and that punishment should fit crime, and there are those who do not. There are those who do not think that the justice system should be punitive, whereas I think that it should be punitive. I think that more people should go to jail and should go for much longer, not just because it is a deterrent but because it signals public outrage at these heinous acts. That is why it matters, and everyone in the House should realise it.
Dr Mullan
My right hon. Friend has frequently raised this issue, and we are in violent agreement. In my experience, there is intellectual snobbery towards people who think there is moral value in, and an ethical basis for, punishing people properly. Anyone who talks about that often gets labelled as some bigot who does not understand patterns of criminality and all these other things. Of course they are important to consider, but none of these things means that we should not appropriately punish people. It shocks me that that still remains not part of the statutory purposes of sentencing. Punishing people is important, and we do not consider it enough.
For all the reasons I have set out, this Bill is incredibly important. Today is incredibly important too, because it is the last chance for Back-Bench MPs to decide for themselves which parts of this very significant Bill they will support. Next week we will have Third Reading, where Labour MPs will have no choice but to vote for or against the entire Bill.
We know that a major part of this Bill is the earlier release of nearly all offenders. The Opposition are opposed to the programme as a whole, but it is clear that this Bill is a major part of the Government’s plans to reform sentencing. It would be asking a lot of Labour MPs to ask them to consider voting against the entire programme, but we are not asking them to do that. Our amendment 24 gives Labour MPs the route through which they can most justifiably say to their Whips and the Prime Minister, “No, I can’t support this.” We are asking them to say no and to vote against the early release of rapists, paedophiles, seriously violent criminals, criminals who cause death by dangerous driving and attempted murderers. We are giving Labour MPs a clear route out of doing what would be absolutely unprecedented in the management of offenders in our prisons and a deep insult to the victims of serious violent and sexual crime.
Labour MPs, many of whom I have got to know, work with and respect, will know that I spent the last week trying my utmost to encourage them to avoid being put in a position where the Whips will make them vote to release rapists, paedophiles and serious violent criminals earlier. Most shadow Ministers would happily sit back and watch Labour MPs vote for something that will blight their time in Parliament in the eyes of their constituents, but we have not done that. That is because whatever damage voting for this Bill might do to the electoral prospects of Labour MPs, what is more important to me is that its measures do not go through.
As I have said before, I understand the frustrations that MPs of different parties have had over decades about the resources provided to our justice system and the prison estate. I mentioned on Second Reading that when Labour was last in power, it released more than 80,000 prisoners early because of the capacity issues built up during its time in office. This Government and the last Government have operated similar programmes. I wish that emergency release measures never had to be used, and if—this is a very big “if”—I had ever been Prime Minister or Chancellor during these periods, I would have taken different decisions. But at least these measures have to be announced in the full glare of the public eye, carry a political price and are genuinely legislated for as responses to short-term emergency challenges.
I want Labour MPs to be absolutely clear-eyed about the fact that what we are voting on today is not a short-term response to prison crowding challenges. It is a medium to long-term plan—a decision about how we as a country want to respond to people who commit serious violent and sexual offences. I have never met a victim of a serious violent or sexual offence who thinks that the present system suitably punishes serious offenders. I have never met a victim who thinks that we should let these sorts of people out of prison earlier, but that is what this Bill will do.
On Second Reading, I explained the sorts of offences that are included in these measures. Ministers have said that the very worst offenders will be excluded. Since Second Reading, the Opposition have been able to review sentencing data to try to understand what that means in reality. It highlights a disturbing truth and leaves the Government and any MP who votes for this Bill with a difficult question to answer. Those serving extended determinate sentences and life sentences will be excluded from the early release elements of this Bill, whereas those serving standard determinate sentences will not. Prisoners on standard determinate sentences will have their prison time cut.
Every year, more than 60% of criminals sent to prison for rape are on a standard determinate sentence. Over 90% of criminals sent to prison for child grooming are on a standard determinate sentence. Around half of criminals sent to prison for attempted murder are on a standard determinate sentence. Hundreds of criminals guilty of child rape and sexual assault, including rape of children under 13, are in prison on standard determinate sentences. In total, more than 6,500 criminals sent to prison every year for serious violent, sexual and other offences are given determinate sentences. If Labour MPs vote against our amendment 24, every single one of those criminals will be able to get out of prison earlier. Labour MPs will be voting to let rapists and paedophiles out of prison earlier.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
indicated dissent.
Dr Mullan
The Minister shakes his head. If he wants to intervene and explain why that is not the case, he can. No, he is not going to do so.
Let us be clear: earlier releases will not be done on a retrospective basis. When the measure is enacted, every criminal in prison at that point in time will be able to benefit from these measures, including thousands of serious criminals. It is very clear to me that what is being said by Ministers—I anticipate that they will say the same later in defence of these plans—is in danger of misleading MPs. As it stands, Labour MPs will have to vote in support of the Government’s position that the most serious offenders are excluded. I invite MPs to reflect on how the Justice Secretary can possibly say that any rape—let alone hundreds of them—is not one of the most serious offences. Will Labour MPs who vote against amendment 24 tonight be able to say to survivors of child sex abuse that they supported a Government who wanted to classify thousands of child sex offences as not being the most serious offences?
The Government have said that earlier releases will have to be earned through good behaviour, but that is simply not true. I appreciate that it can be difficult to always believe what MPs from Opposition parties are saying, but MPs do not need to take my word for it. The House of Commons Library briefing note on this Bill is there in black and white for everyone to read. It says:
“As currently drafted, the provisions of the bill do not bring in any new criteria for people to adhere to prior to being released at the one third or halfway point, or any discretionary elements to release.”
I will repeat that: the Bill’s provisions do not bring in any new criteria.
Labour MPs need not look any further than emergency release measures and contrast them with this permanent, long-term change to find evidence that the Government’s approach is totally unprecedented. The SDS40 scheme and other schemes that have come before and sat alongside it have many more exclusions—for example, sex offenders—yet this permanent, non-emergency approach does not. What Ministers have been telling Labour MPs to secure their support is not accurate, which should always make Back-Bench MPs wary. If the Government are making inaccurate statements about a measure in a Bill that they want MPs to support because they cannot face the reality of what it does, then MPs should think very carefully about voting for it, because there is no going back. They will have to defend that decision.
This morning, I emailed every single Labour MP the Library briefing note so that they could see it for themselves, regardless of whether they listen to this debate. Ignorance will be no excuse, because today will not be the end of it. I guarantee Members that the harsh reality is that history tells us that some of the criminals whom Labour MPs are being asked to vote to release will almost certainly commit further serious offences, at a time when they would otherwise have been locked up. MPs will then have to explain why they voted for non-emergency changes that let such people out earlier. I would not be surprised if one of these cases is sufficiently serious that the Government amend the Bill’s measures in future, in response to a public backlash. There is every chance that they will make Labour MPs go through the Lobby tonight and vote for the indefensible, and then at some point pull the rug from under them. I appreciate that a lot of Labour Members are new to this place, and they can speak to longer-serving Members about how it will make them look when they are forced to follow a line that is later withdrawn.
I have made our position clear, and I have set out the consequences. MPs voting against our amendment 24 this evening will be voting to reduce jail time for extremely violent criminals, paedophiles, child groomers and rapists. I have done as much as I can to stop that happening. Ministers are resorting to saying things about the Bill’s measures that are inaccurate to secure support from their Back Benchers, and MPs should not let them get away with it. We have set out clearly how our amendment would ensure that appalling criminals do not see their punishment cut. I know it is difficult for Back Benchers to stand up to the Government and say no, but if we do not, thousands of the worst criminals will get out of prison earlier.
Labour MPs now have to decide whether to vote for what victims of child abuse, family members of people killed by dangerous drivers, victims of rape and others want—victims whom many of them care about—or for what the Prime Minister and his Whips want. Tell the Prime Minister no, tell the Whips no, and vote for our amendment tonight.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I will try to make my remarks fairly brief—not because I am against short sentences, but because I recognise that there are time pressures. I would like to record my support for three amendments to the Bill in the form of new clauses 2 to 4. I might say that I agreed with virtually everything that my good friend my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) said.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is an old friend, and I appreciate his attempt to improve the Bill. The new clauses that he supports are interesting and have merit. Will he acknowledge, though, that it is not just probation services that will be put under extra pressure by this Bill, but that the police will be too? Will he invite the Minister, when he sums up, to talk about the extra resources he can make available to Lincolnshire police and other authorities, as well as to the Probation Service, to implement the provisions of the Bill that he has brought to the Committee?
Grahame Morris
I am grateful for that intervention, which I think is quite sensible, and I support the contention. I hope the Minister will respond appropriately when he has the opportunity.
Does the Minister agree that HM Inspectorate of Probation should have the powers outlined in new clause 4? They are just the sort of safeguards we need in the Bill before more pressure is placed on the Probation Service. We are all aware that it is really overstretched, principally as a result of funding cuts implemented by the previous Government and some of the decisions taken before the present Government came into office.
Finally, I am pleased to register my support for new clause 3, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is my good friend. I echo the concerns that he expressed at length on Second Reading about the potential for exploitation by private companies, such as when unpaid work in London was privatised in 2013. Indeed, that was criticised by the International Labour Organisation as an abuse. Does the Minister agree with the probation union, Napo, that unpaid work orders should always be about payback to the community, that they should be run for public good, not for private profit, and that this safeguard should be placed in the Bill?
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller
As the newly appointed Justice spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, I would first like to acknowledge the hard work of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), and his determination to make tangible changes for those that have experienced domestic abuse. I thank the Government for their constructive collaboration with him by introducing into the Bill a domestic abuse identifier at the point of sentencing. The identifier will give victims greater confidence that their abusers are being appropriately dealt with in the justice system, but it would be reassuring if the Minister confirmed that this identifier will be used to ensure that those perpetrators are excluded from any future early release schemes.
This Bill presented a fantastic opportunity to address the endemic challenges that plague our justice system. Those challenges are the result of years of mismanagement by the Conservatives, whose decisions have underpinned the record backlog of cases in the Crown court, as well as prison overcrowding and astronomically high reoffending rates, with victims consistently failed at every stage. We Liberal Democrats had hoped that this Bill would begin to shift the dial towards a justice system that truly protects victims and rehabilitates perpetrators, and there are indeed many elements that we support and that show promise. However, we remain concerned that the scope and ambition of the Bill are lacking, having had many of our amendments rejected due to the lack of financing behind the Bill.
Many of the issues blighting our justice system stem from a lack of foresight and investment, particularly in probation and prisons, as the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) mentioned. It is therefore disappointing that the Bill does not include major efforts to rectify that. As a party, we are supportive of suspending short sentences of under 12 months and have long campaigned for this measure. Not only is it a necessary step to address prison overcrowding, but it would play a vital role in reducing reoffending. While 62% of those serving custodial sentences of less than 12 months go on to reoffend, only 24% reoffend if they are given a suspended sentence. Ending the cycle of reoffending is crucial to reducing crime levels and relieving pressure on the justice system. As the Government have stated, there will be exceptions, but they are yet to clarify what those exceptions will be. Will they include violent offenders, those convicted for sexual offences against children and those who possess indecent images? It would be very helpful if the Minister laid out all the exemptions.
We have tabled a number of amendments aimed at addressing our concerns or furthering aspects of the Bill. New clause 30 aims to address imprisonment for public protection. IPP sentences were a type of indeterminate sentence used in England and Wales from 2005 to 2012 for dangerous offenders who did not qualify for a life sentence, but still posed a public risk. These sentences featured a minimum term, but no maximum, with release contingent on the Parole Board deeming the offender no longer a threat. It was during the coalition Government that we abolished IPP sentences, but many remain in prison serving these sentences long after their tariff has expired. Our new clause would commence a resentencing exercise, which has cross-party support and should be implemented as a priority. The amendment was first recommended by the Justice Committee in 2022, and I note that the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), has tabled a similar measure—new clause 19.
Although we welcome the Government’s approach to community sentencing, reoffending rates are demonstrably higher among those who are unemployed. In 2023, the reoffending rate for those who were unemployed six weeks after release from prison was 36.5%, compared with 20% for those who were employed at the same point. Amendment 44 therefore calls on the Government to publish a report assessing whether the driving prohibition in the Bill could impede an individual’s ability to attend work, education or rehabilitation programmes. Can the Minister inform the House what assessment the Government have made of that? Ensuring access to those pathways is vital if we are to reduce reoffending effectively.
We are also concerned that the Bill does not go far enough to support victims of violence against women and girls. I know that this is one of the Government’s key priorities this parliamentary term, yet without collecting the data, it is an empty promise that it will be hard for the Government to show they have actually achieved. New clause 36 would continue the important campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne to ensure that domestic abuse is treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing, while new clause 37 would require an assessment of the introduction of mandatory rehabilitation programmes focused on violence against women and girls for those convicted of assault, battery or actual bodily harm against a woman or girl, even if domestic abuse is not included as an aggravating factor. These measures are designed to ensure that victims of domestic abuse and related offences are placed at the centre of the justice system’s work, ensuring that such crimes are met with appropriate sentences and that rehabilitation is specifically targeted at those who commit these serious offences.
In line with that approach, new clause 38 calls for screening for traumatic brain injuries among prisoners at the start of their custodial sentences. A Brainkind study last year showed that 80% of women in the criminal justice system in Wales may be suffering with a brain injury, while Government data shows that more than half of female prisoners are victims of domestic abuse. These figures identify that a significant proportion of the female prison population may have undiagnosed brain injuries resulting from domestic abuse, leaving many without the treatment they need and undermining their rehabilitation—something that is certainly reflected in their ability to engage with probation services after leaving prison. Comprehensive screening across the prison population would enable a deeper understanding of the links between trauma, offending and reoffending.
New clause 31 calls on the Secretary of State to examine the proceeds generated from the proposed income reduction orders and to consider whether they could be ringfenced to create a dedicated fund for supporting victims.
New clause 39 would allow the courts to suspend the driving licence of an individual charged with certain driving offences pending the outcome of the trial as part of their bail conditions. Many hon. Members across the House have harrowing cases in their constituencies of lives lost at the hands of a drunk driver, drug driver or someone causing death by dangerous or reckless driving, and the court backlogs mean so often that those defendants are free to continue driving after the offence has occurred, sometimes waiting for months; in some cases, with drug tests taking up to six months to be received, the driver is free to continue to drive under the influence, which is just plain wrong. I know that is felt deeply across the House.
New clause 40 would address the ridiculous doom loop we find ourselves in with prisoners on remand arriving at their sentencing hearing, being sentenced and then being sent home because the court backlogs mean they have served their sentence while being on remand and have not had access to any rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy or other support. The new clause would make rehabilitative programmes accessible for those on remand.
We are also still concerned about a number of unaddressed measures in the Bill, such as the recall provisions, which allow those recalled to be released after 56 days with no involvement from the Parole Board, essentially providing a “get out of jail free” card for reoffending. This will not give the public confidence in the system. I would also be interested in the Minister’s argument as to the purpose of provisions in the Bill to allow the Probation Service to publish names and pictures of those taking part in unpaid work.
The Bill does contain some good ideas to address some of the issues in our justice system, but it could and should have gone further, especially if it had adequate resourcing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne stated on Second Reading, the Bill was full of hope, but falls short of both the Liberal Democrat ambition and the ambition that the Government claim to have. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to our questions, and encourage Members across the House to support our amendments and new clauses, including new clause 30.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
I am going to make a short speech on new clause 27, tabled in my name and the name of other hon. Members.
After a short relationship, my constituent Sophie Hall has suffered and continues to suffer from a prolonged and relentless stalking campaign from her ex-partner, who was residing illegally in the UK. In November last year, he was arrested for these offences, but was never spoken to about them, as no interpreter could be found. No risk assessment was done, and he was placed in temporary accommodation on bail, which he continued to breach.
In February, Sophie’s ex-partner was convicted and sentenced under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and was subsequently deported to his home country of Brazil with a 10-year re-entry ban effective from March. He then made his way to Europe, travelling across several countries before ending up back in the UK. In May, he was arrested in Belfast boarding a flight to Inverness. His aim, as always, was to get to Sophie.
The Crown Prosecution Service then charged him with stalking and breaches of restraining order and immigration offences and he was remanded in custody. After review, the CPS stated that no charges could be filed for stalking under the current law because the stalking had happened outside the UK, the perpetrator is not a UK citizen or resident, and the existing law does not give the UK courts jurisdiction over stalking offences committed from abroad under these circumstances. This is the crux of new clause 27.
Graham Stuart
As we move to an ever more digital world, the capacity for people to stalk and perpetrate this kind of oppressive action on people will only grow. I just want to say how delighted I am that the hon. Lady has tabled this new clause, and I hope we will hear from the Minister that he will look at this matter carefully, because this will be a growing issue—although, as the hon. Lady has shown with Sophie, it is already horrific in its impact.
Emma Lewell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and support.
Simply put, I want no one else to go through what Sophie is going through. She has to live her life in constant fear and has been through absolute hell. I hope that the Minister will give my new clause proper consideration.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I wish to speak to my new clause 6, which calls for the implementation of a lifetime driving ban for those convicted of causing death by dangerous or careless driving.
Last year there were 380 convictions for causing death by dangerous or careless driving. Of those convictions, 202 were for causing death by dangerous driving, 150 were for causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving, 23 were for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, two were for causing death by driving unlicensed or uninsured, and three were for causing death by driving while disqualified. Fewer than 1% of those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving were given a lifetime driving ban; the figure was just two.
Since 2017, there have been 1,348 convictions for causing death by dangerous driving, 1,314 convictions for causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving, 158 convictions for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, 17 convictions for causing death by driving unlicensed or uninsured, and 11 convictions for causing death by driving while disqualified. There have been nearly 3,000 convictions for causing a death through negligence or recklessness of the driver. Those are thousands of lives lost—husbands and wives who have lost their partner, children who have lost a parent, and parents who have lost a child. Thousands more lives are impacted tragically, forever changed, shattered.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful speech with some shocking figures. Just last Friday in my constituency surgery, Sarah Imi came to talk to me about her husband Jason. Seven years ago, he and his colleague were killed after a work dinner by a 17-year-old driving well above the speed limit and high on cannabis. He was given a £120 fine and a few hours of community service. He has subsequently reoffended 27 times, including committing a dangerous driving offence. Sarah had three teenage children at the time. Does the hon. Member agree that the family deserve justice and that this man should never be able to drive again?
Ben Obese-Jecty
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, and I wholeheartedly agree. There are so many tales just like that from all our constituencies, and they indicate just how lenient we have been towards those convicted of dangerous driving, particularly those who have caused a fatality. That is precisely why I tabled new clause 6. I believe that families like the one she mentions deserve justice and the closure of knowing that those people will not go on to reoffend.
Under section 163 of the sentencing code, any court may impose a driving disqualification for any offence committed after 1 January 1998. The minimum period of disqualification for causing death by careless driving is just 12 months. The sentencing guidelines for a driving disqualification following a conviction for causing death by driving illustrate the leniency that our judiciary applies to these cases. There is something badly wrong with our approach to justice when life is considered as cheap as it is in the current guidelines.
The minimum period of disqualification for causing death by dangerous driving is five years. Consider that the threshold for dangerous driving is high, as it covers excessive speeding, drink driving, and dangerous and erratic overtaking manoeuvres—the type of driving that leaves us horrified. Now consider a case in which the outcome of that driving is that someone is killed. The minimum disqualification period is five years—an inconvenience. It speaks to a narrative of, “Whoops, I killed somebody.”
The sentencing guidelines include the option for a lifetime disqualification, but reluctance to impose it is currently priced into the guidelines, which state:
“Lifetime disqualifications will be rare, in particular because of the increased risk of breach and the possibility of hindering rehabilitation prospects. Lifetime disqualifications will generally be inappropriate unless there is psychiatric evidence and/or evidence of many previous convictions indicating that the offender would be a danger to the public indefinitely if allowed to drive.”
Why are we so reticent to permanently remove killer drivers from the road? The guidelines refer to an “increased risk of breach”, but if someone is caught driving while disqualified, having been banned from driving for life after killing someone, perhaps we should send them to prison.
Those who know me will know that I am far from anti-motorist. I am no fan of low-traffic neighbourhoods, blanket 20 mph speed limits or terribly designed cycle lanes, but while I have been a car enthusiast for many years, I am also a cyclist, and these days very much a MAMIL—a middle-aged man in Lycra. I have been knocked off my bike twice by cars that “didn’t see” me. I have been doored, and close-passed at 60 mph. I ride with cameras on my bike so that there is evidence of me being knocked off, and some of the driving I could show would deter Jeremy Vine from ever riding a bike in London again—but I have been lucky.
Mike Gough was not lucky. Mike was known in Huntingdon for his passionate advocacy for road safety. He too was a keen cyclist, and he often cycled on the country roads around the town—the very same roads I was out on this past weekend. In March last year, as he headed back into Huntingdon along the Brampton Road towards George Street, he was struck by a Ford Transit van attempting to pass him. Paramedics attended the scene and attempted to give CPR, but Mike had been crushed and could not be revived. Mike was pronounced dead at the scene. Along the Brampton Road today, a white ghost bike now marks the site, as a tribute to Mike.
The driver received a 12-month sentence—suspended for two years—and a two-year driving ban. As it stands, he will be back on the roads before the next election. Mike’s relatives said that the sentence did not reflect
“the seriousness of what has happened or the catastrophic impact on our lives. Michael was the pinnacle of our family and a huge part of the local community. As a family we will never be the same again and our grief is immeasurable.”
It is with these events in mind that I have tabled new clause 6.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The hon. and gallant Member speaks very strongly about this issue. There may be reticence to support his new clause because of the implications for rehabilitation, but he has spoken about the huge impact on families when a life is taken in that way. Can he give some reassurance about the balance between rehabilitating through custodial sentences, for example, and the lifelong impact on families of incidents that happen in a moment?
Ben Obese-Jecty
The hon. Member makes a valid point. My amendment seeks to remove the chance that those people will reoffend further down the track. The custodial element remains unchanged, so there will still be the possibility of rehabilitation through the prison system to reduce the rate of recidivism. The issue here, as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) also pointed out, is about giving families closure and the knowledge that those who are guilty of committing these crimes will not be able to go on to reoffend.
New clause 6 proposes a lifetime driving ban for death by dangerous or careless driving and related offences—those I covered at the beginning of my speech. Having spoken to Mike’s widow Hazel and his daughter Kim, I can say that it is sobering to listen to somebody recount the story of the day that they had to attend the scene where their husband or father had just been killed. Selfishly, it is sobering to think about how easily it could have been me. I ride the same roads as Mike did. It was not an error, or avoidable on his part. The driver alone was at fault; it was his casual negligence that caused Mike’s death.
Mike’s daughter Kim recounts:
“On 27 June 2025, the driver, Dennis Roberts, aged 74, pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving. He was banned from driving with immediate effect, given a one-year sentence, suspended for two years, a two-year driving ban, 250 hours unpaid work and has to pay court charges of around £200. The sentence is within the guidelines of the law, but does the law fit the crime? He has lived his life like normal for 18 months, while we have lost our dad, husband, friend, grandad, and lived the last 18 months encompassed in a whirlwind of grief. Even after sentencing he continues to live his life, just with a small inconvenience of not being able to drive and giving up a few hours to work unpaid. How is that justice? In two years’ time he will be able to drive again. Would you give someone who used a gun carelessly and someone was killed their gun licence back after two years? I doubt it. They would most likely have a custodial sentence too.”
I would ask all Members in the Chamber to think how they might feel if they were to get a phone call today informing them that their partner, parent or child had been killed in a road traffic accident.
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech. Like him I am a cyclist and have been subject to dangerous driving, but I am also a driver, and I am sure that few of us would say that we had not driven carelessly at some point. Has he given thought to whether a lifetime ban would be appropriate in all circumstances, for anybody who has ever caused death through carelessness? I am not yet convinced.
Ben Obese-Jecty
My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. I will talk later about whether it is too draconian. The issue here is one of finality. I am sure we have all had close shaves while driving a car, but the fact of the matter is that if a driver has killed somebody—no matter how unlucky that may have been—that is final. The grief of the families I have spoken to and the stories I have heard from other hon. Members show that we cannot overstate how much of an impact that has on not just the lives of the family but on friends and colleagues. There are opportunities that those people will never, ever have.
Beyond that unimaginable pain, think how a family might be left feeling if they find that, far from the accident having been unavoidable, the death was caused by the reckless action of somebody who was playing with their phone, speeding, driving like a boy-racer or drunk. Think of the feeling of injustice when the driver is sentenced and receives little more than a slap on the wrist.
The driver who killed Mike was given a two-year driving ban. Hazel will never get to see Mike again. They will never have the opportunity to live out the rest of their lives together. Kim said:
“The long-term impact on our family is huge. Although my mum has returned to her job at the hospital she is unable to fulfil her role on a rota and shift system and is unable to reduce her working hours. She has therefore been forced into taking early retirement from a job she has been at for nearly 42 years. We never want my dad to be a statistic, and to never be forgotten.”
I tabled new clause 6 because of Mike, because of conversations with Hazel and Kim, and because victims like him need justice, which, as things stand, they will not receive. How can we put such an incredibly low tariff on being directly responsible for someone’s death? The option to ban a driver for life is at the court’s disposal, yet it appears not to be the preference of judges. That leniency suggests that life is cheap and that, far from being a tragedy, a death at the hands of someone careless or dangerous elicits little more than a shrug of the shoulders. In the event that somebody with a licensed shotgun killed somebody because they were careless—or, worse still, because they were dangerous—would we allow them to regain their shotgun licence? Why do we so readily return people’s driving licences after they have taken a life?
There is an argument that a lifetime ban is too draconian, does not leave room for rehabilitation and will not work as a deterrent. The new clause is not supposed to be a deterrent; it is for the courts to decide whether a conviction should result in a custodial sentence and thus what degree of rehabilitation, and therefore recidivism, should occur thereafter. The new clause is not too draconian; it is robust. It would take drivers who have killed permanently off our roads and mean that those who have already proved themselves to be fatally unsafe behind the wheel would never again be in a position to take another life or destroy any further lives.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Huntington (Ben Obese-Jecty) for speaking to his new clause, although I do not support it because the minimum needed to cause death by careless driving is a momentary lapse of concentration. Of course, he was talking about a death, and I am not suggesting for a moment that that should go unpunished, but a full lifetime driving ban meaning that someone who had a momentary lapse of concentration at 19 still cannot drive at 55 does not feel proportionate. However, I agree that we should look much more closely at all driving-related offences, including all offences relating to dangerous driving, careless driving and, in particular, causing death by dangerous driving. Those are horrendous crimes.
I have met families who have been bereaved in that way, and those have been some of the most impactful conversations I have had in my life. The impact on those families simply cannot be overstated. We are expecting the road safety strategy imminently, and I hope that these matters will be taken forward on a cross-party basis and looked at sensibly, because it is a really important topic.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I totally understand what the hon. Lady is saying about a momentary lapse in concentration, but that lapse has cost somebody their life. Were that anybody sitting in this room, that would be a devastating consequence not just for them but for everyone here and everyone in their family. I recognise what she says about it not feeling proportionate, but there is nothing more final than losing one’s life. To that extent, I believe it is proportionate. Driving is a privilege and not driving is, realistically, only an inconvenience, whereas the repercussions of a family living their life without somebody are vast.
Sarah Russell
I broadly agree with the hon. Member on the overall topic: we should look at whether those offences are dealt with with sufficient severity. I also agree that the impact on people’s families cannot be overstated.
Sarah Russell
I will make some progress and speak to amendment 31 to clause 6. That clause is the one that I am most proud of. It was the result of cross-party work between the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) and the Government Front Bench and it needs to be given the prominence it deserves.
For the first time, the clause will enable the recording and tracking of when domestic abuse is a factor in an offence. Amendment 31, which I support, discusses the ability to call for evidence as to whether there has been domestic abuse. I start from the fundamental position that we should believe women on domestic abuse—I add that victims are predominantly, though by no means exclusively, female. None the less, I also strongly believe in the rule of law and the importance of having evidence. That is why I have sponsored the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter).
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) will more thoroughly address new clauses 28 and 29, which are about gambling treatment being considered on a par with treatment for drugs and alcohol in the courts. Those on the Conservative Benches have suggested that Government Members are in some way anti-punishment. We are not. I absolutely believe that crime should be punished, but I also absolutely believe that rehabilitation services are critical to preventing the recurrence of crime. When 80% of criminal offending is reoffending, we have to look seriously at how we break those cycles of offending. I welcome and applaud the clauses put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South. Gambling creates significant social problems in our society and when that extends to crime, we need solutions.
New clauses 15 and 24 both address the potential abolition of the Sentencing Council. The language with which they have been addressed by Opposition Members today has been a bit more circumspect than some of what we have heard them say previously about the Sentencing Council in this Chamber. Our judges in the UK are some of the best in the world. The independence of our judiciary is an absolutely fundamental premise of our democracy, and the way in which it has been talked about recently treats it with complete disdain. That terrifies me. It is one of the most important principles that our country stands upon.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) said that the Conservatives still respect the independence of the rule of law, but I have heard Members on those Benches refer to lefty activist judges as if somehow the judiciary in Britain were populated by radical Marxists. That is not the case. I am a lawyer and I spent 13 years in practice. I have never met a judge who was anything but genuinely committed to the apolitical upholding of the law. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is incredibly important that we continue to recognise and promote those principles. I say that partly from a genuine ideological position and partly from experience.
Britain has exported £9.5 billion in legal services in the last year. One of the reasons for that level of success is that there is genuine belief in our judiciary—people in multiple jurisdictions across the world trust that our judges will hear disputes impartially. When we talk like Conservative Members have in a criminal or civil context, we damage not only our institutions but our economy. We have to understand the importance of the British rule of law and we need to promote and uphold it at all costs. Those who do not do so damage our country. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Sarah Russell
I do not know the details of the case to which the hon. Member refers, which makes it impossible for me to give an informed comment by return. None the less, I can genuinely say, speaking from 13 or 14 years’ experience practising as a solicitor before I came to this place, as well as a lot of time spent in the Labour party and meeting leftie people, that the two did not really overlap. They just did not.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Does the hon. Lady accept that, in a democracy, it is important to be able to hold everybody to account, including judges? Does she accept that we need to be able to check that they are making good decisions on behalf of everybody?
Sarah Russell
The hon. Member appears to be ignoring the entire recruitment process for the judiciary, which fundamentally, at its heart, emphasises the independence of those people from political interference, and also the fact that the application of the law should not be subject to political interference in this place. That is absolutely fundamental. Judges are not getting up every morning and just coming up with ludicrous leftie positions. The picture that is sometimes painted by those on the Opposition Benches is just fanciful. It bears no relationship to my experience of engaging with the actual judiciary on an ongoing basis.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Would the hon. Lady agree that it is outrageous that Members of this House should hold up a judge’s wig at a party conference, and that judges therefore have increased security risks?
Sarah Russell
The members of the judiciary that I have spoken to have very genuine concerns about their personal security, particularly immigration judges. They are genuinely frightened of doing their jobs, and that will be affecting judicial recruitment. We need immigration judges to be able to stand up and serve the judiciary. Many judges take a pay cut to become a judge, and they deserve our genuine respect. They work very hard in a system that has been grotesquely underfunded for 14 years.
Lastly, I would like to mention new clause 40, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I have referred to cross-party working elsewhere. I understand that it might not be in the exactly right format for the Government to it take forward today, but I hope that the Minister will consider how we will deal with the fact that people are not receiving training when they are on remand and are often released at the end of that time. It is a serious issue that deserves serious consideration.
I have asked previously in the Justice Committee about what work is done with people on remand, particularly in respect of domestic abuse offences. In my opinion, we are missing an opportunity for people, without accepting any sort of guilt, to engage in services that many would benefit from, considering their general behaviour, irrespective of whether their original offence was related to domestic abuse. In fact, all of us could benefit from those opportunities for reflection. People spend a lot of time in prison, and at the moment it is not being used as effectively as I and many others would like it to be. That brings me back to my original point. Government Members absolutely believe in punishment, but fundamentally we also believe in rehabilitation, and the emphasis on that in this Bill is very much to be welcomed.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I will speak to my new clauses: new clause 4 on probation capacity and new clause 17 on the devolution of probation to Wales. I also support new clauses 2 and 3, as well as new clauses 19 and 30, which relate to relate to IPP sentencing.
First, let me commend the diligent work of my constituent, Rhianon Bragg, and fellow activists who have helped place vital victim safeguarding measures on the face of the Bill, particularly in relation to the restriction zone conditions in clauses 16 and 24. I have questioned and subsequently written to the Secretary of State for further clarification on the details of those measures, and I look forward to his response, which will help provide those vital assurances to Rhianon and other victims and survivors. The measures entail putting the restriction conditions around the perpetrator rather than the victim, and that is a major step ahead in our approach to looking after victims.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I will speak to new clause 28, “Gambling treatment requirement” and new clause 29, “Gambling addiction: support for offenders”. I thank the Minister and the Ministry of Justice, the NHS, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Health and Social Care for their sustained engagement and understanding on this topic. These are probing amendments, and I will withdraw them. However, I wish to highlight the real urgency with which we must treat gambling disorder with parity of esteem to drug and alcohol addiction in the criminal justice system.
Gambling can be a fun hobby which many of us enjoy—even I like a flutter on the lottery and have a soft spot for bingo. But what begins as the odd bet or game can quickly escalate, and some sadly spiral into problem gambling. Once an addiction takes hold, disordered gambling can break down families, cause people to lose their jobs and may trigger criminal behaviour. Those affected may turn to acquisitive crime to fund their addiction or pay their debts, and affected others may turn to crime to recoup their partner’s debts. Problem gambling is associated with not only acquisitive crimes, but street violence, domestic abuse and neglect. That, of course, leads to many harms for the person themselves, their families and the victims of their crimes.
Although the link between problem gambling and crime remains relatively under-researched, the available evidence illuminates several concerning trends. Problem gamblers are over four times more likely to be in prison. While there are examples of good support specific to problem gambling, there is currently no statutory requirement to provide treatment to people convicted of gambling-related offences. I have received reports of people with problem gambling only being given treatment designed for drug or alcohol dependency, general mental health support or no treatment at all. None of those options treats the very specific and complex issues related to problem gambling and crime. Without this, people risk entering a cycle of reoffending, with harms escalating each time and more and more victims.
I was given a case recently in which a woman who developed a gambling addiction after a traumatic life event received no support during her custodial sentence. She was instead directed to a drugs and alcohol course, which she found incredibly unhelpful. In another case, a man imprisoned was not offered any treatment in custody at all and experienced a rife culture of gambling while in prison. He left prison with no treatment and no path to recovery.
It must be acknowledged that in many cases, gambling disorder is one part of a wider network of vulnerabilities contributing to offending and reoffending. Problem gamblers often struggle with alcohol or drug misuse, mental health issues or underlying trauma.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case that I wholeheartedly support. She is outlining not only the real problems that gambling addiction causes but the trauma that often leads to it, which shows how important rehabilitation is. We have heard much from Opposition Members today about how everybody should be punished and how this Bill is a soft option. Does my hon. Friend agree that requiring people to drill down into the causes of their offending is far from an easy option? It is a very difficult thing to ask people to do, and it is essential that we give them the support they need to look at their life and turn it around.
Dr Gardner
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I wholeheartedly agree. Prison should be rehabilitative. Any offender should have that support, to prevent reoffending. It is right for our society, it is right for potential victims, and it is right for offenders, who often resort to criminality due to very severe personal circumstances and trauma.
Gambling disorder is recognised as a mental health condition. Leading mental health assessment tools such as the DSM-5—the fifth edition of the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”—and the World Health Organisation’s international classification of diseases classify gambling as an addiction with similar cognitive and psychological effects to those of substance use disorders. Research indicates that once an individual begins chasing their gambling losses with further gambling, their cognitive functioning becomes impaired. Changes can occur in brain chemistry and neurocognitive function, and the ability to make rational decisions—such as choosing whether to engage in criminal behaviour to manage debts or to continue gambling—becomes compromised. There is the link.
The criminal justice system recognises the psychological impact of drug and alcohol dependency. Drug and alcohol dependency are mitigating factors, with sentencing guidelines, treatment pathways and rehabilitation requirements, as set out in the Sentencing Act 2020.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very strong argument, drawing parallels between gambling addiction and drug and alcohol abuse. Earlier this year, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I questioned Government officials about the endemic use of drugs in prisons. The Carol Black report looked at this back in 2020—
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. How long have you been in the Chamber? Have you just walked in?
Anna Dixon
No, I have not just walked in. This is the third speech I have listened to.
Anna Dixon
A lot of drug users are repeat offenders, as my hon. Friend was saying about those with a gambling addiction. Does she agree that a shift to community provision might enable people to get the rehabilitation they need for their addiction, whether it be drugs, alcohol or gambling?
Dr Gardner
I do. I reiterate that to break the cycle of reoffending or recidivism, rehabilitation must be at the heart of all sentencing and punishment, be it community or custodial.
Under the Sentencing Act 2020, an individual suffering from drug and alcohol addiction receives targeted support through the alcohol treatment and drug treatment requirements for community orders and suspended sentences, yet no such legislation ensures that individuals serving community orders or suspended sentences for gambling- related offences seek rehabilitative treatment. Pre-sentence reports can include problem gambling, and the court may decide that an offender is suitable for a mental health treatment requirement as part of a community order or suspended sentence. However, although problem gambling is associated with depression and a heightened risk of suicide, the mental health treatment requirement does not directly treat gambling disorder.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Today I speak in favour of the eight amendments tabled by Reform UK. Simply put, the Bill is motivated by the desire to free up prison spaces, and not by what is the best way to administer justice. Its primary function is not the protection of the public, or the protection of victims of crime or abuse—in fact, it is the opposite.
Clause 1 is about the presumption of suspension of a custodial sentence of 12 months or less. We proposed an amendment to remove clause 1, which effectively discourages the magistrates court from imposing a custodial sentence. There are circumstances when a custodial sentence of 12 months or less is entirely appropriate, and the clause is tying the hands of magistrates, who will be under pressure from the clerks not to impose a prison sentence. What does that mean for those found in possession of a bladed article, namely a knife—an offence that currently attracts a mandatory six-month prison sentence?
With this presumption of suspension clause, is the Minister now suggesting that offenders who are found guilty of carrying a knife will now have their sentence automatically suspended? If so, what does this mean for knife crime on our streets and the protection of the public? Community sentence options are often limited due to defendants claiming anxiety and depression, meaning that unpaid work is not an option and that tagging may be limited. In addition, fines are often meaningless because so many defendants are claiming universal credit.
Let me turn to clauses 18 and 19. We have tabled new clause 24, which would abolish the Sentencing Council all together. The Sentencing Council was introduced to give statutory guidance to the judiciary to avoid inconsistencies in sentencing decisions. However, we believe that its work has become prescriptive and politicised, as shown by clause 19. We live in an era of two-tier justice. Let us not forget that in March, the Sentencing Council proposed treating ethnic minority offenders more leniently than white offenders. The Justice Secretary had to step in and overrule the Sentencing Council in order to stop this madness. For these reasons, the Sentencing Council should be abolished and sentencing powers should lie solely at the discretion of judges.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I sit on the Public Accounts Committee. Earlier this year, we investigated the state of our prison system and all the sorts of things that one should describe as restorative justice. The facts are that our prisons are overflowing, they are not making anybody any better or turning people around, and they do not provide restorative justice. As I know to my own cost, it costs four times more to keep a prisoner in prison for a year than it does to send a boy to Eton.
Sarah Pochin
I thank the hon. Lady for the Eton example. I am sure that will resonate very well with my constituents in Runcorn.
Esther McVey
Does the hon. Lady agree that if there are not enough prison places, then we should build more of them, not let people out of prison? That is what we should be doing—[Interruption.] Remember, this is a Government who found untold amounts of money to house illegal immigrants. We need to do the same for prisoners.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
On a point of order, Ms Ghani. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) just swore at my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin).
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I can see that the hon. Gentleman in question is shaking his head, so I assume that no swearing has actually taken place. Can he confirm that?
Sarah Pochin
We proposed an amendment to remove clause 20 all together. The clause proposes to reduce the time served of a custodial sentence from a half to a third in order to free up prison capacity. This means that dangerous criminals who have been locked up for some of the worst possible offences, including paedophiles, could be let back into the community after serving only a third of their sentence behind bars. Only the most serious offenders, including those convicted of rape, will serve half their sentences in jail, reduced from two thirds. [Interruption.]
Dr Mullan
As the hon. Lady is laying out the reality, Government Members are chuntering and suggesting that what she is saying is not true, so may I point out that the Library briefing clearly says that those with sentences of over four years for a violent or sexual offence who are currently released at the two thirds point of sentence would be released at the halfway point under the new provisions? That is a fact.
Sarah Pochin
I thank shadow Minister for supporting me on that point.
I turn to clauses 24, 36 and 37 with respect to licences. These clauses all give powers to the Probation Service to reduce the length of a community order imposed by the judge or magistrate. The Probation Service is underfunded and overstretched already, and the real risk is that offenders will have their requirements reduced by probation officers in order to free up capacity in the service. The probation officer already has discretion on the number of days of rehabilitation required, and it is dangerous to give any more quasi-judicial power to the Probation Service.
Sarah Pochin
No, I will make some progress; I have given way a lot.
Let me move on and make a point of clarification with respect to clauses 26, 27 and 28, which are on recall. The current system allows for fixed-term recall of 14 days for custodial sentences of less than 12 months and 28 days for custodial sentences of one to four years. Standard recall offenders serve the rest of their sentence. Can the Minister confirm that this Bill introduces FTR and SR of 56 days for all custodial sentences of less than four years, with the exception of terrorists, such that offenders who have committed serious crimes including assault, robbery and possession of knives or other offensive weapons could be out again in two months? That is not protecting the public. However, I welcome the fact that the presumption of 56 days’ recall does not apply for domestic violence offenders who have breached their licence conditions and gone on to reoffend.
Clause 42 is about foreign criminals. I propose to replace the clause and to move new clause 25, which would apply an automatic deportation order to foreign criminals sentenced to at least six months’ imprisonment or a six-month community sentence. The Secretary of State wrote to Members of Parliament claiming that he had strengthened the ability of the Government to deport foreign criminals. He said in a letter that it will be the duty of the Home Secretary to deport foreign offenders who receive at least a 12-month custodial sentence, yet in the same letter he stated that
“this is subject to several exceptions, including where to do so would be a breach of a person’s ECHR rights or the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.”
In other words, nothing will change and no one will get deported.
Finally, new clause 26 would make an addition to the Bill referred to as
“Criminal Cases Review (Public Petition)”.
Under the new clause, if it appeared to any British citizen aged 18 or over that the sentencing of a person in the Crown court has been unduly lenient or harsh, that British citizen—the petitioner—may refer the case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for it to review the sentence. There would mean that there would be a platform for defendants like Rhys McDonald and Chris Taggart in my constituency, who received an average of 30 months for an ill-advised tweet, to have their sentence appealed.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Catherine Atkinson. [Interruption.] I call John McDonnell.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Thank you, Ms Ghani; it is nice to be a substitute.
Like others in the Chamber, I am a member of the justice unions parliamentary group, and I will speak very briefly to new clause 3. As many Members know, the justice unions group comprises the probation officers’ union, Napo, as well as the Prison Officers Association and the PCS. It acts as the voice of the frontline workers in Parliament from those particular unions. There is an overall welcoming of the Bill by the unions themselves, which is good, but a specific concern has been raised with us with regard to the development of unpaid work and community service, and how that is managed in the future.
Many Members will also know about the history of community service; in fact, in the past we have had a few Members in this House who did a bit of community service—but that is another issue all together. Historically, it has been a way in which people have been able to avoid prison sentences: by working in the community and making reparation for the damage that they have often caused in it. I think we can report that it has been relatively successful in most of our constituencies.
Unfortunately, though, there have been experiments with privatisation, including of the management of the service; and there has been debate about whether this could be unpaid labour for private companies. In London, in 2013, community service was privatised to Serco. It was an absolute disaster. There was a lack of supervision on site, a lack of workers, and a lack of tools being delivered. It was also exposed that offenders were sometimes being crammed into vehicles that were unsuitable and unsafe. As a result, that privatisation collapsed. The last Government then engaged in a wholesale privatisation of probation, under the title, “transformation of rehabilitation”. That included unpaid work and community service. Again, even the last Government had to accept that probation would have to be brought back in house because of a combination of incompetence and profiteering, alongside a failure to go for realistically effective rehabilitation.
Anna Dixon
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s clarification that charities would still be able to provide these placements. I have a fantastic charity in my constituency, upCYCLE, which teaches bike maintenance skills to help rehabilitate people. Currently, that is done in prisons, but when there are more community sentences, that sort of charity will want to give people skills and meaningful work in the community. I just want to clarify that this is not about excluding charities.
John McDonnell
That is exactly in the tradition of community service as it was founded and developed over the years, but the experiments with privatisation have been a disaster. There is an argument that once a system starts using the private sector, as in America, offenders become economic units for exploitation and profiteering. The Justice Unions Parliamentary Group warns that we should not venture down that path, both as a result of historical failures, and given what has happened in other countries when the private sector has been able to use offenders in that way. The new clause is about returning to the traditional community service approach in this country. It was relatively effective, but in this new Sentencing Bill, which we welcome, it will be expanded on a scale perhaps not envisaged in the past. It is as simple as that.
Dr Mullan
The right hon. Member is well known for his long-term support for the Prison Officers Association. While he is on his feet, will he commit to supporting our new clause 16, which would close the loophole relating to whole life orders for the murder of prison officers?
John McDonnell
I declare an interest as an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. This is about the only time I have disagreed with it. I will not support that measure, although I understand where it is coming from, and I understand that there may well be a review of sentencing, and what is taken into account, when these actions tragically occur. To have a mandatory sentence like that would most probably not be appropriate, although the shadow Minister is right that the Prison Officers Association has argued strongly for the measure, and I respect that.
My final point relates not to new clause 3, but to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) on the naming and shaming of offenders and the idea that offenders’ photographs will be publicised locally. He suggests in his amendments that there should be much wider consultation on the issue, and probation officers are saying exactly the same thing. A lot of their role in rehabilitation is about ensuring that people have a connection with their families once again. They are concerned about the effect that naming and shaming has on the family, and in particular the children. Sometimes, the family serves the sentence alongside the offender, and we would not want any actions taken that increase the stigma for family members of offenders. If the Government are going down this path, there is a need for more detailed and widespread consultation and discussion.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Last week, I met one of my constituents, Tracey Hanson, in Parliament to honour the 10-year anniversary of the tragic loss of her son Josh, who was murdered in an unprovoked knife attack in Hillingdon, west London, in October 2015. We spoke about the tireless work that she has put into campaigning for victims’ rights, and I heard more about how the law that she wants to introduce—Josh’s law—would ensure that the rights of victims and their families to appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme are clear and equal to the rights of offenders.
I will speak specifically to new clause 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for the beautiful Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). After cruelly taking the life of Josh Hanson, Shane O’Brien absconded and evaded police for three and a half years before he was finally caught. Dubbed Britain’s most wanted man at the time, O’Brien was sentenced to at least 26 years in prison, just one year above the minimum sentence. After just missing the deadline to appeal the sentence as a result of unclear information about victims’ families’ rights under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, Tracey has spent years campaigning to ensure that no other victims face what her family did. Unfortunately, far too many victims and their families face the same problems, simply because they are not being made aware of their right to appeal sentences.
There are also concerning numbers of cases in which clerical errors—in one case I heard of, it was an email stuck in a barrister’s outbox—lead to the Attorney General running out of time and missing the deadline to appeal a sentence. While appeals from offenders will still be considered by the Attorney General outside the 28-day window in exceptional circumstances, appeals from victims or their families will not. Historically, victims were at the centre of the justice system. Victims were the driving force in bringing criminal cases, and played a central role throughout the process. It was not until the 19th century that there was a significant shift towards state-led prosecutions, with the victims, rather than criminal cases, significantly diminished. The focus only started to shift back towards the victim with the very recent introduction of the first victim’s charter in 1990. I believe that we must recapture more of the focus from the state, and divert it back to those who are most directly impacted by crime.
The lives of Tracey and her family will never be the same again. They should have been a central focus in the criminal case, and should have received the same rights, and information about their right to appeal against the sentencing decision, as the offender did. It is vital that victims and their families are clearly informed about their right to appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. New clause 12 would require the Crown Prosecution Service to write to victims, or their next of kin, within 10 working days of a sentence being passed, providing details of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, the application process for the scheme and the deadlines, which would also be extended, giving victims a better chance of benefiting from the scheme.
Sir John Hayes
My hon. Friend is making a bold case on behalf of victims. I hope that he will agree that the more we agonise about the circumstances of the guilty, the more we displace consideration of the effects on the innocent. Over the whole of my lifetime, the focus on the circumstances of wicked people has had exactly that effect, and unfortunately it has permeated so much of the establishment, including the judiciary; sentences are sometimes inadequate for that very reason.
Blake Stephenson
I think that the justification for not changing that approach over many years has been an argument about finality of sentence, and giving the offenders that finality. I do not think that stacks up today; we need to afford victims more rights and more sensitivity within the system.
New clause 12 is total common sense, and should be supported by Members on both sides of the Committee. It puts victims at the heart of sentencing, and does not compromise the need for finality in sentencing. It pushes the date back, but it does not change the status of that finality.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
I want to speak about new clause 5 and amendments 22 and 23 in my name.
The Government’s commitment to tackling violence against women and girls was never just a pledge, never just a slogan; it has always been about action—about changing things for women, girls and victims everywhere for the better. We have seen that time and again under this Government. Indeed, just today, they announced that child sexual abuse offenders convicted of serious sex offences against any child will now automatically lose their parental responsibility after being sentenced, rather than victims having to be dragged through the tough and costly family court process.
This Bill moves us forward in our mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on perpetrators of domestic abuse, I have always argued that we must focus on tackling perpetrators’ behaviour. Instead of asking, “Why doesn’t she leave?”, we must ask, “Why doesn’t he stop?” I therefore welcome the new restriction zones that the Bill will introduce, which will limit the movement of perpetrators, rather than victims, and the increased use of tagging. I am also pleased to see the new judicial finding of domestic abuse, which will revolutionise our understanding of sentencing for domestic abuse and ensure that we can exclude perpetrators from future measures that put victims at risk.
Jess Asato
No, I will make progress.
The expansion of specialist domestic abuse courts is also very exciting. I am concerned, however, by the provisions that allow for the automatic re-release of recalled perpetrators after 56 days, and fear that they may place some victims at serious risk of harm. Those who perpetrate crimes such as domestic abuse and stalking know everything about their victims—where they live, where they work, where their children go to school, their regular routines—and we know how fixated such abusers can be.
Although I welcome the exemptions of those managed under MAPPA—multi-agency public protection arrangements—categories 2 and 3, I must note that this will not capture the vast majority of domestic abusers. By the point a perpetrator is sentenced, it is likely that their victim has already been subject to abuse for years. SafeLives, a domestic abuse charity, has found that high-risk victims live with domestic abuse for 2.5 years. They will just be beginning to rebuild their life when their perpetrator is released from prison. If the perpetrator goes on to harass their victim, their probation officer may decide to recall them to prison, but after 56 days they will be released again, potentially to harass or abuse. They may again be recalled, and then released again 56 days later. I can see no provisions in the Bill to prevent this cycle, which could end in serious harm or the death of a victim.
Sir John Hayes
I had not intended to start this way but I will do so, following the last remarks by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) about acquired brain injury. I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury, and we recently held a session specifically on the relationship between acquired brain injury and the criminal justice system. She is quite right to emphasise that. I will say no more in detail about it, except to refer the Minister to the report that we published, which includes a section on criminal justice and acquired brain injury.
Beyond that, in talking about the fundamental consideration of this Bill, I want to speak about the facts, the reasons for them, their effects and the alternative, very much in the spirit that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) spoke in when moving her amendment. I recommend her amendments, almost without reservation. They are a bold attempt to rescue the Bill from the damage it might do. I do not claim that that damage is intentional, because I do not think that anyone in this House intends to do harm—we would not be here if we did. None the less, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) said, harm, whether unintended or otherwise, will be the result of this legislation.
It is undeniable, I am afraid, that the Government present to the House a paradox. On one hand, they say that this Bill is necessary because of practicalities, including the inadequate number of prison places. That is a plausible argument, because the prison population has grown, as we heard earlier in the debate, and we simply do not have enough places to accommodate all those who might be sent to prison. On the other hand, they say that it is a matter of principle, and they tell us that short sentences do not work. In doing so, they are conceding to the rehabilitationist argument that has pervaded criminal justice thinking and criminology more generally for the whole of my lifetime. I remember that when I was studying criminology at university, there was exactly that narrative. Other academics challenged it: Philip Bean, the criminologist, wrote a definitive book called “Rehabilitation and Deviance”, in which he made the case for just retribution. The public certainly believe that the criminal justice system should be retributive.
Dr Mullan
My right hon. Friend is talking about a contradiction in the Government’s position, but is there not another one? Labour Members and Ministers in particular talk about the volume of people who are going to be released as a result of their measures, but whenever they are confronted with examples of actual offences committed by the sorts of offenders they will be letting go, they always say, “Well, it wouldn’t apply to them.” The Government cannot have it both ways: either a lot of people are getting out of prison, including some of these people, or they are not. They have to make up their mind.
Sir John Hayes
It is certainly true that a very significant proportion of criminals are repeat offenders, and there are people who choose to live a life of crime. This is not an illness to be treated; it is a malevolent choice to be dealt with through punishment, because we need to punish people for doing harm. That is not complicated—it is what all our constituents would take as read—yet, as I say, we seem to agonise about it perpetually.
Anna Dixon
Referring to my earlier comments, the data show that one in four prisoners are drug users and have a drug and alcohol problem, and they constitute many of the reoffenders. Given that data, does the right hon. Member not agree with me that we should be rehabilitating and medically treating those addictions, so that they are not caught up in the criminal justice system?
Sir John Hayes
It is certainly true that one perverse choice leads to other consequences, and when people become involved in drugs, it often leads to all kinds of horrors. The key thing is therefore to stop people getting involved in drugs, and successive Governments, including this one, have intended to do that. Through a series of measures, we try to deter people from involvement in drugs, to deal with drug dealers and to do all the other things that you will not allow me to speak about at length, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I would be deviating from the content of the amendments if I did—
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. You should learn that one tempers oneself, Sir John.
Dr Mullan
This is very much still on topic. The challenge with the argument that Labour Members put forward on rehabilitation is that it presupposes that all we need to do is put someone on a drug rehabilitation course once, and they will stop offending and it is all fantastic. The evidence shows the complete opposite. Even the very best drug rehabilitation courses that money can buy at the Priory have a long-term success rate of about 50%. In reality, whatever we do, some of these offenders are going down a path from which they will not be turned for a significant length of time, and that is when we have to put them in prison.
Sir John Hayes
I do agree with my hon. Friend.
Just stepping back a moment, Ms Ghani, I am mindful that the only female Speaker we have ever had once famously declared, “Call me Madam”, so I will from now on call you Madam Chairman rather than anything else.
It is certainly true that we need a war against drugs, drug dealing and all the effects of drugs, but it would be quite wrong to separate that from the public desire to see people who do bad things dealt with appropriately. When those bad things are at their extreme, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton pointed out, we are speaking of extremes—acts of violence against women, minors and, let us face it, men—they need to be dealt with with severity. There is nothing wrong with saying that because it is what most people intuitively feel, and it is right that they do. Grotius, the jurist, once said that criminal justice was about
“the infliction of an ill suffered for an ill done”,
and that sense that the punishment must fit the crime rings true now, as it did when he made that observation.
The Minister needs to explain whether the Bill is about practicalities or principle. I have yet to determine which position the Government have taken.
Sally Jameson
I just want to highlight the fact that it is possible to believe that offenders need to be punished, as I do—when I was an officer, I was part of delivering that punishment—and simultaneously that rehabilitation should be a part of the prison system. While I agree with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) that some offenders are not ready to begin the rehabilitation journey, that does not mean that we should not stand ready to provide it for those who are ready, as it ultimately drives down reoffending and reduces the number of victims, which should be at the heart of everything we do. Punishment and rehabilitation need to work hand in hand.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Lady makes a valid point. While I attack the rehabilitationist dogma, I do of course believe that we should try to save souls, and the best way of doing that is to address people’s fundamental problems, as many Members across the Committee have said in the course of this debate. That might be about ensuring that people have adequate learning, or it might be about the acquisition of a particular skill. The hon. Lady will know from her rich experience in these matters that if someone can get a job when they leave prison, they are much less likely to reoffend. When someone in those circumstances is unable to get a job, it is usually a result of the fact that they do not have core skills, in terms of basic competencies, or specialist skills. Where those can be provided through learning in prison, that undoubtedly has beneficial results—I have seen that myself in prison, where I have met both the people who run such services and the people receiving them. The hon. Lady is therefore right.
However, I am really speaking about something more fundamental than that, which is a willingness to recognise —as the hon. Lady did, by the way, in her brief intervention —that punishment matters. The reticence or unwillingness to declare that as openly as I have, or the attempt to ignore or avoid it, is at odds with the instincts of the vast majority of our constituents. It is, perhaps, a product of a society that has lost its moral compass, where right and wrong have been eroded through a kind of moral relativism. Perhaps it is because of some quasi-Freudian need to explain crime in more complex terms than it may warrant—for it is simply a question of someone wanting something they cannot get and using force, violence or some other means to get it.
Anna Dixon
The right hon. Gentleman is making a passionate and principled speech about punishment, but we are dealing here with practicalities. The Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, has looked at the prison estate capacity. There was a pledge under the previous Government for 20,000 additional prison places; just 6,518 of those were actually built. If the right hon. Gentleman were to pursue this line of saying that everybody needs to have a punishment without rehabilitation, I do not understand where, in practical terms, he is going to put people.
Sir John Hayes
I agree with the hon. Lady, actually. I remember visiting the former Justice Secretary—the former Member for Cheltenham, Alex Chalk—with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), to tell him that we would not vote for it if that Government brought forward a measure to let people out early. My position on this matter has been entirely consistent; I would not have voted for a Conservative measure that let people out of prison early any more than I will vote for this measure tonight.
I suggested three things to the then Justice Secretary: first, that we deal more robustly with foreign national offenders; again, our constituents would be astounded and appalled if they realised just how many foreign national offenders are in our prisons. Secondly, I suggested taking emergency measures to provide prison places. After all, during covid, we built Nightingale hospitals; I suggested that we build Fry prisons, named after the Tory prison reformer Elizabeth Fry, which will not be lost on the historians here in the Chamber. I do not see why that could not be done.
Thirdly, we should certainly explore prisons that have been closed in recent times, under Conservative and Labour Governments, and see which could be used, either temporarily or on a permanent basis. There is a whole range of measures that we could take. It is not easy, and I say that knowing what it is like being a Government Minister. None of those things are easy, but they are all worthy of further exploration because of the effects that the legislation will have.
Esther McVey
My right hon. Friend talks about the number of people who will be released from prison. I spoke earlier about the number of people who will not even be going to prison. All in all it will be tens of thousands of people not in prison. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the public find this out, they will want that Government gone?
Sir John Hayes
As my right hon. Friend says with her typical clarity and passion, it may be that the Government bow to public pressure—and there will undoubtedly be public pressure of a kind she describes. We are speaking about people who have done serious harm, including sex offenders of the most extreme kind and violent repeat offenders. These are not people who have committed minor indiscretions; they are very serious criminals. The public will resist their release and protest about it, and the Minister may well feel obliged, as I am sure he is a man of principle, to return to the House and amend the legislation when its effects are truly and fully seen.
My judgment would be that the facts speak for themselves: thousands of people will be let out of prison who certainly should not be. The reasons are as I described them; they are practical, but there is an underlying sentiment that I tried to articulate: it is a fear of punishment and an unwillingness to recognise the retributive nature of criminal justice. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) set out far more eloquently than I ever could, the effects are likely to be devastating for our constituents and communities across the country—and bear in mind that it will happen in every part of this country, every constituency will suffer as a result of the legislation. Each one of us will, as good constituency MPs, have to cope with some of these effects.
The alternative is, as I described when responding to an earlier intervention, to look at every possible means of accommodating people in prison who deserve to be incarcerated—
Sir John Hayes
I am coming to my exciting finale, but I will happy give way on the way to it.
Ben Maguire
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does he agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) that the Conservative Government’s record on prison building was shameful? The former “Minister for Common Sense”, the hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), has been nodding along when Members have said that we need to build more prisons. It certainly sounds like common sense, but why on earth did the Conservative Government not do that?
Sir John Hayes
On a purely technical point, I am right hon. and so are my right hon. Friends the Members for Tatton and for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), but let us put that to one side. It is a matter of public record that I almost never disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville. The truth is, she is right: we should have built more prisons much earlier. We could have anticipated these things—they can be modelled, after all. By the way, Governments are often surprisingly poor at modelling—I saw that throughout my time in government—but we should have modelled this, given the trend change in the prison population.
Esther McVey
It might be helpful to give some of the numbers. Three prisons were built, with 8,500 places—they were delayed because of lockdown—and another three prisons are on the way.
Sir John Hayes
I noted those figures earlier. My right hon. Friend is right—we also rarely disagree, and I did not disagree with a word she said earlier—that more prison places were added, but there are two things about that. What we did not really take necessary account of was the effect of sentencing policy. If more people are sentenced to incarceration, perfectly properly, that changes the trend. We certainly could have dealt more effectively with foreign national offenders than we did, which was another growing problem. Furthermore, over a long period of time, while we were adding places we took some prison places out. We need to think about the number of prisons that closed. She is therefore right. [Interruption.] It is not that we did nothing—far from it; we did many good things of the kind she described—but, unfortunately, not enough account was taken over a long enough period.
It is not largely about the immediate policy of the previous Government. It goes back much further than that to a series of Governments of both major parties over a long time indeed. The modelling that I described is decade-long modelling.
It is an extremely difficult business to get planning permission to build a prison. The last Government often struggled with resistance to having a prison built or expanded in a locality. It is usually local constituency MPs—we can imagine such people: Liberal Democrat types—who come here and say one thing—[Interruption.] Notice that I said “types” rather than just Liberal Democrats. They say one thing but go back to their constituencies and campaign against opening a prison.
Mr Kohler
I say to the right hon. Gentleman and many hon. Members that the prison population is a supply-led industry. If we build more prisons, we will just get more prisoners. It does not address the issue. All history tells us that—look at America. We imprison more people in this country than is done in Europe, yet we have a higher rate of criminality. More people are imprisoned in America than here, yet America has a higher rate of criminality. Building prisons is a fool’s errand.
Sir John Hayes
The thing that I most admire about the hon. Gentleman is his sartorial style—I glanced across towards him earlier, and I was going to say to him as I left the Chamber, “I love your suit”—but I rarely agree with what he says. We come from very different perspectives. In a sense—I do not mean to be unkind—his view is part of the problem. The problem is the persistent idea that putting people in prison is cruel and nasty. Of course, it is pretty nasty, and most of our constituents think it should be—in fact, they probably think it should be nastier than it is. Our difference of opinion will never be reconciled in a few brief exchanges, but it is important to note that a range of sentences are available to the courts—not just prison—and the key thing, about which I am sure we agree, is that those sentences need to be fitting to the events, fitting to the effects of the crime and fitting to the interests of the victims, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) said in moving his new clause.
Josh Babarinde
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his sartorial appreciation some time ago of my green suit, when he went on to ask whether I won it at a village fête.
Josh Babarinde
I did not, but maybe the right hon. Gentleman can agree on the point that I want to make. He spoke about the challenges that Governments have had when modelling prisoner numbers and the prison population. Does he therefore agree with David Gauke, who recommended in his report that there should be an independent body that does that modelling, and is he disappointed that there is not a feature of that in the Bill?
Sir John Hayes
No, I do not. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on using the word “appreciated” exactly as in its dictionary definition. I did appreciate his sartorial style, but that is not to say that I either admired or approved it. [Laughter.]
In respect of David Gauke, who is a former colleague and was commissioned to produce that report, I do not agree in essence with it. I am more inclined to agree with the analysis of the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle. There is a huge mistake in assuming that incarceration is not of itself beneficial—to deal with the simple issue of recidivism, people cannot do harm when they are locked up. By far the best and most straightforward way of dealing with recidivism is to take people out of harm’s way, and by that I mean taking them out of doing harm.
If someone has committed a very serious crime, such as rape, murder or very violent assault, locking them up means they will not do it again. Releasing them means, too often, that they will; the statistics speak for themselves. If the Government want to really deal with recidivism, they should do three things: increase the number of whole-life sentences, raise the minimum sentence for a whole range of crimes and raise maximum sentences. To do that, they have to build more prisons. The mission I give to the Government is that they jettison the Bill before it does harm, think about how they can devise and deliver alternatives to that and be bold in making a case for a retributive system of criminal justice in a way that so few people have for so long.
Warinder Juss
As a member of the Justice Committee, it is a privilege to speak in support of the Bill. I welcome the much-needed reform that it will bring to our courts and prisons system. I wish to speak in support of clause 1 and amendment 36, relating to sentences of 12 months or less, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox).
We are well aware in this House of the disastrous situation our prison system was left in by the previous Government and I am proud that this Government are now confronting the crisis head on. We are committed to not just short-term fixes, but long-term reform. The Bill will tackle the root causes of the issues that lead to the crisis in the first place and rebuild a justice system that delivers fairness, safety and accountability to all in society. Amendment 36 will do more than just reduce the pressure on our prison system; it will represent a vital cultural shift, placing rehabilitation and reintegration at the heart of our sentencing system.
Since becoming an MP, I have visited several prisons and one thing that has become clear is how easy it is to fall into the reoffending cycle, especially for those who are serving short sentences. A minor offence can lead to a short prison sentence that can affect a prisoner’s entire life. They leave prison and they have no home, no connections and no job. When they are released from prison, they have no option but to fall back into the same behaviours that put them in prison in the first place.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about amendment 36. It is imperative that when we look at improving the system as a whole, we understand the pressures that we are placing on our courts, including Snaresbrook criminal court in my constituency. Does he agree that it is imperative that this should be a facet of all the changes we hope to bring about?
Warinder Juss
I have visited Snaresbrook Crown court and I understand exactly what my hon. Friend is saying. He makes a valid point. The pressures on our courts system and our prison system are all interlinked.
It is important that victims get the justice they deserve, that the courts are able to deliver it and that offender rehabilitation does not come at the cost of victim confidence. However, we must recognise that short-term prison sentences all too often do not work and instead merely cause disruption to people’s lives and kick-start a cycle of reoffending. Where the courts believe that justice is better served through community rehabilitation, we must empower them to do put that in place. Amendment 36 would require judges also to consider whether a community sentence was better than a prison sentence or a suspended prison sentence.
I am proud to support this Bill because it centres on victims and allows them the protection and dignity that they deserve. The Bill and the amendment will also allow those on trial a proper consideration for rehabilitation and an opportunity to make amends and have a better life. I urge Members to support clause 1, to support amendment 36 and to support the Bill. It is a vital and crucial step forward for our courts, our prisons and our communities, and for a fair justice system that works for all.
Mr Kohler
Government new clause 1 seeks to strengthen the deportation framework by making it available to those given a suspended sentence. I urge the House to pause before we simply nod it through. It may be politically attractive to say that we are toughening deportation powers, but in practice the change risks blurring the distinction between the offenders who pose a genuine threat to the public and those who do not. A suspended sentence is imposed precisely where the court believes that immediate custody is not necessary for justice or public safety. To treat those individuals like those who have served time in prison lacks logic and may well invite legal challenge.
My concern is that we are legislating in haste, as seen in today’s Committee of the whole House, and layering new powers on a system that already fails to use effectively those that it already has. Instead of focusing on headline-grabbing amendments, we should be fixing the operational chaos in the Home Office that allows people to slip through the cracks in the first place, as we have seen in my constituency; the notorious Wimbledon prowler has recently been released but not deported, despite the Home Office vowing to deport him when he was sent down in 2019. What assessment have the Government made of the likely number of offenders who will be deported under the expanded definition, and how will the Home Office ensure that deportation decisions made under the broader power remain compliant with article 8 rights and do not clog up the courts with appeals that could delay the removal of genuinely dangerous offenders?
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I am going to speak in favour of Government new clause 1, but I first want to take the opportunity to mention the Conservatives party’s record in government. A lot has been made during this debate about the prisons that were built during the last Government, so let us place it on record that, between 2010 and 2024, there was a net addition of 482 prison places. If that is a record that the Conservatives are proud to stand on, I will happily give it to them.
Secondly, a lot has been said about lefty lawyers. I would like to draw to the Chamber’s attention that, almost two years ago to the day, the then Conservative Lord Chancellor—presumably a well-known lefty lawyer—spoke about suspended sentences. Of reoffending rates, he said:
“The fact is that more than 50% of people who leave prison after serving less than 12 months go on to commit further crimes…However, the figure for those who are on suspended sentence orders with conditions is 22%.”—[Official Report, 16 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 60.]
It is important that we understand what we are talking about when we are talking about suspended sentences. That point is relevant to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) as well.
Ms Minns
I think the hon. Gentleman is making a correction to the former Lord Chancellor, because those were his words. I am sorry that the Conservative party has moved so far in two years that you wish to disown the work of a Lord Chancellor who stood in this Chamber just two years ago.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Ms Minns, please—“you wish to disown”? I am not contributing to the debate.
Ms Minns
I really do apologise, Ms Ghani.
Moving on, I support new clause 1. It would strengthen our approach to the deportation of foreign criminals by amending the definition of “period of imprisonment” in two key pieces of legislation: the UK Borders Act 2007 and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The amendment is about ensuring that the law reflects the seriousness of the sentence handed down by the courts, whether it is immediate or suspended.
Currently, a suspended sentence of 12 months or more does not count towards the definition of a foreign criminal for deportation purposes. This creates a loophole that risks undermining confidence in our immigration and justice systems. I have met the Minister for Border Security and Asylum to discuss the deportation of foreign criminals with suspended sentences, and I very much welcome the closure of this loophole. It is not an abstract policy change; it is a necessary correction to a real and pressing issue.
New clause 1 ensures that suspended sentences of 12 months or more are treated with the gravity they deserve when considering deportation. It sends a clear message that serious criminal behaviour will not be overlooked simply because the sentence was suspended, and it strengthens our ability to protect communities, uphold justice and maintain public confidence in our immigration system.
Let us be clear: a suspended sentence is still a sentence of imprisonment. It is imposed by a judge who has determined that the offence is serious enough to warrant custody. The fact that the sentence is suspended does not diminish the gravity of the crime.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady not accept that most victims of crime would say that a suspended sentence is very much not a custodial sentence?
Ms Minns
I am not going to pretend to be an expert in the judiciary or the actions of individual judges. Nevertheless, it is important that we recognise that a suspended sentence and a sentence that places an individual in prison are both sentences of punishment. We are talking, in our discussion on new clause 1, about how that relates to whether a foreign criminal should be removed from the country.
The new clause is a targeted, proportionate and principled amendment. It does not expand the scope of deportation arbitrarily. It simply ensures that those who commit serious crimes are not shielded from deportation by technicalities. I urge colleagues from across the House to support it.
Sir Ashley Fox
The Gauke review was a thorough exercise carried out in good faith. It was intended to fix some of the problems that persist in the justice system, and was particularly aimed at easing the burden on the prison estate. As a member of the Justice Committee, I had the opportunity to question the former Lord Chancellor and was struck by his thoughtfulness and expertise. Despite that, I do have reservations about parts of the Bill, particularly those around the early release of certain prisoners. Amendment 24, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), seeks to add an extra protection to the Bill to combat this. It would ensure that the most violent and dangerous offenders—those guilty of crimes like rape, grievous bodily harm, child sex abuse and causing death by dangerous driving—do not benefit from automatic sentence reductions.
We all agree that rehabilitation has a place in our justice system, but that is not its only purpose. The public expect criminals to be punished for their wrongdoing and to be protected from those criminals causing future harm. I fear that Labour Members do not know the consequences of the Bill, which are that violent and sexual offenders will be released from prison early and will then go on to commit further criminal offences. We will have to deal with those consequences in the years to come if the Bill is passed unamended. Those who commit the most serious crimes should serve the full sentence handed down by our courts. Early release should never be a reward for those who have shattered lives beyond repair.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I would like to speak in favour of my new clause 2, as well as new clauses 18 and 22. Fourteen years of Tory austerity have left prisons in crisis. They are severely overcrowded and understaffed. There are significant challenges on the prison estate, including staffing shortages. HMP Liverpool expects to see a massive reduction in staffing due to the impact of the skilled worker visa scheme. Prisons were forced to take emergency release measures to prevent a complete system breakdown.
There is much to appreciate in this Bill, and more to wait for from the Law Commission’s sentencing review, but I echo the concerns raised: without sufficient resourcing and transparent, clear guidance, the ambitions of the Bill risk failing. We know that over half of those serving a sentence of less than 12 months reoffend, and women prisoners disproportionately receive shorter sentences. The link between short sentences and reoffending contributes greatly to the pressures on prison capacity. Mental health treatment, alcohol and drug misuse treatment and other rehabilitative services bring wider social benefits and protect the public far better than the current system by tackling the causes of crime. The organisation JUSTICE has stated that without proper resourcing, staffing and funding, rehabilitative services will remain too overstretched to be effective. In August 2025, a shortfall of 10,000 Probation Service staff was recorded. The Bill’s impact assessment estimates the need for an additional 500 probation staff each year. Will the Minister reassure Members that he understands the scale of the task ahead, and outline his commitment to allocating adequate resources to ensure that our frontline services can deliver the provisions and vision of the Bill?
New clause 22, tabled by the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), seeks to provide leave to appeal where there has been change in the law that is material to the conviction, and where the application is served before the conviction is spent. A version of the new clause was first moved by the former MP for Huddersfield, my predecessor as chair of the all-party group for miscarriages of justice. It was written by Charlotte Henry, a formidable campaigner for Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association. I have long campaigned against the abuses of joint enterprise legal doctrine, and I take this opportunity to recognise the fantastic work undertaken by JENGbA over the past 15 years. The Justice Secretary previously provided commitments to JENGbA, and I hope that he will support new clause 22 today.
My new clause 2 seeks to provide oversight mechanisms for electronic monitoring, which the Bill proposes increasing hugely. The plan is to create a prison outside a prison, but although that has potential to ease the overcrowding crisis on the estate, it could give rise to significant risks, without proper oversight and accountability. Tagging plays an important part in our criminal justice system, and if used correctly and ethically, it can help reduce crime and protect the public, while giving victims confidence that justice is being served. However, there are numerous problems, and those must be addressed before any further expansion, particularly the massive profits made by private sector companies.
We must analyse the purposes of tagging, from public protection to being a punishment in itself. The Bill expands powers to ban offenders from specific places or certain activities, even when those have no connection with the offence. That is one glaring example of where tagging technologies risk leading to greater unchecked restrictions on our liberties. Failing private-sector contracts are at the heart of the problem, particularly those with Serco and G4S, now acquired by Allied Universal, which has a murky and well documented history of over-charging and under-delivering, and which has been fined tens of millions of pounds as a result. I agree with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place, which last year said it was “remarkable” that Serco and G4S had been reappointed to provide tagging services after they had
“been investigated by the Serious Fraud Office and subject to fines for misconduct and a deferred prosecution agreement”.
The issue is not only money; we are giving those companies more and more control of sensitive and clearly transformational criminal justice technology. Instead, we should use this decisive moment to bring tagging firmly into the public sector Probation Service, as is common in the rest of Europe, and out of the hands of failing and fraudulent privateers.
The Government have promised the biggest insourcing in a generation, and if they fail to insource these services, they should consider demands by the unions to make the companies that make and provide the tags also fit the tags, pre-release. That is in my new clause 2(2)(c). I remind Members of the appalling case of Gaie Delap, a Just Stop Oil activist in her late 70s, who spent extra weeks in prison because Serco could not find a tag to fit her. The companies making millions from these contracts should be sanctioned, so that they deliver services correctly. They should not be allowed to rely on overstretched prison staff to pick up their work. Will the Minister assure the House on that point? The fragmented privatised system creates huge delays and inefficiencies, and provides financial challenges for the people whom it supervises, who, for example, have to charge tags without having access to electricity, or money to pay for it.
I support new clause 18, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), which calls for an annual report detailing the use of tagging, and including information on the number of tags fitted, the number of malfunctioning devices, the rate of compliance and the cost of administrating the system. That important data must be freely available if the public and unions are to have any confidence in electronic monitoring.
Justice unions and the frontline workers whom they represent are calling for greater oversight, accountability and transparency in monitoring performance, and for any failures to be addressed immediately, not covered up by profit-hungry corporations. I join them in calling on the Government to commit to a full review of the feasibility of all tagging being managed by the Probation Service in the future, in a system run for public good, not private profit. In keeping with our promise to oversee the greatest wave of insourcing for a generation, now is the time for this Labour Government to bring this increasingly vital public service fully into the public sector, where it belongs, so I ask hon. Members to support my amendments.
Luke Taylor
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) on his clear and comprehensive explanation of the flaws of short sentences. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who is no longer in his place, gave us some insight into why we have ended up in such a mess: Government modelling was not able to reconcile the removal of prison places with rules for increased sentences. The result was more demand for prison places. The net figure of 482 prison places gained since 2010, given by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), shows the utterly damning mistakes that were made during the Conservatives’ time in government.
I will speak in favour of new clauses 6 and 39. In Christmas 2021, Lillie Clack’s family were woken by police, informing them that Lillie had been involved in a traffic accident on Christmas morning. It was caused by a driver under the influence, who was speeding at up to 100 mph, and who failed to stop for the police. Following the accident, heroic local residents rushed to the scene with fire extinguishers, but sadly Lillie died in hospital three days later. Lillie’s family have campaigned tirelessly since then for Lillie’s law, which would result in licences being suspended immediately upon a charge, and a lifetime ban from driving when drivers are convicted of causing death by dangerous driving or by careless driving.
I speak in favour of new clause 6, tabled by the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), which would apply the lifetime ban, and in favour of new clause 39, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), on the suspension of a person’s driving licence while they are on bail for a driving-related offence. Together, those new clauses would deliver the objectives of Lillie’s law and provide both punishment and deterrent for those who step into a car under the influence, or who do not take the care that is required when driving, which is a privilege, and not a right.
I will speak briefly in favour of new clause 30. I encourage hon. Members from across the House to support the long-overdue resentencing of all prisoners currently held under a sentence of imprisonment for public protection. At the end of 2024, more than 2,000 people were held under an IPP, which is an ongoing scandal and a tragedy for those individuals. The Government claim that the jail terms are a grave injustice, but they are failing to move quickly enough. This new clause would force them to act. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) so clearly explained, there is a need for action, so I hope his colleagues can be persuaded to support new clause 30, in the absence of another measure to address the issue, which is badly required.
Finally, I will mention new clause 40, on the provision of training during the period when an individual is on remand. We must enable rehabilitation wherever possible. Even if the new clause is not taken forward today, I join colleagues and the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) in encouraging the Government to look at the current situation.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
Justice must be capable of learning from its mistakes. When the law evolves, it must reach back for those left behind. That is the principle behind new clauses 22 and 23, which I tabled.
The new clauses would create a fair route for people still serving sentences under laws that have since been abolished or where the legal basis has materially changed. They would allow courts to review such cases so that punishment reflects the law as it stands today, not as it stood decades ago. At present, there is no clear mechanism for that to happen. Even when Parliament or the courts have recognised that a law was wrong, those affected have no way to benefit. Our system can acknowledge injustice, but it cannot yet fix it. We see that most clearly in the case of Alex Henry, whose sister is my constituent. She has campaigned tirelessly on this issue, and she and Alex’s mum are in the Gallery today.
Some 11 years ago, Alex was convicted of murder after a 40-second altercation. He did not wield the weapon; he threw a phone and one punch, then ran. He was convicted under the now discredited doctrine of joint enterprise, which allowed juries to convict if a defendant merely foresaw what someone else might do. Two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that that interpretation had been wrong for more than 30 years. Foresight is not enough for guilt—intent must be present—yet Alex remains in prison, serving a life sentence with a minimum term of 19 years for a crime that he would not have been convicted of under today’s law.
Monica Harding
Alex’s mother, Sally, is a constituent of mine in Esher and Walton. She shared Alex’s story in one of my surgeries, so I am very pleased that his story is being considered today in Parliament. The new clauses put forward by my hon. Friend will help to ensure that people such as Alex have a route to justice. Sally is battling on behalf of her son against a law that is obsolete. All of us can only imagine how heartbreaking and frustrating that is and the unfairness of what my hon. Friend has described. I urge Members across the Committee to support the new clauses so that there is a course to justice.
Zöe Franklin
This is indeed a highly significant issue, which is why I have put forward the new clauses.
Since his conviction, Alex has been diagnosed with autism, a condition that fundamentally affects how he perceives and reacts to social situations. That diagnosis raises serious questions about whether it was even fair to suggest that he could have foreseen a friend’s violent act, let alone intended it. Alex’s story is not unique. Many others—overwhelmingly young men, disproportionately from minority ethnic backgrounds—remain imprisoned under a doctrine that our highest court has disowned.
I recognise today Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association—JENGbA—whose members have worked tirelessly for more than a decade to support families and campaign for reform. Many of them, and the families of those affected, are also here in the Gallery. I place on record my gratitude for their courage and persistence in seeking justice. I also thank the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) for her support this afternoon.
New clause 22 would allow people still serving sentences under laws that have materially changed to apply for a review. It would give courts discretion to resentence in line with the law as it now stands or to make any other order necessary in the interests of justice. This is not about reopening every case or granting automatic releases; it is about restoring fairness. New clause 23 would complement that by requiring the Secretary of State for Justice to review and report to Parliament on how changes in criminal law affect existing convictions and sentences. It would ensure that when the law evolves, we look back and ask what the changes mean for the people already affected. This is not just a moral necessity, but a practical one.
We face a severe crisis in our prisons, which are overcrowded, understaffed and at breaking point. It makes no sense to fill cells with people serving sentences under laws that no longer reflect justice, while those who genuinely threaten public safety wait for space. We need prison places for those who are truly dangerous, not for those who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time under the wrong law. The Secretary of State for Justice has long recognised the injustice of joint enterprise. In 2021, he called it “shoddy law”, “outdated” and “backward”, and pledged to change it. Families across the country, including many in the Gallery, remember that promise; today’s Bill gives the Secretary of State and the Government the chance to make good on it.
The new clauses provide a practical, proportionate and fair way to ensure that our justice system can correct itself when the law gets it wrong. As such, my ask today is for the Secretary of State and the Government to champion these clauses from the Government Benches. Work with me and campaigners to refine the detail if needed, but do not let the principle fall away, because the strength of our justice system lies not in its perfection, but in its capacity to put right its own mistakes. For Alex Henry, for the families in the Gallery today, and for everyone who is still serving a sentence under a law that our courts have already rejected, I urge all Members on both sides of the Committee and the Government to support new clauses 22 and 23.
Jake Richards
I begin by thanking all those who have contributed to this important debate about sentencing policy and the future of our criminal justice system. Before I turn to the specifics of various amendments, there are two overarching principles that inform this piece of legislation and the Government’s position today. The first is the legacy that this Government inherited from the Conservative party, with prisons at breaking point, the risk that the most serious offenders would avoid arrest or custody altogether, and the need for emergency action to release offenders early to avoid the prison system collapsing. That was the conclusion of 14 years of Tory failure. Alongside the largest prison building programme since the Victorian era, this Sentencing Bill fixes that mess—under this Government, never again.
Secondly, while we stabilise the system that was so shamefully vandalised by the previous Tory Government, we can build a better justice system—one that protects the public and reduces reoffending. This Government will prioritise punishment, but punishment that works, not the broken system we have today. That is why we are introducing important measures on short custodial sentences, which robust evidence shows will reduce offending, save the taxpayer money and assist with the prison capacity crisis. Fixing the mess we inherited and building a more robust and effective justice system are at the heart of today’s Bill.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the official Opposition and the shadow Justice team. I am simply aghast at the chutzpah of the Conservative party on justice issues. The piece of legislation we are considering is only before the Committee today because of the mess that the Tories left behind. Whereas they turned their backs on the mounting crisis, this Government will not shrink from the challenges we face, however difficult they may be.
Amendment 24 would undermine a central purpose of the legislation, which is to solve the Tory prisons capacity crisis. Let me be absolutely clear: what victims of crime and our communities fear the most is the situation the Tories left behind, in which criminals—murderers, rapists and child abusers—might not face prison at all because the Tories left our system teetering on the brink, without the capacity to lock up even the most serious offenders. We will not apologise for the measures in this Bill that clear up their mess.
The inspiration for the changes that the Tories oppose is the earned progression model from Texas, where crime has been slashed by improving rehabilitation and cutting reoffending. Tackling reoffending and boosting efforts to rehabilitate offenders used to be Conservative policies; indeed, the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who is not in his normal place, used to believe in rehabilitation and initiatives to cut reoffending. Eight years ago, when I think he was still a one-nation Cameroon, he argued that
“the statutory definition of the purpose of a prison”
should
“include rehabilitation and reform”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 850.]
Now he opposes every single measure in this Bill that furthers that cause. He was a moderate; now, he is a pound-shop populist. One wonders whether he believes in anything other than his campaign to become Leader of the Opposition—simply not serious, Madam Chair.
Dr Mullan
The Minister has described what is in the Bill as an earned progression model. I have read out to the Committee the independent Library briefing note, which says that progression will not be earned; it will be automatic. On what basis is the Minister continuing to describe it as an earned model?
Jake Richards
Within the Sentencing Bill and primary legislation are specific punishments for offenders who do not play by the rules while they are in prison. That will affect the earned progression model. Further details about exactly how one can gain credit will be delivered in due course.
The Opposition and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) have tabled amendments to the provisions on the Sentencing Council with the aim of abolishing the council, and the Tory amendment would transfer its functions to the Secretary of State for Justice. That would amount to constitutional vandalism—it is an attempt to undermine the independence of the judiciary. The Sentencing Council holds a pivotal role as a bridge between Parliament and the judiciary. The council is widely acknowledged to have brought greater consistency to the sentencing process. Even before the council’s creation, it was not for the Justice Secretary or Lord Chancellor to fulfil the function of creating these guidelines. It is right that the council is held to account by Parliament, but it would be offensive to the principle of the separation of powers to dissolve the council entirely. This is a classic case of the populists going too far and not reaffirming the sovereignty of this place, as clauses 18 and 19 successfully achieve, but trashing constitutional norms for media headlines. I urge the Committee to reject such performative politics.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), tabled new clause 12 on the unduly lenient sentence scheme, on which the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) made a powerful speech. While the Government understand that the 28-day time limit can be difficult for victims and their families, it is important that there is finality in sentencing and that we avoid ongoing uncertainty about the sentence to be served. The Law Commission is undertaking a review of criminal appeals and held a public consultation inviting views on a range of reforms to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, including extending the time limit. We will wait for the Law Commission’s response before responding. I have heard the points that Members have made about communication, and over the coming weeks I will look at changes we can make to processes and functions within the Ministry of Justice to improve the system.
I shall move on to short sentences and the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). I want to be clear about this, because her speech simply did not accept the reality. Clause 1 does not ban short custodial sentences. At the end of this Parliament there will be more offenders in jail than there have ever been before. That is not being soft on crime. There is an important exemption in the legislation for cases where there is a significant risk of harm to a particular individual, whether psychological or physical. It will always be up to the courts to decide how to apply the presumption in any given case. The right hon. Lady’s amendments to widen the scope of the exemption or to eat away at the 12-month definition of a short sentence would render the provision meaningless. It is not the right direction.
The provision also includes an exemption for a breach of a court order. We have strengthened that further with Government amendments 2 and 4, which clarify that it includes repeat offenders who commit a further offence while on a suspended sentence. Government amendments 3 and 5 further expand the scope of the exemption so that it applies where an offence has been committed in circumstances that are closely connected to the breach of a court order, even where the breach is not in and of itself a criminal offence. Together, those amendments ensure that repeat offenders will not benefit from the presumption when they are already subject to a court order.
Where we can do so safely, we should be moving away from short-term sentences. Putting people in prison for a few weeks costs the taxpayer huge amounts and leads to further reoffending. We know that reoffending rates among those serving short-term sentences are scandalously high. Rigorous research shows that equivalent sentences in the community will tackle reoffending, preventing thousands of crimes each year. Indeed, the rigorous research, which the shadow Minister cited, showing that these measures will cut crime was commissioned by the last Conservative Government. They even put this precise provision—copied and pasted—in legislation that they introduced prior to the election, but it never came before Parliament. The Conservatives know it is the right thing to do, but now they oppose it for opposition’s sake. It is a good example of how far they have fallen. They are simply not serious.
I will not be able to speak to all the various amendments tabled by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), as I am sure he will appreciate. I met him earlier this week, and I will no doubt meet him and members of the Committee in the weeks ahead. I am grateful to him and his Committee for their work. New clause 19 addresses the important issue of the imprisonment for public protection sentence. It is right that the IPP sentence was abolished, and the Government are determined to support those in prison to progress towards a safe and sustainable release, but not in a way that undermines public protection. Changes we have implemented through the IPP action plan have contributed to a fall of around 14% in the number of unreleased IPP prisoners between June 2024 and June 2025.
I recognise the Chair’s desire to see the previous Justice Committee’s recommendation on resentencing implemented, but despite its detailed consideration of the issue, the Committee, like various other organisations, was unable to identify an approach to resentencing that would not involve releasing offenders whom the Parole Board has determined pose too great a risk to the public. The Chair of the Committee has put forward other amendments to the IPP scheme relating to the review of licence conditions. The Government will look into that over the coming days and weeks and no doubt have conversations with him.
Let me say a little about new clause 18, which deals with tagging, an issue that was also raised by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). The Government agree that it is important to report on key metrics relating to electronic monitoring, which is why the Ministry of Justice publishes statistical reports on the use of electronic monitoring in England and Wales both quarterly and annually. Our next annual report, which we expect to be published next summer, will include details on key performance indicators that the Department uses to hold the electronic monitoring provider to account. As the hon. Gentleman will know, owing to commercial sensitivities I am unable to specify the fines that have been enforced on those private companies relating to the tagging systems, but we will continue to hold their feet to the fire, which I hope will reassure him.
Josh Babarinde
It has been great to work with Ministers at the Ministry of Justice and to help drive that identifier forward. Will the Minister join me in celebrating the incredible bravery of ITV’s “Loose Women”, many of whom, through their “Facing It Together” campaign, have spoken out about their experiences of domestic abuse, and will he, or a fellow Minister from the MOJ, come and meet them next Wednesday from 12.30 pm onwards, in the Attlee Suite, where I shall be hosting them and we will be bringing the “Facing It Together” campaign to Parliament?
Jake Richards
I am always happy to pay tribute to the brilliant “Loose Women”, and, diary permitting, I will be there at 12.30 pm with the hon. Gentleman. Their campaign has been serious and has had a real effect, and we are very grateful to them.
Offenders who pose a greater risk are already excluded from the measures in the Bill, including those recalled on account of being charged with a further offence—such as, importantly, an offence relating to a breach of a civil domestic violence protection order—and those subject to multi-agency supervision levels 2 and 3, which apply to many sexual violence and domestic abuse offenders. These offenders can only receive a standard recall.
New clause 36, tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), builds on the work of the hon. Member for Eastbourne. It would require the courts to treat any offence involving domestic abuse as aggravated. Again, I recognise and sympathise with the intent behind the new clause, but domestic abuse is already treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing through the guidelines that make it clear that judges should consider domestic abuse as increasing the seriousness of an offence, allowing for tougher sentences where appropriate. We believe that any change might complicate the sentencing framework unnecessarily, without any real practical benefit.
Let me now deal with the issue of driving offences. We have heard many powerful speeches, including one from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who also made a powerful speech on Second Reading. He is not currently in the Chamber—oh, he is here, but he has changed, and is looking very dapper. I have had a brief conversation with him about some of his proposals. While we do not support the mandatory ban for careless and dangerous driving that results in death, I am determined to look at it, along with my colleagues at the Department for Transport. I was shocked by some of the statistics that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) produced on Second Reading, and in meetings that I have had with them since then. I want to get into the details, but there is certainly more that we can do, and I know that other Members have raised important cases in this connection. I will be looking at measures that we can take to strengthen driving bans, on an interim and permanent basis, for the most reckless offenders. Again, I praise all the Members who have made such powerful speeches today, some of them on behalf of constituents who have suffered significant tragedies.
New clauses 28 and 29 were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). I have met her twice to discuss the new clauses and the policy aims that sit behind them. I commend her for tabling them, raising the importance of tackling the hidden harms of problematic gambling, and for her ongoing collaboration on this topic. Let me briefly explain the ways in which we already identify and support those with gambling issues, and how we are seeking to increase the support that we provide.
Pre-sentencing reports help the courts to identify underlying issues such as harmful gambling, mental health problems and addiction, which may influence offending behaviour. Mental health conditions and addictions can be taken into account at sentencing, and courts are encouraged to take an individualised approach, particularly when the condition contributes to the offending. Where individuals demonstrate a commitment to address those issues, courts may consider community sentence treatment requirements, and in particular mental health treatment requirements, as part of a community or suspended sentence order. This can be undertaken only with the consent of the individual, and new clause 28 as drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South provides for the treatment to be mandatory, which is an issue. As I have discussed with her, there is the issue of the scale of demand and the current lack of any reliable data on how this would look in the criminal justice system. That is why I have already committed to work with colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care—indeed, I have been in correspondence with them just this week—to ensure that the Ministry of Justice is involved in the developing work on gambling addiction treatment and use of the statutory levy that is led by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
I will briefly deal with new clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Clacton, who did not bother to turn up for any of the debate. His new clause would introduce automatic deportation for foreign nationals who are given sentences of at least six months. Although the state would be forced to seek the deportation of an individual in such circumstances, that individual would clearly have cause for challenge—not just on ECHR grounds but, in particular, on the grounds of judicial review and proportionality, which has been a long-held principle of common law in this country for hundreds of years.
Let me be clear: this Government are urgently removing foreign national offenders, with removals up by 14% since we came into office. Through Government new clause 1, we are extending the Home Secretary’s duty to deport under the UK Borders Act 2007 to foreign nationals who are given a suspended sentence of at least 12 months. Upholding our values and keeping our nation safe is a priority, and new clause 1 sends a clear message. Regardless of whether a court chooses to impose an immediate custodial sentence or pass a suspended sentence, if the sentence is for a period of at least 12 months, it is sufficiently serious to merit automatic deportation. New clause 25, tabled by Reform, would make a mockery of our efforts more generally, putting scant resource into needless litigation and often unnecessary deportations—another Reform policy that crashes and burns on contact with reality.
I will briefly speak about new clause 27 and the powerful story told by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) about her constituent Sophie. It is an issue that first came across my desk as part of preparations for Committee. Although the Government are absolutely determined to deport foreign offenders for serious offences, the risk assessment in her new clause may inhibit the Government’s efforts in that regard. This is something that I will look at very closely in the coming weeks, and I hope that I can have a meeting with my hon. Friend to discuss the details and how we can make it work.
I want to raise briefly the campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) on tool theft, which has been such an important part of the reforms to the sentencing and criminal justice policy. Her efforts have been successful.
Today’s debate, which has lasted nearly four hours, shows that the dividing line in British politics is increasingly clear: it is between those who recognise the tough choices facing our country and are willing to make them in order to clean up the mess left behind by the last Tory Government, and the unserious, populist Opposition carping from the sidelines.
Dr Mullan
I am sure the Minister will hope that Back Benchers have listened closely to what he has said, but more important is what he has not said. The Government have been briefing journalists that what we were saying about rapists and paedophiles getting out earlier was not true, and they have told the same to a number of Labour Back Benchers. To be clear, can the Minister put on the record whether any rapists or paedophiles serving standard determinate sentences will be released earlier as a result of this Bill—yes or no?
Jake Richards
As the hon. Gentleman knows, sentencing decisions are for the judiciary. Every single offence in his amendment 24 can be given an extended determinate sentence. As I have said before—I will say it again—what victims of crime fear the most is the situation that this Government inherited, in which we were running out of prison places and the most serious offenders might not have faced prison at all. Bizarrely, the shadow Justice Minister said earlier in the debate, “If I had been Prime Minister or Chancellor, this wouldn’t have happened.” Well, you were not, I am afraid. A lot of you lot had a go at being Chancellor or Prime Minister, and none of you did a good job.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
Order. “You lot” and “you” were addressed to me.
Jake Richards
Madam Chair, I do not think that you were Prime Minister or Chancellor. I do apologise.
The Tory legacy in our prisons was lawless disorder, with not enough prison places to arrest or lock up even the most serious offenders. The Conservatives’ howling opposition today rings hollow in the context of their disastrous legacy. This Government have taken action to fix the mess by delivering 2,500 prison places in the first year, compared with 500 over 14 years of Conservative misrule. But we cannot simply build our way out of this crisis; it requires long-term reform for a more sustainable system. This Bill ensures that we will never again face the impossible situation that we faced last summer, but it goes further: it means we will cut reoffending rates, and we will build prisons that produce better citizens, not better criminals. This Bill will help keep our streets and communities safe. I thank all those who have contributed to the debate.
Esther McVey
I am deeply dismayed by what the Minister had to say. This Bill will make the streets of our country less safe. It will both let thousands of criminals out of prison and stop thousands of criminals going to prison. It will have a devastating impact on society. If the Minister is honest and is being truthful about this being an emergency—[Interruption.] I apologise —not “truthful”. If he is being accurate, and the reason really is that there is an emergency because of a lack of prison places, why has he not accepted my new clause 62? That sunset clause would allow two years for three further prisons, initiated by the Conservative Government, to come on line. He has not done so because, as I think we have revealed or exposed, this Government are soft on crime, and they are on the side of the criminal, not the victim.
Esther McVey
“Shocking” actually is the word for this Bill.
As the Minister did not offer any way forward and has not agreed to a sunset clause, I will push my amendment 46 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 4 to 6 together.
Ordered,
Environmental Audit
That Ellie Chowns be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Carla Denyer be added.
Public Accounts
That Peter Fortune and James Murray be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Rupert Lowe and Dan Tomlinson be added.
Work and Pensions
That Danny Kruger be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and Joy Morrissey be added.—(Gen Kitchen, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Wordsworth House and Garden
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
Many years ago, the community in Cockermouth saved Wordsworth House from demolition when plans were proposed to build a bus station, and the birthplace of William Wordsworth now stands as a historic gem on Cockermouth’s main street. Over the summer, following concerns about its future, I launched a similarly worded petition, which attracted more than 1,200 signatures. That campaign secured a commitment from the National Trust that the facility would not close. However, the trust has admitted that its long-term sustainability remains uncertain. I urge the National Trust to honour its promise to me to work with local businesses and the community to secure its future. The petitioners
“therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the National Trust to keep Wordsworth House fully operational and open to visitors. And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Penrith and Solway,
Declares that Wordsworth House and Garden, a Grade 1 listed national treasure, birthplace of poet William Wordsworth, is vital to our national heritage, education and local economy and its potential closure would be an incalculable loss, robbing future generations of a direct link to a pivotal era of English literature and a key contributor to Cumbrian tourism.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the National Trust to keep Wordsworth House fully operational and open to visitors.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003120]
Social Housing: South Cotswolds
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of social housing in the South Cotswolds, and I thank the Minister for being here this evening.
Across our towns and villages, from Biddestone to Barnsley and Hullavington to Hillesley, the story is the same. The need for genuinely affordable, safe and well-maintained housing has never been greater, yet precisely when the need is most acute, the supply of such homes is being allowed to dwindle away. In Wiltshire today, more than 3,600 households wait on the council’s housing register. Families and individuals are waiting for a secure, affordable home. Many are in the higher-priority bands, recognised as being in significant need.
Local parish surveys tell the same story. Biddestone and Slaughterford parish council has undertaken two surveys in recent years, both confirming a clear and continuing demand for affordable housing. There is also a growing need among older residents for smaller, adapted homes so that they can downsize locally, which will free up family houses for the next generation, yet in many villages that option simply does not exist.
I want to make it clear that I am not advocating arbitrary housing targets. I am talking about ensuring that the right kind of homes are built—homes that local families, key workers and older residents can actually afford to live in and want to live in, and homes that have the infrastructure that they need. While the Government have set new national housing targets that will more than double the number of homes expected in areas such as the Cotswolds, those figures risk doing more harm than good if they ignore our local realities.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that schemes such as the new social housing in Minehead—the first social housing for a generation—coupled with more social housing in Mid Devon specifically for elderly people to downsize from their own social housing are the way forward? Does she also agree that the Liberal Democrats in both institutions should be recognised for doing a jolly good job?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. I spoke to her beforehand to get an idea of what she would be referring to. We had a debate in Westminster Hall this morning on homelessness, and one point that came through very clearly was affordability. House prices can sometimes be over 10 times the average of what people can afford from their earnings. In my constituency—I suspect it is the same in the hon. Lady’s—many young people want to buy for the first time but cannot get a mortgage because the houses are too expensive. Does the hon. Lady agree that to address the needs of those who want to buy a house or access social housing, the Government must build more houses to bring the prices down so that people can actually afford them?
Dr Savage
I agree with the hon. Member about the financial impacts and even more so the social impacts of young people not being able to afford their first home and fly the nest of their parents. It is having a catastrophic impact on young people.
Returning to the South Cotswolds, around 80% of Cotswold district lies within a designated national landscape—the Cotswolds area of outstanding national beauty—and of the remaining 20%, roughly half is flood plain.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech and highlights perfectly the pressure on the landscape in southern England. Does she agree that there is a great deal of scope in many towns and even some larger villages for building on brownfield land? In Reading there are a number of examples of this, and I am sure colleagues have examples from their own areas. Brownfield could provide a very valuable resource to help protect the countryside.
Dr Savage
I could not agree more that we should be prioritising brownfield sites as well as refurbishing existing housing. We could very nearly, if not completely, meet the housing target through those means without needing to take space away from nature or food production.
Imposing a target of over 1,000 homes a year in the Cotswold district may make a good headline, but in practice it encourages speculative development on greenfield sites, where services are often poor and flood risk high, rather than genuinely affordable homes for local people in more appropriate locations. But I want to be clear that the debate is not about opposing new housing; it is about ensuring that what we build reflects local need, protects our environment and natural heritage and strengthens our rural communities rather than undermining them.
Our infrastructure is already stretched thin. Many of our villages have limited public transport, ageing drainage systems and GP surgeries that are full to capacity. Broadband and mobile coverage remain unreliable in too many places, and with climate change flood risk is rising with every winter storm. We simply cannot add hundreds of new homes without first ensuring that the essential services of water, drainage, transport and healthcare can cope. Our infrastructure is fragile. Growth must be planned sensibly, sympathetically and in a logical order according to local constraints, not imposed from the top down and literally bulldozed through.
These homes must also be genuinely affordable. Over the years, many local authority homes have been transferred to housing associations under large-scale voluntary transfer. In North Wiltshire, that happened back in 1995. Those homes now belong legally to the housing associations, not to the council, but too many of those housing associations are now selling off rural homes rather than refurbishing and retaining them. In some villages, every remaining affordable home could be lost. Once they are sold into the private market, they are gone forever—they will never again be available at social rents. That result is devastating for rural communities. Young people who grew up in these villages find they can no longer afford to live in them. Teachers, carers and nurses are priced out, and older residents find nowhere to go when they want to downsize. If we want our villages to remain vibrant, living communities and not just be picture postcard backdrops, we must ensure that people of all incomes can afford to live and work in them.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
I am grateful to my friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. She is speaking with a huge amount of common sense. Of course, her problems in the South Cotswolds are replicated in the North Cotswolds. The problem with increasing the housing numbers—doubling them from 500 to 1,000 a year, as she said—is that the planning system is not delivering us the number of affordable houses. The developers will argue against building affordable housing, because they can make more money out of executive three, four or five-bedroom houses. We need to alter the planning system so that developers, through viability arguments, cannot exclude the building of social housing in some cases altogether.
Dr Savage
I thank my friend and neighbour for his intervention. We do not agree on everything, but we are definitely of like mind on this. I also defer to his experience as a surveyor with great knowledge of the building industry.
Moreover, those who remain in the existing housing stock are too often living in conditions that are simply unacceptable. One of my constituents lives in a flat with her two daughters. The elder daughter developed what was thought to be asthma, but doctors now believe that her breathing problems are caused by mould spores in their damp home. She describes nights spent in panic as her daughter coughs uncontrollably. The landlord’s response has been seasonal mould washes rather than a proper fix that would get to the root cause of the mould problem.
Some social housing providers have proved difficult for my team even to get a response from, let alone resolution. Other constituents tell me of homes left empty for months in villages where people are desperate for somewhere to live, of properties that could easily be brought up to modern energy standards just left to deteriorate and moulder, and of repairs delayed or done poorly. That is inefficient and frustrating. It borders on the inhumane.
To be fair, the Government have recognised the issue in principle, for which I thank them. The recent policy paper, “Delivering a decade of renewal for social and affordable housing”, calls on providers to work with the Government both to build new homes and to upgrade existing ones, but the reality on the ground is that policy is not being enforced. Associations continue to sell off rural stock while neglecting maintenance and retrofit. I urge Ministers to pause the disposal of rural affordable housing by GreenSquareAccord and similar providers until the new policy framework is clarified. It makes no sense at all to sell the very homes our communities so desperately need.
We also need stronger enforcement to ensure that housing associations meet their obligations both to build new homes and to maintain existing ones to a decent standard, and there must be consequences for failure to meet those obligations. I ask the Government to support councils in rebuilding their capacity to own housing stock directly. Wiltshire council has expressed that ambition and deserves the financial flexibility to make it a reality.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
On housing stock, I am proud to have been the leader of Teignbridge district council—I draw the House’s attention to the fact that I am still a member—which has built council houses for the first time in 30 years. There are a number of adjustments that can be made, including increasing the number of homes from 200 to 500 before needing a housing revenue account, and I had a meeting with the Housing Minister on making that easier. The Minister told me that he was going to announce that and make that happen, but I am not convinced that that has yet happened. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is one of several adjustments the Minister could easily make so that it is easier for councils to build more council houses?
Dr Savage
That seems like an eminently sensible plan that I wholeheartedly endorse.
Coming back to genuinely affordable housing across the South Cotswolds, there is a planning tool designed for exactly that purpose. Rural exception sites are small parcels of land on the edge of villages, released specifically for affordable housing for people with a strong local connection. They are protected by legal agreements so that the homes remain affordable in perpetuity. When properly supported and implemented, rural exception sites can deliver well-designed homes that keep communities alive. Alongside that, we also need to see community-led housing playing a bigger role, with schemes initiated and owned by local people, often through community land trusts. Such schemes build not just houses but communities.
The affordable homes programme, which is the Government’s main grant scheme for affordable housing, has real potential to help, but it too often works for large urban developments rather than smaller rural ones. It is an urban tool being implemented in a rural setting. It can provide vital funding for social rent and community-led schemes, yet the rules and deadlines are often too rigid for parish-level projects. I therefore urge the Minister to make the programme more flexible and to strengthen the rural uplift, so that building a dozen good-quality, energy-efficient homes in a Cotswold village is just as viable as building hundreds on the edge of a city.
I am inspired by the tradition of alms houses, which is one of Britain’s oldest and most dignified forms of social housing. I was encouraged to see an architecture award recently given to some alms houses in London that show how modern design can honour that alms house heritage: small, beautiful, and community-oriented, with shared gardens and growing spaces. I can just imagine developments in our market towns and villages similar to those we already have in Cirencester, although those are many hundreds of years old.
Matt Rodda
Does the hon. Lady have anything she wants to say about the value of good design principles and linking to the existing traditional architecture in specific communities? We have had a great deal of success in our community in preserving the historical brickwork of Reading and encouraging new developments to copy that style, colour and range of bricks. I see that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) is nodding. He has the same local architecture with the same wonderful array of bricks and sometimes use of flints as well. Would the hon. Lady like to see that highlighted and encouraged?
Dr Savage
This is what we all want to see. Modern housing can be beautiful and blend almost seamlessly with existing housing stock in a way that is pleasing to the eye. It also helps communities to meld together when housing melds together. There are many villages in my constituency, and obviously the Cotswolds are associated with beautiful architecture in that lovely, honey-coloured Cotswold stone. Where the development is sympathetic, it is welcome, but there are other places where it is has been less sympathetic, and that tends to have an impact on the relationship between the residents in the old village and those in the new development—so yes, I wholeheartedly encourage and endorse the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion.
I can imagine developments like almshouses in our market towns and villages: clusters of low-energy homes built with local materials and ideally by local building firms, surrounded by shared green space for fruit and vegetables. That is how we build not only homes but communities. To make this happen, planning policy must reward quality and community value, not just sheer quantity. Rural exception sites need to be protected and strengthened, and national targets must recognise environmental constraints. We cannot meet housing numbers by paving over flood plains and protected landscapes.
Public bodies should be required to release small sites near services and bus routes at fair value for social housing, for convenience. Councils must also be able to retain 100% of right-to-buy receipts, with longer timelines, so that they are able to replace lost homes on a like-for-like basis. We must also address the pressure from short-term lets and second homes. A distinct planning use class for short-term lets, coupled with local powers to limit numbers and apply fair premiums, would help to ensure that homes remain homes, not vehicles for investment. This would help to keep our villages alive. So many of them are being hollowed out, with half or more of the homes empty for much of the week, meaning that local pubs, shops and schools really struggle to remain viable.
Finally, I ask the Minister to consider, please, a South Cotswolds pilot, bringing together Homes England, local councils and housing associations to plan small-scale, sustainable, community-oriented social housing. This would showcase what can be achieved when we design for place, people and planet, not for spreadsheets. Social housing is not a statistic; it is a lifeline. It keeps the nurse in Tetbury, the teaching assistant in Fairford and the young electrician in Cirencester living in the communities they serve. It keeps our schools open, our shops busy and our bus routes viable. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and to working with her to ensure that every community in the South Cotswolds has the affordable, safe and sustainable homes it needs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on securing this important debate and I thank the other hon. Members who have made contributions today. I have noted their comments carefully.
The Government recognise the acute housing pressures facing rural communities, and are committed to ensuring that the homes built reflect genuine local need, are affordable and are supported by appropriate infrastructure. This Government are committed to building 1.5 million homes during this Parliament, and social and affordable homes will make up an essential part of that. We also acknowledge that not enough social and affordable housing has been delivered in recent decades. That shortfall is now being felt acutely in areas such as the South Cotswolds, where 80% of the district lies within protected national landscape and further development must be carefully planned.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I support the Government’s ambition to build 1.5 million homes. This debate refers more to social housing and I wonder whether you could give an indication from the Dispatch Box—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer to the Minister. He cannot keep saying “you”. It is exhausting.
Samantha Dixon
I will come to that point for the hon. Member’s benefit.
A crucial first step is ensuring that local authorities plan for the right number of homes. That means assessing housing need and then identifying how much development is realistically deliverable, taking into account land availability, environmental constraints such as flood risk and protected landscapes, and other relevant factors. Local authorities can choose to go beyond their assessed need to support wider goals, such as economic growth and infrastructure investment, and to accommodate housing from elsewhere. We expect local authorities to explore all options, including maximising brownfield land, collaborating across boundaries and, where necessary, reviewing green-belt land.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
In a recent hearing of the Public Accounts Committee on planning improvements, we heard from the Home Builders Federation that 34,000 social houses in England and Wales remain unsold. That seems to be an absolute tragedy when there is such demand for social housing. I ask the Minister to look at that urgently.
Samantha Dixon
I will certainly consider that.
The national planning policy framework sets out that local plans must deliver, where practicable, the amount, type and tenure of homes that communities actually need. That requires carefully striking a balance between enabling necessary development, and protecting and enhancing the natural environment.
Martin Wrigley
I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being very generous with her time. The numbers have doubled in my district of Teignbridge; 40% of Teignbridge is within Dartmoor national park, the rest of the area is constrained by the coast, and houses become more and more expensive to deliver as the numbers go up. Because of that expense, fewer and fewer affordable homes will be delivered. The standard method is not working to reduce house prices. Will the Minister reconsider how these numbers are determined, so that the standard method is no longer used to enforce a central number of homes, rather than the number of homes that the district actually needs?
Samantha Dixon
I note the constraints that the hon. Member raises, and I will certainly ask officials to consider that in any plans.
These are not just planning challenges; developing local plans involves human challenges. We are now living with the cost of more than 169,000 children in temporary accommodation and more than 1.3 million households on local authority housing registers. That cannot be allowed to continue.
We recognise the shared ambition of those from across the sector to build more, build better and build sustainably, and we know that in areas like South Cotswolds, where planning constraints are real and community character matters, they are essential partners in helping councils to meet targets and to safeguard what makes places special.
Strategic, evidence-led local planning will ensure that development happens in the right places with proper community buy-in. Housing associations must be part of that conversation from the outset. The national planning policy framework sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, which includes the provision of supporting infrastructure in a sustainable way. Local development plans must address infrastructure needs and opportunities, identifying what is required and how it can be funded and delivered. That is essential to ensure that new homes are not just built, but are part of the thriving, well-serviced communities that the hon. Member for South Cotswolds has described.
Samantha Dixon
I am not going to give way again, I am afraid.
The hon. Member for South Cotswolds raised very real concerns about flooding. Flooding can have a devastating impact on communities, homes and infrastructure, which is why we take it seriously. The Government’s approach is guided by the NPPF, which is designed to protect people and property from flooding. It sets out a clear expectation that inappropriate development in flood-prone areas should be avoided. The sequential test aims to ensure that new development is directed to areas of lower flood risk wherever possible.
Where development must occur in higher-risk areas, the exception test requires that it delivers wider sustainability benefits and is made safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Those safeguards are in place to ensure that new homes are not only safe but resilient to future climate impacts. We are also committed to delivering more sustainable drainage systems through the planning system.
As set out in our plan for change, we are firmly committed to delivering the biggest boost in a generation to social and affordable house building. To achieve that ambitious target, we need every part of the sector, including councils and housing associations, to be working in lockstep and delivering to their full capacity. We are taking steps to create the conditions to ensure that providers across the country can once again deliver social and affordable housing at scale. That includes supporting councils to update their local plans, locating sites for future development, balancing homes with infrastructure like schools and healthcare, and actively engaging communities through public consultation.
Since coming to office, we have sought to engage with the sector at every opportunity. We have listened carefully to the views of social housing providers and their tenants on the problems they face and how best to resolve them. But we have not only listened; we have acted. At the spending review, the Chancellor announced a record package of investment designed to ensure that councils and registered providers can increase development of social and affordable housing. As has been highlighted, the decade of renewal represents a step change in our ambition to deliver social and affordable housing, setting out a long-term vision for building more homes, improving quality and strengthening communities. We recognise that for many, the reality on the ground has yet to match that ambition, but we are committed to bridging that gap through practical action.
Step one of the decade of renewal has been to deliver the biggest long-term investment in social and affordable housing in recent times. We have confirmed a new 10-year, £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. During its lifetime, we hope to deliver around 300,000 new homes, with at least 60% for social rent. That would result in around 180,000 homes for social rent—six times more than the decade up to 2024.
We also recognise that certain types of much-needed social and affordable housing can cost more to deliver, particularly in areas with environmental constraints or infrastructure gaps. The programme has been designed to be flexible in order to ensure that it works not just for large urban developments, but for small-scale rural projects. We encourage applicants to be ambitious when coming forward with bids. The programme’s full prospectus will be published in the next few weeks and open for bids in the new year. I encourage all prospective providers to review their supply plans now—to think bigger, be bolder and come forward with ambitious plans.
The hon. Lady should be assured that we understand the scale of the challenge and that we know the strength of this sector, which is why we have pledged to forge a renewed partnership with the social and affordable housing sector to support building at scale. She raised many other points, to which I will fully respond in writing, with the support of my officials. The important point to stress is that together we can deliver the homes our communities need, not just for today, but for generations to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Companies (Directors' Report) (Payment Reporting) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Companies (Directors’ Report) (Payment Reporting) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. It is also a pleasure, as the new Minister for small business, that this is the first statutory instrument that I am speaking on, as someone who ran a small business and suffered from late payments at times.
Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, employing millions of people and enriching our lives, yet we know that the scourge of late payments has been holding them back. Late payments are estimated to cost the economy almost £11 billion per year and to lead to 14,000 businesses closures annually. That is an average of 38 businesses every single day. This cannot go on.
That is why this Government has already taken action to improve payment practices. In December 2024 we launched a new Fair Payment Code and 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.
The consultation considers measures that go even further than today’s statutory instrument, and will be the most significant legislation to tackle late payments in over 25 years. It will give the UK the strongest legal framework on late payments in the G7. These measures will include removing flexibility around maximum payment times, which disproportionately impact small businesses, and introducing mandatory interest on late business- to-business payments. Our consultation closes on 23 October—Thursday this week—and we intend to take forward primary legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Today we are making a down payment on those wider legislative reforms. We are going to build upon the existing payment transparency regulations for large companies 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 draft regulations will require large companies to disclose payment reporting data within directors’ reports required under the Companies Act 2006, further increasing the transparency of payment performance to their boards, stakeholders and auditors.
Businesses that are already adhering to current payment regulations will not be significantly affected, as it is data large firms are already required to collect and publish through Gov.uk. The Government want to shift the focus from small businesses wasting hours of their time chasing late payments, and instead put the onus on the boards and stakeholders of large businesses to ensure they are paying their suppliers fairly.
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 the 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, average time to pay, and the percentage and sum of payments made before 30 days, between 31 and 60 days, and after 60 days. They 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. It is only a small ask for large businesses, but will help with 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 hon. Members on the Committee will see the benefits that these draft regulations provide and agree with the introduction of this affirmative statutory instrument.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I welcome the Minister to his place; it is a great appointment, and it is good to know that he comes to the position with a good deal of experience, which I know will be valuable to both officials and the House more broadly.
I also welcome this opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, to address this issue. No matter where we represent, MPs across the House all know, from our meetings with constituents and businesses, that late payments are a scourge on small and medium-sized businesses. At the very least, we must appreciate that late payments cause a tremendous amount of short-term cash-flow problems that prohibit investment and, in turn, economic growth—and at worst, they cause existential liquidity problems for the market as a whole. British small businesses are owed an average of almost £21,500 in late payments, and an almost unbelievable 62% of small businesses report being impacted by them.
I therefore completely appreciate that the aim of these regulations is to boost the transparency around how large companies pay their suppliers, so that suppliers will be able to make a more informed choice about who they partner with, while also imposing accountability and positive incentives for large companies. As the Minister will know, this measure builds on a lot of the regulatory work the previous Government in particular did in support of small businesses, which he kindly alluded to; he will also know that the Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance Regulations 2017 already require companies to release much of the same data required under the proposed regulations before us today, via a web portal.
The 2017 regulations were extended beyond their initial sunset date for a further seven years, following a consultation led by the small business Minister at the time, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). With that in mind, having companies report annually on their payment practices and performance should not in theory have an unfair or overbearing impact on companies over and above the existing requirements. That was a view shared by many companies that fed into our 2023 consultation, which the Minister will be aware of, which said that this measure would be a step in the right direction.
It will not be a surprise to you, Ms Vaz, that the Opposition will not be opposing the regulations today, but I want to ask a couple of questions of the new Minister. First, given that companies are already required to report this information as part of the Government portal under the 2017 regulations, can he share the Government’s assessment of how effective this additional regulation will be in further reducing late payments? We both agree that they are an issue, but I did not quite hear him outlining the Government’s intentions, plans and ambition for how effective these measures will be, or over what time period.
Secondly, the regulations do not appear to require companies to include the same amount of information in the annual reports or directors’ reports as they do in the twice-yearly Government portal findings. There is a slight inconsistency there, which I hope the Minister can address and clarify for us. How will he ensure the consistency of the information provided both to directors’ reports and through the web portal?
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I welcome the Minister to his place.
When it comes to the treatment of small businesses, there are two things that get right up people’s noses. The first is the big David and Goliath fights that sometimes happen between big companies and their small suppliers; the other is regulators that are tasked with tackling those problems, but can do nothing about them, because they do not have the teeth. Fundamentally, we are a country that believes in fairness, and late payments are a problem that is deeply unfair and unjust, and can be existential for some small businesses.
The Liberal Democrats welcome this extra transparency on payment practices and performance; it will really help. We support this measure, and we hope very much that the Government will power ahead with introducing additional powers for the Small Business Commissioner so that they can launch proactive investigations, rather than passively receiving complaints. Would the Minister like to say a word or two on that?
If I may test your patience for a second more, Ms Vaz, it is Small Business Saturday in just under seven weeks’ time, on 6 December—just a few days after the Budget. We know that transparency and improved regulation matter to small businesses, but the tax burden matters too. I urge the Government to ensure that, by the time Small Business Saturday arrives, there is some more good news for small businesses to be happy about.
Blair McDougall
I am grateful for the support across the House on these regulations. It is clear from hon. Members’ constructive comments that we all agree that this is a serious problem that we need to tackle.
To respond to some of the specific questions, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne made a powerful case with his statistics about the impact of late payments on the economy. In terms of the burden on business, we think it will be a very small one, in return for potentially a bigger prize—I think it is 133 million hours spent across the economy chasing late payments. To his point on consistency, there is some overlap between the data that people already have to report and the data that we are suggesting be put into the annual reports through these regulations.
On the question about the powers of the Small Business Commissioner, part of the consultation we are currently running is on proposals to give the commissioner more powers to investigate and resolve late payment cases. With these regulations as part of the wider package of measures, we will be delivering the biggest reform to late payment regulations in 25 years; as I say, this measure is very much a down payment on what is coming. I urge hon. Members present to look at the proposals and to take part in the late payments consultation over the next couple of days.
These regulations are just the first step, but they are potentially the start of making a huge difference to what is a huge problem for small businesses. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. The draft order was laid before the House on Monday 8 September. Railway operators currently use a combination of enforcement regimes to recover unpaid parking charges at railway station car parks, resulting in inconsistency and complexity for both operators and passengers. Some rely on criminal enforcement set out in the railway byelaws, while others work with agents who rely on contractual arrangements with motorists. With the introduction of Great British Railways, my Department expects a consistent level of service to be offered across the network. Therefore, this order will bring car parks that are located on railway land within England and Wales into the scope of the same civil enforcement regime that applies to all other car parks on private land.
Previously, railway station car parks were excluded from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which I shall now refer to as POFA, because they were subject to the railway byelaws, which meant that unpaid parking charges could be enforced only under those byelaws. Schedule 4 to POFA facilitates the recovery of unpaid car parking charges from the keeper or hirer of a vehicle parked in private car parks. It sets out detailed requirements regarding the provision of notices and the appeals processes. However, railway station car parks are currently excluded from that regime.
This change will ensure a consistent, civil enforcement regime for all railway station car parks across the Great British Railways network. It will ensure that passengers have the same protection that they would have when parking in other car parks on private land, including access to an independent appeals service. An industry consultation showed support for amending the railway byelaws to remove criminal liability for parking breaches and instead using the civil enforcement regime set out under POFA.
These changes will standardise the approach to the recovery of unpaid car parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle parked in railway station car parks. To support this order, changes to the railway byelaws will be made at the same time to remove the criminal enforcement regime that is currently in place and allow this legislation to take effect. This shift from the criminal enforcement regime to the civil regime provides passengers with an independent appeals service and allows the same framework that applies to all other private car parks to apply to railway station car parks.
The order will ensure that unpaid car parking charges on railway land are recovered in a way that is clearer and consistent for both operators and passengers. With POFA now applying to railway car parks, this will also provide passengers with an independent appeals service that will be used by all train operating companies in England and Wales. I commend the order to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. His Majesty’s official Opposition recognise the importance of ensuring that genuine parking violations are fairly and consistently enforced. Effective enforcement maintains order and encourages compliance, but it should never become a source of excessive revenue or allow over-zealous practices to flourish. Unfortunately, motorists’ experience with some private parking operators has too often been poor. We have heard of cases involving unclear signage, punitive charges and threatening correspondence from debt collectors. That background means the Government must take care before extending their powers any further.
The draft order extends existing keeper liability provisions under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to railway property—land that has until now been subject to railway byelaws rather than civil enforcement. On paper it may look like a technical change, but in practice it could give private parking firms greater ability to pursue motorists for payment on railway land. Before agreeing to such an extension, we should be confident that the wider regulatory framework is robust, transparent and fair.
That is why the timing of this proposal is somewhat problematic. The Government’s consultation on the private parking code of practice closed only on 26 September. Those responses from motorists, consumer groups and the parking industry itself have not yet been published or analysed. It is therefore premature to legislate before that evidence has been properly considered. The responsible approach would be to review the consultation findings first, finalise the new code to ensure that it genuinely curbs poor practice, and only then revisit any question of expanding enforcement powers.
Our concern is not about legitimate enforcement. Where parking rules are clear and proportionate, they help to keep stations accessible and traffic flowing, but enforcement must always be fair, transparent and accountable to the travelling public. At present, key safeguards are clearly missing. The Government have not released a Treasury estimate of the potential enforcement revenue, so the financial impact on motorists is equally unknown. Nor have we seen confirmation that the forthcoming code will provide effective oversight and meaningful appeal rights. Without that assurance, it would be wrong to widen private operators’ powers on railway land.
Although we will not divide the Committee this afternoon, I would like the Minister to reflect on those points, pause, and hear our call for proper process and proportionate changes. Motorists deserve confidence that parking rules are enforced in the public interest, not driven by other motives. The Government should publish the consultation outcomes, set clear limits on private enforcement practices, and demonstrate that passenger and driver interests come first. Once that framework is in place, any further legislative changes can be judged on their merits and with full transparency.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. In principle, we in the Liberal Democrats welcome this change, which from a technical perspective is logical and makes sense. It is also welcome that the Government chose to undertake a consultation even though they were not compelled to do so. That is always welcome, as long as the consultation is timely and does not drag on for years, which in this case, happily, it has not.
I do, however, very much agree with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire. Our support needs to be caveated with the fact that all Members will have had a great deal of casework from constituents, driven insane at times by car parking operators and providers that lack transparency, are unaccountable, and can sometimes be unreasonable. The focus in this delegated legislation on making sure that signage is fit for purpose is welcome, but I would also welcome some remarks from the Minister on what else the Government are doing to make sure that the regulatory framework is such that private car parking providers are fit for purpose, are accountable, and provide a forum for appeal where they have got things wrong.
Keir Mather
I thank the official Opposition spokesperson and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for their contributions. I will take each of their points in turn.
I recognise and agree that we are seeking to avoid excessive revenue and the unfortunate conduct that is perpetrated by some private providers of car parking spaces. Motorists should not have to operate in a climate of fear and uncertainty when they park their car, as they try to go about their daily lives, get to work, see their families and use our transport network. That is exactly what we seek to remedy through today’s changes.
The official Opposition spokesperson pointed to the need for proper process and proportionality. I will come to that in regard to the reviews to which he referred and the parking code of practice. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is consulting on a parking code of practice for the operation and management of private parking facilities. To the point made by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, this will set an industry standard that will cover enforcement and signage requirements, and will encourage consistency across the industry. We have aligned the laying of this statutory instrument with that consultation, which will avoid train operating companies having to change their parking signs twice in regard to any regulations that we may pass.
A consultation was also held in 2020 relating to this specific provision with the devolved Governments, train operators, passenger rights groups and industry stakeholders. The feedback from that consultation indicated overall support for the proposed changes, and a working group was established with stakeholders to address specific concerns that were raised. Those have directly informed the provisions in this statutory instrument.
I echo and agree with the sentiments expressed by the Opposition spokespersons around the need to avoid excessive overreach in this space, to ensure proportionality, and to have clear and understandable codes of practice. This is something that we want motorists parking at railway car parks across the United Kingdom to benefit from. I think those aims are reflected in this statutory instrument, which is why I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
DAS now ARAG Legal Expenses Insurance
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Seventh sitting)
Tuesday 21st October 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnglish Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 October 2025 - (21 Oct 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. I remind Members to switch off electronic devices. I have lots of people here who can help me do that, but you do not. The usual courtesies prevail. If you want to speak, make sure that you have caught my eye. My job is to make sure that the Minister gets ample time to take her legislation through the House and that other Members have ample time to scrutinise her during that process. We will proceed on that basis.
Any Member can contribute during the line-by-line consideration. I will typically ask the Member who has tabled an amendment to introduce it and the Minister will sum up. As a matter of courtesy, it is better if the Minister does not have to rise several times. The Minister needs ample opportunity to sum up the debate. I do not want a perpetual exchange. I know that is sometimes unavoidable, but I want to be as courteous as possible to our Minister of the Crown.
Schedule 12
Development orders
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Twelfth schedule to the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
Schedule 12 expands on existing powers in relation to the mayoral development orders in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to all mayors of strategic authorities. MDOs grant planning permission for development as an alternative to granting permission through a planning application. They are similar to local development orders, which Members will be familiar with and are used across the country.
Development orders are designed to enable up-front planning certainty for developers and communities. For example, the Gravity LDO in Somerset granted permission for advanced manufacturing facilities and a giga-battery factory is now under construction. We want to give mayors and strategic authorities the same opportunities so that they can support development, which will make a difference to growth and economic opportunities in their areas.
At the moment, only the Mayor of London can make an MDO; schedule 12 would expand that to all mayors. It also streamlines the MDO process. Currently, an MDO needs to be requested by each relevant local planning authority, and their consent is needed before the mayor can consult on the draft order. Schedule 12 removes those limitations. That does not mean that local planning authorities are cut out of the process; they will still be consulted and their approval will be sought for making the order.
In practice, we expect to see local planning authorities and mayors working closely in partnership. However, we recognise that there may be instances where a mayor and a local planning authority cannot agree. Proposed new section 61DCA of the Town and Country Planning Act allows a mayor to request that the Secretary of State consider an order where local planning authority approval is not given. These provisions set the framework; the detailed process for making an order will be set out in secondary legislation, which we will consult on.
Schedule 13 contains consequential amendments to other legislation, which are necessary for the provisions under clauses 31 and 32. I hope that Members will agree that this measure will be an important tool for mayors in delivering the housing and the economic growth and development that we want to see across the country. I commend schedules 12 and 13 to the Committee.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I will do my best not to disappoint you, Sir John, or the Minister or Government Back Benchers. I welcome the Minister to her place and hope that she feels refreshed after last night’s late sitting; we will try to make this as easy as possible.
In relation to schedules 12 and 13, this is a standard procedure used by the Mayor of London. We see this as a perfectly sensible proposal that unifies the regulations with those existing in London. I will just say this to the Minister, if I can without disappointing her. On proposed new section 61DCA, the Minister outlined that the Secretary of State could direct or issue an order, should local authorities not agree to a mayoral development order. I understand that details will come out in secondary legislation, which is perfectly acceptable, but could she outline to the Committee the balance of power? As I think the Minister respectfully acknowledges, we have been consistently worried that, if this is supposed to be a true devolution Bill, giving power to the Secretary of State to order or issue kind of breaks the spirit of that devolution.
Could the Minister give the Committee some reassurance that the views and objections of local authorities would be taken into proper consideration? What would that balance of power be, should the Secretary of State have to use that order? We do, however, see this as a perfectly reasonable schedule, and will not seek to divide the Committee on it.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for supporting the measure. In the event that there is not consensus between a constituent authority and the mayoral strategic authority, it would go up to the Secretary of State in the way that planning applications do currently. The Planning Inspectorate will review it based on its planning merits, in the light of issues and objections that have been raised locally, and the full suite of evidence. It is consistent with the current process for planning applications that are called in. We think this will essentially standardise what we do for individual local authorities currently.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 12 accordingly agreed to.
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Clause 33
Power to charge community infrastructure levy
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 289, in schedule 14, page 170, line 15, at end insert—
“, and
(b) must, as far as it relates to the exercise of the mayor’s functions as a charging authority, publish details of—
(i) each instance in which CIL has been charged,
(ii) how much has been raised by the charging of CIL, and
(iii) the impact on delivery of housing infrastructure development.”
This amendment would ensure that mayors charging CIL reported on the effect that this has on housing development.
Schedule 14.
New clause 1—Community infrastructure levy charges: guidance—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, prepare and publish guidance for charging authorities on—
(a) the implementation and administration of community infrastructure levy charges;
(b) appropriate procedures for handling technical errors in the calculation, notification, or collection of community infrastructure levy charges; and
(c) best practice for resolving disputes relating to community infrastructure levy charges where technical errors have occurred.
(2) The guidance under subsection (1) must include—
(a) guidance on what constitutes a technical error in the context of community infrastructure levy charges;
(b) recommended procedures for reviewing and, where appropriate, waiving or reducing community infrastructure levy charges where a technical error has occurred;
(c) principles to guide the proportionate collection of community infrastructure levy payments when technical errors have been identified; and
(d) time limits for the rectification of technical errors.
(3) In this section—
“charging authority” has the meaning given in section 106 of the Planning Act 2008, as amended by Schedule 14 of this Act;
“technical error” means an error in the calculation, notification, or administration of a Community Infrastructure Levy charge that is not related to a material change in the development to which the charge applies.”
New clause 28—Application of CIL to householders—
“(1) The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 205 (The Levy) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) In making the regulations, the Secretary of State may not charge CIL on householders’ property extensions that are for their own use.
(2B) The Secretary of State must amend the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 so that they are in accordance with the requirements of subsection (2A).””
This new clause disapplies CIL from householders extending property for their own use.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 33 and schedule 14 will give mayors of strategic authorities the ability to raise a mayoral community infrastructure levy, or MCIL. I am sure Members will be aware that the Mayor of London’s ability to charge MCIL in London was critical to funding delivery of the fantastic Elizabeth Line. We want to extend the same power to other regional mayors so that they too can fund vital infrastructure that will drive growth and create opportunities in their areas.
The power will not be unconstrained. Mayors will need to have a spatial development strategy in place, meaning that they will have to have a clear plan for meeting overall housing and development targets in their area. Mayors will also need to develop and introduce a CIL charging schedule, which will undergo public consultation, examination and approval. That means that the levy rates that apply to MCIL will strike an appropriate balance between supporting development through infrastructure provision and the potential effect on viability of development. We will provide further detail on what MCIL can be spent on through regulations.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to have you back in the Chair today, Sir John. I support the clause and schedule 14. It is really important that we have devolved fundraising powers, and this is one of the ways in which that can be done.
I have a question for the Minister about the rules for what mayoral CIL in different areas can be levied to fund. In London, the current regulations restrict spending by the mayor to funding roads or other transport facilities. Is the Minister making changes in the Bill, or will she do so through regulations?
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to have you back in the Chair, Sir John. I welcome the introduction of MCIL. We have spoken before about how these authorities will be funded, and this is another tool in the toolbox. I am slightly concerned about how it will sit alongside strategic CIL and neighbourhood CIL. I would be really concerned if this took away the portion of money that is available for local neighbourhoods through neighbourhood forums or town and county councils to spend on hyper-local infrastructure, which can otherwise never be funded. I am also interested in the pieces of infrastructure that currently are funded through strategic CIL by an upper-tier authority. Will those responsibilities pass in full across to the mayor, so that we do not end up with a situation where the mayor gets the CIL, but the council gets the responsibility?
That is one of the reasons why we have tabled new clause 1, although the Minister may say we do not need part of it. The first part of the new clause states that the Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of the Act, prepare and publish guidance on the implementation and administration of community infrastructure levy charges—tt may be that that is going to happen anyway. More importantly, there is the issue of error and incorrect charging. I have been speaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), who has been involved with the CIL Injustice Group, where there have been miscalculated charges, with councils charging up to £100,000 for the community infrastructure levy completely incorrectly. We know that CIL is supposed to be charged on additional dwellings for commercial use, not on self-builds or extensions, but that has happened in a number of councils around the country. There are a couple of councils in Surrey—Waverley in particular has a huge problem. The new Liberal Democrat council in West Berkshire had to pay back £300,000 in total to 18 different constituents who had all been incorrectly charged. In my own county of Dorset, there are cases where people have been incorrectly charged.
In some instances, people have been building their own home and suddenly had a notice put on the path outside. Some have been chased down for huge amounts of money, and some for tiny amounts of money, and have had court charges applied to them. It is a problem that needs solving. Last Monday in the Chamber—I believe you were present, Sir John—two Conservative Members raised cases from their own constituencies. A previous Minister said that a series of households had been badly hit. It is clear that the CIL regulations are not intended to operate in this way. We do not believe our new clause would create a significant new burden on the Secretary of State; it is there to assist, and we would be grateful for a commitment that its provisions will be rolled into the legislation.
Paul Holmes
I will speak to amendment 289, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, on behalf of the official Opposition. I will also briefly speak to new clause 1. The hon. Lady has just very expertly outlined why the Government should accept it, and the official Opposition agree with her. She is absolutely correct that CIL, although a very good thing, is—not always intentionally, but sometimes negligently—being used in inappropriate ways. Just last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) mentioned a case in his constituency with his local authority, where somebody was being charged £70,000. That is clearly unacceptable.
Any measure that could improve the regulation and guidance to local authorities, not necessarily to restrict them but to give them clarity—it would also slightly pull on the tail of their coat, so they do not act irresponsibly to people who are responsibly improving their homes—is a good thing. We will therefore be supporting new clause 1 if the hon. Lady chooses to press that to a vote. It clearly does not place an undue burden on the Secretary of State, and it would mean that the system would become more streamlined and transparent. It would give protection to people who are doing the right thing and ensuring that they are following the rules, but the rules are clearly being interpreted in different ways.
Amendment 289, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, would ensure that the mayors charging CIL report on the effect that this has on housing development. Similarly to new clause 1, we do not think that that would place an undue burden on the legislation or on the necessary parties because, where the community infrastructure levy is being used at the moment, there clearly is a lack of transparency on what it is delivering for local people. The amendment will improve the transparency that mayors and local authorities would be bringing to the table.
CIL is meant to improve infrastructure and make sure that housing is delivered. We have seen across the country places where existing mayors are not necessarily delivering on their housing commitment, particularly in London. We argue that this amendment would bring transparency because a mayor has to account for how they are using CIL and the effect that that would have on housing development in a city region that they control. We think that is a perfectly reasonable amendment.
For that reason, we will press amendment 289 to a vote, and if the hon. Lady the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole chooses to press new clause 1 to a vote, we will certainly support that today.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will start by addressing some of the questions that were raised, and then move to amendment 289 and new clause 1. There is a key question of how to ensure that the mayoral strategic CIL does not undercut local CILs. The mayor will have to have regard to local CILs that are already being issued, to ensure that there is a balance. The CIL proposal will need to be done in the context of viability assessments, so the mayor will need to think about what is happening at the parish, town and local authority levels in terms of CIL before a strategic CIL is put in place. It is also worth noting that the charging schedule will be subject to statutory consultation. Again, that is another provision to ensure that the right balance is being struck.
The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole asked what the CIL will be used for. That will be set out in regulations, but we are clear, up front, that it will be for vital infrastructure that can unlock growth and economic development. Therefore, there will be broader permissiveness within that, but we will set that out in further regulations.
On amendment 289, while I fully support the need for transparency in the use of developer contributions to ensure accountability, the amendment is unnecessary because it duplicates existing regulatory requirements. All contribution-receiving authorities are already required to publish an infrastructure funding statement each year. This annual statement must include details on the amount of CIL collected and spent, and information on infrastructure projects funded, or intended to be funded, by CIL.
The CIL regulations are already very prescriptive about what must be included within an infrastructure funding statement. Introducing further reporting obligations is not necessary and potentially risks confusing things and increasing the administrative burdens on strategic authorities.
Finally, we have an additional safeguarding provision: the Planning Act 2008 provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend existing reporting requirements, or create new requirements, if it is determined that existing arrangements are not necessary. We think that we already have sufficient provisions within existing legislation, which means that amendment 289 is not required.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
We are talking about a mayoral CIL reset, but some local authorities will not introduce a CIL because they get far more out of section 106 negotiations. Will mayors be able to take part in 106 negotiations if they do not bring in their own CIL? If not, why not?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Ultimately section 106 will remain with local authorities. I hope that the process of developing a strategic spatial plan means that the mayor and constituent authorities have already had the conversation about housing development and critical infrastructure that needs to sit alongside it, and how that will be well funded. The CIL is a complementary tool that will sit alongside section 106 and other tools that sit with the local authority but, critically, all should be working toward a collective plan for the area that they have all fed into and engaged with. If that plan is done well, there will be consensus across the piece.
Although I completely appreciate the intentions behind new clause 1—to promote consistency and best practice in how the CIL is administered—they are already achieved under existing legislation and statutory guidance. Regulation already includes provisions for correcting errors in CIL charges, including by issuing revised liability notices and demand notices. There are also clear routes of review and appeal, initially to the local authority itself, but also to the Valuation Office Agency in certain cases, and to the Planning Inspectorate. Those are well established, effective safeguards that are used where developers believe that an error has been made. In addition, the Planning Act 2008 allows a Secretary of State to give guidance to charging authorities or other public authorities about any matter connected with CIL, and the authority must have regard to that guidance. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Paul Holmes
I apologise for what I hope the Minister does not think is a discourtesy—it is due to my rustiness on Bill Committee procedure; I last served on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee—but I wish to speak briefly to new clause 28, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner.
New clause 28 is designed to do exactly what I argue the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, wishes to achieve. In her response to new clause 1, the Minister outlined that the Planning Act 2008 gives guidance on the two charging and reporting mechanisms, and if there is a problem with the amount of CIL that has been charged, it gives applicants the right to try to rectify that through an appeal. That is clearly not working; otherwise we would not be talking about the situations that many constituents have faced over the past years, including the cases that the hon. Lady mentioned and the one that I mentioned in which £70,000 is being charged to someone and they are now, I think, a couple of years down the road and cannot get rectification.
New clause 28 is very simply worded and makes it absolutely clear that
“the Secretary of State may not charge CIL on householders’ property extensions that are for their own use.”
I believe that last week in oral questions, the Secretary of State outlined clearly that he thinks there is a problem here, and that the system is currently not working, particularly for people who are doing property extensions for their own use. The new clause clearly aims to mitigate that problem.
Vikki Slade
Will the hon. Member comment on the fact that, according to the CIL Injustice Group, £1.65 million has been incorrectly charged. The Minister for Housing and Planning said:
“It is very clear to us that the CIL regulations in question are not intended to operate in this way. We are giving very serious consideration to amending them to ensure that no one else is affected in this manner.”
Will the hon. Member join me in asking why the Minister would not take the opportunity to put that provision in the Bill, when it has a clause specifically about community infrastructure levy?
Paul Holmes
I cannot comment on the motivations of the Minister, who I believe is an hon. Lady of utmost integrity, but I suspect that the Government want to amend the Bill on their own terms. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole and I both speak for Opposition parties, but we would not make hay if the Minister chose to accept these new clauses. The Government have a position, stated on the Floor of the House of Commons, that CIL is not working for people who tried to follow the rules but are being persecuted and in many cases prosecuted by local authorities, through the wrong charging mechanisms being applied. The Minister outlined the mitigation and the appeal infrastructure that people can currently use, but they are not working either. New clause 1—an admirable new clause—and new clause 28 would make it very clear that people in that situation cannot be charged the CIL.
The Minister is in charge. She has the power to accept the new clauses and improve the legislation to change the lives of people who face injustice every day in the current system. I absolutely accept that the last Government did not do it, but she has a simple choice today: accept these new clauses, change the situation, and make sure that people do not have to go through what these people have been going through. I encourage her to accept these new clauses in the spirit of co-operation and tripartisanship—[Interruption.] Quadripartisanship! We would genuinely support her in doing that.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
First, I thank hon. Members for tabling these amendments and for raising the issue. I assure the Committee that we know there is a problem here. We are alive to the cases that have arisen, which demonstrate that the CIL, as it should apply, is not working in practice. Although exemptions exist, they are not being applied in the way that they ought to be.
We are giving careful consideration to this matter as part of our commitment to develop a far clearer and more effective contribution system. As I said, I completely appreciate that the intention behind the amendments is to protect a segment of the market that we want to protect; it ought to exempted. I can clearly confirm that we are looking seriously at this matter and we will revert to it at a later stage, so I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments to allow the Government time to consider it properly.
The Chair
I sense that the hon. Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole and for Hamble Valley will want to press their new clauses, but that will come later in our consideration of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment proposed: 289, in schedule 14, page 170, line 15, at end insert—
“, and
(b) must, as far as it relates to the exercise of the mayor’s functions as a charging authority, publish details of—
(i) each instance in which CIL has been charged,
(ii) how much has been raised by the charging of CIL, and
(iii) the impact on delivery of housing infrastructure development.”—(Paul Holmes.)
This amendment would ensure that mayors charging CIL reported on the effect that this has on housing development.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 34 introduces schedule 15, which contains provisions to enable strategic authorities outside London to undertake their housing and strategic planning competences. These standardise the extension of powers relating to the acquisition and use of land currently held by Homes England and local authorities to strategic authorities outside London.
Paul Holmes
The Minister has outlined the clause and set out the responsibilities and changes she wants to make in a very reasonable manner. This seems a perfectly sensible solution; it encourages more transparency and accountability in some of the actions that Homes England undertakes. People in my constituency feel that some of the money allocated to development through the current channels of scrutiny and planning is not necessarily in lockstep with what they want for their local areas. As I have said throughout, a devolution Bill should mean true devolution, so I think these responsibilities coming under the remit of the new authorities is a good thing. I welcome this addition to the legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 15
Acquisition and development of land
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 109, in schedule 15, page 173, line 7, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) in subsection (1), after ‘HCA’ insert ‘or a strategic authority outside London’;
(aa) in subsection (2), after ‘HCA’ insert ‘or a strategic authority outside London’;”
This would alter the amendment of section 9(2) so that the function there would not be conferred on the GLA (only on strategic authorities outside London).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 110, 111, 127 and 128.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The Bill gives the Greater London Authority, as well as other strategic authorities, the powers of Homes England to acquire land both by agreement and by compulsory purchase. Government amendments 109 to 111 change that, ensuring that the power is conferred only on strategic authorities outside London. This is because the Greater London Authority already has similar powers under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, and so does not need the additional powers, and duplicating powers could create legal uncertainty and confusion. We are providing greater certainty by clarifying these provisions.
Similarly, the Bill provides that part 1 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 applies to all strategic authorities, as well as Homes England. Government amendment 127 clarifies that this should be applied only to strategic authorities outside London, as functions of Homes England are to be conferred only on those authorities. Again, The Greater London Authority already has similar powers to acquire land by agreement through the Greater London Authority Act.
Government amendment 128 would place conditions on how strategic authorities outside London use land that is not consecrated or a burial ground and that at the time it was acquired had a building being used or previously used for religious worship. The use of this type of land is subject to prescribed requirements about the disposal of monuments. This is in addition to the requirement extended in relation to land that contains burial grounds or consecrated land, which is already extended by schedule 15(10).
At present, this provision applies only to land acquired by Homes England, and the amendment would extend it to strategic authorities. This change ensures consistency in how land powers are applied across different public bodies. This is a small change, but it is necessary to ensure that the legislation works properly and longstanding protections are not lost.
Amendment 109 agreed to.
Amendments made: 110, in schedule 15, page 173, lineusb 11, leave out from “on” to end of line 12 and insert “strategic authorities outside London.”
This would be consequential on Amendment 109.
Amendment 111, in schedule 15, page 173, leave out lines 19 to 21.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would be consequential on Amendment 109.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 112, in schedule 15, page 173, line 30, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 114, 115, 117, 119, 120, 131, 133, 134, 136, 138, 139, 159, 161, 162, 164, 166 and 167.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
These amendments make a series of technical corrections to ensure that the Bill uses the correct terminology. They replace the word “authority” or “authorities” with “council” or “councils” in several places in schedules 15 and 16. The change is important because the term “constituent council” or “councils” is the defined and accurate term used elsewhere in the legislation for the local authorities that form part of the combined authority or the combined county authority.
Using consistent language helps to ensure that the Bill is clear, legally precise and easy to interpret, and avoids confusion about which bodies are being referred to. The amendments do not change the substance of, or intent behind, any of the provisions; they simply improve their clarity and consistency, and hopefully result in a lack of confusion—although I am not clear that they do—in the drafting. I encourage the Committee to support the amendments, to help to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the Bill.
Amendment 112 agreed to.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 113, in schedule 15, page 173, line 31, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority.”
This would make the Broads Authority a consultee if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 116, 118, 121, 123, 125, 132, 135, 137, 140, 160, 163, 165, 168 and 169.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
These amendments add the Broads Authority to the list of bodies that must be consulted by mayoral strategic authorities or provide their consent to non-mayoral strategic authorities before land in its area is compulsorily acquired using powers devolved by the Bill. The broads are a nationally important landscape with equivalent status to a national park, and the Broads Authority is best placed to advise on the potential impact of land acquisition in its area. This is about ensuring proper engagement with the right bodies when decisions affecting sensitive and protected areas are made. That reflects the approach already used by existing authorities and ensures that all constituent councils have a clear and accountable role in the decision-making process.
Amendment 113 agreed to.
The Chair
We are moving ahead with alacrity, are we not?
Amendments made: 114, in schedule 15, page 173, line 36, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 115, in schedule 15, page 173, line 38, leave out “authority” and insert “council”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 116, in schedule 15, page 173, line 39, at end insert—
“(d) the Broads Authority.”
This would make the Broads Authority a consultee if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 117, in schedule 15, page 174, line 5, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 118, in schedule 15, page 174, line 6, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority;
and consent of a constituent council must be given at a meeting of the combined authority.”
This would (i) require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area; and (ii) require consent of a constituent council to be given at a meeting of the combined authority.
Amendment 119, in schedule 15, page 174, line 11, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 120, in schedule 15, page 174, line 13, leave out “authority” and insert “council”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 121, in schedule 15, page 174, line 14, at end insert—
“(d) the Broads Authority;
and consent of a constituent council must be given at a meeting of the CCA.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would (i) require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area; and (ii) require consent of a constituent council to be given at a meeting of the CCA.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 122, in schedule 15, page 174, line 15, after “council” insert
“that is a strategic authority”.
This would clarify that subsection (8) applies to a county council only if it is a strategic authority (in line with the application provision in subsection (1) of the new section 9A).
Miatta Fahnbulleh
These amendments are, again, about making the legislation clearer and more consistent. They confirm that only councils that are strategic authorities are subject to the additional consent requirements when using the compulsory purchase powers in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. This matches what was already set out in subsection (1) of proposed new section 9A of that Act.
Without those changes, there would be confusion about whether all county and district councils are included. That is not the intention: these provisions are meant to apply only where councils are designated as strategic authorities. The amendment is helpful to avoid misinterpretation and ensure that the Bill is applied as intended.
Amendment 122 agreed to.
Amendments made: 123, in schedule 15, page 174, line 20, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority.”
This would require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 124, in schedule 15, page 174, line 21, after “council” insert
“that is a strategic authority”.
This would clarify that subsection (9) applies to a district council only if it is a strategic authority (in line with the application provision in subsection (1) of the new section 9A).
Amendment 125, in schedule 15, page 174, line 22, leave out from “any” to end of line 24 and insert
“of the following bodies whose area contains any part of the land subject to the proposed compulsory acquisition—
(a) any National Park authority;
(b) the Broads Authority.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would make the Broads Authority a consultee if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 126, in schedule 15, page 174, line 29, at end insert—
“Main powers in relation to acquired land
6A In section 11, omit ‘by the HCA’.”
This would reflect the effect of the Bill on Schedule 3 to the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.
This technical amendment again ensures consistency in how the Bill amends existing legislation. It removes the words “by the HCA” from a reference in section 11 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 to schedule 3 to that Act. In paragraph 10 of schedule 15 to the Bill, “by the HCA” is already being removed from the heading of schedule 3 to the 2008 Act. This change aligns with that. The original wording refers specifically to Homes England, and no longer reflects the full range of bodies that may exercise those powers under the Bill.
This amendment ensures the legislation is clear and accurate, and I encourage the Committee to support it to ensure that we have clarity and consistency across our legislation.
Amendment 126 agreed to.
Amendments made: 127, in schedule 15, page 177, line 2, after “authority” insert “outside London”.
This would alter the amendment of paragraph 17(1) so that the function there would not be conferred on the GLA (only on strategic authorities outside London).
Amendment 128, in schedule 15, page 177, line 22, at end insert—
“(8) In paragraph 21 (other land connected to religious worship), in sub-paragraph (1), after ‘HCA’ insert ‘or a strategic authority outside London’.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would provide for paragraph 21 of Schedule 3 to the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 to apply in relation to land acquired by a strategic authority outside London. It allows for restrictions on the use of land that was connected to religious worship but was neither consecrated nor a burial ground.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 129, in schedule 15, page 179, line 34, leave out from “(6)” to end of line 4 on page 180 and insert—
“(a) in paragraph (bb), omit ‘and’;
(b) after paragraph (c) insert—
‘(d) if the land is in the area of a strategic authority to whom this section applies, consult with that strategic authority (in addition to any other consultation required by this subsection).’”
This would require the Secretary of State to consult a strategic authority (as well as the local authority) before authorising a compulsory acquisition
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 130, 143 and 152 to 154.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Amendment 129 revises the consultation process when the Secretary of State is authorising the compulsory acquisition of land. It removes a provision that would have required consultation with a strategic authority instead of the relevant local councils, and adds instead a requirement to consult the strategic authority as well as the councils where the land is located. This ensures that both local and strategic authorities are involved in decisions affecting land in their area. It is a practical and balanced amendment.
Amendment 130 removes the provision that makes the mayor the person responsible for exercising the compulsory acquisition of land function in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Instead, the powers will be exercised by the mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority. This is consistent with how the function is currently exercised in most existing mayoral strategic authorities, where decisions about how to use the function are taken collectively. The amendment does not affect the ability of authorities to make timely and effective decisions on land acquisition; it simply ensures that there is collective buy-in behind the decision.
Amendments 143, 153 and 154 ensure that all local authorities, non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities have access to the same powers and restrictions in relation to acquiring and using land under the Town and Country Planning Act. At present, only mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities are covered by these provisions, because they are included in the Act’s definition of local authorities. This creates an unnecessary gap in the legislation, which the amendments seek to close. These are technical but important changes that support fairness, consistency and effective delivery across all areas with devolved powers.
Finally, amendment 152 is again technical, but is an important clarification to ensure that the Bill works as intended. It updates the wording to confirm that the proposed new subsection (4) contained in paragraph 21 of schedule 15 applies to both section 238 and section 239 of the Town and Country Planning Act. These sections deal with the use and development of consecrated land and burial grounds. This is a technical amendment that ensures consistency and accuracy across all our legislation.
Amendment 129 agreed to.
Amendments made: 130, in schedule 15, page 180, leave out lines 10 to 13.
This would remove the provision under which the compulsory acquisition function of a mayoral combined authority or CCA is exercisable by the mayor (so that it would be exercisable by the combined authority or CCA itself).
Amendment 131, in schedule 15, page 180, line 18, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 132, in schedule 15, page 180, line 19, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority.”
This would make the Broads Authority a consultee if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 133, in schedule 15, page 180, line 24, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 134, in schedule 15, page 180, line 26, leave out “authority” and insert “council”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 135, in schedule 15, page 180, line 27, at end insert—
“(d) the Broads Authority.”
This would make the Broads Authority a consultee if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 136, in schedule 15, page 180, line 32, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 137, in schedule 15, page 180, line 33, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority;
and consent of a constituent council must be given at a meeting of the combined authority.”
This would (i) require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area; and (ii) require consent of a constituent council to be given at a meeting of the combined authority.
Amendment 138, in schedule 15, page 180, line 38, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 139, in schedule 15, page 180, line 40, leave out “authority” and insert “council”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 140, in schedule 15, page 181, line 1, at end insert—
“(d) the Broads Authority;
and consent of a constituent council must be given at a meeting of the CCA.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would (i) require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area; and (ii) require consent of a constituent council to be given at a meeting of the CCA.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 141, in schedule 15, page 181, line 10, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 142 and 144 to 151.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
These amendments make a small but important clarification to part 2 of schedule 15. They ensure that the provisions explicitly insert only references to non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities. This is because mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities already have these powers conferred upon them by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Specifically, they fall within the definition of “local authorities”, so including them is unnecessary. These amendments do not remove any powers from mayoral combined authorities or mayoral combined county authorities; instead, they are small, technical amendments that simplify and clarify, and they are important for the consistency and coherence of the Bill.
Amendment 141 agreed to.
Amendments made: 142, in schedule 15, page 181, line 13, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 143, in schedule 15, page 181, line 20, at end insert—
‘Power of Secretary of State to require acquisition or development of land
17A (1) Section 231 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) after “borough” insert “, or a combined authority or CCA,”;
(b) after the second “council” insert “or combined authority or CCA”.
(3) In subsection (2), after “local authority” insert “or a non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA”.’
This would extend the application of section 231 so that all combined authorities and CCAs are within its scope. (Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs are already within subsection (2) as “local authorities” as defined in section 336 of the TCPA 1990.)
Amendment 144, in schedule 15, page 181, line 23, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 145, in schedule 15, page 181, line 27, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 146, in schedule 15, page 182, line 3, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 147, in schedule 15, page 182, line 5, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 148, in schedule 15, page 182, line 11, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 149, in schedule 15, page 182, line 13, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 150, in schedule 15, page 182, line 16, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 151, in schedule 15, page 182, line 18, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 152, in schedule 15, page 182, line 24, leave out from “In” to “compulsorily” in line 27 and insert
“sections 238 and 239 ‘relevant acquisition or appropriation’ also includes an acquisition made by a combined authority or CCA under this Part or”.
This would provide for the new subsection (4) to apply to section 238 (as well as section 239); and would remove the reference to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as this does not apply to combined authorities or CCAs.
Amendment 153, in schedule 15, page 182, line 35, at end insert—
‘Overriding of rights of possession
22A In section 242, in paragraph (a), after “authority” insert “or a non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA”.
Constitution of joint body to hold land for planning purposes
22B In section 243, in subsection (1)—
(a) for “local authorities concerned” substitute “authorities concerned”;
(b) for “local authority for planning purposes” substitute “local authority, or non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA, for planning purposes;
(c) for “any other local authority” substitute “any other local authority, non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA”.’
This would extend the application of sections 242 and 243 so that all combined authorities and CCAs are within their scope. (Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs are already within their scope as “local authorities” as defined in section 336 of the TCPA 1990.)
Amendment 154, in schedule 15, page 183, line 3, at end insert—
‘Extinguishment of rights of statutory undertakers: preliminary notices
23A (1) Section 271 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In the following provisions, for “local authority” substitute “relevant authority”—
(a) subsection (1) (in both places);
(b) subsection (5) (in the words before paragraph (a)).
(3) After subsection (8) insert—
“(9) In this section ‘relevant authority’ means—
(a) a local authority, or
(b) a non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA.”
Extinguishment of rights of electronic communications code network operators: preliminary notices
23B (1) Section 272 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In the following provisions, for “local authority” substitute “relevant authority”—
(a) subsection (1) (in both places);
(b) subsection (5) (in the words before paragraph (a)).
(3) After subsection (8) insert—
“(9) In this section ‘relevant authority’ means—
(a) a local authority, or
(b) a non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA.”
Orders under sections 271 and 272
23C In section 274, in subsection (3), for “local authority” substitute “relevant authority”.
Extension or modification of functions of statutory undertakers
23D (1) Section 275 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In the following provisions, for “local authority” substitute “relevant authority”—
(a) subsection (1)(a);
(b) subsection (3) (in all three places);
(c) subsection (5)(c).
(3) After subsection (5) insert—
“(6) In this section ‘relevant authority’ means—
(a) a local authority, or
(b) a non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA.”
Procedure in relation to orders under section 275
23E In section 276, in subsection (1), in the words before paragraph (a), for “local authority” substitute “relevant authority”.
Objections to orders under sections 275 and 277
23F In section 278, in subsection (7), for “local authority” substitute “relevant authority”.
Contributions by local authorities and statutory undertakers
23G (1) Section 306 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In the following provisions, for “local authority” substitute “relevant authority”—
(a) the heading;
(b) subsection (1) (in the words before paragraph (a) and in paragraph (c));
(c) subsection (2) (in the words before paragraph (a));
(d) subsection (3) (in both places);
(e) subsection (4).
(3) After subsection (6) insert—
“(7) In this section ‘relevant authority’ means—
(a) a local authority, or
(b) a non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA.”’—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would extend the application of these sections so that all combined authorities and CCAs are within their scope. (Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs are already within their scope as “local authorities” as defined in section 336 of the TCPA 1990.)
Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35
Housing accommodation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 155 to 158 and 170.
Schedule 16.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Housing is a national priority for this Government, and these provisions play an important role in enabling strategic authorities to contribute meaningfully to this core mission. This is particularly true where regional leadership is needed to unlock delivery. These provisions enable strategic authorities to assess housing demand, provide amenities and acquire land. Land may be acquired compulsorily, subject to consultation in the case of mayoral strategic authorities, and via consent, in the case of non-mayoral strategic authorities. I believe this drives cohesive regional solutions.
Some may argue that local councils have sufficient powers, but the clause grants strategic authorities the scope for the transformational, region-wide impact that I know Members across the House want to see. Clause 35 and schedule 16 harness proven powers to meet regional housing goals, and I commend them to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We know that these powers are used by existing authorities, so we are not going to rock the boat on this one, but I will briefly respond to the Minister. She stated that housing is, quite rightly, the Government’s top priority, and that these provisions enables that priority to be delivered, but where these powers already exist we see mayors not delivering on housing commitments. I think of London, where the mayor who has these powers is not delivering houses; in fact, building in London is at an all-time low, and houses are not being delivered for the people who genuinely need them in our capital city.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
A big reason we have a problem with housing numbers is the Building Safety Regulator. There will be a Back-Bench debate on it on Thursday, which I am sure the Minister will attend in order to give the Opposition’s views. It is critical that we get that sorted to get house building going.
Paul Holmes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for promoting me to Minister; I cannot wait for that to happen one day. I suspect that I will have more grey hair, and less hair. He is correct, and I am on the record as having spoken about this: the Building Safety Regulator is a barrier to building. I know that this is slightly out of scope, but I have offered to work with Ministers on a genuine cross-party basis to try to remove some of the burdens on the Building Safety Regulator, which I think has purview over too much that is not material to the delivery of housing.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but in terms of the current powers, the mayor is not delivering, and the Government are not delivering on their promise of 1.5 million homes. The Secretary of State yesterday said that his job would be on the line if he did not deliver the 1.5 million homes. I suspect that we will see a sacking in the not-too-distant future, because everybody in this country who is an expert in housing—there was a documentary on it just this week—says that the Government will not achieve their stated aim of building that number of homes.
The clause in itself is not a panacea that will unlock huge housing growth in our cities. The Minister should be careful not to overpromise and underdeliver, as her mayors consistently do across the country. However, we know that this is a unification and simplification of the system. We will not divide the Committee on the clause. This is a perfectly sensible solution, but let us not pretend that it is a sledgehammer that will crack a nut, and cause the Government to achieve their aims across the country.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
It would be remiss of me not to address some of the issues in London. We recognise that we have a housing challenge in London and across the country. I suggest that the hon. Member show a little more humility, because the consequences are the legacy of the Conservative party. He did not mention that the Conservatives in government slashed housing targets across the country, which throttled development; or that they crashed the economy and caused mortgages to rise, which had an impact on demand. He did not mention their record on inflation, which increased construction costs.
Anyone who knows housing knows that there is a lag, so the impacts of the Conservative party’s failure—[Interruption.] The hon. Member solicited this by attacking our brilliant mayor. The Conservatives’ failures are feeding through, and we are now trying to accelerate progress. That is why record investment of £39 billion is going into social housing, and it is why we are seeing housing targets across the country. We are doing our part to get the country building again. Ultimately, we will be the ones to solve the housing crisis.
Paul Holmes
We really should not accept this party political broadcast. One million homes were built over the lifetime of the previous Parliament. Can the Minister explain to the Committee why housing delivery is at an all-time low? Why is it that experts in the housing sector, including the Home Builders Federation, say that the 1.5 million homes that the Government have promised simply cannot be delivered, and the Chancellor’s own figures show that only 1.1 million homes will be delivered? That is a failure on the promise that she made, is it not?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
If we look at a graph, we see that housing starts plummeted in 2023. I do not know whether the hon. Member wants to remind the Committee who was in power at that time—it was the Conservative party. We are trying to accelerate housing development, and we have a 1.5 million target that we are committed to delivering. That is not to underestimate the incredible difficulty, but we believe that homes are a requirement and a necessity. We have a homelessness crisis and a temporary accommodation crisis, so we have to get to grips with this. That is why we are doing the job of accelerating housing development. The amendments, and giving strategic authorities the powers that will enable them to play a role, are critical to that endeavour.
The Chair
I have been generous in allowing that debate to range rather more widely than might generally be thought acceptable. After all those technical amendments, we needed a bit of debate, did we not?
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 16
Housing accommodation
Amendments made: 155, in schedule 16, page 184, line 17, at end insert—
“(1B) But if a local housing authority has complied with the duty imposed by subsection (1) in relation to a part of the area of a combined authority, CCA or two-tier county council, that strategic authority—
(a) does not need to comply with the duty imposed by subsection (1A) in relation to that part of its area; and
(b) may rely on the local housing authority’s consideration of the matters referred to in subsection (1) as if it were the strategic authority’s own consideration of those matters.”
This would remove the duty imposed by the new subsection (1A) where a local housing authority has already carried out the required consideration of housing conditions and enable the strategic authority to rely on the local housing authority’s consideration of housing matters.
Amendment 156, in schedule 16, page 184, line 24, at end insert—
‘Provision of housing accommodation
2A (1) Section 9 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (1), in the words before paragraph (a), after “local housing authority” insert “, combined authority or CCA, or two-tier county council that is a strategic authority”.
(3) In subsection (4), for “A local housing authority” substitute “An authority”.
(4) In subsection (5), for “a local housing authority” substitute “an authority”.’
This would expand the application of section 9 so that combined authorities, CCAs and two-tier county councils that are strategic authorities are within its scope.
Amendment 157, in schedule 16, page 184, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 185 and insert—
‘(1A) In subsection (1), for the words before paragraph (a) substitute—
“(1) A local housing authority, combined authority or CCA, or two-tier county council that is a strategic authority may provide in connection with the provision of housing accommodation under this Part (whether it is provided by that authority or another authority)—”
(1B) In subsection (4), for “A local housing authority” substitute “An authority”.’
This would enable a local housing authority, combined authority or CCA, or two-tier county council that is a strategic authority to provide board and laundry facilities in connection with accommodation, whether the accommodation is provided by that or another authority.
Amendment 158, in schedule 16, page 185, leave out lines 8 to 22 and insert—
‘(1A) In subsection (1), for the words before paragraph (a) substitute—
“(1) A local housing authority, combined authority or CCA, or two-tier county council that is a strategic authority may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, provide and maintain in connection with housing accommodation provided under this Part (whether it is provided by that authority or another authority)—”.
(1B) In subsection (3), for “the local housing authority” substitute “the authority”.’
This would enable a local housing authority, combined authority or CCA, or two-tier county council that is a strategic authority to provide shops etc in connection with accommodation, whether the accommodation is provided by that or another authority.
Amendment 159, in schedule 16, page 186, line 16, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 160, in schedule 16, page 186, line 17, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority.”
This would make the Broads Authority a consultee if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 161, in schedule 16, page 186, line 22, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 162, in schedule 16, page 186, line 24, leave out “authority” and insert “council”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 163, in schedule 16, page 186, line 25, at end insert—
“(d) the Broads Authority.”
This would make the Broads Authority a consultee if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 164, in schedule 16, page 186, line 30, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 165, in schedule 16, page 186, line 31, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority;
and consent of a constituent council must be given at a meeting of the combined authority.”
This would (i) require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area; and (ii) require consent of a constituent council to be given at a meeting of the combined authority.
Amendment 166, in schedule 16, page 186, line 36, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 167, in schedule 16, page 186, line 38, leave out “authority” and insert “council”
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 168, in schedule 16, page 186, line 39, at end insert—
“(d) the Broads Authority;
and consent of a constituent council must be given at a meeting of the CCA.”
This would require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 169, in schedule 16, page 187, line 4, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority.”
This would require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 170, in schedule 16, page 187, line 12, leave out “(1)” and insert “(2)”. —(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This corrects the reference to the Housing Act 1985.
Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36
Mayoral development corporations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause grants mayors of strategic authorities outside London the power to create mayoral development corporations. They are another tool for mayors to enable regional regeneration and economic development. Stripping away these provisions would limit regional ambition. The clause gives effect to schedule 17, allowing mayoral development corporations to spearhead land acquisition, planning and infrastructure projects. This will help to foster jobs, unlock growth, drive infrastructure development and attract investment into our regions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 17
Mayoral development corporations
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 290, in schedule 17, page 193, line 2, at end insert—
“7A After section 202, insert—
‘202A: restrictions on designation of greenfield land
Where an MDC exercises any functions in relation to the designation of land for development, the MDC must not designate any development on greenfield land unless there is no available land that has not previously been developed.’”
I rise to speak to the amendment, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Although we welcome mayoral development corporations, since this Government came to office an environment has been created, if Members will forgive the pun, where it is easier to build in rural areas but harder to develop our urban centres. As we mentioned in a debate last week, the Government’s planning and building conditions are making it harder to densify urban centres. We have discussed the housing targets in rural and urban areas, and now mayoral development corporations are being created. That is perfectly acceptable, but we do not think it protects the green belt across this great green and pleasant land, and it will essentially allow mayors to build on greenfield land without the necessary checks and balances.
The amendment is simple. We tabled it because we want to make it much easier to build in areas of existing development where there is scope for densification, and we want to protect green belt and greenfield land by restricting building on it where many people to whom the mayor is accountable simply do not want that to happen. The amendment would not rule out such development completely, but it would make the MDC more streamlined and disciplined about unlocking areas where infrastructure exists and it is easier to build, rather than using green fields, where we believe development is more difficult and takes longer.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I understand the intent behind the amendment. Mayoral development corporations are already subject to the national planning policy framework, which reflects the brownfield-first approach that the hon. Member has talked about, encourages densification where it makes sense and includes strong protections for greenfield land. We think the provisions already exist, because any mayoral development corporation must have regard to the national planning policy framework.
We believe it is important to give mayoral development corporations flexibility, however, because there will be instances, in the case of urban extensions or new towns, when the decision needs to be made to build on greenfield land. We think that the amendment would disproportionately restrict mayoral development corporations and place on them additional restrictions that do not apply to other bodies. Ultimately, it would reduce mayoral development corporations’ flexibility, slow down delivery and add unnecessary constraints on decision making. For that reason, we do not support it, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
Paul Holmes
I understand where the Minister is coming from, and I am inclined not to press the amendment to a Division but to treat it as probing. She is aware that I have long advocated for, and pushed her and the Government on, the incentivisation of densification. In our debate on amendment 304 last week, I think she reasonably accepted that a densification strategy was needed. She has come back to the NPPF today, but that is simply not working. We tabled amendment 304 and this amendment to solidify the position. We think that that is a perfectly reasonable approach to the guidance and regulations.
I hope for some reassurance from the Minister that she and the Government will look at further action regarding that incentivisation. If I get that reassurance, I will withdraw the amendment.
Paul Holmes
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 60, in schedule 17, page 195, line 23, leave out from “that” to end of line 24 and insert
“the majority of members of an MDC are elected members of relevant councils”.
This amendment would require that the make-up of Mayoral Development Corporation boards must have a majority of members from constituent councils.
We welcome the introduction of the mayoral development corporations across the country. Some good successes have been achieved in London; not many miles from here, the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park continues to grow and expand, and it has some incredible facilities, including a new arts hub.
The one small thing that we would like the Minister to consider is the make-up of the corporations. It is important that people trust the organisations that are doing such large-scale development, which can potentially make enormous changes to the landscapes around them, whether on credible brownfield sites or, as others have said, through new towns or greenfield development, about which people are far more sensitive.
The Bill states that a mayoral development corporation must have at least one member from each constituent authority and that there must be no fewer than six members, but it does not give a maximum number. There is a real risk that if there is simply one member from each authority—some of these authorities are fairly large to start with—the majority of a corporation may be made up of people who are not connected to the community. It is absolutely right that there should be expertise, strategic people, and perhaps people from other sectors with skills, talents and experience from other places or sectors, but the organisation needs to be locally led. That is why my amendment 60 simply states that a majority of members of an MDC should be
“elected members of relevant councils”.
We think that that is a minor amendment that would benefit and broaden trust, and lock it in to local decision making.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I recognise the hon. Member’s intention to strengthen the voice of local councillors in the decision making of mayoral development corporations in their areas, and I support that intent. The Bill will introduce a requirement on mayors outside London to appoint at least one elected member from each council in which the development corporation operates. That mirrors the existing requirement on the Mayor of London, which has been in place since 2011, and how this function has been conferred on mayors outside London so far. That is working; the evidence from on the ground and from practice is that this approach is the right one and strikes the right balance.
I agree with the hon. Member that membership of a mayoral development corporation should absolutely include local expertise from the relevant councils, but it is important that it should be led by people with experience and capacity in the matters that the corporation is taking forward and delivering. When they work well, the corporations bring together local and technical expertise from both the public and private sectors to address complex, long-term projects that in most cases will take longer than an election cycle to deliver.
I worry that the amendment would weaken the mayor’s ability to choose the right mix of expertise that he or she and the strategic authority need in the mayoral development corporation, and limit the corporation’s capacity to drive delivery. Although we agree that there must be council representation, we think that the amendment as drafted provides that, without binding the hands of the mayor, in a way that allows them to bring in any key technical experience that they might need from outside their area in order to deliver impact on the ground.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Schedule 17 equips mayors with the tools they need to drive the critical function that we are asking them to. Mandatory consultation with councils where development corporations are proposed ensures transparency and collaboration. Preserving these provisions strengthens our devolution framework, enabling regions to take targeted, strategic action to boost growth, drive development and create jobs. They add no new duties, but only extend proven mechanisms.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 17 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 37
Assessment of economic conditions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Strategic authorities, as we have said consistently in discussing the Bill, are a key driving force for local growth. To lead growth for its area, the authority must understand its local economy. That is why this clause will provide combined or combined county authorities with a duty to assess the economic conditions of their areas.
Local councils will continue to play a critical role in formulating the strategic authority’s understanding of the local economy. Combined and combined county authorities will be required to consult and work with the councils in their area when building their assessment of economic conditions. This requirement will ensure that the economic strategy for an area combines a strategic, regional assessment of opportunities with a ground-up understanding of local economies. The duty has been long held by strategic authorities without issue and empowers them to develop a holistic understanding of their local economies.
Paul Holmes
Briefly, could the Minister elaborate on some of the consultation mechanisms that the strategic authority would use with the authorities that currently have the power? We completely understand why she has introduced this, but throughout proceedings in Committee, we and the other Opposition parties have expressed concern about the erosion of existing authorities’ responsibilities with the centralisation that is going on. Will the Minister elaborate on how much weight the new authority will give local authorities’ considerations?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are very clear that although we want a strategic assessment of the economic opportunities and risk in an area, and a local growth plan that crosses that area, it must be informed by constituent authorities. The way it is working in practice—we hope the legislation enables this—is that constituent authorities bring into the conversation their understanding, insights, analysis and key priorities for the area, and a collective decision is made. Ultimately, I come back to the point I have made consistently: the mayor’s capacity to be effective and deliver is only as strong as their relations and collaboration with constituent authorities.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 18 agreed to.
Clause 38
Local growth plans
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 29—Inclusive economy plans—
“Schedule [inclusive economy plans] confers on mayoral strategic authorities functions in relation to inclusive economy plans”.
This clause renames Local Growth Plans as Inclusive Economy Plans and introduces NS1.
New schedule 1—Inclusive Economy Plans—
“1 (1) After section 107K of LDEDCA 2009 insert—
“Mayoral combined authorities: inclusive economy plans
107L Inclusive economy plans
(1) A mayoral combined authority must prepare and publish an inclusive economy plan for its area.
(2) An inclusive economy plan must—
(a) include an overview of the economic conditions of the area (including the main economic characteristics which are likely to influence current and future economic inclusivity),
(b) identify priorities for the economic inclusivity of the area that are agreed with the Secretary of State (‘shared inclusive economy priorities’), and
(c) identify key projects for achieving economic inclusivity in the area through private or public investment.
(3) A mayoral combined authority must, in preparing an inclusive economy plan, develop a set of local indicators to measure inclusive economic outcomes in its area.
(4) The indicators should—
(a) be developed in collaboration with residents of the area, including by means of public participatory process convened by the mayor of the combined authority, and
(b) include the proposed effect of the plan on—
(i) inequalities between persons with and without protected characteristics as defined by the Equalities Act 2010;
(ii) health, including inequalities in health, nutrition and housing in the strategic authority area;
(iii) happiness and social connection;
(iv) access to nature and opportunities to play;
(v) increased power and control of the economy to people living in the strategic authority area.
(5) A mayoral combined authority may revise or replace an inclusive economy plan published under this section.
(6) The authority must arrange for any inclusive economy plan that is revised or replaced to be published.
(7) The requirement under subsection (1) may be met by the publication of an inclusive economy plan before this section comes into force.
107M Secretary of State guidance on inclusive economy plans
(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to mayoral combined authorities in relation to inclusive economy plans under section 107L.
(2) A mayoral combined authority must have regard to any such guidance in exercising their functions.
(3) The guidance may include (but is not limited to) guidance about—
(a) who the authority might consult when preparing or revising the plan;
(b) information to be included in the plan under section 107L(2) or the plan as revised;
(c) the process for agreeing priorities for the economic inclusivity of the area with the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 107L(2)(b);
(d) the circumstances in which the authority may revise or replace the plan;
(e) the ways in which the authority may have regard to the plan when exercising its other functions.”
(2) After section 107M of the LDEDCA 2009 (as inserted by sub-paragraph (1)) insert—
“107N Public bodies: duty to have regard to shared inclusive economy priorities
(1) A relevant non-departmental public body must have regard to a shared inclusive economy priority of a mayoral combined authority when—
(a) exercising, at the request of the authority, a function which could reasonably be expected to have an effect on that priority;
(b) preparing a bid for public funding for an activity the objectives of which align with that priority;
(c) preparing a statutory plan or strategy which relates to that priority.
(2) A ‘relevant non-departmental public body’ means a non-departmental public body specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) In this section—
‘enactment’ includes an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978;
‘Minister of the Crown’ has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
‘non-departmental public body’ means any public authority other than—
(a) a Minister of the Crown or government department;
(b) the Welsh Ministers;
(c) a devolved Welsh authority within the meaning of 30 section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006;
‘public funding’ means funding from a Minister of the Crown or government department;
‘shared inclusive economy priorities’ has the meaning given by section 107L(2)(b);
‘statutory plan or strategy’ means a plan or strategy that a non-departmental public body is required by an enactment to issue or publish.
(4) References in this section to an enactment or to provision made under an enactment are to an enactment whenever passed or (as the case may be) to provision whenever the instrument containing it is made.”
(3) After section 32 of the LURA 2023 insert—
“Mayoral CCAs: local inclusive economy plans
32A Local inclusive economy plans
(1) A mayoral CCA must prepare and publish an inclusive economy plan for its area.
(2) An inclusive economy plan must—
(a) include an overview of the economic conditions of the area (including the main economic characteristics which are likely to influence current and future economic inclusivity),
(b) identify priorities for the economic inclusivity of the area that are agreed with the Secretary of State (‘shared inclusive economy priorities’), and
(c) identify key projects for achieving economic inclusivity in the area through private or public investment.
(3) A mayoral CCA must, in preparing an inclusive economy plan, develop a set of local indicators to measure inclusive economic outcomes in its area.
(4) The indicators should—
(a) be developed in collaboration with residents of the area, including by means of public participatory process convened by the mayor of the CCA, and
(b) include the proposed effect of the plan on—
(i) inequalities between persons with and without protected characteristics as defined by the Equalities Act 2010;
(ii) health, including inequalities in health, nutrition and housing in the strategic authority area;
(iii) happiness and social connection;
(iv) access to nature and opportunities to play;
(v) increased power and control of the economy to people living in the strategic authority area.
(5) A mayoral CCA may revise or replace an inclusive economy plan published under this section.
(6) The CCA must arrange for any inclusive economy plan that is revised or replaced to be published.
(7) The requirement under subsection (1) may be met by the publication of an inclusive economy plan before this section comes into force.
32B Secretary of State guidance on inclusive economy plans
(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to mayoral CCAs in relation to inclusive economy plans under section 32A.
(2) A mayoral CCA must have regard to any such guidance in exercising their functions.
(3) The guidance may include (but is not limited to) guidance about—
(a) who the CCA might consult when preparing or revising the plan;
(b) information to be included in the plan under section 32A(2) or the plan as revised;
(c) the process for agreeing priorities for the economic inclusivity of the area with the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 107L(2)(b);
(d) the circumstances in which the CCA may revise or replace the plan;
(e) the ways in which the CCA may have regard to the plan when exercising its other functions.”
(4) After section 32B of LURA 2023 (as inserted by sub-paragraph (3)), insert—
“32C Public bodies: duty to have regard to shared inclusive economy priorities
(1) A relevant non-departmental public body must have regard to a shared inclusive economy priority of a mayoral CCA when—
(a) exercising, at the request of the CCA, a function which could reasonably be expected to have an effect on that priority;
(b) preparing a bid for public funding for an activity the objectives of which align with that priority;
(c) preparing a statutory plan or strategy which relates to that priority.
(2) A ‘relevant non-departmental public body’ means a non-departmental public body specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) In this section—
‘enactment’ includes an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978;
‘Minister of the Crown’ has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
‘non-departmental public body’ means any public authority other than—
(a) a Minister of the Crown or government department;
(b) the Welsh Ministers;
(c) a devolved Welsh authority within the meaning of 30 section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006;
‘public funding’ means funding from a Minister of the Crown or government department;
‘shared inclusive economy priorities’ has the meaning given by section 107L(2)(b);
‘statutory plan or strategy’ means a plan or strategy that a non-departmental public body is required by an enactment to issue or publish.
(4) References in this section to an enactment or to provision made under an enactment are to an enactment whenever passed or (as the case may be) to provision whenever the instrument containing it is made.”
(5) After section 333F of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 insert—
“333G Public bodies: duty to have regard to shared economic inclusivity priorities for London
(1) A relevant non-departmental public body must have regard to a shared economic inclusivity priority for Greater London when—
(a) exercising, at the request of the Mayor, a function which could reasonably be expected to have an effect on that priority;
(b) preparing a bid for public funding for an activity the objectives of which align with that priority;
(c) preparing a statutory plan or strategy which relates to the priority.
(2) A ‘shared local economic inclusivity priority for Greater London’ is an economic priority for Greater London that—
(a) is developed in collaboration with residents of Greater London, including by means of public participatory process convened by the Mayor of the London;
(b) has regard to—
(i) inequalities between persons with and without protected characteristics as defined by the Equalities Act 2010;
(ii) improving health and narrowing inequalities in health, nutrition and housing in the strategic authority area;
(iii) improving happiness and social connection;
(iv) improving access to nature and opportunities to play;
(v) promoting increased power and control of the economy to people living in Greater London;
(c) is agreed between the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State;
(d) is published by the Mayor of London.
(3) A ‘relevant non-departmental public body’ means a non-departmental public body specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) In this section—
‘enactment’ includes an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978;
‘Minister of the Crown’ has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
‘non-departmental public body’ means any public authority 20 other than—
(a) a Minister of the Crown or government department;
(b) the Welsh Ministers;
(c) a devolved Welsh authority within the meaning of section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006;
‘public funding’ means funding from a Minister of the Crown or government department;
‘statutory plan or strategy’ means a plan or strategy that a person is required by an enactment to issue or publish.
(5) References in this section to an enactment or to provision made 30 under an enactment are to an enactment whenever passed or (as the case may be) to provision whenever the instrument containing it is made.
(6) In section 420 (regulations and orders), in subsection (7), in the appropriate place, insert ‘section 333G;’.””
This new schedule renames Local Growth Plans as Inclusive Economy Plans and introduces NS1.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause introduces schedule 19, which requires mayoral combined authorities and county authorities to produce and publish a local growth plan—a critical tool and document for driving the developments, jobs and prosperity that we want to see in areas. We will discuss schedule 19 in more detail later in the debate.
Siân Berry
I rise to speak to my new clause 29 and new schedule 1, which seek to replace clause 38 and schedule 19. They would replace local growth plans with inclusive economy plans, which, following an enhanced process of consultation and approval, would have the same prominence in terms of policy priorities as the proposed growth plans. While we have adopted much of the same drafting and general process, wherever the goal of growth appears, my new version says instead that our goal would be an inclusive economy or economic inclusivity.
It is important to confront the harmful concept of growth for the sake of growth. Prioritising economic growth, wherever it may come from, above everything else is wrong. Growth may be the Government’s No. 1 mission, but what is the point if it does not serve the people? Growth alone is insufficient to address inequality and the environmental crisis. For example, gross domestic product has roughly doubled since 1980, yet the richest five households in the UK own more wealth than 13.2 million people. When it comes to jobs, growth has not delivered, with low pay and stagnant real wages the reality for most.
A test of the Bill, and indeed the Government, will be whether it succeeds in moving beyond growth alone to creating an economy where everyone can thrive. That has to begin with clear intentions for the type of economy we want to build, not growth at any cost. In the case of local government and the new strategic authorities, how this is codified in the prescribed strategies for each area is important. That is the core reason why, working with the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, I have proposed this change to the core goals in the central economic strategy that each local authority will produce.
Those comparing our new schedule with the original will see that, in paragraph (3), proposed new sections 107L of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and 32A of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 add further steps to the process of developing a plan so that it can be tailored to each local area through appropriate local indicators of progress. Paragraph (4) of the new schedule would require mayors to bring the public into both setting local indicators and setting out how the plan will help to achieve the inclusive economic outcomes that cover the necessary ingredients for a good life in that area. That is because, if they are going to shape a local economy, they need to listen and deliver for the people who live and work in it.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I am troubled by this concept. In my constituency, which is one of the most deprived in the United Kingdom, we have an opportunity to invest in a vast range of renewable energy to mine again critical minerals that will accelerate the transition away from fossil fuel use in order to transition to an economy based on green energy. I would like the hon. Lady to clarify this, but I think she is suggesting that that kind of growth is not acceptable in some way, and that we cannot have good-quality green growth that supports jobs in areas of extreme poverty and deprivation and deals with the challenges of international imports from areas of the world that do not share our values.
Siân Berry
That is a good question. Where there are opportunities to develop new industries and new jobs and create new economic activity, my new schedule enables local communities such as those in Cornwall to set inclusive economy indicators. In the examples given, that might mean that those new industries are owned and managed by the local people and the local community, rather than through outside investment from extractive industries that will take the profits elsewhere. Those are things for the local community to decide under the new schedule.
I will just finish the quote from the report by the New Economics Foundation and its allies:
“At a time of eroding trust in politics, this is a major problem for combined authorities elected to make the economy work better for people .”
My new clause and new schedule will help authorities to become more purposeful about developing their own unique economies and economic opportunities in a way that truly builds a better economy that serves local people, and not just more production and profits that can be extracted away from them without improving everyday lives. It will bring more people more inclusively into the local economies that we want to develop.
I will not press my proposals to a vote today, but I hope that the Minister has listened and will recognise that the current Government proposals could create the wrong incentives and the wrong measures of progress, and might risk producing the wrong outcomes for the people who live in the areas that will be governed by these economic plans. I also hope that she will make improvements similar to my proposals before the next stage of this Bill.
Paul Holmes
I will speak briefly not only to clause 38 but to new clause 9 and new schedule 1. Although the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion has indicated that she does not wish to push these measures to a vote, it is important that we address her well-intentioned amendments. I absolutely agree with her about the economic situation that this country currently faces, caused by the Labour Government. However, we have a fundamental disagreement about the solution that she outlines.
That is because the Government are doing the right thing here in making sure that local growth plans are adequate and can do what they say on the tin: deliver economic growth for the people the mayor serves and the people we serve. I would argue that, if the economic situations are right, as set down in the powers that the Government are outlining, inclusivity is absolutely enshrined within those powers. If we have growth, twinned with the protections currently within legislation in this country, such as environmental protection, corporate social responsibility and some of the equality legislation that we have, inclusivity will be delivered by the new businesses created by the people being empowered to set them up, and those businesses will be able to grow because of some of the measures that the Government are introducing.
The hon. Lady mentioned consultation and inclusivity in terms of people being able to shape their futures. I believe that that is a debate that we had last week when we were considering her amendment on citizens’ assemblies—she knows my oft-stated view on those. I will not tell the Committee that view again, because my blood pressure might rise slightly if I did. Once again, however, I will argue that the point at which there is inclusivity and advocacy from people is at an election, and that the mayor will be judged at an election on whether they have been able to deliver economic growth and whether they have fundamentally made life better for their constituents over the time that they have been in office.
Siân Berry
Is the hon. Member really saying that that he is against asking the people of a local area what would constitute a good economy for them and making that the focus of the mayor’s economic indicators? Also, if all of these proposals are going to be put into manifestos at election time, how long does he envision the manifestos for these mayoral elections being?
Paul Holmes
The way that people want their economy to go is to have growth, and for them to be able to pay their bills, feed their families and have good jobs. I say to the hon. Lady that any mayor who does not put those things in their manifesto is not worth electing. An election is the point at which the mayor should be held accountable. Any mayor who says that they would not want to make their local economic situation better and improve the lives of their citizens should not be elected. The current legislation that we have enables people perfectly reasonable input into the journey that a mayor might take over their mayoral term.
I believe that over the course of the last few Governments, the House of Commons has made great strides in protecting the environment and in making sure that mayors and public authorities, as well as private businesses, are responsible in how they treat their people, but also grow with the environmental and other protections that are necessary. While I understand the hon. Lady’s argument and I genuinely have a great deal of respect for her, the unintended consequences of the new clause and the new schedule will be to restrict growth, and to restrict the power of the mayor to have a responsible attitude to enabling growth on an even basis within the system that we currently have.
The hon. Lady’s proposals would be restrictive, but they would also take us back. A mayor should be unrestricted in their ability to deliver the growth and prosperity for the people they serve. I do not believe that the new clause and new schedule would do that. I know that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is not pushing those to a vote, but if she did, we would not be able to support it, and we would vote against it.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling the new clause and new schedule. Let me put on record that I completely agree with the goals of an inclusive economy; they are right, and we have a lot of sympathy for that. This Government are clear that we have to get the economy to work better for people, and I am obliged to remind everyone that over the last 14 years that was not the case.
Ultimately, mayors must have a democratic mandate, and the mark of success will be not just economic growth, but the economy impacting on people’s living standards, jobs and wages—bread and butter, tangible things. We think that the aims that the hon. Lady is trying to achieve are already locked into the Bill. If we achieve growth only on a graph and people do not feel it, our residents, voters and electorate will ensure that we pay the price. Therefore, that democratic lock is already baked into the Bill.
It is also worth saying that local growth plans, as set out in the Bill and as conceived, are a manifesto commitment for this Government, and the existing, established regional mayors have already developed their plans, with many starting to publish them already. By focusing on challenges around housing, transport, skills, employment and innovation, those plans will set the framework for unlocking the growth potential of those areas. As I said, growth only matters if it has a tangible impact on people. The strategic authorities that we are working with absolutely understand that and are trying to drive through measures that will deliver it.
We have already agreed growth priorities with 12 mayors. Those priorities are underpinned by a robust evidence base and a shared understanding of the biggest cross-cutting challenges and opportunities for economic development in those areas. Inclusivity, people and the impact on communities are absolutely central to that. The Government want to see more jobs, more money in people’s pockets, higher wages and investment that touches each and every one of our communities. One of the things we think mayors can do, when we devolve, is to ensure that they rewire their local economics in a way that gives people a greater stake.
Through co-operative ways of organising things, as in Liverpool city region and Greater Manchester, we are seeing new models that put people and communities front and centre to ensure that the growth and development that happens fundamentally benefits people. I believe that we have already baked in the intent behind the hon. Lady’s new clause and new schedule within the very design of this policy, but, more importantly, the power of democracy will drive and unlock it: if mayors and this Government do not deliver for people in our communities, we have the ballot box by which people can show their discontent. I think the hon. Lady has already said that she is not pressing the new clause and new schedule to a vote.
The Chair
If Ms Berry wanted to test on the Committee’s view on the new clause and new schedule it would come at a later stage anyway. Members will remember that we are debating clause 38.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 19
Local growth plans
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 54, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert—
“(d) comply with any Land Use Framework issued by the Secretary of State, and
(e) comply with any local nature recovery strategies applicable to the area covered by the authority.
(2A) The Secretary of State must take steps to support a mayoral combined authority in complying with the provisions of paragraphs (2)(d) and (2)(e) of this section.”
This amendment requires mayoral combined authorities to ensure their local growth plans comply with any overarching Land Use Framework and relevant local nature recovery strategies.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment
Amendment 55, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14, at end insert—
“(d) comply with any Land Use Framework issued by the Secretary of State, and
(e) comply with any local nature recovery strategies applicable to the area covered by the authority.
(2A) The Secretary of State must take steps to support a mayoral combined authority in complying with the provisions of paragraphs (2)(d) and (2)(e) of this section.”
This amendment requires mayoral CCAs to ensure their local growth plans comply with any overarching Land Use Framework and relevant local nature recovery strategies.
Vikki Slade
The amendments would ensure that the local growth plans schedule makes reference to, and considers in some reasonable depth, the needs of nature. I have gone back through the schedule, and I cannot see any reference to nature, nature recovery, or anything that suggests that the Government understand the rural economy. It feels very much like a schedule that is written with towns in mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for housing and planning, spoke in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee—I am sure some colleagues in here were also on that Committee—about the importance of bolting in the land use framework to the planning system. I think he described it as otherwise being
“an expensive waste of time”.––[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 29 April 2025; c. 94.]
Fundamentally, there is a real risk of a failure to think about the needs of rural economies such as Cornwall’s, which are reliant on the way that we use our land. Those may not be traditional uses of the land—they may be ancient industrial ones—but those need to be considered.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady and I are veterans of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee. She is absolutely right to outline some of the comments made in that Committee, because that Bill has fundamental consequences for this legislation. Does the hon. Lady share my concerns that not only is nature not included within local growth plans, but the consequences of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will mean that nature will not feature at all in some of the planning decisions made in the development of those local growth plans?
Vikki Slade
The shadow Minister is exactly right; that is why so many people are so worried about the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. My inbox has been filled with people asking how they can block it, because of the damage it will do to so much of our nature.
The piece missing from this measure is that economic growth in rural areas is fundamentally entwined with nature recovery. In my area in Dorset, Purbeck Heaths is a new national nature park, and nature tourism is actually one of our growth industries. We have incredible charitable businesses, such as Birds of Poole Harbour, that have brought back species to Dorset—species that have been missing for generations and are now thriving—and we now have a whole industry growing around that. The National Trust is also buying land that is no longer commercially viable and restoring it for rewilding, ensuring that it is there for generations to come. Failing to think about that as part of the local economic strategy is a missed opportunity, and it risks subverting development that is already there.
Economic development is not independent of our lives. People move to places because they have nature around them. Those places may have great shops, town centres and theatres, but people will also move there because of the great quality of life. A lot of people will say that being in nature is a part of making their lives better and happier. If times are tough and people do not have a lot of money in their pocket, being close to nature is something that they can still enjoy and that restores their mental health. We underestimate the power of that at our peril.
We have huge areas of countryside where farming is becoming a marginal activity. Rather than being the driver, it is almost becoming something that people are doing because they love it—but they are losing money hand over fist. If we do not bake in that land use framework, which already pre-exists the local growth plan, it will be much easier for farmers to “get rich quick” by moving land out of its existing use and into what the economic development plan sees as the latest, greatest new thing—losing that land forever—rather than complying with a land use framework that explains why it is so important to keep that land in use, and helps to retain the value of that land for farming, or ancient industry, into the future.
I recognise that the Minister has not yet accepted any of our amendments, so I recognise that getting this one through may be a real struggle, but it is so important, particularly given how, as the shadow Minister has already explained, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill has really squeezed out nature. I say to the Minister, “Please put nature back in and recognise that the land use frameworks and nature recovery strategies matter.” In many places they already exist and already have local buy-in, and we would not want to see mayoral authorities ride roughshod over what is already there.
The Chair
I feared we might stray into other considerations on planning, so I am grateful to the hon. Lady for speaking specifically about land use and nature recovery, which is the subject of the amendment. I call the Minister.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Lady for the amendment. I will say three things. First, local growth plans are locally-led documents with the flexibility to consider the challenges and opportunities that matter to particular areas. Places are already taking into account whether there are green growth opportunities in their area. In rural areas they will take into account the rural economy, the farming economy, and how that has a bearing on economic development opportunities. We need a framework that allows the flexibility for plans to be locally specific. In areas where it makes sense, places are already doing that in practice and we expect them to do that going forward.
Vikki Slade
Local nature recovery strategies matter not only in rural areas. If someone lives in the most urban part of the country, the local nature strategy is critical to those tiny pockets, so I would argue that it is as relevant in cities as it is in rural areas.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She pre-empted the second point that I was about to make, which is that local nature recovery strategies are critical for every part of the country. Decisions that impact on land use and nature recovery will still need to consider the relevant policy framework, including the local nature recovery strategies that exist across the country. Any strategic planning decision will have to have regard to those local strategies. Thirdly and finally, we recognise that economic development sits alongside nature recovery. The two should not be and do not need to be in conflict.
Siân Berry
On a point of clarification, I recognise that the Minister has set out that the local nature recovery strategies will have to be regarded, and also that local growth plans will be very important. Which does the Minister see as having greater weight in local planning and strategic planning decisions?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
They are doing different things. The local plan is a strategic document. It is not the spatial development plan that will be the key driver for planning decisions. As is the case now, it is absolutely right that the relevant authority making the decision on planning has regard to local nature recovery strategies.
Lewis Cocking
What happens if one plan says one thing and another plan says another? The Minister just said that the strategic spatial framework would take precedence, but what happens if the local plan from the local planning authority has policies that contradict or do not align with the strategic plan?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
That is why we have the planning process. We will come on to talk about the strategic spatial plan. That is a document that will have to be done in consultation with constituent authorities. It will focus on strategic infrastructure and development that is needed in the area. Ultimately, we hope that that process will be done through consensus. When it is not, and when there is a dispute between the constituent local authority and the strategic authority in the round, we have said that that will go to the Secretary of State to make a determination through the independent Planning Inspectorate. The planning process already has provisions for us to mitigate that instance.
We have discussed the land use framework in Committee before. We have consulted on it and will publish the response to the consultation in due course. Although the principle of ensuring alignment across the piece is the right one, we think that before we have a tangible framework that is live and has been tested, it is premature to put a requirement in legislation that we would need to have regard to the land use framework.
Vikki Slade
I recall a similar argument being made last week to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, and a reference to “nascent” organisations. My hon. Friend pointed out that by the time the Bill comes into play some of the land use frameworks will be up and running, so they predate the legislation that will form the local growth plans. It feels completely pointless and a waste of money for local authorities to spend all that time putting in place the land use frameworks only for this legislation to come along and say, “Well, they haven’t really been tested.”
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are developing the process of providing a land use framework, and we are taking onboard the responses that have come through the consultation. Whether that framework ends up being high level and strategic or quite granular will come out through that process, so it feels incredibly prescriptive and constraining to put that requirement on local plans at this stage.
Whether it is the local plan that is thinking about how we drive economic opportunities in the area, or it is the spatial development plan that mayors will be required to have in place, it will obviously have to take into account land use, the composition of the area, nature and all the key considerations in order to be an effective plan that works and that is supported by all the constituent members and parts that need to get onboard. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment.
Vikki Slade
Although it may come back at a later stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 352, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert—
“(d) include an overview of the views of town and parish councils in the local authority area about the plan.”
This amendment would require information about the views of town and parish councils in the area about a mayoral combined authority’s local growth plan to be included in the plan.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 353, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert—
“(2A) A mayoral combined authority must engage town and parish councils within its area in creating a local growth plan.
(2B) Engagement under subsection (2A) must include—
(a) sharing draft proposals,
(b) sharing evidence gathered to prepare the proposal, and
(c) opportunities to provide feedback on draft proposals.”
This amendment would require mayoral combined authorities to engage with town and parish councils in creating local growth plans.
Amendment 354, in schedule 19, page 201, line 4, at end insert—
“(f) minimum engagement requirements under section 107L(2B).”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance about the minimum levels of engagement with town and parish councils that is required in the development of mayoral combined authorities’ local growth plans.
Amendment 355, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14, at end insert—
“(d) include an overview of the views of town and parish councils about the plan.”
This amendment would require information about the views of town and parish councils about a mayoral CCA’s local growth plan to be included in the plan.
Amendment 356, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) A mayoral CCA must engage town and parish councils within its area in creating a local growth plan.
(2B) Engagement under subsection (2A) must include—
(a) sharing draft proposals,
(b) sharing information gathered to prepare the proposal, and
(c) opportunities to provide feedback on draft proposals.”
This amendment would require mayoral CCAs to engage with town and parish councils in creating local growth plans.
Amendment 357, in schedule 19, page 202, line 37, at end insert—
“(f) minimum engagement requirements under section 32A(2B).”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance about the minimum levels of engagement with town and parish councils that is required in the development of mayoral CCAs’ local growth plans.
Manuela Perteghella
Local growth plans are rightly a key part of the devolution agenda, because the plans guide inward investment and set priorities for economic growth, as we have discussed, as well as development and regeneration in combined authority areas. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about the importance of inclusive economic and growth plans. Inclusivity is necessary. Consultation and engagement are necessary. Currently, however, there is no statutory requirement for mayoral combined authorities to formally record or engage with town and parish councils in the creation of these plans. These amendments aim to address that gap, increasing local accountability and inclusivity.
Amendments 352 and 355 would require any mayoral authority making a local growth plan to include the views of local town and parish council. Amendments 353 and 356 would go further, requiring active engagement with those councils by, for example, sharing draft proposals and the evidence behind the proposals for local growth plans, and giving councils a real opportunity to provide feedback before local growth plans are made. By requiring consultation at a parish level and genuine involvement in devolution decisions, and by valuing local voices, these provisions resist the top-down approach.
In my constituency we have brilliant parish and town councils. When the district councils are abolished and a new unitary council is made, it is likely that towns and parishes will be asked if they wish to take on more services and assets, including possible development sites.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
We are about to embark on a devolution deal for Cheshire and Warrington. The county of Cheshire alone has more than 330 civil parishes. Is the hon. Lady not concerned about the burden that would be placed on a mayor? Her amendment would require the views of all those parishes to be set out, so requiring the mayor in statute to report on that seems like a big ask.
Manuela Perteghella
I am hearing a lot from the Labour Benches about there being 800 or 350 parish councils, so we cannot engage with them, but there are different ways to engage, such as online consultations or parish fora to which representatives and clerks can be invited. That the mayor cannot engage because there are so many parish councils is not a factor; I am sure that the mayor will be able to.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is being generous with her time. I do not think it was suggested that the mayor could or should not engage; the question is about putting mandatory engagement in the Bill. Does she accept that is very different from what she has just stated?
Manuela Perteghella
No, I do not accept that. We are saying that there have to be minimum standards for engagement. In fact, amendment 354, reinforced by amendment 357, would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance on minimum standards for engagement. It would then be up to the mayor, but at least the engagement with our first tier of local government would be meaningful and consistent across all mayoral combined authorities.
Setting minimum standards for engagement would provide a baseline for consultation across all mayoral authorities, but that consultation can be in different formats. Let us not forget that two-tier local authorities with county councils often have lots of parish councils and they already consult them on local plans, for example, so there are ways to do it. It is not that the leader of the county has to meet all 200 parish councils individually.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady has made an excellent case, as she has done throughout the Bill Committee, for our excellent town and parish councils, which serve my constituency well. Does she agree that many district councils, in anticipation of being abolished, are already transferring assets—some of which are crucial to local growth and local planning—to parish councils, which are adequately taking them on? If the Bill goes through, however, those parish councils will have no consultation even though they have already taken on some assets that are crucial to the local growth that we are talking about.
Manuela Perteghella
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If a district council is to be abolished, parish and town councils are asked to take on assets or sites that could be development sites, so they become stakeholders in the local growth plans. They will be the landowners, so not to engage with the parish and town councils that take on those assets will be damaging in the long term.
Our amendments raise the quality and legitimacy of decisions by reflecting broader community input and inclusivity. They would, again, prevent a top-down approach. Crucially, they would set consistent standards nationwide, so that engagement is not left to the whim of individual authorities or mayors. I will press amendment 353 to a vote, because the changes are about the principle of genuine devolution and about giving real power to local communities, not concentrating it on the mayors. The amendment is essential to make the promise real, so I will press it to a vote.
Paul Holmes
In the brief time that I have, I want to back the hon. Lady’s excellent points. Throughout the Bill Committee so far, town and parish councils, which deliver so much for our constituents and are being asked to do more in the future, have been wilfully neglected. They are vital to the economic growth that the Minister rightly says needs to be delivered in our local areas, but the structures currently being proposed do not include them, as the hon. Lady has outlined and as I outlined in my intervention.
Assets are already being transferred in my constituency. Our country parks are currently looking at being transferred from our district council, Eastleigh borough council—I have many disagreements with it, but it is doing the right thing in this case—to our town and parish councils. In country parks specifically, there are business opportunities for raising revenue, development opportunities, and nature protection opportunities that town and parish councils simply will not be able to intervene on or to consult on with the new mayors.
Manuela Perteghella
On country parks and forestry, charities that plant forests are providing apprenticeships because the number of our forest rangers has declined. After hearing about the post-16 education and skills strategy yesterday, it is really important to provide these apprenticeships and jobs in rural areas so that our young people can continue to thrive.
Paul Holmes
Is there a clearer example than that of how this issue could contribute to the local growth plans that we are discussing?
The legislation is being drafted at a time when the operational environment is changing. The Minister needs to accept that, as the hon. Lady outlined, because of the proposals, there has been a major asset transfer to our town and parish councils that means they have become quite fundamental and large-scale landowners. Some of that development opportunity—that opportunity to look strategically at where growth needs to come into our local communities—is, crucially, allocated to some of our town and parish councils, but the legislation completely and wilfully removes them from any consultation exercise with a mayor.
I think that this is a pragmatic Government, and that the legislation was drafted before they realised that the consequences of some of the proposed measures were that district councils, because of the funding situation, had started to move some of those assets. The Minister needs to realise that the operational environment has fundamentally changed because, as I have said, it is crucial that town and parish councils are included in relation to land holdings as well as some of the operational responsibilities that they now have. Otherwise, the proposed local growth plans will not deliver on the key aspiration that has been outlined.
Siân Berry
Apart from seeking views, there is a requirement in the amendment to share draft proposals and the evidence base. Does the hon. Member consider that to be an important part of correcting errors in the evidence base and in the assumptions of the draft proposals, which only those councils might have information about?
Paul Holmes
I absolutely agree, because local parish councillors are experts in the areas that they represent—sometimes more so than district councillors or county councillors, because it is a smaller area. I think that the amendments from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon are perfectly acceptable—I hope that the Minister agrees—and that she is trying to rectify an unintended consequence of the legislation. In many areas, it tries to streamline some of those aspirations, but in this area it is cutting its nose off to spite its face. We will support the amendments, and I hope the Minister will also support them and come back to us on how she imagines that she will strengthen her ability to consult town and parish councils.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
First, let me thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, who has been a consistent champion and advocate of town and parish councils throughout the Bill Committee. Let me put it on record again that town and parish councils play an important role in their communities. That is a role that we understand, that we appreciate and that we want to support. We have been clear that the—
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting)
Tuesday 21st October 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnglish Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 October 2025 - (21 Oct 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings, but I reassure the Committee that, as we may be sitting later this evening, we will have a 20-minute break at 4 pm.
Schedule 19
Local growth plans
Amendment proposed (this day): 352, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert—
“(d) include an overview of the views of town and parish councils in the local authority area about the plan.”—(Manuela Perteghella.)
This amendment would require information about the views of town and parish councils in the area about a mayoral combined authority’s local growth plan to be included in the plan.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 353, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert—
“(2A) A mayoral combined authority must engage town and parish councils within its area in creating a local growth plan.
(2B) Engagement under subsection (2A) must include—
(a) sharing draft proposals,
(b) sharing evidence gathered to prepare the proposal, and
(c) opportunities to provide feedback on draft proposals.”
This amendment would require mayoral combined authorities to engage with town and parish councils in creating local growth plans.
Amendment 354, in schedule 19, page 201, line 4, at end insert—
“(f) minimum engagement requirements under section 107L(2B).”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance about the minimum levels of engagement with town and parish councils that is required in the development of mayoral combined authorities’ local growth plans.
Amendment 355, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14, at end insert—
“(d) include an overview of the views of town and parish councils about the plan.”
This amendment would require information about the views of town and parish councils about a mayoral CCA’s local growth plan to be included in the plan.
Amendment 356, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) A mayoral CCA must engage town and parish councils within its area in creating a local growth plan.
(2B) Engagement under subsection (2A) must include—
(a) sharing draft proposals,
(b) sharing information gathered to prepare the proposal, and
(c) opportunities to provide feedback on draft proposals.”
This amendment would require mayoral CCAs to engage with town and parish councils in creating local growth plans.
Amendment 357, in schedule 19, page 202, line 37, at end insert—
“(f) minimum engagement requirements under section 32A(2B).”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance about the minimum levels of engagement with town and parish councils that is required in the development of mayoral CCAs’ local growth plans.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I was in the middle of thanking the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon for being a consistent champion of town and parish councils throughout our proceedings. We also recognise the important role they play in their communities, which is understood and should not be understated.
We have been clear that local growth plans should reflect the diverse needs and views of a range of local and regional stakeholders. Not only is this already possible, but it is actively encouraged. We have set out in the Bill that, when drafting their local growth plans, mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities must have regard to guidance published by the Secretary of State. That guidance can already set out who the authority might consult, as well as the information to be included in the plan.
We think that specifying a minimum level of engagement for town and parish councils is disproportionate and over-prescriptive. For too long, central Government have dictated what local areas should do, who they should talk to and how they should do it, and we are calling time on that. This is about empowering mayoral strategic authorities to reach out to the key stakeholders that they know and understand best to drive the changes they want in their place. For that reason, I do not believe this cluster of amendments is necessary.
I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I would not usually speak at this stage, but as the Minister did not outline why she does not believe that the Government should prescribe who mayors and mayoral development corporations should be talking to, will she say why, in earlier clauses, she prescribed that organisations such as trade unions should sit around the table? Town and parish councils that are delivering services on the ground are now being asked to deliver more services because of some of the provisions she has included in the Bill. Why does she not think it is necessary to issue guidance forcing mayors or MDCs to talk to them when they are delivering?
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman moved an amendment specifically to rule out trade unions. The Bill does not rule them in, in any way. I am slightly concerned that he might be misleading us—inadvertently.
Paul Holmes
I am not sure whether it is parliamentary to say that I am attempting to mislead the Committee. He corrected himself, so I will not take offence.
Paul Holmes
I know I am, Dame Siobhain. I cut my teeth against you in Mitcham and Morden in 2015, and I was required to be of strong stuff to try to beat you.
I do not believe that the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire is correct. What I am saying is that the Minister and the Government cannot have their cake and eat it. On various things, they are prescribing who mayors should talk to, who should be included in a strategy and who should sit around the table. But when it comes to organisations that are delivering services on the ground, and district councils that are to be abolished are transferring assets down to town and parish councils, the Minister says there is no need to prescribe that mayors need to talk to them. In many cases—including in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, who so eloquently spoke to this amendment—these town and parish councils are increasing the number of services they provide, and they are taking on sections of land and businesses that are integral to the development of local growth plans. I say very gently, if the Minister wanted to completely devolve power to mayors, that would be absolutely fine with us, but let us not have a patchwork quilt approach by which she is absolutely prescribing who and to which stakeholders mayors should talk in other areas of the legislation, but she does not feel it necessary to include town and parish councils in this part. That is a shame.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
To clarify, the Bill does not specify any particular organisation that should be consulted. It says that we will set that out in guidance. That guidance will be driven by a whole host of consultation with strategic authorities and their partners around the range of organisations and bodies we think is necessary. The Conservative amendment specifically picked on trade unions and specifically said we should exclude them. That is what we were pushing back against, so we are completely consistent in this.
In this case, again, there will be guidance that will talk about a range of local stakeholders, but we think it is wrong to prescribe on the face of the Bill that there should be a minimum requirement in order to engage with town and parish councils. That is too onerous and is disproportionate. We should allow the mayor and the strategic authority to know their stakeholders and the people with whom they need to have a conversation, to make sure that they have consensus and the support to drive forward their local growth plan.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 364, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17 at end insert—
“(d) identify the plan’s contribution to targets set out by—
(i) sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,
(ii) Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(iii) the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”
This amendment would require combined authorities to have regard to targets set by the Environment Act 2021, Climate Change Act 2008, and Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 in developing local growth plans.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 365, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14 at end insert—
“(d) identify the plan’s contribution to targets set out by—
(i) sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,
(ii) Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(iii) the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”
This amendment would require mayoral combined county authorities to have regard to targets set by the Environment Act 2021, Climate Change Act 2008, and Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 in developing local growth plans.
Vikki Slade
I am a little confused, Dame Siobhan, because amendments 352 and 353 are in the same grouping. I am assuming that you will return to 353.
I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion who has also signed amendment 364, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin). Amendments 364 and 365 are a simple pair of amendments; they are identical in wording, but one applies to a county combined authority and one to a combined authority. It really is quite straightforward: economic growth should not be off the back of public health and environmental damage. If a local authority is going to drive economic growth by, for example, creating a large industrial estate that will damage air quality or create incredible congestion, it is not paying attention to the environmental factors.
I am sure that the Minister will tell us that all those things form part of a decision on a planning application. However, if this Government are genuinely committed to their international and national obligations on climate change, and if they are committed to reducing health inequalities, in which we know air quality is a major factor, it seems a small thing to make these amendments, which would assure that mayors—who may not have the same commitment as the Government to protecting air quality and our environment—must identify the contributions.
Interestingly, schedule 19 provides that the local plan must include all the economic factors and list their impact. Adding environmental factors would be a minor change. We will press the two amendments to a vote.
The Chair
I remind Members, and myself, that regardless of how amendments have been grouped for debate, we will take decisions on them in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. We will therefore come to a decision on amendment 353 once amendment 364 has been dealt with. I am sure that that is now clear to everybody.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I share the hon. Lady’s concern and her view of the importance of environmental and climate change targets. The economic plans of any strategic authority must be compatible with our legal targets for those core considerations.
National Government and local government at all levels, along with business and individuals, must continue to make a contribution to tackling climate change and improving the quality of the environment around us. I refer the hon. Lady to the local growth plans that are already in place and the actions of mayors who are already in place, which show that a regard for climate change and air quality obligations is a driving force.
Vikki Slade
There is a big difference between what has been done by mayors who have gone before and creating mayors across the whole country. The new mayors will have very different backgrounds and landscapes, both geographical and political, to deal with. The word “hope” has done a lot of heavy lifting today, and although I also hope that all these mayors are as great as some of the mayors who have gone before, the Minister has more confidence in them than I do. Legislation is there to ensure that we are not reliant on the good will of hard-working people in political posts, and to protect us from people who may achieve political office and then seek to create something that we will have to undo, at great cost to our economy and health.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Lady’s point. Mayoral strategic authorities are already subject to the recently strengthened biodiversity duty, which supports the delivery of legally binding biodiversity targets. We have seen that mayors have complied with the duties on local authorities around air quality and producing air quality action plans. Those have shown to be effective in London. The principle and the intention are that we are baking our climate and environmental obligations into the way that we are thinking about how we drive the economy. We will reflect on the guidance that comes alongside local growth plans to ensure that, across the piece, those national obligations are reflected in every tier of Government. The hon. Member has my assurance that we will reflect on it, and I ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Vikki Slade
I am minded to press the amendment to a Division, so that our commitment to this is on record. I hope that the Minister will take onboard that this is done in good faith.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 359, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert—
“(2A) In preparing a local growth plan, a mayoral combined authority must make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on areas which are rural, remote, or coastal.”
This amendment would require local growth plans to make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on rural, remote and coastal areas.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 360, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) In preparing a local growth plan, a mayoral CCA must make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on areas which are rural, remote, or coastal.”
This amendment is related to Amendment 359.
Manuela Perteghella
These amendments were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), and they focus on ensuring that rural, remote and coastal areas are properly considered in the Bill. At present, the Bill largely focuses on urban centres and large population areas. There is a bit about rural areas, but not about the differences between these often isolated geographical areas, and there is little specific recognition of rural or geographically isolated communities, despite their unique challenges and contributions to the economy.
Both amendments would require local growth plans to make specific reference to the proposed benefits for those areas. In that way, we would ensure that the growth strategies are inclusive, balanced and relevant to the communities within the combined authority area. Combined authority areas can be very different—there could be a very populous urban cluster of unitary councils, and there could also be rural councils, which have completely different needs.
The amendments are fair to rural communities and advantageous to urban areas, because we know that when our rural areas thrive, so does the whole country. There are opportunities across our nation as a whole. Rural and coastal areas need focused attention—for example, supporting infrastructure such as transport networks, energy infrastructure and digital connectivity. There are families in my constituency who do not get any broadband connectivity, and their children have to go to cafés in towns to revise for GCSEs. Not having that connectivity also makes it very difficult for businesses to thrive, so we face unique challenges.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Is there evidence that existing mayors—such as the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough or the Mayor of North Tyneside—are not considering rural communities in their work, which would suggest that we need the amendments?
Manuela Perteghella
That goes back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole was saying. We should not rely on the kindness of mayors to care about the whole of their communities; we need to ensure that local growth plans—which is what the amendments are about—include the needs of coastal, rural and isolated communities such as mine, where we do not have buses to take elderly residents to the nearest hospital. It is important that we make provision for local growth plans to consider the needs of rural, coastal and remote communities.
Obviously, rural areas are not homogeneous. We know that they have different industries—for example, agriculture and the visitor economy—and the demographics are different. Lots of people come to my constituency to retire, for example, which tells us about the health provision that we need our area. We want those needs to be reflected in the provisions on local growth plans in the Bill. A one-size-fits-all approach will lead to not only rural deprivation but missed opportunities for our nation as a whole.
In conclusion, the amendments are about equity, opportunity and smart growth. Rural, remote and coastal communities must not be left behind. Ignoring them would be a missed opportunity for the sustainable and inclusive growth that would power the whole region. Amendments 359 and 360 would ensure that all mayoral authorities plan meaningfully and strategically for every part of their area. For that reason, I will push amendment 359 to a vote.
Paul Holmes
I welcome amendment 359, moved by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. She outlined a number of issues that she faces in her rural constituency—the land of Shakespeare—where many people retire. I also represent a constituency that Shakespeare regularly visited. He stayed with the Earl of Southampton in the village of Titchfield, where his creative juices flowed.
We are going through exactly the same issues, in that both our areas are diverse in their make-up and population. If I take the proposed mayoral authority that is being created for Hampshire and the Solent, that region consists of two large working-class cities on the south coast, which probably look like old industrial northern working-class cities, in what is otherwise quite an affluent area. As well as those cities of Southampton and Portsmouth, we have many affluent and also deprived coastal communities, and the farming communities in Hampshire.
Without undermining the candidates of all political parties who will be standing—I will talk about Hampshire in this case, because it adequately illustrates the problems of the current legislation—it is perfectly reasonable to assume that because the future mayor of Hampshire and the Solent, like many others, is being asked to represent 2.2 million people, those diverse areas and what the mayor needs to look at in the growth plan need to be codified.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
It is great to see the coalition back in action. To use the hon. Member’s phrase, does he not agree that any mayor worth their salt would naturally have consideration for remote coastal and rural areas in those growth plans, considering that those are the people they are meant to represent? If they do not, they will find out at the ballot box what people in those areas think about it.
Paul Holmes
I have the scars on my back from fighting Liberal Democrats in my political career, but pragmatic policies are being proposed to improve the legislation that—let us face it—could very much be improved. That is the point of the Bill Committee. I in particular have many disagreements with the Liberal Democrats, but the amendment of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon could absolutely improve the legislation.
The hon. Member for Banbury said that a mayor worth their salt should be able to do that anyway, but he just spoke against an amendment that would have enabled a mayor to speak to town and parish councils and do their job better. He cannot have it both ways.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Where in the legislation does it says that mayors will be prohibited from talking to town and parish councils? The way that the hon. Member phrased that implies that something in the Bill stops them from doing so, but I am not clear where that is.
Paul Holmes
Forgive me, I apologise to the Committee if I misspoke. I meant that the hon. Member for Banbury spoke against an amendment that would have guaranteed that mayors would have to speak to town and parish councils.
To return to amendment 359, the way that mayoral authorities are formulated means that mayors will represent diverse areas. As I said to the Minister, we want them to be able to succeed and we want to make sure that their growth plans actually work. In an earlier debate, I tried to adequately back up the Minister’s aim for mayors to deliver that and to make people in their area more prosperous. Businesses being created and economic growth should absolutely be the top priorities of the Government and the mayors that they are creating, and we fully endorse that message. I would argue, however, that mayors cannot do that if there is not guidance—or at least something in the legislation—that requires them to look at our coastal and rural communities and some of the unique challenges that the mayors will be able to face.
I will use the example of Hampshire and the Solent again. I have a friend who will probably end up being the Labour candidate for Hampshire and the Solent. She would make a very good mayor, but she has a history of representing and leading a council in an urban centre in an industrial city like Southampton—that is her expertise. She did it very well; she took over from the Conservative administration that I was part of. What she cannot do, and what she does not have strong experience in, is represent the coastal communities that go down the Solent and the farming communities outside.
The amendment would require rural and coastal communities and areas to be enshrined in the legislation. I do not think that Government Back Benchers, or the Minister, should be scared of that, because it would codify a solid strategic view for the local mayor to follow. I welcome the amendment, and we will support it if the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon presses it to a vote.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I know that Opposition Members—indeed, Members on both sides of the Committee—are all too aware of the unique needs and challenges that rural, remote and coastal communities face. I want to reassure them that local growth plans provide a framework for growth for all parts of their regions. That is exactly why we are requiring local growth plans to set out an economic overview of their whole area. Whether it is urban centres, or rural or farming parts of the entire strategic authority area, a proper assessment needs to be conducted. Yes, there is no requirement to specifically reference rural, remote or coastal areas, but there is equally no requirement to specify urban or suburban areas.
Manuela Perteghella
For such an important Bill, I do not think that we should wait four years—my community will be left behind by then. I do not want to wait for the ballot box; I want to give the mayor the tools to have inclusive local growth plans that take areas into consideration. That means they will be empowered to lobby the Government for transport networks or broadband connectivity in isolated areas and coastal communities, which are also, by the way, vulnerable to storms and flooding because of climate change, so they have very different needs.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I hear the passion and commitment of the hon. Lady clearly. Certainly my experience of strategic authorities and mayors who cover a combination of areas—including rural areas—is that they are mindful and clear about it; they want to have a conversation about transport connectivity and digital connectivity, and about how we drive economic growth and prosperity within our farming communities.
There is no evidence to suggest that local growth plans as defined in the Bill do not enable places to drive that. That is certainly not the experience that we are seeing at the moment. I understand the concern that a lot of our mayors have been in more urban areas, but in the north-east and increasingly with the mayors who are coming through our priority programme, they are clear about the importance of their rural communities and the fact that they will need certain powers and functions to drive that.
Although I completely understand the intent and legitimate concern behind the amendments spoken to by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, I think they are too prescriptive, and it is right that we create the flexibility for mayors to understand their patch across the piece and then respond effectively in their local growth plan. I hope that with that reassurance the hon. Lady will withdraw amendment 359—although I think she said she will press it to a vote.
Manuela Perteghella
I would like to press amendment 359 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 52, in schedule 19, page 201, line 6, at end insert—
“107MA Funding and support relating for Local Growth plans
(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that mayoral combined authorities have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to the—
(a) preparation,
(b) publication, and
(c) delivery
of local growth plans.
(2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of mayoral combined authorities in respect of functions relating to local growth plans, taking into account the—
(a) strategic importance, and
(b) complexity
of any such plans.”
This amendment creates a requirement for regular reviews of the needs of mayoral combined authorities with regard to local growth plans.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 53, in schedule 19, page 203, line 1, at end insert—
“32BA Funding and support relating to local growth plans
(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that mayoral CCAs have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to the—
(a) preparation,
(b) publication, and
(c) delivery
of local growth plans.
(2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of mayoral CCAs in respect of functions relating to local growth plans, taking into account the—
(a) strategic importance, and
(b) complexity
of any such plans.”
This amendment creates a requirement for regular reviews of the needs of mayoral CCAs with regard to local growth plans.
Vikki Slade
Amendments 52 and 53 are about funding strategic authorities for the local growth plans. I apologise to Committee members—they are going to get bored of hearing me say the same thing—but the point I am trying to make with these amendments is that we are pushing huge amounts of responsibility, cost and activity into a space that does not yet have clarity about how that will be paid for.
As we all know, our local authorities are at breaking point, with many of them expecting to make section 114 declarations within the next 12 months. I am deeply concerned that additional responsibilities to help to fund a strategic authority above them—they will have to pay in through a levy but they will have only minimal involvement in the decision making coming back down—will put them under more pressure.
These amendments are designed to make that point, to probe the Minister and to ask for further consideration about how the Secretary of State can assure local communities, who will be paying for these authorities, that there will be sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge the functions involved in the preparation, publication and delivery of the local growth plans. There is no point in having a fantastic plan if it cannot be delivered, or if the organisations beneath the strategic authority have just gone bust.
I have said it before: the money is coming either from levies, from precepts, or potentially from grant funding through central Government. These amendments are really about probing to ask whether these growth plans will be coming with the money attached to them so that local areas, wherever they are in the country, have a fighting chance of producing a really good growth plan that benefits every resident within their area. That is why I have tabled these amendments: to try to draw a bit more out of the Minister.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Lady for these probing amendments. Again, we had a debate about this earlier in Committee. Let me put on record that we are clear that, if we are asking strategic and mayoral strategic authorities to drive this critical function, they must have the capacity to do that job well. It does not serve them, the Government or their constituents if they do not have the capacity and capability to do that well. That is why we are, for example, providing capacity-building funding for mayoral strategic authorities, so that they can not only set up but do some of the core enabling functions, such as producing plans, well and effectively.
As I said, the principle holds that capacity-building support must be there to ensure that strategic authorities can do their functions incredibly well, but I do not think it is necessary to specify that on the face of the Bill, not least because we already have the spending review process where strategic authorities set out their demands, ambitions and resources, and have a conversation with Government about ensuring that they are adequately resourced.
The principle of capacity building is therefore absolutely clear and firm, and is designed into the way we are trying to drive the legislation forward. Putting it on the face of the Bill would be too prescriptive when there are already processes in place to enable it to happen.
Vikki Slade
For clarity, at the point of the spending review when Departments are given their spending powers, are we to expect the strategic authorities to be separately and directly given a settlement each year, or will that be over a three-year period in the way that local authorities are given that settlement? I just want clarity that it is a separate pot of money from local authority funding, because I would not want to see them have to fight like rats in a sack with the mayoral authorities above them.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The process in practice is distinct from the local government funding settlement. Established mayoral combined authorities are all going through the integrated settlement process, which is a negotiated process where the demands and ambitions of the mayor are weighted against the funding in Government Departments that we have provided with an integrated settlement. That is being rolled out among established combined authorities.
For other mayoral combined authorities that are not established, the process in practice has been, “This is what we have tried to do in our area. These are the resources, and this is where we can use, for example, the mayoral precepting power,” and then there is a conversation with Government to enable them to do what they want. We are moving towards multi-year settlements, because we think that is a better way to run the public finances. The principle of multi-year settlements applies to local government and across Departments, and will apply in the context of mayoral combined authorities.
Vikki Slade
On the basis of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 172, 173, 175 to 177, 179 to 181, 183 to 185, 187, 189, 190, 192 to 194, and 196.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
There are quite a few amendments in this grouping, and all are broadly technical, clarifying and consequential amendments. Government amendments 172, 181 and 190 are consequential amendments that expand the definition of relevant bodies that can be named in secondary legislation that must have regard to the shared local growth priorities agreed with mayoral strategic authorities. The change reflects the original intention set out in the White Paper to apply the duty to arms-length bodies.
Government amendments 174, 182, and 191 simply clarify that public authorities that operate GB-wide or UK-wide may be specified in regulations as subject to the duty to have regard, and that the duty will apply only to their activities in England.
Amendment 171 agreed to.
Amendments made: 172, in schedule 19, page 201, line 8, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This expands the power to require a non-departmental public body to have regard to shared local growth priorities to any relevant public authority.
Amendment 173, in schedule 19, page 201, line 11, after “of the” insert “mayoral combined”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172.
Amendment 174, in schedule 19, page 201, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) Where a relevant public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the United Kingdom, the duty under subsection (1) only applies in relation to activities that the authority carries out in England.”
This ensures that where a relevant public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the UK, the new duties relating to the local growth priorities of mayoral combined authorities will only apply to activities that the authority carries out in England.
Amendment 175, in schedule 19, page 201, line 18, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172.
Amendment 176, in schedule 19, page 201, line 19, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172.
Amendment 177, in schedule 19, page 201, line 26, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 178, in schedule 19, page 201, leave out line 28.
This means that a Minister of the Crown or government department can be specified in regulations as bound by the duty to have regard to shared local growth priorities.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The Government amendments we just discussed enable the Government to specify a broader range of public bodies in secondary legislation, to reflect the original intention of clause 38 and schedule 19. To avoid inadvertently curtailing the effect of those amendments, it is necessary to remove the restrictions on specifying a Minister of the Crown or a Government Department in regulations. Government amendments 178, 186 and 195 will have the effect of allowing the Government to specify in regulations Executive agencies and non-ministerial Departments. This reflects the duty as proposed in the White Paper.
Amendment 178 agreed to.
Amendments made: 179, in schedule 19, page 201, line 37, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172.
Amendment 180, in schedule 19, page 203, line 2, leave out “bodies” and insert “authorities”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.
Amendment 181, in schedule 19, page 203, line 3, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This expands the power to require a non-departmental public body to have regard to shared local growth priorities to any relevant public authority.
Amendment 182, in schedule 19, page 203, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) Where a relevant public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the United Kingdom, the duty under subsection (1) only applies in relation to activities that the authority carries out in England.”
This ensures that where a public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the UK, the new duties relating to the shared local growth priorities of mayoral combined county authorities will only apply to activities that the authority carries out in England.
Amendment 183, in schedule 19, page 203, line 11, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.
Amendment 184, in schedule 19, page 203, line 12, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.
Amendment 185, in schedule 19, page 203, line 19, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.
Amendment 186, in schedule 19, page 203, leave out line 21.
This means that a Minister of the Crown or government department can be specified in regulations as bound by the duty to have regard to shared local growth priorities.
Amendment 187, in schedule 19, page 203, line 30, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 188, in schedule 19, page 203, line 35, at end insert—
“(4A) In section 252 of LURA 2023 (regulations)—
(a) in subsection (5)(a), after ‘subsection’ insert ‘(8)(ab) or’;
(b) in subsection (8), before paragraph (a) insert—
‘(ab) under section 32C(2);’.”
This provides that regulations made under new section 32C of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (public authorities: duty to have regard to shared local growth priorities), as inserted by Schedule 19 to the Bill, are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The amendment provides that regulations that specify the relevant public authorities that must have regard to shared local growth priorities agreed between the Government and mayoral combined county authorities are subject to the negative procedure. Use of the negative procedure provides an appropriate and proportionate level of scrutiny for these regulations. The amendment will enable us to introduce the duty on relevant public authorities in the most efficient way.
Amendment 188 agreed to.
Amendments made: 189, in schedule 19, page 203, line 37, leave out “bodies” and insert “authorities”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 190.
Amendment 190, in schedule 19, page 203, line 39, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This expands the power to require a non-departmental public body to have regard to shared local growth priorities to any relevant public authority.
Amendment 191, in schedule 19, page 204, line 7, at end insert—
“(1A) Where a relevant public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the United Kingdom, the duty under subsection (1) only applies in relation to activities that the authority carries out in England.”
This ensures that where a public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the UK, the new duties relating to the shared local growth priorities for Greater London will only apply to activities that the authority carries out in England.
Amendment 192, in schedule 19, page 204, line 12, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 190.
Amendment 193, in schedule 19, page 204, line 13, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 190.
Amendment 194, in schedule 19, page 204, line 20, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 190.
Amendment 195, in schedule 19, page 204, leave out line 22.
This means that a Minister of the Crown or government department can be specified in regulations as bound by the duty to have regard to shared local growth priorities.
Amendment 196, in schedule 19, page 204, line 29, leave out “person” and insert “public authority”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 190.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Nineteenth schedule to the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I know that the Committee agrees on the need to boost economic prosperity—there is broad consensus on that—and to do it in a way that reflects national and, critically, local priorities. Although many places have a plan for growth, there is no consistent requirement for places with a mayor to do so. Currently, only London is required to set out a strategy for its economic development, and we can see how London’s economy has benefited over the decades. Where places have taken the initiative, their plans do not have consistent central Government backing.
Schedule 19 will change that by creating a process for all mayors to agree local growth priorities with the Government. It will provide a common approach for mayors outside London to set out their priorities and investment opportunities in their local growth plan. Mayors up and down the country have given their backing to local growth plans, and we are already seeing this in practice. We have already agreed shared local growth priorities with the 12 longest established mayoral authorities, but agreeing and publishing shared local growth priorities is not enough. Mayors need to know that these priorities will be acted upon, which is why we will require public bodies to have regard to them at key points.
The approach will ensure that everywhere with a mayor has a clear plan for growth and economic prosperity in their area, whether that is a local growth plan or the economic development strategy for London. Crucially, it will ensure that the priorities we agree with mayors have Government backing, with relevant public bodies alert to them, so that all levels of government can pull in the same direction.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 19, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 39
Local Government Act 2003: expenditure grant
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Often, funding held by combined and combined county authorities is best used by local councils to deliver their responsibilities. Consistently throughout our proceedings, I have said that the mayor is only as strong as its partnership and relationship with the constituent authorities that have to drive the delivery. That is why the clause will standardise the power already held by most existing combined and combined county authorities to pay grants to their constituent councils.
The ability of combined and combined county authorities to pay their constituent councils is vital to the smooth running of transport, for example. Constituent councils are the highways authority in their area, with the duty to manage their road network and deliver highways maintenance; the authority therefore needs a power to fund them for delivering those key functions. We understand highways authorities’ need for sufficient funding to deliver against their duties, which is why clause 39 requires combined or combined county authorities to have in mind the necessity of ensuring a council has enough to deliver its highways functions when paying grants.
Vikki Slade
I welcome this provision. It is hugely important that money can flow in both directions, but there is one glaring omission, and the Committee will know what it is. The clause gives the strategic authority the power to pay a grant to a constituent council, but not to a town or parish council.
It may be that a town or parish council is fulfilling one of the areas of competence for the strategic authority. For example, under clause 2(g), public safety, a town council might be running CCTV or paying for community safety accreditation team officers. Under clause 2(e), environment and climate change, that parish or town council might be delivering solar insulation or be rewilding. I did not table an amendment on this, but might there be a drafting error in not allowing the strategic authority to pay a grant to an organisation associated with a constituent council? There is an opportunity there to use our town and parish councils in this way.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I commend the Liberal Democrat Members for their consistent championing of town and parish councils. This power is focused on the constituent authorities, in part because the use case we have in mind is transport, where we can see the importance of highways authorities in particular.
The hon. Lady will know that town and parish councils in the round tend not to draw down Government grant or funding. In conferring on strategic authorities this power, which currently goes from the Secretary of State to constituent authorities, we are thinking in particular about grant funding. That is why we have constrained it in the way we have set out. I will take her point away and consider it to make sure we have not missed a trick, but our focus is particularly on transport and highways authorities and the ability to pass through grant funding.
Vikki Slade
I thank the Minister for that assurance. I simply want the opportunity not to be denied. Town and parish councils often say, “Well, we are not allowed to access that,” but there may be an opportunity here, and to exclude them would be a shame. Perhaps use of “may” would give that opportunity for grant funding. I would welcome a tiny amendment at some point in the future. It is something to reflect on.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Encouragement of visitors and promotion of visitors
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 358, in clause 40, page 40, line 31, at end insert—
“(2A) In section 144, after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) In exercising powers under subsection (1) the relevant authority must engage with town and parish council within its area.
(1B) Engagement under subsection (1A) must include—
(a) consulting town and parish councils on tourism strategies, policies, and investment priorities; and
(b) creating opportunities for town and parish councils to contribute to activities relating to the exercising powers under subsection (1).
(1C) In exercising powers under subsection (1) the relevant authority must publish a report summarising the authority’s engagement with town and parish councils which includes—
(a) form of engagement used;
(b) the views of town and parish councils on the authority’s exercise of powers under subsection (1); and
(c) the role of town and parish councils in exercising powers under subsection (1).
(1D) The Secretary of State may issue guidance regarding requirements for engagement under subsection (1A).’”
This amendment would require local and/or strategic authorities exercising powers to encourage visitors to their area to engage with town and parish councils.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 41—Visitor levies—
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review into giving local authorities powers to introduce visitor levies within their area.
(2) The review in subsection (1) may only consider a visitor levy which directs receipts from the levy into the relevant authority’s general fund.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the review in subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament within 12 months of the passage of this Act.”
Manuela Perteghella
Amendment 358 would require a strategic authority to engage with town and parish councils when using its powers to encourage tourism. Tourism is a vital part of the economy for many local areas, supporting jobs, local businesses and community services. The Bill allows strategic authorities to exercise powers to encourage visitors, but with no statutory requirement to involve town and parish councils in the process, as we explained before.
Andrew Cooper
I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Lady is saying. If she likes
“piña coladas, and gettin’ caught in the rain”,
may I suggest that she looks no further than the Piña Colada festival in Northwich, which is delivered by Northwich town council and adds £500,000 to the local economy? I completely agree with her about the contribution that town and parish councils can make with stuff like this, but she would place a duty on the mayor that they “must” consult, and not all parishes are the same. Will she comment on that?
Manuela Perteghella
I said strategic authority—this is at the strategic authority level. Parish and town councils are different, of course, and so they have different needs. Some areas depend on the visitor economy. My town council is represented in arts and culture and in the tourism strategies for the town.
Vikki Slade
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now quite common for a town council to run the tourist information centre? The only two places in my constituency that have a tourist information centre are Wareham and Wimborne. Often, the tourist information centre might be in a museum that is run independently, but it is not the local authority that runs it any more; it is the town council.
Manuela Perteghella
In the case of unitaries, yes. The district council in the town of Stratford-upon-Avon is still in charge of the visitor information centre, but that will probably go to the town council when our district council is abolished.
Sean Woodcock
The hon. Lady has been very generous in giving way many times on all her amendments. I understand the spirit in which she has tabled them—to make sure that parish and town councils are acknowledged for their work—but one of my concerns about this amendment, as with many of her others, is the amount of work that it would put not just on the strategic authority, but potentially on the parish and town councils. They will be given a blitz of things and asked to respond to them, but many will not have the capacity to do so. Does she not accept that that is a potential challenge to this being done properly?
Manuela Perteghella
As I said, we need to ensure that the strategic authority has the tools to consult town and parish councils. In an area such as mine, which is to go through reorganisation and devolution, we do not know what will happen to many smaller parish councils.
Andrew Cooper
My problem with the hon. Lady’s argument is that her amendment states:
“Engagement…must include…consulting town and parish councils”—
not “can include”, but “must include”. Of 300 parish councils, some might be home to only 150 people and some to 20,000 people, so they are completely different. I do not think that “must include” is appropriate.
Manuela Perteghella
The onus would be on the strategic authority to consult, not on the parish or town council to respond. The argument that there are 300 parish or town councils, so we will not bother to ensure that their voices are heard, really disappoints me. The amendment would require strategic authorities to consult town and parish councils when developing
“tourism strategies, policies and investment priorities”.
The amendment also asks the Secretary of State to issue guidance on minimum standards of engagement. Again, we must give the strategic authority the tools to engage with town and parish councils, which, I remind the Committee, are going to take on a lot of assets and services when district councils are abolished.
Overall, the amendment is about giving local communities representation in tourism planning. That is important, because town and parish councils know the attractions, infrastructure needs and growth opportunities of their areas best. If a theme park is proposed, the town or parish council will know exactly whether, for example, a bypass is needed. Engaging with them will ensure that tourism plans are grounded in the reality of each community. I repeat that the onus to engage should be on the strategic authority.
The amendment would also ensure inclusive planning. We talked this morning about inclusivity. Small towns, villages and rural areas are often overlooked in broader strategies, but they are vital to our economy. By considering them, we support equitable growth across both urban and rural areas. The authorities would also have to report on how councils are engaged and what input they have provided. That would promote sustainable tourism, because the authority, by consulting on the views of parishioners through parish and town councils, would be able to balance visitor growth with the needs of residents. That is very important for areas such as my constituency. In short, the amendment would empower local communities, strengthen democracy and make tourism strategies more effective and inclusive.
New clause 41, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), would require the Secretary of State to review the idea of giving local authorities the power to introduce visitor levies in their areas. This is an important power for strategic authorities. Towns and cities across the country are proud of the role that they play in supporting the visitor economy, both domestic and international, but the system needs to be made fairer through a recognition of the costs, as well as the benefits, of such a high degree of tourism. The new clause would compel the Government to conduct a review into giving local authorities powers to introduce visitor levies.
Scotland introduced the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024, which gives councils direct powers to apply tourist taxes. Wales followed suit with the Visitor Accommodation (Register and Levy) Etc. (Wales) Act 2025, and now Manchester and Liverpool have introduced a voluntary levy. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole has introduced a levy.
Vikki Slade
On that point, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council did attempt to introduce an accommodation levy. Unfortunately it failed on a technicality, but it may well come back. The amendment asks for a review into a visitor levy, but what is important is that, if one is implemented, it does not end up going back to the Treasury. There would be no benefit to a local community whatsoever if money collected from a visitor paying £2 a night to stay in a hotel ends up going back to Government, when it is the local economy that is damaged and the local economy that can benefit—
Manuela Perteghella
I thank my hon. Friend for the example from her council. As she said, it is important that the levy is ringfenced for the strategic authority to reinvest in the local area, so that it could provide, for example, additional regional funding streams for arts and culture and for residents themselves. I hope that the Government will at least commit to conducting a review into visitor levies, so that we can safeguard our hugely valuable tourism industry.
Paul Holmes
I will speak to amendment 358, in the name of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, and to new clause 41. I do not want to reiterate what I said previously, Dame Siobhain—your face indicates that that would not be looked upon advantageously—but I think that the sustained efforts of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to have the rights and responsibilities of town and parish councils recognised is admirable. I believe that it needs to be repeated to the Minister, and it is now coming from two Opposition parties.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Member for Cornwall, somewhere—he claims to speak for the whole of Cornwall—keeps saying “coalition”. I have already explained to him my view on pragmatic and sensible amendments to legislation that is flawed in many areas, as indicated by the number of Government amendments. We should not be so proud and tribal that we do not back other parties’ amendments when they make absolute sense.
Paul Holmes
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will reform his ways.
Perran Moon
In Cornwall alone, there are 213 town and parish councils. The amendment suggests that all 213 of them must be consulted. The hon. Gentleman does not strike me as somebody who likes layers of bureaucracy, but the bureaucracy involved in consulting 213 different town and parish councils for Cornwall alone seems to me not very sensible.
Paul Holmes
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has accepted the premise of the argument that we can back pragmatic amendments to legislation to improve it. I hope that he might look on that in his career, particularly when it comes to recognising the independence of Cornwall and having the mayoralty just for Cornwall that he is striving for.
Vikki Slade
A couple of amendments have been tabled on that issue. I think they were supported as a coalition by the Opposition, but not by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth.
Paul Holmes
I am not giving way any more, as I would like to make some progress. I am sure Government Back Benchers would like to go home at some point. I am happy to speak all afternoon, but I would like us to make some progress.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon is absolutely correct. This comes back to a serious point: many town and parish councils across England are already taking on more assets that form an integral part of the stated aims of clause 40. I will give the Committee a brief example. In my constituency, we have Royal Victoria country park, and a proposal is being looked at to abolish the county council and have it go into a strategic authority. However, proposals are actively being considered to transfer Itchen Valley country park, which is managed by Eastleigh borough council, to the local town and parish council. Those country parks have a large number of businesses, conference centres and other things that would directly help a mayor to sell our great region and attract people into it. The circumstances are the same across the country in many regions, which will be left out of consultation.
Paul Holmes
No, not at the moment. I know that anything about town and parish councils exercises the hon. Members for Mid Cheshire and for Banbury. They may want to speak shortly, but I will first answer the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth. I do not think he is an analogue politician in a digital age, but consulting downwards could merely mean that an email is sent to a mailing list. I am sure he has a huge mailing list, given the number of constituents who admire his work. That is one click—it does not mean his constituents have to respond to it, and it would not mean that his councils had to.
Vikki Slade
I wonder whether the hon. Member has a situation in Hampshire similar to ours in Dorset, where we have the DAPTC—the Dorset Association of Parish and Town Councils. Nothing in the amendment states that the strategic authority would have to engage with each and every town and parish council; it just says,
“with town and parish councils”.
That could be through their associations and through clusters of town and parish councils, such as the DAPTC.
Paul Holmes
It could also be stipulated in secondary legislation, if the Government wanted to go ahead with this. A council could literally advertise to town and parish councils that a consultation was going on. There could also be a mailing list where a strategic authority could send an email to the 300 parish councils. Those town and parish councils do not have to respond. That is devolution to town and parish councils, which the Government seemingly want to achieve.
Sean Woodcock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for finally giving way. He has been very generous, as always, with his time. Does he accept that the danger with inserting the consultations that have been proposed in so many Opposition amendments is that the only growth we will see is in the number of officers in the strategic authorities sending out consultations, and the number of people in parish councils responding to them?
Paul Holmes
I am sure the hon. Member uses surveys when he communicates with his constituents. When he sends them out, I am sure he is not worried about overburdening his constituents in their lives, whether they want to respond or not. The same principle applies. There are many perfectly good programmes that could be used now to send out a consultation to people who are already programmed into a mailing list. If they want to respond, they can, and if they do not, good on them—that means that they are perfectly happy with what is going on.
I do not understand the constant fear about consulting town and parish councils. That is particularly the case—I say this with all due respect and with realism about the situation out there in the country—given the stated aims of the Government and the situation in local government, where, without a manifesto promise, districts and county councils are being abolished and there is a rush to transfer assets to town and parish councils. They are taking on mainstream responsibilities because of what the Bill will do. Whether we are talking about local growth plans or attracting visitors, many will miss out on having a visitor strategy that is worth the paper it is written on.
We are now discussing several authorities that already have the responsibilities. This legislation was drafted at a point from which we have moved on, and it puts unintended consequences before local authorities. I ask the Minister, in the spirit of constructive debate, to go away and properly look at how town and parish councils can be consulted. They are doing a lot more than the Minister or the Government Back Benchers who have spoken this afternoon realise.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank hon. Members for that lengthy and robust debate. I will start with clause 40, and then I will pick up on the amendments. I remind the Committee that the purpose of clause 40 is to promote tourism and cultural activities, which we think are critical to boosting regional economies. These provisions enable authorities to encourage visitors and provide facilities such as conference centres, driving job creation and investment. Authorities can add value by forging a regional brand, and by attracting business and visitors, they can make the most of their multifaceted areas and the strengths of each local authority area. That is key to creating thriving hubs for visitors and residents.
Amendment 358 and new clause 41 touch on something that has been a constant theme throughout the debate. I understand the aims behind the provisions, and I understand opposition parties’ desire to have regard to town and parish councils. I come back to the fact that we have agreed that town and parish councils have an important role. They are important local partners, and we expect authorities to work with them where appropriate.
However, we do not believe that it is proportionate or right to put that in the Bill as a legal requirement. We trust authorities to decide how best to engage with their local partners, including town and parish councils, based on what is right and appropriate for their areas. Requiring formal consultation and reporting could, as my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury and for Camborne and Redruth have so eloquently said, create unnecessary administrative pressure, burden and resources at a time when we want these strategic authorities to be focused on delivery. Of course we want to encourage collaboration, but not to prescribe it. Engagement should be flexible. It should not be dictated by central Government or indeed this Committee; it should be left to mayors and strategic authorities who know their patch and their partners best.
I recognise the type of levy that new clause 41 would introduce, and I recognise that it is supported by local authorities and mayors. The Government keep all tax policy under review, and any changes to tax policy will be announced at a fiscal event in the normal way. I do not believe that the Chancellor would be very pleased with me if I were to make tax policy now in this great Committee.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
It would. One thing that the Bill does create is a statutory duty for Government to respond to formal requests from mayors for new powers—the right to request. Calls for any new fiscal powers should be made through that process. The Government propose to take account of the impact of visitors on local authority areas through the fair funding review. That point has been made by local authorities and by Committee members, and we are doing so to account for the fact that visitors—
Vikki Slade
I fear I am about to be told off by the Chair, but—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister has just taken an interest. I welcome the Minister’s comment that the impact of visitors will be taken into account in the fair funding review. It is really important to add that that affects the fair funding review for our police authorities, as well as our local authorities.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
There are already mechanisms to enable places to introduce overnight stay levies through the accommodation business improvement district model, as the hon. Lady mentioned. With that, and allowing that this good Committee is not the Chancellor, I ask the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw the amendment.
Manuela Perteghella
I will not press new clause 41 to a vote, but I would like to do so with amendment 358, which concerns consultation with parish and town councils on tourism strategy.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Perran Moon
On a point of order, Dame Siobhain. On a point of clarification, it was suggested earlier by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole that I am now in favour of a mayoral combined authority for Cornwall. For the record, I would like it to be known that I am not.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Dame Siobhain. I do not mean to detain the Committee, but I like to think I am a man of integrity. On the point of order by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, it was not actually the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole who said that; it was me, and I apologise.
The Chair
I am sure the Committee would like to thank you for being so candid.
Clause 41
Co-operation with local government pension scheme managers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 41 requires that strategic authorities work with the local government pension scheme to identify and develop suitable investment opportunities. The local government pension scheme already plays a vital role in supporting local growth, with a portion of its £400 billion in assets invested in local projects. Such investments must of course provide a suitable return to pay pensions while also contributing to local prosperity, including through affordable housing, clean energy and local regeneration.
Although some combined authorities already maintain productive relationships with their local government pension scheme funds, clause 41 ensures that that collaborative approach becomes standard practice, embedding local government pension scheme engagement into local investment planning. That will not be a one-way responsibility. The Pension Schemes Bill introduces a corresponding duty on local government pension scheme funds to work collaboratively with their strategic authorities. Those reciprocal requirements are designed to foster key partnerships between the two parties to unlock investment in local growth and deliver benefits to communities across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42
Miscellaneous local authority functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
These functions are essential to the effective operation of strategic authorities. We are now standardising these functions across all existing and future authorities. These powers are core functions that any local government body needs. Standardising them across strategic authorities will create consistent foundations for them to build on and thrive from. Without these functions, we risk significantly debilitating new institutions before they have a chance.
Paul Holmes
To bring some agreement to the Committee, the Opposition absolutely understand, as we did earlier about standardisation, such recommendations to give powers to CAs and CCAs. We are perfectly in agreement with that and we thank the Minister for bringing the issue to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 20
Miscellaneous local authority functions
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 197, in schedule 20, page 205, line 6, leave out—
“, a combined authority and a combined county authority”.
This removes the reference to combined authorities and combined county authorities inserted into section 113(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 as these bodies are already included in the definition of “local authority” under section 146A(1) of that Act.
This is a minor and technical amendment to prevent duplication in legislation.
Amendment 197 agreed to.
Schedule 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43
Health improvement and health inequalities duty
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 247, in clause 43, page 44, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that a combined authority has sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support the duties in subsections (1) and (2).
(2B) In discharging the duty under subsection (2A), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of a combined authority insofar as they relate to the needs described in subsection (1).”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the financial and administrative needs of combined authorities with regard to reducing health inequalities in their areas.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 248, in clause 43, page 45, line 10, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that a CCA has sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to have regard to the needs described in subsection (1).
(2B) In discharging the duty under subsection (2A), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of a CCA insofar as they relate to the needs described in subsection (1).”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the financial and administrative needs of CCAs with regard to reducing health inequalities in their areas.
Vikki Slade
Amendments 247 and 248 are similar to those that we tabled on other issues. They seek the assurance that combined authorities will have “sufficient financial resources” and “adequate administrative support” to fulfil their duties on health and health inequalities. I will not repeat myself, because we have a lot to get through this afternoon, but I will add that there is a real risk that more and more responsibility is going to the strategic authorities from other Departments. The Department of Health and Social Care is under huge financial pressure, but it would be remiss if this responsibility were moved across to a strategic authority without sufficient funding. I am assured by the Minister of sufficient capacity-building funding and an integrated settlement for these organisations in future. I trust—I need some assurance—that that will include sufficient funds to take account of the health inequalities in our regions. If that happens, I will be happy not to press the amendments.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I reiterate the assurances that I have given. We have a vested interest in ensuring that, where strategic authorities take on new functions and duties, they have the resource and capacity to do so. That could mean: providing capacity funding to the strategic authorities; ensuring that the budgets necessary to deliver the outcomes that they are committed to are in place through the process of devolution, or, ultimately, when they become established combined authorities, through the integrated settlements. I again put that reassurance on the record.
Vikki Slade
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
The Member who tabled amendment 262 is temporarily not present. I will suspend the sitting for 20 minutes—[Interruption.] Let us carry on.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 262, in clause 43, page 44, line 24, leave out “prosperity” and insert “poverty and socio-economic inequality”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 263 which would ensure that the health improvement and health inequalities duty focuses explicitly on tackling poverty and socio-economic inequality, rather than using the broader term “prosperity”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 263, in clause 43, page 45, line 20, leave out “prosperity” and insert “poverty and socio-economic inequality”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 262 which would ensure that the health improvement and health inequalities duty focuses explicitly on tackling poverty and socio-economic inequality, rather than using the broader term “prosperity”.
Siân Berry
I apologise, Dame Siobhain, for my temporary absence at the crucial moment. I would very much like the Committee to listen to my proposals for amendments 262 and 263. [Interruption.] Apologies, Chair—is there an issue?
Paul Holmes
We were going to have a break, but then we did not when you came in, so it is fine.
Siân Berry
I will be as quick as I can—it is a very short speech.
Although the health improvement and health inequalities duty is very good, the determinants of health outlined in clause 43 are limited and lacking in consideration for the impacts on health from a wide range of activities that these new authorities will be able to influence. My amendments aim to fix that. It is positive that the Opposition parties all immediately spotted the need for improvement to this clause, and that both Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have aimed to fix it, albeit in different ways.
Amendments 262 and 263 would replace references to “prosperity” with “poverty and socio-economic inequality” in the clause. They would make clearer what causes and exacerbates ill health. I do not believe that “prosperity” on its own is sufficient. I will not repeat all my earlier arguments, but there is much supporting evidence for this from a range of organisations, including the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, the Reclaiming our Regional Economies programme, and the all-party parliamentary group on poverty and inequality, which I co-chair. This is just one of the ways that the Bill can make improvements, by focusing on reducing inequality and not simply creating growth within these new strategic authorities. I hope that the Government will accept my changes.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Lady for the intention behind the amendments. I completely understand her key points. I think there is consensus that tackling health inequalities and their determinants is a key priority, which is why we included this clause in the Bill. We have deliberately drawn from the well-established approach in the Greater London Authority, which names “prosperity” among the general health determinants. It is deliberately broad so as to encompass a wide range of things. Our intention is not to establish an exhaustive list here, but to ensure that we cast the definition broadly enough to cover the issues of poverty and inequality that the hon. Lady raises.
There is a gradient across society for the determinants of health inequality, and my concern is that if we were to replace “prosperity” with poverty and inequality, we would cast the definition too narrowly. The broader “prosperity” definition captures poverty and social inequality, but it also captures other critical factors. Although we absolutely agree with the intent, we have tried to craft the legislation in a way that is broad and permissive, but that critically draws on the experience and track record of the Greater London Authority. With those reassurances, I hope the hon. Lady will consider withdrawing her amendment.
Siân Berry
I will withdraw the amendment for now, but I hope we see some measures coming through from the Minister, particularly in regulations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 257, in clause 43, page 44, line 29, at end insert—
“(e) access to green space and nature,
(f) exposure to environmental harms, including air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and any other form of environmental pollution,”.
This amendment would expand the list of general health determinants for the purposes of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to CCAs, so it includes access to green space; and exposure to environmental harm.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 253, in clause 43, page 44, line 29, at end insert—
“(e) nitrogen dioxide level and general air quality,”.
This amendment would include air quality as a general health determinant which combined authorities must consider in their duty to reduce health inequalities.
Amendment 258, in clause 43, page 44, line 32, at end insert—
“(5A) In subsection (5)(e), the reference to ‘green space and nature’ includes—
(a) any multifunctional green and blue space, and
(b) any urban or rural natural feature
that is considered to deliver any environmental, economic, health and wellbeing benefits for communities and nature.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 257 and describes “green space and nature” for the purpose of this section.
Amendment 259, in clause 43, page 45, line 25, at end insert—
“(e) access to green space and nature,
(f) exposure to environmental harms, including air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and any other form of environmental pollution,”.
This amendment would expand the list of general health determinants for the purposes of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to CCAs, so it includes access to green space; and exposure to environmental harm.
Amendment 254, in clause 43, page 45, line 25, at end insert—
“(e) nitrogen dioxide level and general air quality,”.
This amendment would include air quality as a general health determinant which CCAs must consider in their duty to reduce health inequalities.
Amendment 260, in clause 43, page 45, line 29, at end insert—
“(5A) In subsection (5)(e), the reference to “green space and nature” includes—
(a) any multifunctional green and blue space, and
(b) any urban or rural natural feature
that is considered to deliver any environmental, economic, health and wellbeing benefits for communities and nature.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 254 and describes “green space and nature” for the purpose of this section.
Siân Berry
I intend to speak at some length on the amendments—my apologies, Dame Siobhain, but this is a very important issue to me, as Members will hear from my speech.
My amendments 257, 258, 259 and 260 would all add access to green space and nature and environmental pollution to the list of potential determinants of health. They would also define the terms “green space and nature” in the Bill, in terms of green and blue space, as well as natural features in general that deliver benefits in health and wellbeing. The amendments would not necessarily expand the defined scope of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to combined authorities, but they would add clarity and support to strategic authorities that recognise the importance of those health determinants.
My amendments would add what I would argue are some inarguable determinants of health that are particularly connected to economic and trade activity, transport and land use, and so on. They would add air pollution, water pollution, contaminated land and any other forms of environmental pollution, as well as any that capitalism might invent and disperse in the environment in future. They are broad and helpful amendments.
The amendments seek to strengthen the Bill’s provisions by explicitly recognising exposure to environmental harms as a general health determinant. They make it clear that the conditions in which people live—the air they breathe, the green spaces they access and the pollution they are exposed to—are fundamental drivers of health outcomes. I cannot see why currently the Bill completely omits environmental factors from its list of health determinants, despite overwhelming evidence that air pollution and green space profoundly affect health. The Minister commented in response to the previous amendment that the list is intended not to be exhaustive but to be broad enough, but in this case, by not including the environment at all, it is very much not broad enough.
I have been working with the Healthy Air Coalition and the Wildlife and Countryside Link on the amendments, and there is so much evidence that makes it clear that, on the environment and health, the Government have left important gaps that we should fill today. I will be pressing the amendments to a vote today. The 2022 chief medical officer’s annual report was, I think, the first to highlight the link between health inequalities and poor air quality. According to the report:
“Studies of hospital admissions and mortality show increased health risks associated with exposure to air pollution among those living in areas of higher socio-economic deprivation.”
According to Asthma + Lung UK, people with lung conditions in the poorest neighbourhoods are seven times more likely to die from a lung condition than those in the richest areas.
It was my honour earlier this year to present the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, alongside colleagues from across parties in the House. That Bill is also named Ella’s law, after Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, whose death from asthma at age nine has helped to prompt a sea change in how we view the impact of air pollution on health and its close links to inequality. My Green colleagues in the other place are now working towards Zane’s law with the parents of Zane Gbangbola, who died at age seven when hydrogen cyanide was carried into his home by floodwater from a contaminated landfill site. It would have been Zane’s 19th birthday today.
Including environmental harms in the list of health determinants would honour the goals of Ella’s law and Zane’s law. It would recognise that lives can be profoundly affected and even ended by environmental pollution and the harm it brings. My amendments would ensure that combined authorities embed both the prevention of environmental harm and the protection and enhancement of natural infrastructure at the heart of their work on health inequality.
Even in their own terms, the amendments are fully aligned with the Bill’s wider objective of providing greater local prosperity, better public services and improved wellbeing. In brief, access to nature will deliver directly on all three by boosting productivity and skills through improvements to mental and physical health, by reducing NHS costs—if everyone had good access to green space, the estimated savings would be over £2 billion a year—and by attracting investment and supporting regeneration through high-quality environments.
The amendments would play a big part in ensuring that combined authorities take into account the well-established relationship between the environment and public health inequalities when exercising their other functions too, particularly in transport, housing, planning and regeneration. Strategic authorities are uniquely placed to consider risks from pollution and to plan at the landscape scale for natural benefits, connecting parks, rivers, floodplains and urban trees across boundaries. The amendments would provide a framework for joined-up, place-based decision making and good, popular place making—the kind of integrated governance that devolution is supposed to achieve. Embedding these goals on health inequalities into statute would also help to prevent local disparities, ensuring that clean air, water and land, and access to nature is a universal right, not a postcode lottery.
In conclusion, recognising that access to green space and exposure to environmental harms are core health determinants is essential to tackling inequalities that persist across England. Devolution is about empowering local areas to act. These amendments would empower them to tackle the root causes of poor health, not just the symptoms. The Government should take them up, and today I will be pressing them to do so.
Manuela Perteghella
I would like to speak to amendments 253 and 254. These are simple amendments, but they can make a meaningful impact and save lives. We want to add nitrogen dioxide levels and general air quality as a factor that combined authorities and combined county authorities must consider in their work to reduce health inequalities. That would ensure that environmental health risks were treated as core determinants of health, not as an afterthought.
We have heard a moving speech by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. We know that nitrogen dioxide pollution and poor general air quality are major contributors to respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and they disproportionately affect vulnerable communities. Including air quality as a health determinant would protect the most vulnerable. As we have heard, poor air quality causes thousands of premature deaths every year and leaves many others with chronic illnesses, but these are preventable. We also know that pollution hits deprived communities and those near busy roads or industrial estates the hardest, yet without action, their voices will be ignored. By explicitly including air quality, we can create healthier communities, which will translate into fewer hospital visits and a better quality of life for everyone.
By explicitly including air quality in the duty of combined county authorities and combined authorities to reduce health inequalities, amendments 253 and 254 would ensure that environmental factors are considered alongside social and economic ones. They also would encourage authorities to make evidence-based decisions across transport and planning, and also about the siting of heavy industry in an area, so we would like to hear the Minister’s views and assurances on these important issues.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank both hon. Members for their heartfelt contributions to the debate. Let me put it on record that we absolutely recognise that air quality is one of the greatest environmental threats to our health and that its impacts are not felt equally in our society. Action by local authorities is absolutely pivotal in improving air quality locally. The Environment Act 1995 already requires combined authorities and combined county authorities to work directly with local authorities on air quality action plans for their areas. Local air quality management statutory policy guidance also sets out ways of joint working with public health professionals to ensure that plans reduce health risks and disparities in affected communities to which local authorities must have regard.
Equally, we recognise the importance of environmental factors beyond air quality to people’s health. The scope of the general health determinants in the Bill has intentionally been crafted broadly. Some examples are given, but it is not our intention to set out a definitive list, as we think that would be too constraining. Combined authorities and combined county authorities remain the experts in their local areas. They will understand how air quality or environmental issues are impacting on their local communities, and they are best placed to decide how to consider general health determinants to deliver for their communities.
Siân Berry
Will the Minister clarify how the list in clause 43 as it stands was put together? It is bizarre that the use of tobacco and those kind of lifestyle choices are somehow explicitly listed, when environmental factors as a whole are left out.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Those are examples that we are giving based on existing precedents and drivers that we know local authorities are grappling with, but the list is not exhaustive. The intention is for it not to be exhaustive or definitive. We want to keep it broad, so that combined authorities and county authorities can decide the core determinants in their areas.
We as a Government are committed to the enhancement and protection of our environment. It is the Government’s intention to publish a revised environment improvement plan to protect and restore our natural environment with delivery information to help to meet the ambitious Environment Act 2021 targets. This will help us to restore our natural environment, improve environmental quality, create a circular economy, protect environmental security and improve people’s access to nature. That is something we want to hardwire into what the Government are doing and what we are seeing at all levels of government.
However, I come back to the point that it is important to cast this as broadly as we can, to allow constituent strategic authorities and mayors to establish the determinants that are most pertinent in their areas. While I have sympathy with and support the intent behind the amendments, there is enough provision in the Bill as drafted to ensure that what strategic authorities are doing is aligned with a host of national and local requirements already in place to drive health equality and improvements in the environment.
Siân Berry
I thank the Minister for her comments. I cannot accept that a detail such as tobacco use was put in, and standards of housing as a result of Awaab’s law and the things have gone on there, and yet environmental factors have not yet been included. I am determined that they should be, and I still intend to push this to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 255, in clause 43, page 44, line 40, at end insert—
“107ZC Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy
(1) A combined authority must prepare and publish a Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy setting out how it will meet the duty under section 107ZB.
(2) In preparing the strategy, an authority must consult with such bodies it considers relevant, including but not limited to—
(a) directors of public health within the authority area;
(b) Integrated Care Boards within the authority area;
(c) NHS bodies providing services in the authority area;
(d) representatives of the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector in the authority area; and
(e) the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
(3) The strategy must—
(a) include an assessment of the health and wellbeing impacts of all strategic authority policies and programmes;
(b) seek to reduce inequalities with locally appropriate targets, set for—
(i) the end of a 10-year period beginning on the day on which the strategy is published,
(ii) regular periods during the period to which the 10-year target applies, as the combined authority deems appropriate (“interim targets”);
(c) consider the findings of any consultations conducted by the authority in relation to the strategy; and
(d) set out the reasons why the proposed strategy has been adopted.
(4) 10-year targets under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(i) must include consideration of—
(a) life expectancy,
(b) healthy life expectancy,
(c) infant mortality rate,
(d) rates of obesity and overweight,
(e) rates of anxiety and depression, and
(f) suicide rates
within the authority area.
(5) Interim targets under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(ii) should include consideration of—
(a) household relative poverty rates,
(b) employment rates,
(c) relative child poverty rates,
(d) educational attainment rates defined as five or more GCSEs at grades A*-C,
(e) the proportion of people in the authority area meeting recommended physical activity levels, and
(f) the proportion of people in the authority consuming five or more fruit and vegetables per day.
(6) A combined authority must publish a report on its progress implementing the strategy and towards the targets set out under paragraph (3)(b).
(7) A report under subsection (6) must—
(a) be published one year after the day on which the strategy is published, and every year thereafter,
(b) be presented by the Mayor of the authority at the authority’s annual general meeting, and
(c) be made publicly available.”
This amendment requires mayoral authorities to develop a Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 256, in clause 43, page 45, line 36, at end insert—
“24B Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy
(1) A CCA must prepare and publish a Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy setting out how it will meet the duty under section 24A.
(2) In preparing the strategy, a CCA must consult with such bodies it considers relevant, including but not limited to—
(a) directors of public health within the CCA’s area;
(b) Integrated Care Boards within the CCA’s area;
(c) NHS bodies providing services in the CCA’s area;
(d) representatives of the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector in the CCA’s area;
(e) the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
(3) The strategy must—
(a) include an assessment of the health and wellbeing impacts of all strategic authority policies and programmes;
(b) seek to reduce inequalities with locally appropriate targets, set for—
(i) the end of a 10-year period beginning on the day on which the strategy is published,
(ii) regular periods during the period to which the 10-year target applies, as the combined authority deems appropriate (“interim targets”);
(c) consider the findings of any consultations conducted by the authority in relation to the strategy;
(d) set out the reasons why the proposed strategy has been adopted.
(4) 10-year targets under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(i) must include consideration of—
(a) life expectancy,
(b) healthy life expectancy,
(c) infant mortality rate,
(d) rates of obesity and overweight,
(e) rates of anxiety and depression, and
(f) suicide rates
within the authority area.
(5) Interim targets under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(ii) should include consideration of—
(a) household relative poverty rates,
(b) employment rates,
(c) relative child poverty rates,
(d) educational attainment rates defined as five or more GCSEs at grades A*-C,
(e) the proportion of people in the authority area meeting recommended physical activity levels, and
(f) the proportion of people in the authority consuming five or more fruit and vegetables per day.
(6) A combined authority must publish a report on its progress implementing the strategy and towards the targets set out under paragraph (3)(b).
(7) A report under subsection (6) must—
(a) be published one year after the day on which the strategy is published, and every year thereafter,
(b) be presented by the Mayor of the authority at the authority’s annual general meeting, and
(c) be made publicly available.”
This amendment requires CCAs to develop a Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy.
Siân Berry
Amendments 255 and 256 would add a health and wellbeing in all policies strategy to the requirements of the Bill. Life expectancy in England has stalled since 2010, something that has not happened for well over a century. According to Professor Sir Michael Marmot, that is a sign that society has “stopped improving”.
The Government have committed to halving the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest regions of England, but that cannot be achieved without concerted action from the strategic authorities. Good population health is the foundation of a thriving economy. The Government have committed to halving the gap, and amendments 255 and 256 would go further than the Bill does currently to achieve that, simply by requiring mayors and strategic authorities to have regard to health through adoption of a health and wellbeing in all policies strategy document. The amendments would also require consultation with relevant entities and create accountability through targets and metrics. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I go back to the core principle underlying the duty. We believe that a driving purpose of the strategic authority should be to improve health outcomes and reduce health inequalities, so we are absolutely aligned with the intent behind the amendment, and nothing in the Bill prevents local partners from agreeing to align on an area-wide approach or strategy. We are very clear that we must allow combined authorities and county authorities local discretion to decide the best way to fulfil the duty and deliver for their communities. We do not want to overprescribe or constrain local thinking and innovation—indeed, many local areas throughout the country are well ahead of the national Government in some of their thinking in this area.
Siân Berry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 259, in clause 43, page 45, line 25, at end insert—
“(e) access to green space and nature,
(f) exposure to environmental harms, including air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and any other form of environmental pollution,”.—(Siân Berry.)
This amendment would expand the list of general health determinants for the purposes of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to CCAs, so it includes access to green space; and exposure to environmental harm.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 44, page 46, line 2, at beginning insert—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations require that”.
This amendment would ensure the powers for mayors to exercise Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) functions across 2 or more areas must be approved by Parliament.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 22, in clause 44, page 46, line 6, at end insert—
“(1B) Regulations under section 107F and 107FA are subject to the affirmative procedure”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 21.
Amendment 23, in clause 45, page 50, line 25, at end insert—
“(c) a statutory instrument containing a draft of any such order has been laid before, and approved by, each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would ensure that regulations made by the Secretary of State to alter the size of PCC areas when transferring powers of PCCs to strategic authorities receive parliamentary scrutiny.
Vikki Slade
Amendments 21 to 23 relate to the integration of police and crime commissioners into the strategic mayoral system. They are quite straightforward, requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations and thereby ensure more parliamentary oversight of the inclusion of the police and crime commissioners, given that this is such a fundamental change in so many areas.
I am upset that established authorities in several areas have already taken on those roles, but many of the strategic mayoral authorities are brand-new organisations that will potentially be taking on functions way beyond their scope. They will also potentially be taking on police and crime functions that run across completely different policing and crime areas with different strategies and ways of working in terms of police and crime panels and their scrutiny. We believe that to do that through the proposed process will produce a rushed system. I commend the Minister for her decisiveness, but sometimes it is better to pause and take a slower approach to bringing together those organisations, rather than rush the process.
We are already seeing huge changes to our integrated care boards, with many being abolished. Rather than alignment, we see some coming together for financial reasons or for convenience. There is a real risk that trying to do all of that in harmony ends up not with the right outcomes but ones that suit the creation of a very simplistic jigsaw. Most of the mayors will be taking on roles that they have never performed before. We feel that it is time to pause, slow the pace and ensure that this has more parliamentary oversight.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The purpose of the provision in the Bill is to give the Secretary of State the power to make that transfer in a way and at a time that makes sense. Whether with regard to the electoral timetable or to issues of deliverability and the viability of the transfer, the Secretary of State’s ability to take a view and set a future date is why we have provided that power to mitigate the issues the hon. Lady is concerned about. The default should be that the police and crime commissioner function sits with the mayor where the geographies align. That is an important principle as we build up the mayoral strategic authorities across the country.
Vikki Slade
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
The Chair
Before we resume, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 198, in clause 44, page 46, line 29, leave out “fire and rescue” and insert “police”.
This would correct the reference in the second sentence of new section 107FA(4).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 199, 202, 200, 201, 203 and 204.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
This basket of amendments seeks to correct drafting errors, including inconsistencies and inaccurate references, to ensure that the Bill functions as intended. Amendments 202 and 203 are consequential to Government amendments 77 and 80, which the Committee passed when it voted on clause 11 on the mayoral precept. They ensure that mayors’ police and crime commissioner functions are ringfenced as a separate component from other functions.
Paul Holmes
We cannot expect the Government to get it right all the time with minor things, and these seem like sensible changes to smooth the legislation. We therefore have no problem with this group of amendments.
Amendment 198 agreed to.
Amendments made: 199, in clause 44, page 46, line 36, leave out—
“mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA”
and insert “combined authority”.
This would correct an inconsistency.
Amendment 202, in clause 44, page 47, line 8, leave out from “there” to the end of line 11 and insert—
“is a separate component in respect of the mayor’s PCC functions,”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 77.
Amendment 200, in clause 44, page 47, line 34, leave out “mayoral”.
This would correct an inconsistency.
Amendment 201, in clause 44, page 48, line 8, leave out “mayoral”.
This would correct an inconsistency.
Amendment 203, in clause 44, page 48, line 19, leave out from “there” to the end of line 22 and insert—
“is a separate component in respect of the mayor’s PCC functions,”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 80.
Amendment 204, in clause 44, page 48, line 36, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—
“(a) paragraph 21(a) of Schedule 5 to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (Election of Mayor and Functions) Order 2021 (S.I. 2021/112),
(b) paragraph 21(a) of Schedule 5 to the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2023 (S.I. 2023/1432), and
(c) paragraph 21(a) of Schedule 1 to the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (Election of Mayor and Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions) Order 2024 (S.I. 2024/414),”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would remove the unnecessary word “after” from paragraphs (a) to (c), insert references to the relevant Schedules to the Orders, and correct the citation of the South Yorkshire Order.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause sets out the criteria for transfer by default of police and crime commissioner functions to the mayor of a strategic authority, where the mayoralty matches the geography of the police force area and a transfer date has been set. Making mayors responsible for policing governance offers a more joined-up approach to preventing crime and driving local economic improvements. It will enhance mayors’ broader ability to bring about local change by bringing together responsibility for policing and crime with mayors’ wider remit for economic development, skills and infrastructure. This delivers the ambition set out in the English devolution White Paper.
Mayors who have police and crime commissioner functions will be required to appoint a deputy mayor for policing and crime. That will ensure that the mayor has sufficient capacity to discharge their functions, while ensuring there is dedicated oversight of policing on a day-to-day basis. The clause provides for a mayor to exercise police and crime commissioner functions for either a single police force, or more than one force when the boundaries of those forces align with the mayoral area when taken together.
Paul Holmes
We welcome this section of the legislation. I congratulate the Minister, the Government and officials on ensuring in legislation a smooth process for transfer of responsibilities, and on including a target date. The people served by the mayors—that is, our constituents—will want to understand very simply what new powers and responsibilities are being handed to the mayor. This is a sensible solution.
We also welcome the creation of the deputy mayor for police and crime. Given the responsibilities outlined in other sections of the Bill, the mayor will quite rightly have many and multifaceted responsibilities. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to provide in statute for a deputy mayor specifically to cover the police and crime powers of the mayoralty. That will ensure that policing and crime is looked at as a top priority for the residents they serve. We welcome this sensible section of the legislation, and will not seek to oppose it.
Vikki Slade
The Lib Dems have long wanted to see the end of police and crime commissioners, and we know that that has also been Labour policy for at least 12 years. [Interruption.] Do I hear a “Hear, hear!” from the Government Benches? I believe we are in violent agreement on that, which is great. Where we differ is in the how. I spent a lot of time as a councillor trying to get through the police and crime commissioners, who really take no accountability for what goes on. If I ask the police and crime commissioner about a particular incident, the answer always comes back, “That’s an operational matter. That is not for me.” It is always the local councillors who end up dealing with issues, and they are always the ones held accountable by the residents.
Where we disagree is that we do not believe that a police and crime commissioner should be an appointment of the mayor. We think that they should be held accountable to boards of councillors within councils, as was formerly the policy of the Labour party. Quite straightforwardly, the amendment would remove the provision allowing the mayor to appoint a person to manage policing and crime. We do not actually believe that this should be a mayoral appointment; it should be down to the elected persons of the area.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
PCCs and police areas
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 205 and 206.
Amendment 26, in schedule 21, page 209, leave out lines 25 to 31.
This amendment would remove the provision to allow mayors to appoint a person to manage policing and crime for their area.
Government amendments 207 and 208.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause sets out the functions of a police and crime commissioner that a mayor will exercise where they have been transferred under the Bill. The clause also amends the Secretary of State’s existing power to alter police force boundaries by order, so that orders can be made at the same time as the transfer of the police and crime commissioner functions to a mayor. These would be used where a local case had been made to change the boundaries to facilitate a transfer of the PCC function.
Paul Holmes
As with the previous clause, we see that clause 45 is a perfectly sensible provision. The Minister has done an admirable job on what I know has been a long day, particularly after the late night yesterday. She is explaining the legislation in an excellent way.
I wish to touch on amendment 26, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. In order to dispel the myth, for the hon. Members for Banbury and for Camborne and Redruth, that there is a coalition going on, this is where unfortunately the coalition comes to an end. Amendment 26 is not pragmatic or sensible. It would essentially remove the mayor’s power to appoint a deputy mayor to a day-to-day role for policing. The amendment would be bad for the legislation because, as I outlined in relation to the previous clause—and as we on the Conservative Benches agree—the mayoralty is a multifaceted role, and a role that is accountable to the public. In many previous sittings of the Committee, we have outlined that there has to be that democratic accountability. That is given in this legislation by a mayor appointing a deputy mayor for policing who is accountable to the public, but also accountable to the mayor who is accountable to the public.
I understand the Liberal Democrats’ longstanding view that PCCs should not exist. We fundamentally disagree with that. We think PCCs are one of the better solutions of the coalition Government. We believe that policing is a public priority and that the public should have a say in the way in which their police forces are run. I am not sure whether opposition to PCCs is a widely held view within the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat candidate for Hamble Valley, who stood against me, also stood for the PCC election for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, and put himself forward for election as Mayor of Hampshire and the Solent.
Paul Holmes
In one moment. It seems that that Liberal Democrat candidate perfectly endorses the solutions that the Government are putting forward, and actually wanted three jobs at once.
Vikki Slade
There is a fairly well established position in which those people who wish to see something abolished have to work within the current system. I believe that our dearly beloved Lord Paddy Ashdown desperately wanted to see the abolition of the House of Lords and yet was able to take up a seat. It is quite common for people to go into a role knowing that their job is to try to reform or remove that role.
Paul Holmes
I would say, in a respectful tone to the hon. Lady, that the thing that the Liberal Democrats are most known for is saying one thing and in their actions doing another, but we will leave that there. Clause 45 is perfectly sensible. We will oppose amendment 26 if it is pushed to a vote. I am pleased to see that the hon. Lady has reverted to the Liberal Democrats’ traditional position of holding many positions at once. We support the clause, and oppose amendment 26.
Andrew Cooper
I agree entirely with the principle of mayors holding responsibility for police and crime commissioners where the boundaries of the roles are coterminous, and the idea of appointing a deputy mayor to that role makes absolute sense, as does the power to align boundaries where it makes sense administratively. That all works in principle. My concern is about how this will be applied in Cheshire. Halton local authority is part of the Liverpool city region. That was a decision made when the Liverpool city region was first proposed—at the time the Minister may well have been in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as a civil servant—and for Halton, then, it was the only game in town.
The proposed Cheshire and Warrington combined authority will cover the remainder of Cheshire—Cheshire West and Chester, Cheshire East and Warrington—and is not coterminous with Cheshire police, which covers all of Cheshire and includes Halton, as does Cheshire fire and rescue. This measure will therefore allow the Home Secretary to change the police boundaries, and there are significant concerns within Cheshire police that, were this to go ahead, their viability would be at risk, as well as practical concerns about the location of the custody suite.
This power already exists regarding fire and rescue services, but, under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, the Secretary of State is required to consider whether the order is in the interests of public safety before it is made. That test is not included in this Bill. In her summing up, could the Minister provide some reassurance that this power will not be exercised in Cheshire’s case without due consideration of that public safety factor, as well as significant consultation with local stakeholders to make sure that any future alignment is right for Cheshire?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will speak to the specific amendments, then come to my hon. Friend’s important intervention about Cheshire and some of the specific challenges that we face there.
It is worth noting on amendment 26 that the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the deputy mayors for policing and crime are supportive of this measure. Deputy mayors for policing and crime are already making a difference in areas such as West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester. They are driving through improvements in their local police forces, fostering collaboration and doing the role that we absolutely need them to do.
On my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire’s important point, because we are not working from a blank piece of paper, and because there are complexities around the boundaries, we are trying to be sympathetic, sensitive and mindful. Obviously, the strategic intent of Government is to ensure that, when there is a transfer of police and crime commissioner functions, that is not to the detriment of the functions on the ground, because we absolutely need those to hold out. We are therefore having specific conversations with Cheshire and Warrington, and the local leaders in that area have raised the specifics of the PCC function. We will work with them to come to the best solution and resolution—one that has no detriment to the constituent authorities involved.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 21
Functions of police and crime commissioners
Amendments made: 205, in schedule 21, page 206, line 9, after second “the” insert “police”.
This clarifies that “the Area” means a police area. This amendment is connected with amendment 206, which deals with the case where a mayor exercises PCC functions in relation to two or more police areas.
Amendment 206, in schedule 21, page 206, line 11, after “commissioner” insert—
“; and, in a case where a combined authority or combined county authority meets the eligibility condition in relation to two or more police areas (see section 107FA(4) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 or section 33A(4) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023), this Schedule applies separately in relation to each of those police areas and ‘the Area’ is to be read accordingly”.
This clarifies that where a mayor exercises PCC functions in relation to two or more police areas that together make up the area of the combined authority or CCA, “the Area” here means each of the police areas (rather than the area of the combined authority or CCA).
Amendment 207, in schedule 21, page 209, line 41, at end insert—
“(j) a person who is the deputy mayor for policing and crime for a different police area.”
This would prevent a deputy mayor for policing and crime for one police area from being appointed as the deputy mayor for policing and crime for a different police area.
Amendment 208, in schedule 21, page 213, line 4, after “if” insert “—
‘(a) after subsection (1) there were inserted—
“(1ZA) If a combined authority or combined county authority meets the eligibility condition in relation to two or more police areas (see section 107FA(4) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 or section 33A(4) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023)—
(a) subsection (1)(b) does not apply; but
(b) a person is disqualified from being elected to the office of police and crime commissioner for any of those police areas at any election unless, on each relevant day, the person is a local government elector in at least one of those police areas;
and for that purpose a person is ‘a local government elector in’ a police area if the person is registered in the register of local government electors for an electoral area in respect of an address in that police area.”;
(b)’”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This provides that, where a mayor is to exercise PCC functions in relation to two or more police areas that together make up the area of the combined authority or CCA, a candidate is disqualified only if the person is not on the electoral register in any of those areas.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Twenty First schedule to the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The schedule sets out the content of the new schedule 10A that will be inserted into the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. It provides that once the functions of a police and crime commissioner have been transferred so that they are exercised by a mayor, there will no longer be a PCC for that police force area, which I know the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole will be delighted about. It also explains how mayors are to exercise PCC functions where functions have been transferred.
I beg to move that this schedule stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 21, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 46
Functions of fire and rescue authorities
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 209, in clause 46, page 51, line 10, leave out from “for” to end of line 14 and insert—
“the whole of its area if the Secretary of State designates it as the fire and rescue authority for that area in accordance with section 1A(1);
(g) a mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA is the fire and rescue authority for a part of its area if the Secretary of State—
(i) specifies that part of its area, and
(ii) designates it as the fire and rescue authority for that part of its area,
in accordance with section 1A(2) and (3).”
This would enable the Secretary of State to provide for a mayoral combined authority or CCA to be the fire and rescue authority for its area or part of its area. Amendment 212 makes further provision about these powers.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
This cluster of amendments to clause 46 allow a mayoral combined authority or a mayoral county combined authority to take on the role of a fire and rescue authority, where appropriate.
These amendments strengthen the fire and rescue provision in clause 46. They give the Secretary of State the power to designate strategic authorities as fire and rescue authorities. They also ensure that where strategic authorities cover more than one fire and rescue area, they take on responsibility for all fire and rescue authorities in their area.
Collectively, these amendments provide consistency and prevent fragmentation of governance, by requiring mayors to cover all fire and rescue authority areas within their boundaries, creating stronger accountability across local areas.
Amendment 209 agreed to.
Amendments made: 210, in clause 46, page 51, line 17, leave out from “for” to second “a” and insert—
“an area by virtue of subsection (2)(f) or (g),”.
This is consequential on Amendment 209.
Amendment 211, in clause 46, page 51, line 23, after “the” insert “combined authority or”.
This corrects an omission.
Amendment 212, in clause 46, page 51, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 on page 52 and insert—
““1A Designation of mayoral combined authorities and mayoral CCAs
(1) The Secretary of State may by order designate a mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA as the fire and rescue authority for the whole of its area.
(2) The Secretary of State may—
(a) by order specify a part of the area of a mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA, and
(b) by order designate the mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA as the fire and rescue authority for the specified part of its area.
(3) But, if the Secretary of State exercises the powers conferred by subsection (2) in relation to a particular mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA (the “relevant mayoral authority”), the Secretary of State must ensure that those powers are exercised so as to secure that—
(a) two or more parts are specified under subsection (2)(a) which, when taken together, consist of the whole of the area of the relevant mayoral authority;
(b) the relevant mayoral authority is designated as the fire and rescue authority for each specified part;
(c) all of those designations come into effect at the same time.
(4) Accordingly, where the powers conferred by subsection (2) are exercised in relation to the relevant mayoral authority—
(a) there are separate fire and rescue authorities for each area specified under subsection (2)(a);
(b) the fire and rescue authority for each of those areas is the relevant mayoral authority.
(5) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the name by which an area specified under subsection (2)(a) is to be known.
(6) An order under subsection (1) or (2)(a) or (b) may make consequential alterations to any other—
(a) section 1A(2) area,
(b) section 2 combined area, or
(c) section 4 combined area.
(7) The alterations that may be made by virtue of subsection (6) include alterations that result in a reduction or an increase in the number of such areas.
(8) An order under subsection (1) or (2)(a) or (b) may make provision for the abolition of—
(a) a metropolitan county fire and rescue authority,
(b) a combined fire and rescue authority constituted by a scheme under section 2, or
(c) a combined fire and rescue authority constituted by a scheme to which section 4 applies.
(9) The provision that may be made by regulations under section 52 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 (incidental etc provision) for the purposes of, or in consequence of, an order under subsection (1) or (2)(a) or (b) relating to a particular mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA and particular area includes—
(a) provision for functions of a fire rescue authority to be exercisable in relation to the area by the mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA during a shadow period (and not by any fire and rescue authority by which those functions would otherwise be exercisable),
(b) provision for those functions to be exercisable only by the mayor on behalf of the mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA;
(c) provision about who is to scrutinise the exercise of those functions;
(d) any other incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or supplementary provision.
(10) In this section—
“section 1A(2) area” means an area specified in an order under subsection (2)(a) (including such an area as varied from time to time);
“section 2 combined area” means an area for which a combined fire and rescue authority is, or used to be, constituted by a scheme under section 2 (including such an area as varied from time to time);
“section 4 combined area” means the area for which a combined fire and rescue authority is, used to be, constituted by a scheme to which section 4 applies (including such an area as varied from time to time);
“shadow period” , in relation to provision made in accordance with subsection (9)(a) in relation to a particular area, means a period which—
(a) ends when the designation of the mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA as the fire and rescue authority for the area takes effect, and
(b) is no longer than one year.””
This would make further provision about the Secretary of State’s power to provide for a mayoral combined authority or CCA to be the fire and rescue authority (see Amendment 209). In particular, subsection (3) would ensure that, where the area of a mayoral combined authority or CCA is to consist of several fire and rescue areas, it must be the fire and rescue authority for all of those areas.
Amendment 213, in clause 46, page 52, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 53.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would be consequential on Amendment 209.
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 46, page 53, line 15, at end insert—
“(7) Regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This amendment would ensure that regulations made by the Secretary of State regarding the functions of fire and rescue authorities receive parliamentary scrutiny.
Vikki Slade
I should probably declare a personal interest—my father spent his life as a London firefighter throughout his career; I was a member of the local fire authority, and I have spent a lot of time talking to and engaging with the fire and rescue services. That was not because I managed to set my bedroom on fire as a child—although I did—but because fire safety has always been a lifelong passion of mine.
I am troubled that the Bill rolls fire and rescue services into the role of a mayor. That may be a great idea; in some cases, I know that fire and rescue services have come together with police and crime. However, the amount of attention that this Bill gives to fire and rescue, and indeed the comment made last week when I asked questions about the precepting and the funding of fire, which suggested that it was outwith the scope of this Bill, makes it feel as though fire and rescue are an afterthought. It feels as though the work of the fire and rescue services is not being given enough attention and that there has not been real thought about how they can best be delivered.
Fire and rescue authorities around the country are doing a really good job in supporting our services, often on tiny precepts, and in dealing with big, and changing issues. Wildfires around my Mid Dorset and North Poole constituency have been horrific this year, and we have just put in for Bellwin funding. The proportion of energy that is used in dealing with fires that are usually human-caused and flooding, which is also related to climate resilience, has gone through the roof.
To add fire and rescue services in as a couple of pages in a large Bill feels inadequate, which is why we are looking to ensure that regulations made under clause 46 are subject to the affirmative procedure, and why we are seeking more parliamentary scrutiny and energy around bringing in the fire and rescue services, particularly where they do not align.
My area is likely to be Wessex, if we get into the next round, and it will probably cover three different fire authorities. As well as having to get two or three different police authorities together, we will now have to get two or three different fire authorities from the police authorities. Adding the clause in at this stage is complicated, and sticking it in as two and a half pages of a Bill feels inadequate. Therefore, we ask that regulations made under the clause are subject to the affirmative procedure and receive suitable parliamentary scrutiny.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I want to put on record that the Government absolutely recognise the vital role the fire and rescue authorities are playing across the piece; there is a huge amount of work going on in my Department to ensure that they are fit for purpose, that they are resourced and that they can continue to evolve. The Government believe that the negative procedure is the right and proportionate route for these regulations. The powers here in the Bill are simply technical powers, enabling powers that are already conferred in legislation for the fire and rescue authority functions to be transferred. That is why they take up such a small proportion of the Bill—it is a technical change rather than a substantive one, which exists already in legislation.
It is important that there is a timely transfer of these functions so that mayors can deliver joined-up services without lengthy procedural hurdles. Subject to clause 46 standing part of the Bill, Parliament would have already approved the principle of mayors exercising fire and rescue functions. This part of the Bill makes that transfer live and real. I hope the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole appreciates the care that we certainly have around the fire and rescue service and that there is much wider work going on outside the scope of the Bill about how we ensure those services are fit for purpose, and will therefore withdraw her amendment.
Vikki Slade
I would have loved to do that, but I feel that this transfer needs to be a deliberate and active thing. I spoke to my chief fire officer, who seemed completely oblivious to what is going on. If our chief fire officers are not really aware of what is going on, then more needs to be done, and therefore I would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 220, in schedule 22, page 234, line 12, at end insert—
“LDEDCA 2009
1 (1) LDEDCA 2009 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 107D (delegation of functions by the mayor), after subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) Subsection (3) is subject to section 107DZA.’
(3) After section 107D insert—
‘107DZA Limitation on delegation of mayoral functions
(1) The mayor may not make an arrangement under section 107D(3)(a) or (b) for the exercise of any fire and rescue functions of the combined authority.
(2) The power to make an arrangement under section 107D(3)(ba) is subject to paragraph 7 of Schedule 5BA.
(3) In this section “fire and rescue functions of the combined authority” means—
(a) functions of a fire and rescue authority which the combined authority has by virtue of an order under section 105A (and here “fire and rescue authority” means a fire and rescue authority under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004), or
(b) functions which the combined authority has as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.’
LURA 2023
2 (1) LURA 2023 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 30 (functions of mayors: general), after subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) Subsection (3) is subject to section 30A.’
(3) After section 30 insert—
‘30A Limitation on delegation of mayoral functions
(1) The mayor may not make an arrangement under section 30(3)(a) or (b) for the exercise of any fire and rescue functions of the CCA.
(2) The power to make an arrangement under section 30(3)(ba) is subject to paragraph 7 of Schedule 2A.
(3) In this section “fire and rescue functions of the CCA” means—
(a) functions of a fire and rescue authority which the CCA has by virtue of regulations under section 19 (and here “fire and rescue authority” means a fire and rescue authority under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004), or
(b) functions which the CCA has as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.’”
In new sections 107DZA and 30A, subsection (1) would prevent the mayor from delegating fire and rescue functions to a deputy mayor or another member or officer of mayoral authority; and subsection (2) would replace wording in clause 9(2) and (5) (see Amendment 68 and Amendment 69).
As the Committee has previously discussed in the context of consequential amendments 68 and 69 to clause 9 of the Bill, Government amendment 220 ensures that responsibility for fire and rescue functions sits directly with the elected mayor. The mayor can delegate those powers only to the public safety commissioner and not to deputies or officers, which strengthens accountability. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Amendment 220 agreed to.
Schedule 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47
Mayor with PCC and fire and rescue functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause introduces alternative ways by which a mayor or strategic authority may exercise fire and rescue and police and crime commissioner functions introduced by the Bill. The Government aim to establish mayoralties with the full range of powers and responsibilities wherever possible. The clause enables the Secretary of State to authorise a mayor of a strategic authority to delegate fire and rescue authority functions to a chief constable and to authorise that chief constable to further delegate fire and rescue authority functions to police and fire rescue personnel. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 48
Sharing of information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Strategic authorities have a number of responsibilities in relation to public safety, something that I know Members across the House care very much about. The Bill deepens those responsibilities. The clause brings combined and combined county authorities into a group of public sector organisations that can receive information in relation to crime and disorder. It also places a duty on the combined or combined county authority to share information about crime and disorder with other public sector organisations as required, and vice versa. That will empower the combined and combined county authorities and partner organisations to develop intelligence, make informed decisions and implement appropriate responses to crime and disorder issues such as crime prevention. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 49, page 54, line 30, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) Where a notification under subsection (1) is given, the Secretary of State must, within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the notification is given, give effect to the change or changes proposed by the mayor or mayors.
(4) Effect may be given under subsection (3) by means of regulations made by statutory instrument.
(5) A statutory instrument made under subsection (4) is —
(a) subject to the affirmative procedure if it—
(i) amends an Act of Parliament, or
(ii) confers or modifies a function which relates to an area of competence;
(b) where neither of the conditions in paragraph (a) apply, subject to the negative procedure.”
This amendment creates a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to seek parliamentary approval before implementing mayoral requests for greater powers over funding or legal changes.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 49, page 54, line 36, at end insert—
“(4) No decision under subsection (3) may be implemented unless—
(a) the Secretary of State has made regulations giving effect to the decision,
(b) a statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament, and
(c) save as where provided for otherwise, regulations giving effect to any decision made under section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This amendment would require any decision of the Secretary of State following a request from a local authority to be implemented by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure.
Clause stand part.
New clause 32—Devolution of further powers within strategic authority areas—
“(1) A strategic authority may—
(a) devolve to any local authority within its area any second-stage power;
(b) form bodies, and groups within its area to coordinate action needs, provided that any body or group includes representatives from all affected local areas.
(2) In carrying out any action under subsection (1), the strategic authority must consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level and, where it considers this to be the case, must act in such a way to enable such devolution.
(3) Within one year beginning on the day on which this section is commenced, a strategic authority must publish a plan setting out how it intends to carry out the duty under subsection (2) (a ‘community empowerment plan’).
(4) A strategic authority must review a community empowerment plan at least once during the period of four years starting on the day on which the plan is published.
(5) In carrying out any function under this section, a strategic authority must ensure effective collaboration with any local authority or body to which it has devolved powers.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make further provision about the powers of a strategic authority in the event that the authority considers there to be a serious failure or breach of duty in relation to a power devolved to a more local level.
(7) Regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
New clause 33—Devolution of powers from non-departmental public bodies—
“A Strategic authority may request the transfer of duties and functions from Homes England, Highways England, and any other non-departmental public body as the Secretary of State may specify.”
New clause 53—Annual report on requests made under Section 49 of this Act—
“(1) Within one year beginning on the day on which section 49 is commenced, and each year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report about notifications given under that section.
(2) Each report must summarise—
(a) the number and nature of notifications given by mayors;
(b) the Secretary of State’s decisions in relation to notifications, including the number and nature of—
(i) cases where the Secretary of State agrees, and
(ii) cases where the Secretary of State does not agree,
with the notification;
(c) any further legislative measures mayors have requested the Secretary of State takes to further enable mayors to make notifications to fulfil their objectives in areas of competence.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report summarising notifications made by Mayors for powers to be devolved and the Secretary of State’s responses and any requests by Mayors for the Secretary of State to take legislative steps to enable Mayors to adequately fulfil areas of competence.
Vikki Slade
Amendments 3 and 9 would require that, when a mayor or a mayoral strategic authority wishes to obtain more powers, those powers are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is fairly common practice for Members to be called into a Statutory Instrument Committee to make changes to such things. If we are going to ensure full transparency and ensure that mayors do not exercise powers beyond what seems appropriate, there should be some level of parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment 3 would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to seek Parliament’s approval through secondary legislation before implementing those requests. We do not believe that decisions around funding and changes of law should be made without that oversight and approval. It is hugely important to maintain the highest level of democracy; to remove that would be a missed opportunity. We therefore ask that the legislation should be protected from abuse whereby future Secretaries of State could implement requests without laying them before Parliament.
Siân Berry
I have a broad interest in this group of measures. First, I will raise some issues with the clause as a whole; then I will speak to new clause 53, and then new clauses 32 and 33 on a separate topic. I hope hon. Members will bear with me as I work through those three parts.
I support clause 49, which provides a way for mayors of strategic authorities to usefully request more powers, but the gap in the Bill highlights that we need the Government to make bolder policies in the areas of competence so that strategic authorities can request that they should be devolved to the lower levels. I will turn to the example of housing in a moment but, in general, it would be great to see strategic authorities working together to develop models of rent controls. As I understand it, however, because those powers do not currently exist centrally, strategic authorities cannot make requests for them under the clause. We need to be bolder at the centre to maximise the effectiveness of devolution on such issues.
If a Bill is not the right place to create a new power that is usable only in a local area, what is? Can the Minister explain why the Government have not taken the opportunity of the Bill to allow councils or new authorities to request those kinds of powers in areas where the Government do not currently act? It is on that principle that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) tabled new clause 53, which I will speak to now. It does not do what I just suggested, but it does allow for clear reporting of the conversations between mayors and the Government on the use of clause 49 powers. That includes where authorities have made requests for powers to be created and devolved to them, even when there is no existing national power to devolve.
If the Secretary of State’s goal is to make sure people take back control of their own destinies, it is only right that this power should be considered. Ministers need to pay serious attention to the full range of powers that mayors are already saying they need in order to make a material difference to people’s lives. As the Secretary of State for Housing said in his speech at the Labour party conference, communities have been held back because they do not have the power to make the changes they want. The new clause would at least help to keep track of the powers mayors are asking for under clause 49, as well as the additional powers they are telling Ministers to legislate for to enable them to do the best for their communities and, ultimately, to fulfil their areas of competence.
The new clause is not prescriptive as to which policies and areas need to be considered, but as I implied earlier the area of competence that inspired it is housing. That is because we are in an acute affordability and evictions crisis, and mayors have been calling for rent control powers from Ministers for some time. For example, in 2023, the Mayors of Manchester, Liverpool and London wrote to the then Secretary of State calling for a rent freeze, in order to immediately relieve the pressure on millions of people in the private rented sector in their areas. Recently, the Mayor of London said that the power to control rents was now at the top of his list in terms of devolution. His position follows many years of pressure and dialogue with politicians such as the Greens on the London Assembly—of which I used to be one—and with independent grassroots renters groups.
That is just one example of the kind of power that would be involved. Rent controls are something close to my heart, and we heard new figures today showing that 172,000 children are now in temporary accommodation in the UK. On average, people spend 36% of their income on rent—in my constituency, it is 42%. This is a classic policy for that issue.
The annual report the new clause requires would recognise the need for transparency over the discussions taking place about powers in the Bill—in the absence of the changes I have asked for in it—and also let us see what is going on in the conversations happening outside of the powers in the Bill.
New clauses 32 and 33 do what I just talked about and what clause 49 does, but at the level of the strategic authority. This is about the strategic authority having a duty to have a plan for devolving more of its powers and duties to smaller local authorities in its area. I recognise that the aims of devolution can often be in tension, particularly in terms of the balance between scale and geography. It is correct to have some powers at the level of combined authorities, so that they cover sufficiently large populations and enable authorities to exercise strategic policy making. But large authorities will not necessarily empower local people to address issues that are unique to their area; they might not represent the diversity of things going on around that area, and issues that people really care about in local communities might be better addressed using deeper local knowledge.
The new clauses do not prescribe a single model for this further local devolution. There is such diversity. We have discussed today the differences between coastal areas, rural areas, towns and larger urban areas. We have talked about areas with countryside and nature to protect, areas that need new investment, and areas with unique industries that could be developed locally.
I do not think that we should be prescriptive in our new clauses; we should just put in place a legal duty that makes some kind of move towards subsidiarity across the whole of English local government. Under the new clauses, the strategic authority would have a duty to set out how it would devolve its own responsibilities to the lowest possible level for effectiveness—including, where they exist, district, town and parish councils. I think that would be a really positive thing that would please most Opposition Members on the Committee. I hope that the Minister will take that onboard and come up with some way of codifying the need for the new strategic authorities to avoid becoming too centralised and to make a plan for listening and devolving powers down to the right level.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank hon. Members for their amendments and new clauses. Let me say a word about clause 49, and then I will speak to those.
We are clear that devolution is a continuous process. Our intention in the Bill is therefore to create a framework to establish mayoral strategic authorities and empower them to deepen devolution. That is what the right to request, which we have been debating, does. Critically, the right to request will hardwire the process of continual extraction of power from the centre—from Whitehall and Westminster—to our local areas, which is why the clause is so important.
In my view, amendments 9 and 3 are too constraining, as not all mayoral requests will require a legal process in order to be implemented. For example, requests to change funding, or pilot schemes or partnerships, do not have any legal requirements and do not require legal clearance. My concern is that the amendments would make the process too onerous and bureaucratic and, critically, slow it down. Anyone involved in the devolution process knows that extracting power from Whitehall is slow and painful as it is. I would not want to add further hurdles to that process.
I appreciate the intent behind new clause 32, but similar mechanisms to those proposed in it already exist. Any combined authority or combined county authority can enter into a joint committee with another local authority and collaborate across boundaries to jointly discharge their powers. Also, the additional requirement proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for strategic authorities to publish a community empowerment plan may end up being too burdensome and, critically, risks conflating the roles of the strategic and the local authorities.
We are clear that we want to see double devolution, and that we want to extract power from Whitehall and make sure that it is pushed down to the strategic authority level, the local authority level and, critically, the community level for community empowerment. We will go on to talk about neighbourhood governance—we have talked about it before in debates. There is a vital role for local authorities to enable and enshrine that community empowerment and engagement, and there is a risk that we conflate the strategic economic role of the mayor and the combined authority with the critical enabling role of the local authority.
Earlier, Members across the Committee talked eloquently about the need for us to ensure that local authorities continue to have a vital role and are empowered. I would not want to take something that I think is a core competency of local authorities, which are well placed to drive that community engagement, and lift it from the local authority level to the strategic level.
Finally, on new clause 33, the Bill already provides adequate powers for strategic authorities to request and receive functions and duties from non-departmental public bodies. On clause 53 and the notion that the right to request should be made transparent, while the process is transparent, I think it is important that we create the space for mayors to have detailed policy conversations with the Secretary of State and with Secretaries of State across Departments, and that those conversations can be open, frank and sensitive. We do not want to create a process whereby we constrain mayors’ ability by publishing all the detail. The outcomes will be put in the public domain, but it is important that we create the space for mayors to undergo a policy process and that we allow an internal and private space for frank, robust policy conversations to happen in this context.
Siân Berry
Will the Minister take this opportunity to urge those mayors who are seeking greater powers to continue to do so, and to talk about it in the public sphere, as they have done?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I must tell the hon. Lady that I can barely hold them back. Our mayors are pretty independent-minded and robust, and they are very clear when they want a particular power. They run effective campaigns and they are very good at advocacy, so I do not think the Government need to—or indeed can—tell them what to do. They are very clear about the powers they want; they build consensus among all their partners to ensure that they apply maximum pressure on Government to respond effectively to the right to request, and rightly so. That is the case now and I suspect that, once we give them legal powers in this Bill, it will continue to be so.
Vikki Slade
I am content that the scope of the amendment may have been broader than intended in terms of some of the minor things that a local authority may wish to do, but I ask the Minister to keep in mind the larger-scale changes that may be required, which really should come with some form of Government statutory intervention. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 50
Powers to make regulations in relation to functions of strategic authorities and mayors
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank you, Dame Siobhain, and all hon. Members for the swift and substantial progress we have made on the Bill today. I am grateful for everyone’s patience and the constructive way they have engaged in debate.
The devolution framework delivered by this Bill is the floor, not the ceiling, of our ambition for devolving real powers to local communities. That is why we are taking the power to add new functions to the framework, which will ensure that strategic authority mayors have the powers they need to deliver for local people. The Government will not be taking those decisions in isolation; any new functions added to the framework will be subject to votes in both Houses of Parliament and to consultations with the mayor, the constituent councils and the body currently holding those functions.
It is important that the governance arrangements within strategic authorities enable local leaders to make effective decisions to deliver for their people, so the Government are taking the power to modify governance arrangements where necessary. In some cases, the best way to bring about real, substantive devolution across the country will be to test it in one or two places first. The Bill therefore allows the Government to confer or modify functions on a pilot basis, which will enable local leaders to innovate in order to deliver the best outcomes for their citizens.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Deirdre Costigan.)
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
Ending Homelessness
(1 day, 14 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
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered progress on ending homelessness.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the Backbench Business Committee, which I chair, for granting this debate—I am not surprised that it took that very sensible decision. I begin by welcoming the new Minister to her place and congratulating her on her appointment and the recent funding announcement to support local authorities in addressing homelessness. Her prompt action and proven commitment to tackling child poverty gives me, and I am sure the whole House, confidence that we can look forward to a constructive and purposeful debate today. I am grateful to the many Members who have attended.
The Minister needs no persuasion that homelessness is one of the great injustices in our society and an affront to human dignity that we have a moral duty to end. I think we share that belief across this House. We see every day the human cost of homelessness. We see it far too frequently in the constituent letters we receive, in the stories we hear at our surgeries, and even outside the parliamentary estate on the streets of Westminster as we walk to work each day. But behind every statistic and every person is a unique story. This morning at least 4,600 people woke up on our streets, uncertain where they would sleep tonight. More than 132,000 households live in temporary accommodation, facing constant instability, and more than 172,000 children went to school today knowing that when they return it will not be to a home, but to a mouldy bed and breakfast, a run-down hotel or a short-term let that they could be asked to leave at any moment. They are not just numbers on a page; they are lives in limbo.
Homelessness is a moral crisis, but also a practical one. Local authorities in London—I know colleagues will refer to their own areas—are now spending almost £5 million every single day on temporary accommodation that is often of such poor quality that it damages health and education and hinders opportunity. It is difficult to imagine another area of public spending where we would tolerate so much money being spent to achieve so little outcome. As winter approaches and the nights grow colder, the urgency deepens. This is the moment for decisive, co-ordinated action, so I ask the Minister when we can expect the Government to publish and deliver the promised cross-Government strategy for homelessness. Can she confirm that the interministerial group will continue to meet regularly under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State to drive that strategy forward? If she needs a vehicle to make that happen, my private Member’s Homelessness Prevention Bill, which received an unopposed Second Reading, could go into Committee with a money resolution and we could help get a legal position to support the work that she is going to do.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. Does he agree with me that, difficult as it might be, the key to the problem that he has correctly outlined is the availability of lower-cost, good quality social housing? We must aim to expand that as quickly and successfully as possible in the next few years.
Bob Blackman
Clearly, the hon. Member anticipates something I will say later in my speech. I have long advocated that we need to build 90,000 affordable homes for social rent each year to meet the demand.
As co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to our new report, “Homes, Support, Prevention—Our Foundations For Ending Homelessness”. The report brings together evidence from across the country, from local and combined authorities, charities, service providers, academics and, crucially, people who have lived experience of homelessness themselves. The report distils a complex problem into three simple but essential pillars that any effective strategy must deliver: first, preventing homelessness wherever possible; secondly, rapidly rehousing people who still need help; and thirdly, improving support for those experiencing the most severe forms of homelessness.
The best way to end homelessness is to prevent it happening in the first place. Almost everyone with lived experience who contributed to our APPG’s work identified a point at which their homelessness could have been prevented. That is a missed opportunity where timely help could have made all the difference. Prevention should not be a political issue; it is simply common sense and morally right, socially responsible and economically wise. Research by Shelter found that one in 10 people in temporary accommodation had to give up work due to their housing situation. That statistic alone should galvanise us to act earlier, before people lose not only their homes but their jobs, stability and self-confidence in a downward spiral.
Through my private Members’ Bills, I have worked to put prevention at the heart of our response. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 focused on preventing people becoming homeless and presented the largest and most comprehensive changes to the rights of homeless people for more than 39 years. Fundamentally, its purpose is to ensure that everyone at risk of being homeless or who is currently homeless is legally entitled to meaningful help from their local authority, regardless of their current status.
Previously, local authorities had been entitled to assist only those who were deemed a priority and at crisis point. That excluded the majority of people, including almost all of those who were single. The Act also addressed the significant lack of meaningful advice and assistance, which more often than not in the majority of cases was not tailored to the individual’s needs and requirements.
The Act implemented a duty on specified public bodies to refer any person whom they believed was at risk of homelessness within the next 56 days to the relevant housing department. That helps to direct appropriate and efficient support and resources to those in need and prevent them from sleeping rough before it is too late. The 56 days marks a significant extension; previously only those at risk of homelessness in the first 28 days would potentially receive some help. The extension to 56 means that people have a longer opportunity to relieve their situation.
I am pleased to say that, in the first year of implementation, the Homelessness Reduction Act prevented 37,000 people from becoming homeless. It continues to be just as effective today, some six years later. In the first year alone, an additional 60,000 people who were previously ineligible for homeless support were assisted in getting off the streets and into appropriate accommodation. That is a rise of almost 50% on the previous year to the Act’s implementation. Today, I am proud to say that the Homelessness Reduction Act has prevented more than 1.7 million people from becoming homeless, with more than 777,000 now in stable and secure long-term housing.
I am pleased that the Act has helped thousands avoid the trauma of homelessness, but the truth is that we can and must go further. Across our APPG’s evidence sessions, we repeatedly heard of cases where other public services missed crucial opportunities to step in: hospitals discharging patients on to the street; jobcentres overlooking signs of distress; prisons releasing people with no plan for where they would go next. Those are not isolated incidents; they are systemic failures. Recent analysis from the Institute for Government found that discharges from public institutions now account for almost half the recent rise in homelessness applications. If we are serious about tackling homelessness we cannot leave the burden solely on housing departments. It must be a whole-system effort, covering health, justice, education, welfare and local government. We must all work together to stop people falling through the cracks.
Prevention is not only compassionate; it is cost-effective. When someone keeps their home, they recover faster after illness, they are half as likely to reoffend and they find it easier to get back into work. Will the Minister meet me and colleagues to discuss how she intends to embed prevention firmly at the centre of the Government’s homelessness strategy?
Even with the best prevention measures, there will always be times when homelessness cannot be avoided. When that happens, our goal must be to get people back into stable, affordable homes as quickly as possible. That requires a clear, long-term commitment to increasing the supply of social and affordable housing. I have long argued that if we are serious about ending homelessness we must build more homes that people can actually afford.
The Secretary of State’s recent commitment to delivering more social and affordable homes is welcome, but words must now turn into action, and that delivery must be targeted where the need is greatest. Too often, affordable homes are built in the wrong places or at rent levels that are out of reach for those most in need. I ask the Minister to confirm that she will work closely with the Housing Minister to ensure that the long-term plan for housing delivers social homes where they are most needed, and that people experiencing homelessness are given fair and equal access to them, because rapid rehousing works only when the homes are there for people to move into.
We must also ensure that temporary accommodation truly is temporary—a stepping-stone, not a dead end. I have met families who have spent years moving between short-term lets, B&Bs and converted offices, never knowing where they will be next. It is impossible to rebuild their lives under those conditions. A genuine rapid rehousing model backed by adequate social housing can break this cycle. It restores stability, improves health and education outcomes and reduces long-term costs. We owe it to those families, and to the taxpayers footing the bill, to make that a reality.
The third and final pillar of the APPG’s framework is support for those whose homelessness could not be prevented, and who need more than housing alone to rebuild their lives. Supported housing plays a crucial role in that effort. I introduced the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 after receiving extensive evidence of rogue landlords exploiting vulnerable people and the taxpayer. Rogue unscrupulous landlords were setting up supported housing schemes and claiming public money through housing benefit, while providing little or no care whatsoever. Devastatingly, those abuses were not just financial ones; they destroyed lives. Through the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee I saw how deeply that issue runs.
The challenge now is to strike the right balance: driving out the rogue providers while protecting the good ones, and ensuring that vulnerable residents are not made homeless again as a result of reform. That is why I agreed that the powers within the 2023 Act should be subject to consultation so that we can get this right; but we are two years on from Royal Assent and those powers have yet to see the light of day. I ask the Minister to provide an update on three points.
When will the Government publish detailed guidance and timescales for implementing that, including funding for councils, strategic needs assessments and licence fees? What steps are being taken to ensure that local authorities are not misusing their powers to close providers down through housing benefit reviews without proper care for the residents’ welfare? Will the Government confirm that domestic abuse refuges and dispersal providers will not be required to register every individual property separately? That is an administrative burden that would put vital services at risk.
Beyond regulation, however, lies a deeper issue: the collapse of support capacity. Across all our APPG evidence sessions we heard from charities, councils and service providers struggling to meet the growing complexity of people’s needs. The cuts to local support services over the past decade have hollowed out the safety net, leaving too many people without help at the moment they need it most. I have long been a champion of Housing First, a model that provides stable housing alongside intensive wraparound support. The evidence for its effectiveness is overwhelming, yet too many areas lack the funding to deliver it at scale.
When I worked on the supported housing Act, it became clear that rogue operators had thrived precisely because legitimate, well-regulated support had been stripped back. If we want to eliminate exploitation and end homelessness we must rebuild the foundations of proper support. I ask the Minister: what discussions is she having with colleagues across Government about addressing the chronic underfunding of support services? Will the forthcoming homelessness strategy include clear measures to ensure that everyone, regardless of their needs, can access the right help to rebuild their lives?
Homelessness is not inevitable. It is not a natural part of modern life. It is the product of policy choices, systems that fail to intervene soon enough and services that are no longer adequately resourced to meet the need. We have an opportunity and a duty to end that. This is a moment to bring together not only Government Departments, but local authorities, charities, faith groups and communities to deliver on our shared ambition that everyone should have a safe and secure place to call home.
At oral questions last week, the Minister said she never knowingly misses an opportunity to meet an APPG. In that spirit, I warmly invite her to join us at the APPG for ending homelessness annual general meeting, which will take place between 1 pm and 2 pm on 11 November, where she can discuss these issues further—and of course we will benefit from her words at the meeting. I place on record my sincere thanks to the APPG secretariat—Rosie, Matt, Jasmine and all the team at Crisis—for their outstanding work in co-ordinating our efforts, and to the 47 parliamentarians and 27 sector organisations serving on the steering group. Their commitment, expertise and compassion drives this agenda forward every single day.
This debate is not just an opportunity to restate our concern; it must be a catalyst for action. Homelessness is not inevitable. It is solvable. The test of any Government and any Parliament is whether we have the courage and compassion to solve it. Let us make sure that no child grows up without a place to call home, and that no person has to face another winter on the streets. Let us act together to end homelessness once and for all.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. There is a lot of interest in this debate. If a Member is intending to speak, please stand so that we have a chance to make sure everyone can make a contribution.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. As co-chair of the APPG for ending homelessness and the co-sponsor of this debate, I thank all colleagues who have attended; our new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern); Crisis, the secretariat for the APPG; and our fantastic steering group, comprised of organisations that support people who are homeless.
This debate comes at a vital moment. In 2023-24, some 1,611 people died while homeless—up 16% on the previous year. Eleven of them were children. Four were babies aged under one. Long-term rough sleeping is up 13% compared with last year, and long-term rough sleepers now outnumber those who are new to the streets. We have already waited long enough to see a strategy that addresses the moral injustice of homelessness, and I hope the Minister can share an update on progress.
The Prime Minister was absolutely correct to say in Liverpool that we must renew Britain. However, true renewal is possible only with deep roots and strong foundations. We often talk about the importance of a home as a foundation for a good life. Today, I would like to set out how ensuring that the cross-departmental strategy for homelessness delivers secure, affordable homes for everyone can be the foundation of a good society and a better Britain—a country where parents know they will be able to feed their kids after they have paid their rent, where workers can focus on their job and not where they are going to sleep that night, and where people are welcomed into secure communities, not left on the streets.
The latest report of the APPG for ending homelessness, “Homes, Support, Prevention—Our Foundations For Ending Homelessness”, sets a clear blueprint to build that foundation, and I urge the Minister to consider it. The report includes the ambition of halving the use of temporary accommodation and ending rough sleeping by 2030. I am incredibly proud that in their time in office the last Labour Government managed to drastically reduce rough sleeping and the use of temporary accommodation. As an heir to that Government, will the Minister commit to that target and to emulating the progress made on this issue by her Labour predecessors?
This is no utopian target. Our report sets out how to get there by delivering social homes, improving support systems and prioritising prevention to address the root causes of homelessness. On that first point, I welcome the new Secretary of State’s enthusiasm for building and his recognition that we need homes to end homelessness, but England has seen a net loss of 180,000 secure, truly affordable social homes over the last decade, and we must be mindful that our current plans will not match the 90,000 social homes a year that the National Housing Federation and Crisis have calculated we need. It is therefore doubly important that the homes built are accessible to people experiencing homelessness.
For example, domestic abuse survivors often have to leave at short notice, with little to no help. Although the changes to the local connection rule for survivors are welcome, it remains the leading cause of homelessness among women. Too often, survivors cannot access a secure home. When compiling evidence for our APPG report, we heard a heartbreaking story from a survivor of domestic abuse who had been stuck in temporary accommodation so filthy that she could not let her children play on the floor. Will the Minister set out how she intends to work with the Housing Minister on the long-term housing plan and with the Safeguarding Minister on the violence against women and girls strategy, to ensure that those plans complement her own strategy and that every survivor who takes the decision to leave has a secure home to go to? Will she also consider a full roll-out of the “whole housing” approach?
On improving support, the evidence we collected from frontline services and homeless charities was clear: they need to secure funding to deliver effective support for people with multiple needs who need more than a home to end their homelessness. People and local authorities are trapped in a cycle in which the scale of urgent need is overwhelming services, leading to worse outcomes despite higher spending. The National Audit Office gave evidence that the current system was “unsustainable” and over-focused on crisis management, not prevention. We need to break the cycle with both an emergency response to spiralling rates of homelessness and an ambitious, resourced plan to transform homelessness support within a decade. Will the Minister commit to matching the calls for homelessness funding to be consolidated, flexible to needs and based on multi-annual contracts?
Finally, on prevention, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) spoke about the importance of breaking down silos in public services, but it is also important that broader departmental spending decisions do not cause homelessness. For example, when compiling our report, the APPG heard evidence from charities and local authorities that the decision by the Department for Work and Pensions to freeze local housing allowance is making homes unaffordable as rents continue to rise. I can see that playing out in my Liverpool Wavertree constituency: according to analysis by Crisis and data from Zoopla, just three in every 100 properties advertised for rent last year were affordable for people who rely on local housing allowance.
When people inevitably miss out, they have nowhere to go but the local authority. It is therefore entirely unsurprising that council spending on TA is spiralling, with a 25% rise across England in the last year alone, and as the Minister has rightly identified, record numbers of children are now homeless and housed in temporary accommodation. Does the Minister agree that although the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has every right to be prudent, we cannot simply ignore the economic reality of how much it costs to rent a home and ask local authorities and society to pick up the pieces?
Will the Minister also consider rolling out Housing First? The pilots in Greater Manchester, the Liverpool city region and the west midlands achieved 84% tenancy sustainment—84% of people sustained long-term tenancies after three years—and measurable cost savings. Analysis from the Centre for Social Justice finds that for every £1 invested in Housing First, the public purse saves £2 through reduced A&E, policing and justice costs.
Social homes, secure support and a truly preventive system that helps people to avoid homelessness are the kind of common-sense steps that will build the foundation of a Britain that we can all be proud of at the next election.
Several hon. Members rose—
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
Order. A lot of the people who are standing did not provide their names to the Chair. I am sorry, but I will have to impose a two-minute limit if I am going to get everybody in and bring in the Front Benchers at 10.28 am.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for setting the scene so well, and I wish the Minister well in her new role. I will ask her for one thing at the beginning. This morning I met representatives from Centrepoint, which looks after homeless young people, and I understand that they have written to the Minister, as part of the youth chapter collective, to ensure that youth homelessness is a central part of what the Government are doing. Will the Minister agree to a meeting on that?
In the short time available, let me give a quick perspective on Northern Ireland, the stats for which are incredibly worrying. Some 7,600 households presented as homeless in 2024-25. Of those, 67% were accepted as statutory homeless, with 5,200 living in temporary accommodation. Here is the big thing: the cost of temporary accommodation, according to the Northern Ireland Audit Office, is some £39 million. For us in Northern Ireland, it is a massive issue. In my office, housing issues and affordable housing make up most of the issues we deal with. I think of those living in accommodation, but then the landlord decides to sell the property and makes them homeless, and when they go for private accommodation they find that the price is absolutely out of reach.
One of the solutions would be for uninhabitable homes to become habitable. In Northern Ireland we have almost 1,600 or 1,700 of them. A nationwide campaign on that could turn around accessible housing very quickly. It is not the Minister’s responsibility, but we need to be able to offer first-time buyers affordable homes. That would take some of the pressure off. Those are my quick requests; in two minutes that is all I can say.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this important debate. I thank the APPG for ending homelessness for its comprehensive recent report, as well as all those across the homelessness sector who work tirelessly and those whose experience and expertise informed the report.
Homelessness in all its forms is rising. In my borough of Bromley—a borough also represented by you, Mr Efford, and by the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon)—nearly 2,000 households are now in temporary accommodation. Most of them are placed out of borough, in part due to the failure of the Conservative council over several decades to invest in building new homes. I have spoken to families in Beckenham and Penge who have been placed as far away as the midlands, uprooted from their homes, work, schools and support networks in south London. I remember, on my first visit to a school after the election, hearing about the dozens of children at that school who live in the Travelodge, and the impact of that on them.
We are short of time, so I want to make a couple of quick points. I welcome the steps the Government have already taken, including the £39 billion of investment to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation, the measures in the Renters’ Rights Bill, and an £84 million cash boost to support families in temporary accommodation. If we are to meet the scale of the challenge, we must work with charities such as St Martin-in-the-Fields and its brilliant chief executive officer Duncan Shrubsole, who is a constituent and a very good friend of mine. To the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree, the last Labour Government achieved so much, and it is in our DNA to tackle this issue. We are making progress, but we need to accelerate. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing the debate.
Since I was elected, housing and homelessness has been the biggest issue that my team have been dealing with in Yeovil. We have had hundreds of cases. I will share a few stories to highlight the impossible situations in which some people find themselves in my constituency, but I will not share their names due to the nature of the cases.
One constituent has been homeless since April, after the breakdown of his long-term relationship. As he shared a tenancy with his ex-partner, he was left in a complex legal position. If he removed himself from the tenancy, he risked being labelled purposely homeless, but if he remained on the tenancy, the council would consider him still to have suitable accommodation.
After several months, the council accepted a release duty and offered him a placement in shared accommodation. However, he had to decline the offer because of the high level of drug activity at the property—he feared he would relapse. Since then, he has been denied any further housing support. This constituent, as is the case for so many constituents like him, is just trying to get his life back on track, but now he is living in a garage with no access to basic facilities.
Unfortunately, there are so many other stories. For example, my office was made aware of a blind woman sleeping rough in Ninesprings park; she was forced out of her home because squatters took possession of it. She would have remained entirely off the radar, with no engagement from local authorities, if a member of the public had not approached her and told her to reach out to my office.
A country is only as good as the support it gives to the most vulnerable, and right now we must do more to end homelessness. But homelessness is not just a housing issue. We desperately need to invest more in drug treatment and rehabilitation, and get more mental health hubs in rural communities. We also need more community centres and police officers, to tackle crime and reach out to vulnerable people.
Finally, as that last case shows, we must ensure that local authorities’ homelessness relief systems are accessible to those who are visually impaired, neurodiverse or homeless with no access to technology. I ask the Minister to review this matter urgently. Hearing today’s heartbreaking stories, it is difficult not to feel hopeless and powerless. But we are not powerless; we have the power.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Efford. I thank my good friend and constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), as well as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for securing this debate. I welcome the Minister to her place.
As the MP for Liverpool Riverside, I have witnessed at first hand the devastating impact of homelessness. Before I was elected, I worked for Liverpool adult services and supported a number of service users living in hostels or on the street, many with multiple complex needs, including mental health issues, addiction and disabilities. There were people losing their legs due to injecting, or using drugs or alcohol to self-medicate because they were abused as kids in care; care leavers left to fend for themselves; and victims of domestic violence arriving in Liverpool from other cities.
Homelessness can affect many people for very different reasons, and what is needed is not just decent, affordable homes but wraparound care to meet a variety of needs and to prevent homelessness from happening in the first place. The crisis in homelessness cannot be overstated, but under this Labour Government we have the opportunity to end it, with the political will and a much-needed homelessness strategy.
We have heard the devastating data and statistics, particularly about children living in temporary accommodation. Those figures should shame us all, but particularly those rogue landlords. We need a homelessness strategy that tackles the disproportionate impact on black communities. Shelter’s report, “My colour speaks before me”, shows that from the moment black applicants engage with social housing, they face greater hurdles than white applicants.
We must move away from costly crisis-response strategies that rely on expensive and insecure temporary accommodation, and instead invest in decent, affordable, secure and permanent homes. A Labour Government can achieve this; we just need the political will to make it happen.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Thank you for chairing this debate, Mr Efford, and I congratulate the hon. Members for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing it.
Homelessness—what we see on the streets across the United Kingdom—is just the tip of the iceberg of the crisis in our housing system. For more than 30 years, I have campaigned on this issue while serving my local community. One of the sad pleasures is occasionally going out with our outreach team in Torbay and knowing that there is somebody going up to a person sleeping in a doorway, saying to them, “Hello, I’m from Torbay council. Would you like something to eat or drink, and how can we help?” That is extremely humbling, and I pay tribute to those members of staff.
Clearly, we have seen a massive reduction in our social rented housing stock—from 34% of housing stock when Thatcher came into power to just 17% now. In Torbay, only 7% of housing stock is social rented. The private sector has stepped up, but that leaves people with massive bills to pay for what is sometimes not the best housing. I pay tribute to some of those who pick up the pieces of this challenge: Kath from PATH, an excellent charity; Rev. Sam Leach and his team at St Mags who do incredible work supporting our street homeless; and also the Unleashed theatre, which won the King’s award for voluntary service, supporting homeless people across Torbay.
Massive cuts to the Supporting People budget were at the root of those challenges, and I am afraid to say that under the Labour Government, we have a quarter of a billion pounds of cuts to our NHS, our mental health service has lost £21 million, and the homeless and rough sleepers team in Torbay is being ripped out. Will the Minister intervene with the Devon Partnership NHS trust over the savage cuts that are leaving some of the most vulnerable people even more on the edges of our society in Torbay?
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
I thank the co-sponsors of this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). We start from a position where we have lost more than 260,000 social rented homes in the last decade. Even now, most so-called affordable homes are out of reach for the people who need them most. Ultimately, if we are serious about ending homelessness, we must give local authorities the power, funding and freedom to build social homes at scale.
That starts with looking at the affordable homes programme, which is sadly not enough. It too often delivers homes at supposedly affordable rents that, in many places, are anything but. Councils need grant rates high enough to deliver homes at true social rent so that ordinary families can actually afford them. While we are at it, we must lift the shackles from council borrowing and address the issues that councils face in meeting borrowing rules. From cuts to budgets, maintenance backlogs, right-to-buy losses and falling rent yields as local housing allowance fails to meet housing spend, housing revenue accounts are in a state of crisis and that must be addressed to remove barriers to borrowing.
We must also fix the planning system and rebuild council capacity. Decades of cuts have gutted planning departments and valuable experience has been lost. We must also rebuild those local housing teams and council-owned development companies that can plan for the long term and with social purpose at their core. Salford city council has led the way on that with its own model, Dérive, and that could be replicated across the country.
I know that the Minister agrees with much of that, which is why I am hopeful about her response. When we truly invest in council housing, we do not just end homelessness; we create jobs, strengthen communities, cut carbon emissions and give people a stake in their own future.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the co-sponsors of this debate, the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), for securing it.
Local housing allowance is meant to help people on low incomes afford private rent by covering the cheapest 30% of homes in an area, but it has been frozen for years while rents have continued to rise. The result is that housing benefit no longer reflects the real cost of renting, and thousands are struggling to keep a roof over their head with no extra support.
Getting a discretionary housing payment is not simple. Renters already face barriers such as needing guarantors or are discriminated against for needing extra help, and delays in securing support mean that many lose their homes entirely. Raising the local housing allowance alone is not enough, however, because without increasing the benefit cap, which has barely moved since 2013, many households would not see the full benefit.
My constituent, Yasmin, said that finding somewhere affordable that would also take someone on benefits was like finding a needle in a haystack and that the whole process was one of the worst times of her life. She was made to feel as though she was not even a human being. What Yasmin wants is what we all want: a safe, secure home that is affordable and has long-term stability. As she says, “I really hope we can have a country where this basic human right is accessible for everyone.”
It is time for a system that supports people, rather than leaving them behind. Will the Government act urgently to address the inadequate LHA rates, which have been frozen until 2026, and implement extra support that is not first come, first served, but designed to help everyone who needs it?
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The UK’s homelessness crisis has been decades in the making. Thanks to Thatcher selling off social housing, a large proportion of our country is now at the mercy of private landlords—like those in my constituency who issued section 21 notices to three buildings on Mansfield Road, putting dozens at risk of homelessness.
Low pay and low levels of benefits compared with soaring rents make it even harder for people to access the private rented sector at all, and we have the scandal of children growing up in hotels. I welcome the Renters’ Rights Bill to shift the balance of power towards tenants and away from landlords, and the Government’s commitment to build 1.5 million homes, but we cannot rely on private house builders to build the genuinely affordable homes that we need. The Government must implement a mass public house building programme of homes for social rent.
When I was on the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, I repeatedly questioned the previous Government on why they refused to set a target on new homes for social rent. Our Government must set a target of at least 90,000 homes a year and ensure that they are built. Right to buy must also be scrapped. The action to tackle no-fault evictions in the Renters’ Rights Bill is essential, but landlords can evict by the back door by putting up the rent instead. We should be looking seriously at rent controls to stop the scandal of ever-growing rents gobbling up a higher proportion of people’s wages and costing a fortune in housing benefit—which, of course, needs to rise with rents; that is something the Government must commit to.
In the meantime, there are immediate steps that we can take to ease homelessness for those at the sharpest end while we tackle the structural issues. I was privileged to spend time with the street outreach team in Nottingham, who highlighted the need for more permanent shelters that are easier to access and that could support people with more complex needs. We also talked about the need for more housing like Grove House in Nottingham, which is made up of self-contained units for women with complex needs and provides wraparound support.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I thank the co-sponsors, the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), for securing the debate.
Although Eastbourne might be the sunniest town in the country, its light and sun also cast deep shadows on our town, including through the temporary accommodation crisis and the out-of-area placements that make up 46% of placements in Eastbourne. In many circumstances, there are good reasons why out-of-area placements are appropriate—for example, for survivors of domestic abuse who need to relocate—but all too often, local authorities wrongly take “out of area” to mean “out of responsibility”. In such cases, local authorities leave vulnerable people stranded without the networks or support services that they need, and expect the receiving local authorities and charities to voluntarily meet those needs instead.
In Eastbourne, that trend is increasing. For example, two years ago, in October 2023, Brighton and Hove city council had 42 placements in Eastbourne; today it has 195. That is concerning because in January 2023, for example, a 25-year-old man, who was placed into the Eastbourne area from Brighton and Hove city council, was found dead, but in the month before he died, the council had undertaken no welfare checks. Earlier this year, two more people died in Wilmington Square. In Newhaven, part of the neighbouring constituency, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), 10 people have died.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Does the hon. Member agree that being homeless should not prevent people from using primary care services, such as GP and dental practices, and the Government must support those practice providers as much as they can?
Josh Babarinde
I agree that the Government must provide support, but local authorities must do so too. I will come to that point shortly.
This summer, I wrote to the Minister’s predecessor to ask what intervention the Government could make in relation to out-of-area placement policy. In response, the Government said that they will review their out of area placement policy, including considering ways
“to further define where out of area placements are acceptable and expectations on placing and receiving local authorities.”
I welcome that, but could the current Minister confirm the timeline for it? Will she meet with Eastbourne borough council’s leader, Stephen Holt, and me to discuss it? In the meantime, will she also urge Brighton and Hove city council to take responsibility and ensure that it does not let down folks who are vulnerable and need its support?
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I thank the co-sponsors of today’s ever-important debate, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker). As hon. Members have mentioned, homelessness is so much more than an individual not having a roof over their head; it is about the loss of safety, dignity and the often complex support that they need.
In Wolverhampton North East, for far too many years, we have seen the scale of the challenge, with the loss of social homes and increasing rents and mortgage costs. We have also seen the strength of our community’s response. In Wolverhampton, homelessness rates are exacerbated by those stuck in temporary housing and the “unofficial homeless”, who manage by sofa surfing. More than 600 children are growing up in temporary accommodation, and hundreds of families are living with uncertain housing situations.
The number of people sleeping rough in Wolverhampton is relatively low, with around eight recorded last autumn, but I want to share one such story from my constituency. Due to a local shopkeeper called Max, who could not turn a blind eye, the community of Wednesfield and I became aware of John, who had found himself sleeping rough on Wednesfield High Street. He had lost almost everything: his home, his ID, access to social security benefits and hope that anyone cared. But then something remarkable happened: members of the community, led by Max and including Sharon, John Paul, Sherrie and Jade, came to help him. I was deeply moved by that, and with my team and the support of P3, a fantastic national charity with roots in Wolverhampton, helped him rebuild his life.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Does she agree that supporting people from rough sleeping into solo accommodation involves a continuum of support from the charity and public sectors? That creates the system that holds people up and supports them, with trauma-based support at its heart.
Mrs Brackenridge
Absolutely. We have to heal the person and the family and respond to their situation, rather than simply securing a safe home, although that is of course important too.
Finally, I put on record my thanks to Wolverhampton’s wonderful community services, including the Good Shepherd, P3 and the Alternative Giving initiative, which gives 100% of donations directly to organisations and charities that work in Wolverhampton city centre to provide long-term support for those who need it.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
There is no time for courtesies. Homelessness is one end of a continuum that starts with thousands of wealthy people purchasing holiday and second homes in places such as Cornwall and ends with 5,000 people annually presenting to the local authority as at risk of or experiencing homelessness. For a number of years, I led the Street Food Project in Penzance and saw these issues at close quarters, speaking to the people involved and those experiencing homelessness. It was a very distressing picture, and it continues today.
The other contrast I want to draw attention to is the fact that £500 million of taxpayers’ money is provided through small business rate relief in Cornwall to holiday home owners, subsidising the second homes of the wealthy. If we put that money into housing to meet the needs of those who are homeless and in housing need, we would solve this problem overnight. We need to address that inequality.
I wish I could draw attention to the good work the local authority is doing and to the outcomes of that work, but I want to ask the Minister about the housing benefit subsidy loss that local authorities experience when they put people into bed-and-breakfast accommodation. They only receive housing benefit for that accommodation, and that needs to be reviewed.
I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that we need to reward the good landlords and not just regulate the bad ones. We also need to address the perfect storm in the construction industry, which has resulted in us not being able to get on and deliver the shovel-ready projects that are available to the Government. They are going forward with the Renters’ Rights Bill, but it will take another four or five years to get those new developments off the ground. They could do that now.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing the debate, and the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling it. Last week, my hon. Friend and I had the privilege of speaking at events hosted by Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse and the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance. It is so important that we bring domestic abuse into this conversation, because it is the leading cause of homelessness for women in this country.
However, the real reason I am here today is my constituent Caitlin. Caitlin is a survivor. She was in a relationship that turned abusive, and unbeknown to her family she was coerced into co-signing a lease for a flat with her abuser, naming herself as guarantor. Four days after she signed that lease, he was arrested, charged and later convicted. Caitlin has never lived in that flat, but despite her former partner’s conviction, there was no way to release her from that contract. He refused to pay rent, as another way of exerting control over her, and that put Caitlin at huge financial risk. It took until last week to resolve the issue, with months of back and forth from my office, and eventually the threat of legal action, before the agent backed down. There was no compassion and no understanding, and Caitlin knew things could have been much worse if she did not have a supportive family.
I am proud that the Renters’ Rights Bill will take us a step closer to solving that problem by doing away with shorthold tenancies, but there is a lot more we need to do. Standing Together and DAHA have pioneered the adoption of what they call the whole housing approach, and last week they published the findings of a trial in Cheshire East. It was astonishingly successful, preventing 98% of the women involved from becoming homeless, up from 63% before the pilot began. What consideration is the Department giving to expanding that approach across the country?
Under that approach, Standing Together and DAHA have also developed a new accreditation targeted at the private rented sector, and I want to see a trial of that new accreditation fully funded. I have written to the Secretary of State, and I would love to hear from the Minister what the consideration the Department will give to funding the next stage of that pilot.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) for her tireless work on the APPG, and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his work on this topic. It was hard to disagree with much of what he said in his speech, which is testament to the cross-party commitment on this issue and the growing political consensus that ending homelessness really is possible.
It is a source of great shame that the centre of our capital is also the centre of homelessness. Last year, there were 2,612 people living on the streets in the City of Westminster, and 878 in the City of London. Last year, Westminster city council spent £95 million on temporary accommodation costs, and the City of Westminster’s costs have gone up by 50%.
I believe that we can tackle the causes of homelessness and that this Government are tackling the causes of homelessness. We are ending no-fault eviction and supporting vulnerable people, and I welcome the additional £2.35 million the Government have invested in homelessness services in Westminster, such as The Passage, St Mungo’s, King George’s Hostel, the Single Homeless Project and St Martin-in-the-Fields. We are bringing forward solutions, and we can prevent homelessness, but I ask the Minister to consider the impact of the local connection test and the cost for local authorities and homeless families.
Ending homelessness is the right thing to do. We cannot accept children living in hotels, we cannot accept vulnerable people living on the streets and we cannot accept the damage that homelessness does to families, communities and our economy. We can end homelessness, and we look forward to the cross-departmental homelessness strategy and its proposals.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing this important debate.
I am angry and frankly embarrassed that I am here today to discuss the deepening homelessness crisis in Scotland, which is inseparable from the scandal of rising child poverty. After nearly two decades in power, the SNP has presided over that crisis; in fact, the Scottish Government fuelled it by cutting the affordable homes budget by £200 million, or 26%, despite mounting political pressure to declare a national housing emergency, which they finally did. The fact that the SNP failed to respond to that growing crisis over years with either urgency or even compassion demonstrates its lack of leadership; quite simply, it was abandonment. After 20 years of the SNP, Scotland has nothing to show, only a national disgrace: rising homelessness, rising child poverty and a Government who have lost their way.
As of March 2025, over 34,000 households in Scotland were assessed as homeless or at risk of being homeless— the highest number in over a decade. Temporary accommodation figures also hit a record high, with over 17,000 households—a 6% rise—affected. That is a scandal.
Behind those numbers are children. Over 10,100 children were living in temporary accommodation, with no home to call their own—young lives in limbo, with no stability, no security and no dignity. A further shocking fact is that 242 people died in 2023 while homeless, half of them under the age of 45. Some of those deaths were linked to drugs misuse—another crisis the Scottish Government have failed to address. These are not just policy failures; they are moral failures.
The SNP has lost sight of why it was elected. It has no solutions and no answers. Frankly, Scotland demands better from its Government: bold, radical policy, investment, leadership to end the scourge of homelessness, and temporary accommodation to restore stability, security and dignity for every homeless child and adult.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
It was Rowntree’s work on poverty in York that gave rise to the 1919 Housing Act, which addressed homelessness. It is in this rich tradition of social reform in York, and in order to reduce poverty and inequality, that executive member, Councillor Michael Pavlovic, with his vast experience, dedication and determination, and Labour’s City of York council are today leading the way, along with academic Nicholas Pleace, who leads on housing first, and looking at how to integrate a person-centred, trauma-informed pathway delivered by multidisciplinary, multi-agency approaches. This is pragmatic, but we also need the supply, including of one-bed flats, to ensure that social housing is available, so that services such as mental health and substance dependency services can be integrated. We also need to recognise the complex and varied causes of homelessness.
Wrapping services around somebody in their own home not only provides a practical pathway out of homelessness, but builds resilience, independence and dignity. Wider support can also ensure that people have new levels of security. Barriers to accessing health and social care can contribute to high numbers of preventable deaths. Involving partners in ensuring wellbeing and physical health, which the Salvation Army has done in setting up a new boxing gym in the city, will improve people’s holistic outcomes. As many have highlighted today, focusing on the causes, but also on the opportunities to support women and children out of homelessness, must be a first step. The governance arrangements being introduced in York will ensure that city partners hold the authority to account through multi-agencies. With York on a new cutting-edge path from homelessness to hope—one rooted in evidence and best-practice approaches—I invite the Minister to meet the team in York, the university partners and clients too.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate and on all the work he has clearly be done in this area—of course, the fact that he is Chair of the Backbench Business Committee has absolutely nothing to do with the compliments I am giving him. This is an important debate, because homelessness touches every part of the United Kingdom, in every local community, and everyone who believes, as the Liberal William Beveridge did then, and we do today, that homelessness and poor housing are part of the giant of squalor and need to be defeated. Unless people have the shelter of a decent home, they cannot be truly free to lead the fulfilling lives they wish to lead.
The level of homelessness today has rightly been termed a crisis by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and it is one that demands our attention and our action. Across England, over 117,000 households were living in temporary accommodation at the end of March 2024, including more than 151,000 children. That is a fail of national proportions. While the issue might be most visible in urban areas, rural homelessness has risen by 40% over the past five years, leaving many without access to services or support. In my county of Somerset, over 12,000 households languish on the waiting list and are unlikely to get the homes they need, after decades in which we have lost millions of council houses, which were never replaced—4.3 million sold off since the 1980s, part of a net loss of 2.2 million social rent homes in this country.
But statistics, of course, do not tell the whole story. Take Ed, who is in his 50s, came to my surgery. He is living in his car, trying to hold down a good job as a lorry driver, but not one good enough to be able to afford a home near his family in Taunton. Take Mary, who is sharing her bed with her teenage daughter, while her younger daughter shares the only other bedroom with her grandmother; or the young mum and baby who had all their belongings put on the pavement outside their hotel on a Saturday morning, when they were turned out with nowhere to go. These are the real casualties, and far too many of them are children.
Councils struggling with the rising costs of the care crisis and special educational needs system are often unable to devote the resources to homeless people that are needed. That is why the Liberal Democrats have, among other things, called first and foremost for a cross-Whitehall plan to end all forms of homelessness—an approach that co-ordinates action across Departments, ensuring that solutions are integrated, effective and comprehensive. The interministerial group recommended by the Select Committee would therefore need to take forward a homelessness strategy, which we urge the Government to deliver as soon as possible.
Secondly, a cornerstone of our approach must be a “somewhere safe to stay” legal duty, to ensure that anyone at risk of sleeping rough can have shelter. That would provide a realistic basis for restoring stability, rebuilding trust and giving people the support they need to move forward with their lives. That is something that the nearly 4,000 veterans found to be homeless in England particularly deserve, in addition to the decent homes standard for forces’ families, which we are delighted to be helping to bring into legislation in the Renters’ Rights Bill this week.
Thirdly, the Liberal Democrats would abolish the two-child benefit cap—something brought in by the Conservatives in 2017, once the coalition was no longer there to moderate their instincts. No child should bear the consequences of such an arbitrary financial restriction. Fourthly, those experiencing homelessness should be exempt the indignity of only being allowed the shared accommodation rate, because forcing vulnerable people into unsuitable sharing only exacerbates the risk of them returning to rough sleeping and undermines their security. Fifthly, councils must be empowered and properly funded to provide safe accommodation for survivors of domestic abuse, to ensure that escaping violence never has to mean making oneself homeless.
The housing support system is also failing those in need. The housing support allowance has not kept up with inflation and has not been increased for some years, leaving many unable to meet rent costs and at higher risk of homelessness. The Liberal Democrats would restore it to the 30th percentile of local rents and ensure that it was automatically uprated against that benchmark every year in future, so the support keeps pace with the reality of the housing market. That is a simple but vital reform, preventing families from slipping through the cracks simply because a policy has failed to keep up with rising costs.
Recent Government funding announcements have, of course, been welcome in principle, but they must be judged by their impact. The previous rough sleeping initiative was replaced by the rough sleeping prevention recovery grant, yet in Somerset this amounted to a 0% increase on 2024-25 levels, or a real-terms cut. That must not happen again. More fundamentally, local authorities must be equipped to deliver permanent accommodation, to integrate medical, social and emotional support, and to provide a permanent pathway out of homelessness, not merely a temporary respite, not least to escape the rip-off of hotels and private B&B landlords draining public funds from hard-working taxpayers.
Housing supply therefore remains crucial to this whole challenge. In Somerset, we urgently need more accommodation suitable for homeless people and more follow-on accommodation. That needs to be tackled by unlocking more council sites and speeding up delivery. Ultimately, it does need more funding. In parts of Somerset, such as Minehead, my Lib Dem colleagues are building the first new council houses there for a generation and have just announced another £40 million for more council houses. However, local young families deserve genuinely affordable council and social rent homes in far greater numbers. Liberal Democrats would therefore build 150,000 new social homes a year, and in our manifesto we included a £6 billion a year investment to get up to that level of delivery. For the generation locked out of home ownership, we want to see a generation of rent-to-own houses, where renters gain ownership after 30 years or can port their equity if they move sooner.
We have long called for a statutory target of 150,000 new social homes a year, so it is disappointing the Government propose only 20,000 social homes a year and are relying far too heavily on private developers to fix a crisis that is not in their remit. Liberal Democrats also propose an £8 million a year emergency upgrade programme to ensure that homes are safe, warm and energy efficient, tackling fuel poverty by cutting energy bills. Only by addressing housing and energy insecurity together can we prevent homelessness before it begins and support those already at risk.
Homelessness is preventable. It is a product of policy changes, neglect and underfunding. Councils like Somerset have just committed to an ambition to achieve 1,000 affordable homes a year, but what it and other councils need from the Government is support that is meaningful, sustained and accountable. Last year the Shared Health Foundation found that between 2019 and 2024, in just one Parliament, 74 children died in temporary accommodation. Not only that, but temporary accommodation was officially cited as a contributory factor in those deaths. I am sorry to say that 58 of those children who died were babies under the age of one. Let us ensure that this stops and that next winter does not see the tragic ending of the life of even one more rough sleeper, or one more family deprived of safety and stability. Liberal Democrats will fight to ensure that homelessness and poor housing are no longer a crisis but are consigned to the past, a chapter in Britain’s history, as William Beveridge intended.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and to take part in this debate about the progress on ending homelessness. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) both for securing this debate and for their opening remarks. I know that both those hon. Members have made combatting homelessness a central part of the force that drives them in Parliament. As we have heard, their excellent work as co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness has been solid, earnest and methodical, and has produced robust conclusions. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East in particular has made a demonstrable difference in this field, with his 2017 private Member’s Bill, which went on to become the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which I will refer to shortly.
I do not doubt that all Members gathered here today share a strong desire to end rough sleeping and homelessness for good. Homelessness is a social tragedy, wherever it occurs and for whatever reason. No one in our society should be forced to live on the streets, and it is incumbent on us all to do our best to ensure that constituents can live in a safe, decent and secure home. Although progress was made to that end under the previous Government, work remains to be done, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said in his opening speech. I offer my full support to the Government for their shared desire to end homelessness once and for all.
As policymakers have increasingly come to appreciate, homelessness does not simply begin at the point someone finds themselves on the street; rather, it is rooted in long-term causes, whether persistent issues with mental health or substance abuse, offenders stuck between prison and the streets, with no place to go, or young people in care leaving the system without a fixed destination. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and implemented by the previous Government, recognised that fact in law, placing an enhanced duty on local authorities to intervene at an early stage in an effort to prevent homelessness from occurring. Over 740,000 households have been prevented from becoming homeless or were supported into settled accommodation since the introduction of the 2017 Act—an achievement that should be acknowledged.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree said in their opening speeches, prevention must be at the heart of any national strategy for tackling homelessness, which is why I welcome the Government’s decision to continue the previous Administration’s approach of offering more effective support to prevent rough sleeping from happening in the first place. At the heart of the previous Administration’s approach was the rough sleeping initiative, which saw pioneering work across society between local authorities, voluntary organisations and healthcare providers to tailor support where homelessness occurs, meeting the individual needs of people facing homelessness and helping them to build an independent life once off the streets.
Ending rough sleeping for good will require a whole-Government and a whole-society effort to be achievable, which is why it is vital that there is a sense of purpose from the very highest levels of Government to drive change. Although the Government’s ambition to carry on this work is laudable, it is disappointing that the full cross-Government strategy for ending homelessness that they promised in their manifesto has yet to emerge, despite repeated promises from Ministers of its publication.
Commentators such as the Institute for Government have already warned that a lack of co-ordination between Government Departments is undermining progress when tackling homelessness, preventing public bodies from working together to be proactive and focus on the root causes of homelessness. The previous Government’s “Ending rough sleeping for good” strategy brought together seven Departments from across Government to that end. I fear that, without a similar statement of intent from the current Government, their approach to ending homelessness will fall short and fail those in need.
The consequences of the lack of clarity are already becoming clear, not least in the effects of the Government’s Renters’ Rights Bill on the housing market. Although Ministers and Labour Members continue to claim that that legislation will make it easier to find a home, the message from the private rented sector appears to be quite the opposite, with 41% of private landlords saying, at the end 2024, that they were planning to sell their properties. The Government’s proposals look set to cut supply in the private rented sector, which will in turn inevitably risk driving rents up and making it harder for people to find a rented home. That is exactly what we have seen in Scotland, where similar measures to what the Government are proposing were implemented in 2017.
In England, we have already seen a seven-year drop, with Savills reporting that the number of rental properties on its books dropped by 42% in quarter 1 of this year compared with the same period in 2024. That means 42% fewer homes available for families, less choice and more pressure on rents. That is not theoretical; it is happening now, and the Renters’ Rights Bill is accelerating that trend.
Of equal concern is what effect an increasing number of people who are unable to rent privately will have on the temporary accommodation provision. An accessible private sector is vital to providing the housing stock that reduces homelessness pressure. If the Government are serious about reducing the demands on local authorities for temporary accommodation, they need to do far more than simply announce stop-gap measures. That is especially pressing, as has been repeated during this debate, when 172,420 children in England are living in temporary housing, which is up 7.6% on this time last year.
Only by making a concerted effort to reduce the cost of living and make private housing more affordable will the Government get people out of temporary accommodation and into long-term secure homes of their own. Sadly, the signs on that front are not encouraging, and the same goes for the Government’s plans to deliver 1.5 million homes. The most recent estimates for additional net dwellings for 2024-25 show the Government on course to miss their house building target by more than 100,000 homes this year.
According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the latest spending review, which promised more funding for the affordable homes budget, is less generous than on first appearance, with funding hardly different from previous levels. I am sure hon. Members will agree that Britain desperately needs new affordable homes to ensure the long-term supply of housing for those currently without a place to call their own. That is why under the previous Government, 800,000 people bought their first home, through schemes such as Help to Buy and stamp duty relief.
Yet in the current economic climate, more social and affordable homes look increasingly difficult to deliver. Ending homelessness must not be simply an idealistic ambition, but a clearly defined goal, with policies set out to achieve it. None of that is possible without a clear vision of what steps need to be taken. I urge the Government finally to publish—
Gareth Bacon
With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, given that I have to allow time for the Minister and the two proposers to speak, I cannot give way.
I urge the Government to finally publish the strategy in full and provide much-needed clarity to the individuals and organisations on the frontline of tackling homelessness about how they plan to support them to do so. No amount of good intentions or Government interventions can compensate for the unaffordable economic reality facing those trying to find permanent housing. I further urge the Government to consider the long-term consequences of many of their housing policies. A private rented sector, where supply is driven out of the market by over-regulation and costs that continue to rise, can lead only to even more people being unable to find a secure place to live—a fate the Government must do everything they can to avoid.
I end my remarks by calling on the Minister to respond more quickly and effectively to ease the temporary accommodation issue, to work with local communities to supply good-quality homes for families, and to publish the homelessness strategy, which was promised more than a year ago.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
It is a pleasure to serve, as ever, under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for their excellent co-chairing of the all-party group and for bringing this business to the House today. I hope it can be reported back to the Backbench Business Committee that 17 Back Benchers contributed, that hon. Members across the House care deeply about this issue, and that it would be good to have more parliamentary time dedicated to this important subject.
It is clear from this debate that there is appetite across the House to get this right. The APPG’s recent report provides excellent food for thought, as we complete the homelessness strategy, and I am grateful for it. I am going to get into serious trouble, but I have checked my diary for 1 o’clock on 11 November and, as far as I can tell, I am free—my diary manager can hate me later, but I think that is a date. I look forward to spending more time discussing the homelessness strategy with colleagues in the all-party group.
I never fail to feel lucky when I get home to Rock Ferry, where I live, and shut the front door. I have seen the consequences of homelessness on enough people in my life to know the fear it brings. Hon. Members in all parts of the House, as we have heard, care deeply that the Government have a plan to bring down levels of homelessness. I am hopeful that we can all work together on that. In opposition, it took me the best part of a decade to get a small number of new homes built in a derelict part of my constituency. That was not good enough. Things have to change. We can all see the number of people sleeping rough on our streets growing. The last annual count of people sleeping rough, which many have mentioned, was two and a half times higher than it was in 2010. It is not good enough. It has to change.
There is even more homelessness that we cannot see: the record number of people in temporary accommodation. It has been heartening recently to see a small amount of progress in our efforts to reduce the number of families and children in B&B accommodation, with the latest stats showing a drop—but I cannot say anything other than the facts: children living in B&B accommodation has to be brought to an end. Even if we have seen a small drop, it is not yet good enough.
That is why earlier this month the Government announced £84 million additional funding this year for homelessness and rough sleeping, bringing our total investment to record levels—more than £1 billion, and an increase of £316 million on the previous year. Our spending includes more than £644 million for the homelessness prevention grant, and more than £255 million for the rough sleeping prevention and recovery grant. That is a big investment, but, as Members have mentioned, we need a whole-of-Government approach. I will cover that in a moment. but I must also make the point that we will decriminalise rough sleeping by repealing the antiquated Vagrancy Act 1824.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Throughout this debate the issue of community has been raised repeatedly. A challenge we face in my constituency is the fact that local authorities in other parts of the country often discharge their homelessness duty by packing families into taxis at short notice and moving them hundreds of miles to places where they have no connection with the community. That is bad for the individuals and bad for the communities such as Hartlepool. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we have to end that practice in order to solve homelessness effectively?
Alison McGovern
That question was raised in the debate, as my hon. Friend rightly says. We are keeping the homelessness code of guidance under review, which includes the issue of out-of-area placements. I am particularly concerned about disruption to children’s education; if any Member wanted to give me specific examples that can feed into the homelessness strategy and demonstrate what is wrong, I would welcome that. I hope that also answers the questions raised about reviewing the guidance.
Separately from the funding that I just mentioned, we are also providing a huge investment in the local authority housing fund, which is there for councils to buy better accommodation and stop using expensive bed and breakfast hotels. That funding, we think, can get us up to 5,000 extra homes. Councils need funding certainty and flexibility to provide appropriate support to those who need it, which is why this Government are providing the first multi-year funding settlement in a decade. We are simplifying our approach to funding local government so that it can work flexibly to deliver on our shared priorities and make sure that people who need accommodation and support get it.
Numerous colleagues asked about multi-year funding. It is absolutely crucial, which is why we are providing it to councils, and I will work with organisations to make sure that we get more stability in the system. Those are the things that are happening already, but I know we have to go further. Later this year we will publish our long-term homelessness strategy.
My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), did a great amount of work, on which I will build. We have heard from colleagues that there is a deep understanding of the importance of prevention, so I want to get this done as quickly as possible. We need to get that strategy out of the door and into the action and delivery phase. I say to colleagues, “Work with me to make sure we can get it done as quickly as possible.”
A couple of colleagues asked about the inter-ministerial group. I have already spoken to some ministerial colleagues on that group. We will meet formally very shortly, and I am sure those meetings will keep going—as colleagues have said—under the chairship of the Secretary of State. There are areas, including the strategy to reduce violence against women and girls, the child poverty strategy and our house building goal, where that homelessness strategy will need to connect with the other bits of work that the Government are doing. I am very seized of that. Colleagues will know that I spent some significant time working on the child poverty strategy, so I feel able to hit the ground running and work with my colleagues, the Safeguarding Minister, the Housing Minister and Health Ministers, to make sure that we get this done in a good way and as quickly as possible.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to her place. Part of what she mentioned is subject to the ongoing fair funding review, and the index of multiple deprivation is part of that. Alongside a number of London colleagues, I would like that to fully reflect housing costs and the impact of homelessness. Once housing costs are factored in, London has the highest rate of poverty in the country, with one in four households in poverty. Some good movement has been made on the positive indication of the income domain, but currently the fair funding review would give the same weightings to homelessness as to distance from a post office. Would the Minister meet with me and others—and I know that she has offered time later—to discuss that and to ensure that the formula reflects the cost of housing in London?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am sure I will be meeting a lot of hon. Members regarding the fair funding review—he should not worry about that. I hear the point he makes about the indices of multiple deprivation, and we will have more to say about it very shortly. I know the situation in London only too well from my work over the past year. It is important to make sure that children in London do not grow up in poverty. The strategy we will publish on homelessness will get to the heart of the problem, with more homes incorporating all the work that we have done to change planning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) mentioned planning officers. It is crucially important to get investment there so that we get those homes built. We also need to bring the Renters’ Rights Bill into effect, so that we can abolish section 21 evictions and prevent private renters from being exploited and discriminated against. The hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) mentioned the effect of regulation; I wonder if he would support any regulation, because of the argument that we might reduce supply. Nobody wants over-regulation, but are we really saying that renters in this country are not vulnerable and in need of more protection? Most people think that is not right. I will work with him to make sure that we do all we can to get it right, but we have got to take a balanced approach.
Josh Babarinde
I will be quick. I want to repeat my questions from earlier on the subject of regulation. I asked earlier what the timeline was for out-of-area placement review, whether the Minister would meet me and Eastbourne borough council to discuss it, and whether she will urge Brighton and Hove city council to step up with their responsibilities. Can the Minister address those questions?
Alison McGovern
I did mention keeping the matter under review and, as I said, I am sure that we can meet to discuss it.
Prevention must be at the heart of our strategy. We heard that from the APPG’s report and I agree with it. That is why we are making record investment into prevention services and why the spending review protected that funding for the next three years. We have done work on top of that to increase it, because it is so important and such a crisis at the moment. As hon. Members have said, however, sometimes housing alone is not enough to tackle homelessness; people need support that is appropriate for their needs to sustain that accommodation. For some people, that means supported housing. Good-quality supported housing can prevent further cycles of homelessness and help people to get back on their feet.
I know that we have more to do to make sure that the supported housing system is functioning properly, and we are not stuck with some of the problems that the hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned. We are acting to implement the measures in the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023. We consulted on locally-led licensing and new national supported housing standards for support and changes to housing benefit, and we will publish our report as soon as possible. I look forward to discussing that further—on 11 November, if not before.
We will press forward with the duty for local authorities to produce supported housing strategies, and guidance will come early next year. These strategies will help local authorities to understand how much and what type of supported housing they have, and identify where their unmet need is. A couple of Members correctly mentioned support for victims of domestic abuse and refuge providers. We want to take action on that; I have spoken to the Minister for Safeguarding and we anticipate working together on it.
We know that we cannot fix the housing crisis overnight, and that we have to act now to support people who are facing the worst forms of homelessness. That is why we are ensuring that people in temporary accommodation today are in accommodation that is suitable for their needs. I say again that we still have the underlying causes of homelessness—not enough homes and insufficient incomes—and a real crisis in rough sleeping and long-term rough sleeping, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree. I agree that this is a desperate situation that needs attention through the strategy.
Coming into this role, I have been utterly shocked by the situation regarding the use of B&Bs and our children. That is why we are working with the 20 local authorities with the highest level of bed and breakfast use for homeless families to identify solutions that actually work for their local circumstances. Backed by £8 million-worth of funding, the emergency accommodation reduction pilots will kick-start new initiatives to try to find the best possible way to get families into better accommodation. Whether through local authorities expanding what they are able to provide because of the investment we are giving, or preventing the use of B&Bs in the first place, we are working hard to try to make that happen.
I will finish there, as we will have more opportunities to discuss this issue. I welcome the involvement of all colleagues, and I stand ready to work with everybody on it. The Government inherited a crisis. We have tried to make some progress quickly, and I hope that colleagues will see that I have wasted no time in getting more money to local authorities to help now, while we complete the strategy. In the end, the long-term approach is what we need. I thank again my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree and the hon. Member for Harrow East for securing this debate and setting out that case.
I look forward to working with all Members in this House on our shared goals. No one in this House can be comfortable while our fellow citizens experience such discomfort. None of us believes that our future is secure while our children live in poverty. I do not think that anybody who has taken part in this debate will rest until those injustices are brought to an end.
Bob Blackman
I thank the Minister for her response, and I thank Members for, by my reckoning,18 speeches and four interventions, which demonstrate the importance of this debate. Through the Everyone In programme, we proved during covid that it is possible to solve homelessness and rough sleeping. Unfortunately, that programme was not built on afterwards to end rough sleeping.
Given some of the things that Members have added to the debate, I point out that the law exists to prevent local authorities from pushing homeless people far away from their homes, particularly if they have children or jobs. The law is in place; what is needed now is a coherent cross-Government strategy to combat homelessness, so that we can end it once and for all.
I thank you, Mr Efford, for your chairmanship, and I apologise to colleagues who were short-changed in terms of time. That demonstrates the importance of this debate, and how we need to have another debate on the issue in the near future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered progress on ending homelessness.
Electricity Infrastructure: Rural Communities
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of electricity infrastructure on rural communities.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I am delighted to have secured this important debate, as it is an issue that affects many communities across our United Kingdom. However, it particularly affects the Scottish Borders and other parts of Scotland, such as the highlands. Frankly, the Borders are being inundated with plans for new energy infrastructure: wind farms, solar farms, battery energy storage units and mega-pylons.
This weekend, I joined other concerned local residents on Lauder Common, near Threepwood. It is a beautiful part of the Scottish Borders, an area of unspoilt landscapes and natural habitats that Scottish Power Energy Networks plans to destroy with a new electricity substation linking giant mega-pylons.
From a vantage point on the southern upland way, we were able to look over the award-winning Threepwood Moss, a special area of conservation and home to curlews. Threepwood Moss is at risk from major construction works for the new electricity substation, a battery energy storage system and a nearby solar farm.
The total site will cover approximately 24 hectares, which is equivalent to around 40 football pitches. This is at the heart of what is called the cross-border connection, which would see more than 75 km of overhead lines installed across the Scottish Borders, looping through the new substation near Lauder—called Gala North by Scottish Power Energy Networks, which I will call SPEN for the rest of this debate—and down to a second proposed substation south of Newcastleton.
Several hon. Members rose—
John Lamont
I will take interventions, but I will make a little more progress. Patience, colleagues!
It means giant mega-pylons running through communities and landscapes across the Scottish Borders. We all understand the need for a modern, resilient electricity network, but there must be a balance. It must be done in a coherent and organised way that does not come at the expense of our rural environment or the wellbeing of our communities. This project is deeply unpopular with local people and will do huge damage.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that it seems strange that the proposed grid upgrade in Scotland does not take into account the future of nuclear power which we understand will be developed right across the UK?
John Lamont
I share the hon. Member’s concerns, and I will come on to nuclear a little later.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
In my constituency, pylon proposals are causing huge distress among our rural communities. They will not bring any real benefit to those communities. In fact, developers often bypass the rights of landowners, and the proposed developments will ruin our beautiful landscape. Does the hon. Member agree that electricity infrastructure anywhere must be done with communities, not to them?
John Lamont
The hon. Member makes an excellent point about taking communities with us. We all accept, I believe, the need to invest in our electricity infrastructure, but it must be done in a coherent way that takes local communities with us.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
Would the hon. Member agree that transmission line operators should consider the impact on local communities by leaving legacy housing, employing graduate apprentices from the area and not swamping local villages with workers’ camps?
John Lamont
The hon. Member makes a key point, which I will come to later, that often these projects generate many jobs while the developments are being constructed, but the jobs disappear as soon as they are finished. That is unlike nuclear power, which the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) mentioned, with 300 jobs in Berwickshire alone directly connected to Torness power station. Those are permanent jobs, for people living and working in the local communities. We do not get the same employment opportunities with some of the current proposals for energy infrastructure.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention resilience and modern technology. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union. The National Farmers Union and the UFU have indicated that infrastructure needs to be upgraded to ensure that whenever storms come, there will not be loss of electricity or broadband outages. Does he agree that we must ensure the livelihoods of our rural constituents and their businesses when we look to the future?
John Lamont
The hon. Member makes a key point about the need to invest in the electricity network, but it needs to be done in a coherent and organised way with buy-in from the local communities. That is what is lacking dreadfully with some of the proposals.
I will make some progress. The issues are clear. First, the proximity of pylons to people’s homes will impact their quality of life and the visual amenity of their community. Secondly, our countryside will be scarred, damaging tourism and leaving businesses that are already badly suffering out of pocket. It will also damage our environment and natural habitats. Agricultural land will be damaged or lost, impacting farms, reducing the amount of produce made in the Borders and harming our drive for food security. We are not saying that we do not want any energy infrastructure—we already have a lot in the Borders. It is about finding the right solution that protects our rural communities.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. Although he is speaking about the Borders, we are seeing something similar in the north-east. We have a huge amount of energy infrastructure across our region, whether that be pylons, batteries or substations, and the communities feel like things are being done to them. Our agricultural land is vanishing. Housing are having substations put right outside—I have heard from one household who have a substation right outside their child’s front window. There is no planning or organisation. Things are being imposed on communities who have very little say. The ways in which consultations are done are not up to scratch. It seems that there is nothing communities can do to have a say and actually be heard.
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is demonstrating what a doughty campaigner she is for her constituents in the north-east of Scotland. I agree with everything she has said, and I will develop some of those points.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
We have a similar issue in the west midlands, although it is not entirely a rural area. On the edge of Birmingham in my constituency, battery energy storage systems are being imposed upon local communities. What was green belt is now being defined as grey belt. Local communities feel that they get all the pain and no gain, and they have no say at all. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for the Government to sit down and have a real rethink?
John Lamont
My right hon. Friend is right. She has consistently raised this issue in the Commons, and I know how passionately she feels about it on behalf of her constituents. I will come on to battery storage shortly.
It is important that alternatives are considered. For example, rather than overhead cables, why is underground cabling not being considered? That proposal has been simply dismissed on cost. [Interruption.] I have a lot of time for the Minister, but he is dismissing these concerns out of hand. He is laughing and scoffing. These are real concerns that my constituents feel passionately about. I would be grateful if he showed the same respect that I give to him for the concerns that I am raising on behalf of the people of the Scottish Borders, the highlands and the north-east of Scotland. These concerns are legitimate and I would be grateful if he treated them as such.
The proposals for underground cabling have been dismissed by ScottishPower Energy Networks on cost grounds alone. It may be more expensive for the developer, but what is the cost of destroying our natural environment forever? Rather than using the route through the Scottish Borders, why can we not use the route of the existing cross-border electricity infrastructure following the M74 motorway and railway corridor?
Throughout the process, SPEN has not listened to our local communities in the way we would have hoped. It is another example of decision makers in cities with little regard for the people and landscapes affected. I have organised a number of extremely well-attended public meetings about the cross-border connection and some of the other infrastructure projects being proposed. We have set up the Action Against Pylons: Scottish Borders Alliance, a voluntary coalition of 10 independent community action groups made up of people who live along the proposed route of the pylons and the other infrastructure projects being imposed on us—the people whose lives are going to be made a misery if this project goes ahead. Local people are coming together to fight the plans: there are too many people to mention, but I wish to pay tribute to a few of them. Edward Kellow and Rosi Lister put in many hours of hard work to get the group up and running. Campaigners such as Rory Steel and local councillors Leagh Douglas and Julie Pirone have done much to raise public awareness, alongside many others. As a group, we invited SPEN and representatives of the Scottish Government to walk the proposed route of the pylons, to come and see the landscape and communities that will be most impacted by their plans, and to hear the concerns of local residents. It was a perfectly reasonable request but they refused. It seems that the people who live in the areas most affected are secondary to SPEN’s plans.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for securing the debate. I gently remind him that there is an alternative to opposition: participation. In the Western Isles we have the highest level of community-owned wind farms in Britain: 22 MW, alleviating fuel poverty and powering community economics. Our council is ready to take a 20% stake in two big wind farms, leaving the local authority—one of the smallest local authorities in Britain—in charge of 89 MW of power on an island chain with a daily demand of 39 MW. Do the maths: the communities benefit. GB Energy has been set up with substantial sums for community involvement and I ask the hon. Member to consider what my island community and communities across the highlands and rural areas have done: buy in, participate and have a share. People might object to the pylons going past them, but they really object to the profits going past them. By having community participation, and a community share, we can make sure that communities benefit.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
This is a half-hour debate, so interventions should be shorter than that.
John Lamont
The Borders already has a significant number of electricity infrastructure projects, including wind farms and battery storage plants that have already been developed. Some are community owned—Berwickshire Housing Association co-owns a wind farm—but it has gone too far. Many people who previously supported those types of projects feel that we have our fair share. We are now tipping the balance into changing the Borders beyond recognition. That is why people who previously consented to such projects now say, “Enough is enough.”
It is about not just the size and scale of the pylons, but the connected electricity infrastructure that comes on the back of the pylons, with the new substations and new projects rushing to get a connection to the upgraded power supply. Barely a week goes by without a new planning application: wind turbines, solar farms, battery energy storage units, data centres. The borders have been expected to take a disproportionate burden in the transition to net zero. As we have heard in this debate, other rural communities across the UK feel much the same. There will be those who say that we need to suck it up. Take for example the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), who said he would happily live next to an electricity pylon or a wind turbine. That is very easy to say for someone who lives in north London; it is an entirely different matter for someone who lives in the countryside.
There is a hidden impact of the new electricity infrastructure too. Last week, we heard that data centres in Scotland powering artificial intelligence are using enough water to fill 27 million half-litre bottles of water a year—a shocking statistic. It is made all the more shocking when we discover that it is our precious tap water that is being used. According to Scottish Water, the demand is growing. There is also the agricultural land that is lost to those projects. Rather than filling productive agricultural land with solar panels, why not adopt a rooftop-first approach to protect our farmland and greenfield sites while maximising existing infrastructure?
Community consent and local democracy are vital, and I am afraid that my constituents too often feel that these projects are simply a done deal—that the projects are being done to them rather than with them, without meaningful and constructive engagement between the developer and local communities. We feel that SPEN and other developers will go through the motions of a consultation but ultimately know that they will get their own way because they are pursuing Government policy objectives. That attitude was evidenced when the Information Commissioner’s Office recently ruled that SPEN appears to be seeking to “obfuscate” concerns about major power projects. That is totally unacceptable.
We live in a democracy, and people are supposed to have a say on what happens in their community. We have an alarming situation in which many local residents are saying no and elected councillors are objecting, but the local council is powerless. Members of the Scottish Parliament are saying “Enough is enough,” but the SNP Government will not engage. Members of this Parliament are pressing the alarm bell, but the Labour Government say that it is nothing to do with them, which is utter nonsense.
We live in the United Kingdom, and we should respect local decision making. We do not live in China, but it increasingly feels like that. Whatever the Government want is bulldozed through regardless of local opinion or the impact on our environment, habitats or landscapes. That is not how we do things in this country. My concerns centre not only on the projects affecting the Scottish Borders; they are about the lack of co-ordination and cumulative impact assessments.
I have already highlighted the concerns about the cross-border connection and the process used for that. Separately, there is a rush to get connections to the new, high-voltage power line, which is what is generating the applications for battery storage sites, solar farms, wind farms and data centres. Where is the National Energy System Operator in all this? It should be dictating how many connections it will permit, as well as looking at the cumulative impact of those projects, but it is not. The situation has become a free-for-all, and both the SNP and Labour Governments seem happy to sit back and watch the chaos unfold. Who pays the price? Communities and the environment, such as those in the Scottish Borders.
It is not just people in the Borders who have been left dismayed by the way SPEN has behaved. In the highlands, my Scottish Parliament colleague Douglas Ross MSP and Highland councillor Helen Crawford have been leading the battle, and I am pleased they have joined us in the Gallery today. Councillor Crawford organised two conventions with community councils to issue a unified statement on the importance of local democracy to new energy infrastructure. That was backed by politicians from the Scottish Conservatives, Labour, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and independents—strong, cross-party backing—because the issue is above party politics, and because people deserve a real say in what happens in their community.
In the highlands, local communities are grappling with more than 1,300 major electricity infrastructure projects. Despite these concerns, the Scottish Government refuse to engage or meet local residents. I have a letter from Gillian Martin MSP, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, in which she refuses to meet the affected residents, hiding behind the ministerial code.
This summer, I visited Torness power station. Some might call it a blot on the landscape, but it has been there for decades, generating vast amounts of electricity. It is a key source of high-quality jobs and an essential part of the energy network. Many of my constituents work there, as have generations of their families. Nuclear power is cleaner and greener than most alternatives. Frankly, it is the best way to produce more renewable energy while protecting our environment. Nuclear energy uses 3,000 times less land than wind does, and it can safely and reliably produce far more power than other alternatives. However, unbelievably, the SNP Government in Scotland have an ideological obsession against any form of nuclear-generated power. That means that in a few years’ time, Torness will close, jobs will be lost and our energy security will be weakened.
We should be increasing the use of nuclear power, not pursuing developments that will ruin our countryside and communities. New electricity infrastructure simply does not provide jobs and opportunities in the same way. Yes, jobs are created while the projects are built—although often for those outside the area—but then they disappear. The developers pack up and local communities pay the price for generations to come.
The issue matters to my community and to millions of people across the United Kingdom who are affected by new electricity infrastructure. Some of the most beautiful parts of our great country are at risk of permanent destruction. It is nonsensical for anyone to say that they want to protect our natural world while they simultaneously destroy it. We need a better deal for our rural communities when it comes to new energy infrastructure. The Government should urgently look at how developers engage with local people, consider options such as underground cables to protect our environment, and consider alternatives such as investing in nuclear, which is one of the most underused energy resources. If we do not do that, our rural communities will pay the price for generations to come.
I have one ask of the Minister today: will he meet me in the Scottish Borders, together with local residents who are raising concerns about this, so that he can see and hear at first hand what is at stake?
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for securing this debate. I have a huge amount of respect for him. He and I sparred at Scotland Office questions when we faced each other from different places in the Chamber. I genuinely take these issues seriously. In his list of quotes, I do not think he will find one in which I have dismissed community concerns. I have said repeatedly in Parliament that I take community concerns seriously, and I have met MPs from across the House to talk about these issues. I have probably had more meetings on these issues than previous Ministers have, so I do take them seriously, but they have to be balanced with ensuring that we are building infrastructure for the country’s future. That balance is difficult, and I will get into that throughout my speech, but I challenge the idea that I do not take these issues seriously, or that I do not respect his constituents’ views, because I do.
I will start with two points on which we agree, and then go on to answer some of the hon. Gentleman’s specific points. First, and most importantly, I will pick up on the point that he and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) made about the role of nuclear, which we should not forget has a hugely important role in our future energy mix. We are extremely ambitious about the role of nuclear and have announced funding for projects across the UK, but unfortunately not in Scotland at this stage. I genuinely hope that position changes soon, because there is huge potential.
A few weeks ago, I visited Torness nuclear power station, which the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk mentioned. I met the workforce, some of whom have been working there for decades. It is long-term, good, well-paid employment, and there is an opportunity on that site to look at the future of new modular reactors. I hope we will have that opportunity, but the SNP Government block us from even considering sites in Scotland at the moment. I hope that will change.
Jamie Stone
Is that not ridiculous, given that at Dounreay we have a skilled workforce, a fully licensed site and a local population that would warmly support new nuclear?
Michael Shanks
It is entirely ridiculous; the hon. Member is absolutely right. The thing about nuclear is that it often builds communities around it that respect the role it plays in the energy mix. Generations of people have worked at these power stations—they often start as apprentices and are still there decades later—so we do not disagree on that point. We should be building nuclear in Scotland, and I hope the SNP either loses in May so that we can change the position, or that the SNP changes its position. There are no SNP Members here today to answer that point.
The second point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk is the role of rooftop solar. We will be saying much more about that, but in the solar road map, we are clear that we should be building on every rooftop possible. It is a no-brainer, and there is support right across the country for it. Wherever we can put solar panels on rooftops—warehouses, car parks, supermarkets and so on—we should. That is why, in England, we have been funding schools and hospitals to do so. We would have liked to do it in Scotland as well, but once again the Scottish Government did not want to partner with us on that project, so it is for them to take that forward.
I will now reflect on what we are trying to achieve, because it is important not to forget the overall ambition for where our energy system needs to be. Every piece of infrastructure that we build across the country, whether it is wind turbines, solar panels or network infrastructure, is critical to protecting this country from future price spikes, like those that have hit households so much.
However, on infrastructure and the network in particular, there is a wider question about decades of under-investment in our grid, which has been holding back not just our energy system from working as we would want but economic growth. I gently challenge the hon. Gentleman’s points on AI and data centres. I understand the challenge they present, but they are also a huge economic opportunity. Right across the country, we are seeing good economic growth prospects being closed down because we do not have the grid connections that would allow them to be switched on. They are going to other countries as a result, so we need to fix this issue.
Delivering any infrastructure, whether it is energy, prisons or hospitals, involves tough choices, trade-offs and local impacts. That is precisely why we have a robust planning system. It is not a cop-out to say that I am not responsible for planning decisions in Scotland, and the hon. Gentleman knows that. It is for the Scottish Government to answer for the planning and consenting decisions they have made in Scotland, but every individual project is assessed independently and fairly through the Scottish planning system for proposals in Scotland.
If there are specific points about consultations not being done effectively, I am very happy to receive correspondence on that from the hon. Gentleman. It is for the Scottish Government, as part of their planning process, to follow that through, but I am happy to facilitate the exchange of that information.
Michael Shanks
I will just finish this point, as I have very brief time. It is right that the consultation is genuine and that people have a voice in what happens. I will give way very briefly, but I have only four minutes.
Mike Martin
In Wales, companies such as Bute Energy and Green GEN Cymru, which are both owned by Windward Energy Ltd, are prompting local concerns that the rules separating electricity generation and distribution are being undermined by corporate restructuring tricks. Is the Minister confident that Ofgem’s rules will deliver operational independence?
Michael Shanks
I am, and I am always happy to have more conversations with Ofgem about its regulatory role. If the hon. Gentleman has specific things he wants to raise, I am happy to follow up. I will not give way again, as we have very short time.
While it is absolutely right that communities should have a voice in this, should be able to scrutinise planning applications, should be able to object and should be able to understand how those objections affect the proposals, it is also right that we recognise as a country that we have to build infrastructure and that it has to be built somewhere. That is vital for our energy security and for the future of our country.
The grid has suffered from decades of under-investment. The legacy means we are constraining the amount of cheap, clean power we have in our system. Upgrading and expanding the electricity grid is not optional. The reason I challenge some of what the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk said earlier is because a number of his proposals were not in the previous Government’s plan for the future of the energy grid. It was the previous Government who said that we need a great British grid upgrade, and they outlined many of the plans that are now being delivered across the country. Undergrounding was not a feature of those plans either.
It is critical that our current grid, which was largely built in the 1960s and was not designed to handle the type of power generation or electricity demand we have now, is upgraded. In 2023, the previous Government estimated that four times as much transmission infrastructure would need to be built by the end of the decade as had been built by 1990. This is not a Labour Government plan; it is the previous Conservative Government’s plan.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the role of NESO, and I want to reflect on the point that he and other hon. Members rightly make that strategically planning the future of our energy system has been a significant failure. The truth is that decades ago, under the previous Labour and Conservative Governments, we should have more holistically planned the future of our energy system to make sure we get the most out of it, and to make sure that we are building the least possible amount of network infrastructure. That work was not done, so NESO is now leading the strategic spatial energy plan to make sure that, across the country, we have a holistic view of what our future energy system should look like.
Michael Shanks
I will not give way; sorry.
That will also include a centralised network plan so that we have a network that fits generation across the country, and so that we build as little as possible while still getting the most out of the energy system.
In the minute or two I have left, I want to say that we recognise the point about community benefits. Because of the network infrastructure, electricity is flowing through communities that do not necessarily understand the benefit they get from it. First, cheaper power in the system brings down everyone’s bills, so it is in all of our interest. Secondly, we have recognised the problem, which is why we have introduced community benefits for households directly affected by transmission infrastructure—the first time we have done that as a country. There is money off bills for people who have infrastructure in their locality, and there are also community benefits for substations and other infrastructure. That is currently commonplace for onshore wind and solar, but not for network infrastructure. We want to change that so there is a direct benefit from this infrastructure.
We need to be honest about the scale of the challenge we face as a country. We cannot meet future electricity demand without building grid infrastructure. I am sorry to say that means it has to be built somewhere. There is no magical third place where we can build infrastructure. We want to work with communities to make sure it is done with them, wherever possible, and so they benefit from it, but ultimately the whole country benefits when we have a functioning grid that delivers cheap, clean, secure electricity to people’s homes and businesses.
I have 20 seconds left, but I am very happy to meet the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, as I am genuinely happy to meet Members on both sides of the House. It is important that we do this with communities. I want to hear their concerns and questions. That does not mean it will always be possible to do exactly what every community wants, but I am happy to have those conversations. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk for securing this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Co-operative Sector: Government Support
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
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for the co-operative sector.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, in this important debate. I pay tribute to those leading this great movement in our co-operative societies, our mutuals and the Co-operative party, of which I am proud to be the chair. My thanks go to the national executive committee and to our general secretary, Joe Fortune, and his team for their tireless work in growing and strengthening co-operation across the United Kingdom.
This year, as we mark the UN International Year of Co-operatives, it is fitting to reflect on the difference that co-operation makes, and the extraordinary opportunities available to us. The roots of our movement run deep, back to 1844 and the Rochdale pioneers: 27 working people who, through solidarity, challenged exploitation and built something that was lasting. Their values of open membership, democratic control, member participation, autonomy and education all remain a living framework for economic democracy today. If their call to give working people power and a voice was important then, I think we can all agree that that call is ever more urgent today.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend will know, the co-operative movement is a pillar of ethical business in Britain—owned by its members, rooted in its communities and committed to fairness. It includes the multiple Co-op stores that we have in Beckenham and Penge, which not only provide good jobs and affordable food but reinvest in local causes. Does he agree that it is important that we champion and expand co-operatives as part of building a fairer, more democratic economy?
Jim McMahon
I think a lot of people in Britain feel as though it does not matter what they do, how hard they work or how big their contribution is; they are just not able to make ends meet or get on in life. The communities where they live have been incrementally eroded and hollowed out, and they do not feel like they are getting on and doing well.
The founding principle, if we take ourselves back to Rochdale and towns like Oldham, where this is part of our heritage, history and identity, was a sense that if we build something together, we share the dividend that comes from it—that we redistribute the value that we create in order to build an even stronger community. I think we observe a country and economy where the wealth that we create is taken off to foreign lands and international investors more than it is reinvested back in the local community. Co-operation is of course about power, but it is also about place and identity, and the co-operative movement is central to that.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend kindly mentioned Rochdale and its proud history in 1844 of the Rochdale pioneers founding this global movement for social justice. It is still a movement that is alive and kicking today. It is not a relic, as is evidenced by the Metro Moneywise credit union, which celebrated its 35th anniversary last week in a town hall ceremony in Rochdale at which I was pleased to be present. Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important point is that the Labour party has agreed to double the size of the co-operative economy, and that the whole of Government needs to get stuck in to achieve that—not just the Treasury, and not just the brilliant new unit in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the co-operative development unit, but every part of Government?
Jim McMahon
If it is to work, the whole of Government has to own this agenda. It is important that the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade take a leading role, and of course, the community anchor in the MHCLG is important too, but the truth is that communities function in a dynamic way, and every bit of Government across health and social care, education and our school system, and everything else that Government have oversight of, comes into play. I absolutely agree that if we want to double the size of the co-operative economy, and for that to be felt in every part of the country, the whole of Government has to own that agenda.
Across Britain, too many people feel that the economy no longer works for them—that decisions that shape their lives are made far away by investors they will never meet and for reasons they do not agree with. We see the results in hollowed-out high streets, in local businesses that are bought and closed by distant investors, and in a growing sense of powerlessness. If we want to rebuild trust in politics, we must rebuild trust in the economy alongside it. That means giving people real ownership and control over the businesses that shape their lives, because ownership matters; that is exactly why those with wealth fight to keep it. We want more people to benefit and to have a stake in the future.
The good news is that the UK’s co-operative economy is thriving. Today there are 7,400 co-operatives, with 16.6 million members, and 240,000 employees working hard in their communities. Together they span retail, housing and agriculture, and beyond that, of course, social enterprise, creating decent jobs and trying to provide food and shelter for millions of people in this country.
Going further, our 42 building societies, owned by their 27 million members, contribute £7.2 billion to the UK economy. They account for nearly a third of UK mortgages and maintain over a third of all bank branches. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) said, our credit unions serve their 2.3 million members and hold nearly £5 billion in assets. Do people know that there are more members of building societies and credit unions than there are people who voted in the last general election? This is not a fringe part of the economy; it is absolutely foundational.
After years without a mutual bank presence on the high street, the recent acquisitions of Virgin Money by Nationwide and of the Co-operative bank by Coventry building society mark a welcome return of mutual principles to mainstream banking on the high street. Employee ownership is rising, too, from 600 employee-owned firms in 2020 to 2,500 today. That shows what happens when Government action aligns with co-operative values: co-operatives are more likely to grow and more likely to survive.
However, despite our proud history, the UK now lags behind other countries. If we are to fulfil our potential, the Government must create an environment that enables co-operatives to thrive.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend knows that for many years I worked in co-operative development, including running co-operatives in Yorkshire and the Humber. To start new co-operatives, particularly co-operative legal forms, is a complex business. Under the last Labour Government, there was a significant level of support on the ground for co-operatives: the co-operative enterprise hub; Business Link had social enterprise units; and other forms of support. Does he agree that we need to try to establish new forms of co-operative support on the ground for people who want to start and develop new co-operatives?
Jim McMahon
The fact is that those of us who believe in co-operatives as a movement and as a principle get it, but we can be quite selfish about it, and we quite enjoy co-operatives and mutuals being the best-kept secret in the UK economy. Well, I am sick and tired of their being a secret and I want them to be mainstream. When somebody is setting up a business in this country, I want them to look at co-operatives and say, “That is the obvious choice for us and for our community.” I do not want co-operatives to be a sideline any more.
That is why co-operative development agencies and the whole of Government approach are important. It is also why education, access to finance, the surrounding legislation and, of course, creating a level playing field so that co-operatives can thrive are all important, too. We need to mainstream the idea of co-operatives and spread it out. If we do that, the economy will benefit even more, because co-operatives are more resilient and survive longer than many other businesses, and they return more to the UK economy, which can be reinvested in the community.
The barriers to co-operatives are well known; my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) touched on some of them in his intervention. There is difficulty in accessing finance; obviously, there are issues around equity investment and the barriers that exist there. There is an outdated and fragmented legal framework, and there is limited awareness of co-operatives among banks, businesses and advisers, and even in Government itself.
So, I would be grateful if the Minister, when he responds to the debate, could update us on Government plans: first, to progress the Mutual and Co-operative Sector Business Council; secondly, to work to improve access to finance for co-operatives; thirdly, the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s review of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014; and finally, the plan to establish the co-operative development agency within Government.
Beyond that, on building societies and credit unions, we need action on the Building Societies Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill, on fair limits for individual savings accounts or ISAs, and on reforming the common bond, so that more people can join building societies and credit unions.
On community ownership, we need clarity about the future of the Community Ownership Fund, so that local people can secure the assets that matter to them the most. On housing, co-operative models must play their part in delivering the Government’s promised ambition for 1.5 million new homes by providing homes that people do not just live in, but have a stake in. On agriculture, we should recognise that food security is national security, and support co-operation among farmers in the same way as the US Government do. This is about delivering a level playing field and doing what is needed to deliver on Labour’s pledge to double the size of the sector. Growth is critical, but growth must be shared by everyone who contributes, in every community across the country.
The co-operative model was born when ordinary people said that enough was enough, chose to build something better for themselves and their community, and recognised the benefit of the shared dividend that would follow. That same spirit of collective action is exactly what our country needs again. Last week, alongside Joe Fortune from the Co-operative party and Paul Gerrard from the Co-operative Group, I joined the Co-operative Group’s national members’ council in Manchester, chaired by Denise Scott-McDonald. The sense of purpose, partnership and hope was absolutely inspiring. People across the country want to do more to collaborate and to create new enterprises, not because it is fashionable but because it is instinctive to them. Let us make this the decade when co-operation again becomes a defining force in rebuilding Britain from the bottom up: politics done with people, as it always should be.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) for securing this debate. The hon. Gentleman is right that co-operatives are incredibly important, including in Northern Ireland. I will give some examples from my constituency.
I am sold on the co-operative idea because it brings opportunity to those who might not have such opportunity in normal life, and it is really important that we do that. The co-operative sector is of course deeply rooted in local community and aims to reinvest in local services, to support goals and to help people elevate themselves from where they are to better, and because of that we should encourage it in every way that we can. I look forward to giving the local perspective from my constituents on how the co-operative sector goes above and beyond to help and train local people.
Our co-operative sector carries a wide range of economic and social benefits both for its members and for the wider community. Co-operatives are a worthwhile alternative to traditional business models. They give a different perspective, give a different opportunity and enable people to better themselves. In my Strangford constituency, they have an impact. We have the Newtownards credit union. The hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton mentioned credit unions and we have buoyant credit unions in Newtownards, Portaferry and Kircubbin.
The Newtownards credit union was established in 1993 and serves constituents throughout the Ards and North Down borough council area. The credit union is a member-owned financial co-operative, meaning that people living or working in the area can save and access loans. I remember when a credit union was started in Greyabbey, which then transferred to Newtownards. The first thing I did when my boys were younger was to start a credit union account for them, both to support the credit union and to give my boys an idea, at a very young age, about saving money—helping themselves while also helping others, because that is what co-operatives do.
The credit unions offer a wonderful service: a community-oriented alternative to commercial banking that retains financial value within the community. As we all know, community is at the heart of everything, as it should be and as this debate will indicate. Portaferry Cohousing undertakes fantastic work in housing and accommodation. Residents are involved in the design and the ongoing management of a small development and its communal spaces. That is crucial to the co-operative sector, as members collectively own and participate in the governance of their housing environment, rather than simply being tenants of a large developer or landlord. It is co-operatives at their best, doing what they do for their members and enabling them to be part of that.
Liam Conlon
I have always wanted to intervene on the hon. Member—the shoe is on the other foot. He mentions Portaferry; my dad is from there. It is where he was born, went to school and learned his trade as a carpenter before moving to Britain. The project the hon. Gentleman mentions is very special—it is the first cohousing project in Northern Ireland and I go there quite a lot. I have seen it; it is intergenerational, mixed-income and run by the community. Is not Portaferry Cohousing a fantastic example of how co-ops can keep decisions local, build trust and create housing, jobs and services that fully reflect the values and priorities of the local community?
Jim Shannon
I absolutely agree. I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand; I was fairly sure that he would come up with a Portaferry connection to the debate, because he has family connections down there. I am very pleased to see him doing so well. He had to leave Portaferry to come here and do well, but those who stayed there are doing well too. I thank him very much for that intervention and wholeheartedly support it. He has summed things up really well. That is what Portaferry Cohousing does: gives people a vision for the future and a better place in life.
I also admire the work of the Ards community network, the third group I wish to speak about and one I have discussed in the House before. The network is a voluntary and community sector organisation that upholds and supports local community groups and facilitates training for development. It is truly wonderful. I am aware of the work undertaken by Cathy Polley, the lady who runs it, taking the time to instil co-operative values and shared goals for the betterment of the community. That is a third example of how co-operatives work so well in my constituency of Strangford, and indeed across many parts of Northern Ireland.
I understand that the Government have plans to double the size of the mutual sector. I am pleased at that news, as we must endeavour to encourage social value while also increasing business performance. Co-operatives UK has said that
“the planned changes do not go far enough in enabling the sector to raise finance”,
which may cause some problems. When the Minister responds, can he tell me what discussions he has had with co-operatives on this issue? Have the Government gone far enough, and if not, why not? First of all, as I should have done at the beginning—apologies for not doing so—I welcome the Minister to his place and wish him well in his new role. He is there because he is the right man for the job, and we all thank God for that.
There must be more financial backing for the sector, including for training and support systems to encourage more people to avail themselves of co-operatives’ services to protect their finances and communities. Co-operatives are a wonderful thing, and this debate encapsulates my feelings towards them and those of others who will speak shortly.
I conclude with this: the co-operative sector is a people-first movement rooted in fairness, equality and opportunity. In Northern Ireland, co-operatives offer real solutions—from finance to housing support. However, for this sector to thrive, Government support is essential through funding and education that recognise the challenges the co-operative sector can, does and will face. We can build a sector that is inclusive and resilient, where ownership is shared and voices are equal. I look to the Minister for a commitment that he will continue to do just that.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) for bringing this really important debate to the House.
I am immensely proud to represent the communities of Leigh and Atherton—towns that embody the very best of Britain, built on pride, kindness and hard work. They show what can be achieved when people pull together. We talk about co-operatives, but I also want to talk about social enterprise. Together, they form a broader movement of collective ownership, where people have a direct stake in the success of their community.
These models share the same DNA: accountability, reinvestment and a belief that decisions should be made for people, not just for profit. They are vital to building fair, resilient economies from the ground up. Time and again, I have seen that spirit in Leigh and Atherton—people rallying on Facebook groups to help neighbours; volunteers restoring heritage sites; and grassroots projects breathing life back into our town centres. That is why I stand here today championing the co-operative and social enterprise sector. This is not just about business; it is about community pride, regeneration and empowerment. Town regeneration is happening right now. The Government are making real progress through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, the pride in place programme and the Crime and Policing Bill, all of which were designed to revitalise our high streets and restore confidence in our towns.
However, none of that will succeed without local people leading the charge. In our area, we have seen exactly what that leadership looks like. In Tyldesley, For Tyldesley has helped attract investment and given local people ownership of their town centre. In Atherton, the Snug—a Music Venue Trust asset, led by grassroots music champion Rachael McEntee—is building a vibrant cultural scene from the ground up. In Leigh, Leigh Works is creating space for small businesses and digital innovation to thrive. These are not isolated examples; they are part of a growing movement of local ownership and community-driven success.
Co-operatives reflect the values that we hold dear: self-help, democratic ownership and giving back. Across housing, agriculture, energy and retail, co-ops provide long-term stability, inclusive employment and ethical business practice. They fill the gaps that the traditional models often leave behind. I have seen that first hand; it will be no surprise to anybody that I am going to mention Leigh Spinners Mill—I mention it often. During my sabbatical years, in between being elected, the once-disused red-brick giant has become a thriving hub of creativity and enterprise. Leigh Film Factory, which is based inside, born from an empty space, shows what happens when working class towns back creativity and reclaim their stories. That is community wealth in action.
Nationally, there are 131,000 social enterprises in the UK, with a turnover of £78 billion and a workforce of 2.3 million. They outperform traditional businesses in growth, innovation, job creation and reducing inequality. They also better reflect the country that they serve: they are in our communities, with more women and diverse leaders at the helm. These organisations align perfectly with the Government’s vision of local empowerment, encouraging communities to take ownership of their spaces and their futures.
However, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, for many navigating the world of finance business advice and investment remain a challenge. We all recognise that these are complex areas, and progress requires co-ordination across Departments and sectors. That is why I welcome the manifesto commitment to double the size of the co-op and mutual sector and the forthcoming call for future evidence on co-operative growth. That is an opportunity to shape a joined-up approach that helps co-operatives, social enterprises and community interest companies to thrive. Supporting them means supporting our communities from the ground up, rebuilding pride, creating opportunity and putting ownership back where it belongs: in the hands of local people.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner, especially as some of my earliest co-operative meetings took place in what is now Kingston upon Hull East, your constituency. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) for securing this important debate.
One of the first visits that I undertook as a Member of Parliament was to 28 Long Causeway in Peterborough, home of my local Nationwide building society branch. It has been there since 1974 but it started its life in the city in 1954, a few doors down from its current location, as the Co-operative Permanent Building Society—at a time when Winston Churchill was the Prime Minister and the world was very different.
For a post-war generation, building societies and co-operatives were part of the new social contract—if they worked hard, they could get on in life, get a home and make a future for their children. The co-operative and mutual ideal has always been strong in the UK, but the idea of a purpose-driven economy feels even greater in today’s world. Against a backdrop of division, short-termism and populism, mutuals offer purpose and social value to our economy and communities. The co-operative and mutual sector is a vital part of the inclusive growth agenda of this Government, worth £93 billion in gross value added and £180 billion in turnover. Building societies have more than 27 million members.
Despite moves to demutualise the building societies in the UK—an act of economic vandalism by a previous Government—we still have more than 40 building societies holding nearly one third of UK mortgages. Nationwide, still standing strong in my city and many others, is the biggest lender to first-time buyers in the UK.
My constituency is home to the English Mustard Growers co-operative, which I often talk about. My constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) supply the seed that goes into Colman’s mustard—many people will know the brand. I am pleased we have an agricultural co-op in Peterborough and our surrounding fenlands. It is an illustration that the mutual drive covers a wide range of industries, not just retail, as many will know.
More widely we see the return of co-operative ambition after a generation of consolidation. It is good to see that happening, with the Co-op Bank coming back into the mutual fold and merging with the Coventry Building Society; with Nationwide expanding with the takeover of Virgin Money; and with the Co-operative Group adding more members year on year. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton in paying tribute to my good friend Joe Fortune and also Shirine Khoury-Haq, chief executive of the Co-operative Group, for their sterling work on behalf of the movement.
We should all remember that the movement started many years ago from co-operative principles. A few months ago I attended the Co-op congress in Rochdale town hall with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh). Rochdale was the birthplace of a movement, with the power of 28 pioneers organising against the odds and today still a living force for social and economic justice in all of our communities. The Rochdale principles still stand tall in the world.
I am proud to be part of a Government with ambition for the co-operative sector: a clear commitment to double the size of the co-operative and mutual sector and to support social enterprises, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) said. Such ambition has not been seen by Whitehall before. With ambition will come challenges. It is not the role of Government to build co-operatives, but it is the role of Government to ensure there is not a block to growth. Co-operative activity, as we have heard, spans many sectors and many Government Departments. With that ambition, we also know it will bring the challenges of how cross-Government working supports it. We know that sectors, which often work across Government Departments, struggle to find effective cross-Government working and effective time. So I welcome the announcement of a co-operative development unit as part of the Government’s pride in place plans.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who is no longer in his place, I am an old lag of the movement who spent many years working in co-op housing and co-op development, so I welcome the fact that we now have something that will look at co-op development in housing and local government. But I say to the Minister that the unit needs to work with the Treasury, the Financial Conduct Authority and other Government Departments to deliver the reforms we need to support it.
Co-operation is living proof that our collective endeavour can be greater than our individual efforts. There is no stronger message for co-operation than the world we stand in today. We need to make sure that that message rings true in Whitehall, where all of these initiatives add up to something greater than their individual aims. These developments have happened as a result of the Government’s new focus, but it is up to all of us to ensure they deliver on those.
Finally, why does this matter? It matters because it is about ambition for our communities and also the kind of world and economy we want to live in. If this is the co-operative moment, as I believe it is, we also need co-operative ambition. We need to create the conditions in which mutuals can flourish and succeed, where communities can come together and start up their own ventures, and where destiny for our families and communities is not determined by shareholders or Government alone, but by the people themselves. This truly is a co-operative moment.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) for securing this important debate. Like him, I am proud to be a Labour MP and equally proud to be a Co-operative MP. I also thank Joe Fortune, the party’s general secretary, who has joined us here today. I pay tribute to the many co-operators across our constituencies. There are too many in my constituency to name, but in particular I pay tribute to Danny Douglas and Councillor Chrissie Rumsby, who work tirelessly to make the case for co-ops and to drive the practical changes we need.
Founded in 1917, the Co-operative party has for over 100 years been the bedrock of community-driven enterprise, shared endeavour and equal empowerment. In Norwich, our connection with co-operativism extends even further. It was in 1858 that Norwich formed its first co-operative society, embracing a movement that has shaped my city ever since. As co-operators, we recognise that there is more than one north star guiding business. A successful enterprise can be run not only by the largest shareholders in a boardroom, but through the democratic will of those who use the business, work for the business and provide for the business. Members of a co-operative seek prosperity for one another and the community they serve. These enterprises are not only enriched by their social contract; they are enriching our economy by exhibiting a resilience that surpasses other business models. In fact, co-operative businesses are twice as likely to survive their first five years, compared with businesses following other ownership models, so this makes economic sense, too.
It is therefore no surprise that the Government plan to double the size of the co-operative sector through their small and medium-sized business strategy, which I welcome. With growth being the Government’s No. 1 priority, now is the time for us to seize the opportunity of co-operativism and knock down the barriers holding it back. So many people think of the food store when they hear the word “co-operative”. Many of us shop there, and in fact, many of us campaigned with it for some of the changes we have seen, such as the crackdown on shoplifting.
Too few people know that there are co-operative ventures across virtually every sector, and we have heard about some of those today. They range from animal health to arts and culture, childcare, finance, energy, housing, telecommunications and tourism. There is so much more we can do to increase awareness of the opportunities of co-operativism, how to access them and, indeed, how to establish a co-operative. By virtue of being a member-run organisation, access to finance can be a particular challenge. That is important, and I hope the Government will consider all options to increase access to external investment among co-ops.
I also want to mention credit unions, which play a very important role. It is important to think about what co-operatives are, but also what they are not. I was just reading about Norwich’s Wherry Dragon credit union, which has won a national award for its campaign against loan sharks. Credit unions offer an important facility to many people in different areas. They are financial institutions owned by members living in the same area, working for the same employer or having a common bond, who all hold savings in the union. Not driven solely by profit, they are relative unicorns in the financial world, but they are competing against giants that can overpower those that are smaller. We must therefore do more to support credit unions, to increase their access to finance and to support them as they take their first steps. I know the Government have already signalled their intention to do so, and I hope they will engage closely with members of the co-operative movement to achieve the best outcomes.
At the beginning of my speech, I referred to Norwich’s, and indeed Norfolk’s, history in this movement, but now I want to look to its future. With local government reorganisation and enhanced devolution on the horizon, Norwich stands to gain even more from co-operation. There are huge opportunities to provide co-operative solutions to the ownership and delivery of local services and governance—protecting public assets, empowering communities and spreading wealth fairly. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton for all the work he has done on the devolution agenda. It is important that co-operativism is at the heart of that, and I hope that we will soon see more co-operatives in Norwich, Norfolk and across the nation.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) for securing this important debate, and Joe Fortune, general secretary of the Co-op party, in the Gallery. My hon. Friend has been a tireless champion for the co-operative movement, and rightly so. This part of our economy combines purpose with productivity, and values with tangible social value. I am wearing my hybrid Labour and Co-operative tie—it is not official merch, although the general secretary might want to consider that. I am incredibly proud to stand here as the Labour and Co-operative MP for Ipswich, and to represent a town and region where the co-operative movement runs deep.
The East of England co-operative began in 1861, when a group of people in our region decided to trade fairly, work together and reinvest profits for the common good. From one small store, the movement has grown into a network of more than 200 businesses across Suffolk —including many in and around Ipswich—Norfolk and Essex, providing jobs, training and investment where they are needed most. That legacy still shapes our community today.
Co-operatives are rooted in their places. They keep wealth local, invest for the long term and give people a genuine stake in success. Those are principles that this Government proudly celebrate and learn from as we seek to build a fairer and more resilient economy. The co-operative spirit is also alive and well in Parliament, as we can see here this afternoon. There are now dozens of Labour and Co-operative MPs, including Ministers across Government, from the Treasury to the Department for Education and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Fairness, participation and local ownership run deep in this Government’s approach to growth, local empowerment and building an economy that truly works for everyone.
In Ipswich, the spirit of shared ownership and civic pride is something we see every single day. For too long under the previous Conservative Government, our town centre was allowed to decline, but local people never gave up on it. That is why I am so pleased that our Labour Government’s Pride in Place programme is investing £1.5 million in Ipswich, plus millions of pounds across our region and our country, to revitalise our high streets, bringing empty buildings back into use and empowering communities to take control of the spaces that mean most to them. That is more than simply a regeneration grant; it is co-operation in practice. Pride in Place is built on the same principles that drive the co-operative movement: local decision making, long-term stewardship and reinvestment for community benefits. It is designed so that local people, local councils and local businesses can come together to shape projects, not have them imposed from Westminster.
That means supporting community ownership of assets, backing partnerships that keep wealth circulating locally, and giving neighbourhoods the tools to plan and deliver the change they want to see. Whether refurbishing an empty shop for social enterprise or helping a community group take over a much-loved building through a co-op or trust, this policy puts power and pride back into local hands and connects directly with the other work the Government are doing to grow our towns more fairly and sustainably, from the community ownership fund to the local skills improvement plan and the growth mission fund.
Those are all examples of looking to boost growth, yes, but also sustain it. Together those policies form a clear picture of what co-operative economics looks like in action: growth that is built with communities at the centre. Ipswich is leading the way with projects that bring long-empty buildings back to life, and with community groups exploring new co-operative models to run venues and services that matter to them. There is a genuine sense of momentum in our town, a belief that when we work together we can shape the future of Ipswich ourselves. Although there is much to do, progress is being made. Co-operatives and community enterprises are essential partners in building a stronger, fairer economy that works for everyone.
Ministers have rightly spoken about the need for economic growth, not simply seeking growth for growth’s sake, but the type of economic growth that serves people and places. The quality and distribution of growth matter just as much as its pace. Politics has been guilty of seeing communities as an afterthought or a nice-to-have, not as the serious policy tool they should be. The truth is that members have a direct stake in their co-operative’s success because they own it. In fact, they are more than businesses; they are routes to power, ownership, decision making and community.
Ipswich’s story, from its proud co-operative roots to its renewed sense of local pride, shows exactly why that matters. True growth is achieved when local communities shape their own future, when we grow our economy from the grassroots and when we keep wealth and power local. That is why the future of our economy, our country and my town must have co-operation at its heart. That is what the Co-operative party’s Community Britain campaign is all about, and why I am proud to be a Co-operative MP.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) on securing this important debate and his impassioned opening speech. I can think of no greater or better-informed champion of our co-operative sector. Although he is a huge loss to the Front Bench, he is our gain in this debate.
I associate myself with the remarks about the incredible work of the Co-operative party, of which I have been a proud member since the age of 18, and Co-operatives UK. The co-operative and mutuals sector is one of the UK’s quiet success stories, with an economic contribution seven times greater than its share of the business population. It is not a sector that is standing still. The number of employee-owned businesses has trebled in five years, and the number of community-owned pubs has grown by 51% in the same period, bucking wider high street trends.
Why does that matter? Because co-operatives are more resilient, more likely to pay the minimum wage and simply more inclusive. In my constituency of Cannock Chase and across the country, we see that in community energy groups, credit unions, housing co-ops and the pub that stays open because the community refused to let it call last orders for the final time. Co-ops root wealth locally and give people genuine power over the things that shape their lives.
In my patch, for example, 10 years ago, under a Labour and Co-operative council, Chase Community Solar partnered with Cannock Chase district council to install solar panels on 314 council-owned bungalows, cutting the bills of tenants by between one third and a half. Five years later, after becoming a Labour and Co-operative councillor, I was proud to be one of the cabinet members who signed off on an investment that enabled a further collaboration with Chase Community Solar, that time alongside the charity Beat the Cold, to install batteries to make even more clean energy and cut bills even further.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of the Co-operative party. My hon. Friend is speaking about renewable energy. Does he agree that one benefit of the co-operative movement and principles is that it can be innovative for local communities? A constituent of mine approached me about a problem faced by people living in flats: they do not have driveways and cannot charge electric vehicles at a good rate. It strikes me as a good example that a co-operative approach could help that large section of the community gain access to EVs, which would be socially useful and progressive for them, society and the environment. That is innovation in the interest of the entire community.
Josh Newbury
My hon. Friend has given us a prime example of how thinking about problems differently and more collaboratively is rooted at the heart of co-operatives. The roll-out of EVs to people who do not have a driveway and perhaps do not have ready access to charging infrastructure is one of the many challenges that the Government are facing in the move towards net zero. It is a prime example of how we can use co-operative principles to tackle a problem in a different way that helps the community to benefit.
Similarly, I want to make sure that our local working men’s clubs are given their due, such as those in Cannock, Rugeley, Hednesford, Chadsmoor and my home village of Norton Canes, where they remain vital community hubs. Those clubs embody co-op principles, offering social support, fostering local connections and supporting grassroots initiatives. They are living examples of how member-driven organisations can enrich community life.
As a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I have seen how co-ops can empower small producers to speak with a louder voice, and to secure value and recognition for their labour. Probably the best known is Arla, owned by more than 3,000 dairy farmers and supplying a quarter of the nation’s milk, but there are many more. However, I still look longingly at many of our European neighbours and even the USA, which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) mentioned, where co-ops are far more present in the agricultural economy. It is no coincidence that they do not have much of the abject unfairness in their food supply chains that we see in Britain. I hope that is being considered by the Treasury and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as I believe it could unlock a huge amount of growth in rural communities that have been overlooked for far too long.
I am proud of this Government’s commitment to doubling our co-operative sector because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton said so powerfully, it is clear that co-ops have long been undervalued and underappreciated as part of our economy. They cradle immense potential not just to transform our businesses but to draw together our communities at a time when many have never felt further apart.
Ask an everyday passer-by what co-ops contribute to our communities, and they might answer something along the lines of: “Somewhere to buy a meal deal.” It is an irony that highlights the sector’s need for Government support in making the UK economy one in which mutuals, co-ops and community-owned businesses can thrive and play a more prominent role in national life.
I will set out three brief priorities for the Government. First, let us unlock finance by opening up the British Business Bank’s programmes to co-ops and making sure that transitional help is available so that small and medium-sized enterprises can mutualise. Reaching our manifesto commitment cannot just be about new co-ops being created; if we support the mutualisation of existing businesses, we can safeguard them and put them in the hands of the very people they serve.
Secondly, we need to shake up legislation and regulations so that co-ops are unleashed to start up, scale up and diversify. That is not asking for special treatment; all it would do is bring us into line with international best practice. That is particularly important for new and innovative co-operative models in emerging sectors.
Thirdly and finally, let us offer tailored support, at a regional level, on the nitty-gritty of start-up, conversion, governance and, of course, procurement laws, so that co-ops can compete for public contracts on the scale at which they operate. However, we must also think more broadly. There are sectors crying out for a co-operative approach, and the Government clearly have a role to play in supporting that. In social care, where quality, continuity and local accountability are critical, co-op models offer a way to put care workers and care users at the heart of the system.
In some areas of the special educational needs and disabilities sector, we see eye-watering profiteering at the expense of family and council budgets alike. A co-operative approach could provide transparency, trust and better outcomes by aligning support with the needs of families, not investors.
In housing, as we have heard, many people live in communities that are defined by shared interests and challenges, so giving tenants a real say through co-op principles could help to improve housing standards, tenant engagement and community cohesion.
Finally, looking ahead, local government reorganisation presents us with both a risk and an opportunity. As new councils are created, assets could be shared. Many of those assets are central to the identity of our communities, such as libraries, community centres and green spaces. Rather than lose them to speculative buyers or closure, the Government’s commitment to a true community right to buy, so brilliantly championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, could make sure they stay in the hands of the community.
In conclusion, if we want to supercharge growth in the co-op sector, we must match its potential with political will. If we do that, we will grow not just a sector but an economy in which power is shared in Cannock Chase and every corner of the UK.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), who was a superb Labour council leader and a superb Labour Government Minister. He is a fantastic advocate for the Co-operative party and the co-operative movement. I also thank Joe Fortune, the general secretary of the Co-operative party, who has been a fantastic supporter of the movement.
If someone is a co-operator, it is in their blood; it is who they are. It is an instinct to trust others, create ideas, craft projects and co-operate. It is about building stronger communities and holding the faith, knowing that life is to be enjoyed and made the most of, and about ignoring the voices of division and misery that feed us the message that life is something to survive and to get through. To be a co-operator is to live with hope; it is about striving for better, never accepting second best and always putting people first.
Politics is about choices, and we know what the choices made by the Conservatives were. The Conservatives showed us whose side they were on: they sold us out and they wrecked our country. Labour wants to put money and power back where they belong: into our communities. With the co-operative movement at the heart of that mission, I believe that we will be successful.
In my constituency of Bournemouth East, we have many co-operators, and across Dorset we have many co-operatives. Indeed, the movement dates back to 1862, with the Parkstone and Bournemouth co-operative. I want to see many more co-operators and co-operatives, and I want to do a few shout-outs, if I may. I want to shout out to Christchurch Housing Society, which provides housing for older and vulnerable people; Great Western credit union; Bournemouth East Allotment Society; and Cherries Trust, a community mutual that supports the local football club, AFC Bournemouth, which was top of the league for all of half an hour at the weekend—I hope to see it return there soon for much longer.
I also want to do a shout-out to Hengistbury Head Outdoors, which has been supported by a Labour Government investment of £668,000 to refurbish and repair its outdoor centre. It now has a 99-year lease, and the co-operative has helped it through the process of issuing shares for community assets and offering a percentage of match funding too. If any constituents are watching, it has a share offer on at the moment, and I would encourage them to invest, because that will help to get the project open in time for April.
Co-operation is in the DNA of Labour. The Labour and Co-operative parties have been sisters since 1927, and the centenary will take place under a Labour Government. Back then, the first electronic TV had just been invented and Parliament was still debating the introduction of traffic lights. We have been sisters for a long time and our partnership has endured, but the Co-op party can at times get lost in and swallowed up by the Labour party. We co-operators need to keep in mind that most fundamental question: what is uniquely co-operative about what we are trying to achieve?
The co-operative model may have been born here in the UK, but Germany’s sector is four times larger than ours, France’s is six times larger, and South Korea has doubled its in just five years by creating the right conditions. We should be no less ambitious now that we have a Labour Government. Over 7,000 UK co-operatives now employ 240,000 people, serve 16.6 million members and generate £42 billion each year. Owned by the people who use them, co-operatives keep wealth rooted in communities and reinvest for the common good. They are proven to be 8% to 12% more productive than traditional firms, twice as likely to survive their first five years and four times less likely to fail during crises. Co-operatives narrow pay gaps, promote equality and strengthen local economies.
To deliver on the Government’s pledge to double the size of the co-operative and mutual sector, we need action that will match our ambition. First, we need a modern legislative framework, acting on the Law Commission’s review, to unlock co-operative growth. Secondly, we need a regulatory system attuned to co-operatives, with the Competition and Markets Authority joining the Prudential Regulation Authority and FCA in supporting their unique role. Thirdly, we need better access to finance, adapting existing funds, such as community development financial institutions and Better Society Capital, to include co-operatives. Fourthly, we need stronger business support, provided through the new co-operative development unit and co-ordinated across Departments. Lastly, we need greater visibility and education so that more entrepreneurs see co-operatives as a viable route to business success.
In the time remaining I want to focus on one specific area of policy where the co-operative sector has played a crucial role and can play a further crucial role. To tackle the climate and ecological emergency, we must do more of what works. We must rapidly expand clean, affordable solar and wind energy so that everyone benefits from a sustainable, secure energy supply. When that energy is community-owned, society is fairer and more resilient.
As a councillor for 10 years, and as deputy leader of the council, I was proud to back the co-operative movement, including by funding the UK’s largest community-owned solar park with nearly £4 million of council investment. It now generates enough clean power for 6,000 homes each year, and the council receives £177,000 annually, with the loan fully repaid, plus an additional £606,000 to reinvest in local services. Over its lifetime, the project will return £10 million in community benefit, and local people have a direct say in how that money is used.
That is just one project of many in our constituencies. That is what co-operation looks like in action: clean energy, local ownership and shared prosperity. We could do so much more with the support of our Labour Government, and I am pleased to see Great British Energy prioritising community energy with a Great British Energy community fund that provides feasibility funding of up to £40,000 and project development funding of up to £100,000. I thank Barbara Hammond, Mish Tullar and Tim Sadler for their role in developing the solar park project, and thank the Co-operative Councils’ Innovation Network for sharing the news of the project across councils, as well as news of all the good projects across our constituencies.
The Rochdale pioneers built their movement in the hungry forties, when profit and power were concentrated in too few hands. They offered a fairer, more democratic way to do business, and that vision still matters today. Let us achieve a golden twenties; let us make this a co-operative decade. Co-operatives show us what businesses can be when profit serves people, not the other way round. Let us match ambition with action. Let us build an economy that is more productive, more resilient and fairer for all.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), who has been a shining light of the co-operative movement for a long time. He has been a Co-op councillor, a Co-op leader, a Co-op MP and a Co-op Minister. We are incredibly lucky and proud to have him as such a shining light in our movement, and I thank him very much. I give thanks also to Joe Fortune and his team at the Co-op party. We talk about doubling the sector, but I think the Co-op party team might have doubled in the last few years. We are proud of that, and grateful for the hard work.
This Saturday I had the honour of speaking at the Confederation of Co-operative Housing. I was welcomed there by the statement, “Welcome, you’re here with the doers.” That is who co-operators are: we are the doers. We put getting on with practical solutions at the heart of our mission. This year is the International Year of Co-operatives, and I am happy to talk about our proud values, celebrating our co-operation throughout the years. Our values are practical, compassionate, community-driven and absolutely grounded in the principle of sharing power and wealth, in the knowledge that if we can share power and wealth in the organisations that we create, we can rebuild trust and confidence in democracy and rebuild and restore confidence in our communities as well. If someone has a stake in a place or an organisation, that makes a difference to how they feel, and to the strength of that organisation and its ability to make a difference.
My constituency is home to Nationwide, John Lewis and more co-ops than I can count. I wish to talk about two particular sectors, housing and energy, and about what more the Government can do to support them. On the housing sector, we know that communities can identify opportunities for genuinely affordable homes in the new homes coming forward. I welcome the work that community and co-operative housing organisations do to bring forward new homes. We should also recognise the importance of having communities involved in the governance of small and medium-sized housing associations, and celebrate the £20 million that the Government have put into co-operative housing and the small sites aggregator, which will make such a big difference to increasing the size of co-operative housing in this country.
On the energy sector, I am proud to have the Aldgate community energy scheme and the Ebury Edge energy garden in my constituency. They bring people together and make sure that they all share in the benefits of renewable energy. We should celebrate the investment that GB Energy is determined to put into community energy schemes and make sure we do everything we can, practically, to deliver more of them.
We should also talk about the finance needed, the access to capital and the changes the Government can make to help us grow the sector. I know how determined the Government are to double the size of the sector. As a member of the Treasury Committee, I had the chance to speak to Treasury officials about the Treasury’s role in that. It is brilliant that we now have a Mutual and Co-operative Sector Business Council—it is a great step—but there are further practical steps we should consider to increase the benefits of co-ops.
Can the British Business Bank’s ENABLE scheme extend to co-ops? What more can the Government do to support co-operative development agencies in every community across the country? I look forward to the Minister’s response on those topics, and I am grateful for this chance—in the International Year of Cooperatives —to discuss this issue with all the co-operators here today.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) for his work in securing this important debate. It has been a real pleasure to hear contributions from all the Labour and Co-operative party Members this afternoon.
The current economic landscape is challenging for our businesses and industries. Years of dire economic mismanagement by the last Conservative Government have led to businesses, including co-operatives, facing huge challenges, ranging from recruiting and retaining staff to soaring energy costs. Those issues have been exacerbated by the increase in trading obstacles following the last Government’s botched trade agreement with the EU. However, many of those challenges are now being compounded by decisions taken by this Government.
Co-operatives are owned by and run for the benefit of their members. As the Liberal Democrats have always believed in empowering individuals to engage in decisions that impact their lives, we are supportive of the co-operative sector, credit unions and non-profit financial institutions owned by their members. The co-operative sector is made up of more than 10,000 enterprises across every sector and region, from local community pubs and credit unions to building societies, mutual insurers and retail societies. Together, they represent one of the most resilient and values-driven parts of the UK economy, rooted in communities and owned by their members.
The Liberal Democrats believe that employee participation in the workplace, together with wider employee ownership, is important for diffusing economic power, promoting enterprise, increasing job satisfaction and improving service to customers. Co-operative enterprises offer considerable potential for member and employee involvement and are an important part of a modern mixed economy.
In the recent “Backing your Business” plan, published in July 2025, the Government committed to growing the co-operative and mutual sector over this Parliament, and launched a call for evidence on how we can support the sector and its businesses to grow. The Liberal Democrats support that ambition, but will the Government be more decisive in their support by acting on some of the recommendations of Co-operatives UK, such as on access to finance, which would expand the possibility for many of these organisations to scale up. Co-operatives often struggle to raise capital because, by virtue of being member-run organisations, they are more limited than companies in issuing shares that are attractive to external investors.
Often, co-operative enterprises provide fairer workplaces; they are four times as likely to be living wage employers, and women lead nearly a quarter of the UK’s top 100 co-operatives—more than twice the proportion in the FTSE 100. Meanwhile, although women earn 12% less on average than men across the UK economy, that figure is reduced to 7.5% within co-operatives. Community-owned pubs are also on the up, with a 51% increase over the last five years, and a 13% increase in the last year alone.
However, training, hiring and retaining a skilled workforce are issues that affect businesses of all kinds across the country. The Liberal Democrats therefore welcomed the industrial strategy this summer and the commitment to an increase in skills and training. The apprenticeship levy does not work, and many businesses cannot get the funding they need to train staff, with hundreds of millions of pounds of funding going unspent. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for the apprenticeship levy to be replaced with a wider skills and training levy, which would give businesses flexibility over how they spend the money to train their staff. We therefore welcome the intention to reform the levy and replace it with a broader growth and skills levy, but we have concerns about moving funding away from level 7 apprenticeships, which we know increase social mobility.
Andrew Pakes
On the subject of apprenticeships, is the hon. Lady aware that the Co-operative Group is doing pioneering work at Highpoint Prison in Suffolk using some of its share from the levy? It is working with employers to ensure that offenders get on to an apprenticeship framework so that, when they have served their time in prison, they have a job to go into. That shows that the co-operative movement is leading the way on innovation in apprenticeships. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to see more in the apprenticeship levy aimed at reducing reoffending and giving opportunities to young people?
Sarah Olney
That is really good to hear, as it is a good example of how the co-operative movement promotes innovation, particularly in promoting wider social participation. However, the fact that we have to have innovative schemes driven by the co-operative sector points to the challenges that so many people find in using the apprenticeship levy. The Liberal Democrats would like to see a much broader range of potential uses for the apprenticeship levy, which would benefit the co-operative sector as well as the rest of the economy.
More broadly, co-operatives, like many other kinds of business across the country, are struggling under decisions made by the Government, such as the increase in national insurance contributions imposed at the last Budget. Small businesses in particular have been left struggling under the heavy burden of this jobs tax. The Government must take steps to support those businesses, which are at the centre of communities and local economies. Thousands of local businesses, including many in the co-operative sector, which often provide community services, are feeling the damaging impact of the national insurance increase and many other changes. That is why I and all my Liberal Democrat colleagues have repeatedly called on the Government to reverse the employer NICs increase and will continue to campaign for them to scrap that damaging policy.
We also call on the Government to introduce vital reform to the business rates system. In 2019, the Conservative Government promised a fundamental review of business rates, but they failed to deliver it. Labour pledged in its manifesto to replace the system, but still no action has been taken. A year into Labour’s time in the power, will the Minister say whether the Government plan to keep their word on that commitment? Critically, as we look at measures that will boost growth, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be proud advocates for a closer relationship with Europe. Liberal Democrats want to see a bespoke UK-EU customs union to reduce red tape and allow all businesses the freedom to grow without heavy regulation and huge export costs.
The co-operative sector generates a combined annual income of £42.7 billion. Its significant contribution to the economy and defiance of current business trends highlights its resilience and stability in a challenging economic landscape. In 2025 there are 7,400 co-operatives in the UK, with 16.6 million memberships, employing around 240,000 people. I am glad that in my constituency of Richmond Park, co-operative enterprises exist not only for the services that they provide, but as community spaces to bring people together. I thank the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton for securing the debate and hope the Government will go further in supporting the co-operative sector.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your leadership, Mr Turner. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) on securing this important debate, in which there seems to have been an outbreak of unanimity around the Chamber. As I start my remarks, I am conscious of the expression “everything that needs to have been said has been said but not everybody has said it.” My apologies if I repeat some of the points that have been made.
As colleagues all know, this was all started in Toad Lane, Rochdale in 1844 by a group of 27—or was it 28?—men known as the Rochdale pioneers. The pioneers would not have been constituents of the hon. Gentleman, but it is important to recognise that the roots of the movement can be found not just in Rochdale, but in surrounding areas, including his constituency. At a time when living conditions were particularly tough, these men decided to do something for their community by balancing the profitability of their shop and its members with the social impact on the community and the wider membership. That meant that essential, good-quality ingredients—flour, butter and others—became affordable for the community.
The co-operative movement that was founded in Rochdale in 1844 continues to thrive today. It has grown to become an international movement; co-operatives operate in 109 countries. In the UK alone, we have 7,400 co-operatives, but if we incorporate organisations that operate in the co-operative spirit, such as employee-owned businesses, building societies, friendly societies, credit unions and mutually owned banks, the number comes to over 10,000. That represents around 0.2% of businesses in the UK.
According to a recent report by Co-operatives UK, there are 66 million members across the sector, with around 16.6 million people solely in co-operatives. I have to say that just in the last hour I have become a member myself, having signed up to the Co-operative on the app. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you very much. The exciting point about the last statistic that I referred to is that that number has increased by 1.4 million in one year, showing that the sector is truly on an upward trajectory. Additionally, it is suggested that the combined annual income of the sector is around £179 billion, with WPI Economics estimating that the sector has contributed £35 billion in gross value added, which is equivalent to about 1.5% of the total UK economy.
It is obvious, therefore, that the co-operative sector plays an important part in the health and growth of the UK’s economy. Co-operatives help to provide a diverse range of business models, which I believe is a good thing. Any healthy economy needs a variety of business models, and it is really important that we have things like co-operatives.
I agree with the premise of the debate, which is about Government support for the co-operative sector. A perfect example of such support is the introduction under the last Government of employee ownership trusts and the tax incentives surrounding them. Offering 100% relief on capital gains tax when a business owner transfers their company to an employee ownership trust has helped to empower communities, and we have seen a strong rise in employee-owned businesses, from 600 in 2020 to 2,500 this year.
However, let me express a slight reservation. It is important in a competitive market not to incentivise one part of the economy, or one business model, over another, in the way that the Building Societies Act 1986 opened the way for demutualisation and incentivised building societies to convert into investor-owned commercial companies. Some have said that that was a bad thing, and in retrospect I probably agree. We need to be careful that we do not encourage excessive mutualisation and disincentivise investment in our equity markets. Fundamentally, a balance needs to be struck.
I believe—possibly unsurprisingly—that that was done successfully under the last Government through the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014. The last Government introduced measures to increase transparency and facilitate growth, while maintaining the core principles of member benefit and community focus; for example, by increasing the maximum withdrawable shareholding from £20,000 to £100,000 per individual investor, they allowed for broader capital participation.
Although the 2014 Act was positive for the sector, I think that there is widespread agreement that it needs to be updated to help support the growth and modernisation of the sector today. It was good, therefore, that the last Government and now this Government have asked the Law Commission to review the legislation, and I look forward to seeing its proposals when they are brought forward, hopefully at the end of this year.
I am also glad that the private Member’s Bill now known as the Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Act 2023 supported the co-operative sector to protect its capital and assets, and to discourage mutualisation. Introducing an asset lock mechanism could mean that organisations are able to lock their capital surpluses, ensuring that assets are non-distributable among members and must instead be preserved for the community and the purposes of the organisation.
It is understandably disappointing that although the 2023 Act received cross-party support when it went through Parliament, over two years later the regulations specified in the Act have not yet been announced by the Government and co-operatives are still unable to utilise the statutory protection that it provides. I note, however, that the Law Commission has proposed to put those powers into primary legislation through reform of the 2014 Act. Are the Government considering that? If not, what alternatives are being pursued?
It is worth adding that the last Government introduced the community ownership fund. Although that was not directly targeted at co-operatives, some, such as the Calder Valley Community Land Trust, which seeks to reduce energy use and costs at Fielden Hall, have made successful bids. That is positive, but I would be interested to know whether the Government are considering a fund specifically for those in co-operatives and mutuals. In fact, we heard earlier from one Member about the potential for the British Business Bank to be opened up in order to support co-operatives and mutuals.
I turn now to what this Government are doing. First, it is important to recognise the commitment in their manifesto to double the size of the co-operatives and mutuals sector. That is a positive direction of travel that the Government want to follow. However, Chris Bose of the Nationwide asked what the Government meant by that and wrote:
“Precisely what was to be doubled was unclear, as was the means to achieve that.”
This is an important point for the Minister to clarify. Do the Government want to double the number of mutuals, the number of members or the size of mutual balance sheets? What specifically are they seeking to achieve?
The measures announced at the Mansion House in 2024—specifically, the creation of the mutuals and co-operatives business council and the commissioning of a report by the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority on the mutuals landscape—will help to lay the groundwork for that, but I hope the Minister will be able to provide the clarity the sector is looking for. Like the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, I also welcome the creation of a co-operative development unit in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Those are all good things, but it feels like we are still waiting for some meat on the bone, so let me raise a few points with the Minister. First, the issue that is raised time and time again by those in the sector is their ability to access cash. By their very nature, co-operatives are member-run organisations, so they are more limited than companies when it comes to issuing shares that attract external investors.
It is also worth highlighting concerns related to the rumours about what the cash ISA allowance will be following the Budget. There is talk that it will be slashed from £20,000 to £10,000. Cash ISAs are a really important way for building societies to access finances. The Building Societies Association estimates that around 40% of all cash ISA balances are held with building societies, which turn those cash balances into mortgages for our constituents to go and buy homes. It is really important that we get some clarity on that.
Returning to the issue of incentivising certain sectors of the economy over others, I am very much in favour of encouraging investment in the UK equity market, but we must be careful that, in trying to achieve the good, we do not get rid of the best. By trying to incentivise cash ISAs to move into equity markets, we are effectively taking cash away from the mutuals and putting it into normal equity. I am worried that, if this policy comes forward, the Budget could cause a problem for the mutual sector. I know the Minister will not be able to comment on the contents of the Budget right now, and we have to wait only another month, but I hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury takes note of this important point and feeds it back.
I also encourage the Minister to look into the Credit Unions Act 1979, and specifically the regulations on geographical area and the total number of members in common bonds. The last Government made positive steps to increase the total number of potential members of credit unions from 2 million to 3 million, and at the start of this year the Government ran a call for evidence about common bond reform, which I welcome. However, we are still waiting on the findings and for the Government’s response to be published, even though there seems to be a consensus that the regulations are still stifling growth in the sector. It is important to get the credit union sector to grow. Government Members know exactly how important it is, and so do Opposition Members. We need to get on with this. Doing so would only support the goals of the Government’s financial inclusion strategy, as well as their manifesto commitment to double the size of the sector.
Let me put a few final points to the Minister. I had the honour to go to Iceland and meet representatives of the country’s trade unions, which, by any other standard, behave as friendly societies. It is invigorating to see that from something as fundamental as a trade union, funded by both members and employers. Something like 97% of employees are members of those unions, because they act as friendly societies and provide insurance, holidays and all sorts of things. That is a really good example of how friendly societies can work.
We should be debating more the mutualisation of other utilities. We heard from the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) about an energy company in her constituency that does this, but has she considered the possibility of mutualising Thames Water? It is a very ambitious project—
Mark Garnier
It is not in her gift, as she says from a sedentary position, but it is quite interesting. Notwithstanding the £17 billion black hole in Thames Water’s balance sheet, the water utilities are very geographically prescribed and millions of people use them, so they have a built-in membership. The most important issue that people are talking about is the pollution of waterways such as the River Thames. By mutualising an institution like Thames Water—by the way, this is not Conservative policy, but—[Laughter.] But it is a debate we must have, Mr Turner. With mutualisation, members could have a proper debate about what investment they want to make in the purity of the waters.
My final point is about skills. I do not want to bring up the ugliness of the debate over the former chairman of the Co-op bank, the Rev. Paul Flowers, back in 2011 or 2012, I think, but he came before the Treasury Committee when I was a member of it and made a very good point. He said that his election as chairman of the Co-operative bank was because he was a member of it, not because he was good at finance. It is incredibly important, particularly with things like corporate governance, that we ensure there is training for corporate governors. Running a bank or a big chain of supermarkets is an incredibly difficult job, so we must make sure that that training includes not only people who work in the bank but those responsible for the corporate governance that looks after the organisations.
My experience of the Co-operative in Kidderminster has been absolutely fantastic. A few years ago we were trying to stop a 4G telephone mast. This was several Governments back—perhaps around 2007 or 2008—when 4G masts were first going up, and there was a proposal to put one opposite the Co-op. I had a conversation with the managers there and they said, “We will buy the site in order to prevent the telephone mast from going up.” So I have always been a huge fan of them, and I cannot imagine why it has taken me 20 years to actually join the Co-op.
I thank the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton for securing the debate. As I said, there has been an outbreak of unanimity, which is fantastic to see. I am only sorry that I did not bring more of my friends with me.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. Please do not adjust your sets: I am not the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. But I am very pleased to be here on her behalf for my first stint at the Dispatch Box. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) for securing this important debate. He is a huge asset not only to our party and his constituents but to the Co-operative party, which he proudly serves as chair. I must declare that I am a recently rejoined member of the Co-operative party. I did not know that I would be doing this debate when I joined, but it is a pleasure for it to have come round so soon. As so many others have done, I note the sterling work of the party’s general secretary, Joe Fortune. I also want to recognise the party’s fantastic head of politics, Caitlin Prowle, who I am sure has put a huge amount of work into this debate.
The level of interest in this topic reflects the Government’s strong support for the co-operative sector and underlines how important it is to ensure that the sector continues to grow, thereby supporting local people and communities. It also reinforces why, in our manifesto, we committed to doubling the size of the co-operative and mutual sector.
I thank colleagues from across the House for their thoughtful contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) talked about the importance of community housing. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) talked about the Metro Moneywise credit union, which is clearly building on the legacy of the Rochdale pioneers. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) spoke about new forms of co-operative support. It would not be a first appearance at the Dispatch Box without the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); I thank him for his very kind words, and I know how important the co-operative sector is in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) gave great examples of the importance of local leadership, including at Leigh Spinners Mill. That organisation was lucky to have her and, after a brief absence, we are lucky to have her back in this place. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) talked about a purpose-driven economy and inclusive growth. He does himself down a little, though: he is not as much of an old lag as he sometimes pretends to be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) talked about the breadth of the co-operative sector and the opportunities for her community presented by devolution—on which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton did such sterling work as a Labour Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott)—I hope Ipswich coming straight after Norwich is not a point of contention—spoke about the role of the community in shaping the future of his town. That is something we on the Government side of the House are incredibly keen on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) talked about one of my favourite topics: social clubs and their important role in the community. They are part of our past but, increasingly, also part of our future. We should all seek to support them, both politically and with the pounds in our pockets. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) talked about how co-operative principles can be applied to modern challenges, while my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) made the second-earliest reference, to 1862—not quite as far back as the Rochdale pioneers, but pretty good. He also mentioned Hengistbury Head Outdoors and called on local people to invest, which sounds very sensible for people in that area. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) said we are “the doers”. Not only that, but she is a doer for her constituents in a world of talkers, and we all thank her for that.
I welcome the support of the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), for the co-op sector. While I expect some disagreement with the Government, I think we can agree that this was an agreeable debate on all sides. She made the important point that co-ops are more likely to be led by women than the average for the FTSE 100. That is another mark in favour of the co-operative sector.
As for the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), he said before I started that everything that needs to be said has been said—a bit of a challenge, but I can take it on my first outing. We all welcome a new co-operator, don’t we? He joined over the course of the debate. After the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has read Hansard tonight, before bed, which I am sure she will—as we all do every night—she will write back to him on the point about the British Business Bank. The Government look forward to the Law Commission review coming out. I certainly did not expect references to the potential mutualisation of Thames Water or Icelandic trade unionism—I hope that one day both may be discussed more broadly on the Opposition Benches—but the mutualisation of Thames Water is not Government policy.
The Government are committed to doubling the size of the mutuals sector, as has been discussed. According to the 2025 co-operative and mutual economy report, there are currently over 10,000 mutual and co-operative businesses in the UK, with an annual income of £179.2 billion. What doubling means will differ for different parts of the sector.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
This debate has focused on the business element of the co-operative sector, but could the Minister take back to the Department the work on co-operative solutions that happens in social settings? My constituency was one of the few that had riots last year. The Co-operative party’s community power work demonstrates that we can bring communities together and deal with the tensions and sense of purposelessness by giving people a genuine stake in their community so that they can shape the services they use. There is no business element to that, but the social benefit is huge. When the Minister goes back to his Department, can he implore it to look at co-operative solutions to and models for the modern tensions that we face in some communities? The co-operative movement has the answers that we are looking for.
Mark Ferguson
My hon. Friend intervened on my maiden speech, which is slightly irregular, and now he has intervened on my first outing at the Dispatch Box. Co-operatives have a wide variety of uses in the economy and I am sure that the Department and the Government more broadly will consider them. Their importance in community cohesion is certainly not lost on me or, I am sure, on other Members here.
On the shadow Minister’s question about cash ISAs, cash savings are important for people looking to put cash away for a rainy day, and the Government will protect that. The Chancellor has been clear that she wants to get Britain investing again so that companies can grow and so British savers who choose to can get more in return. Given that I am here merely on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I am even less tempted than usual to comment on the future Budget.
I want to acknowledge the importance of discussing the mutual sector, of which co-operatives are a huge part. According to research by Co-operatives UK, the 10,000 co-operatives I mentioned not only have £179 billion of income, but employ 1.3 million people in our economy. Britain has a rich history of mutuality, from co-operatives and community benefit societies to credit unions, mutual insurers and friendly societies. For example, this year marks the 250th anniversary of the first ever building society, which was founded in Birmingham with the principles that still guide the sector today.
The modern co-operative movement was born in Britain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton noted. In 1844, a small group of artisans from Rochdale came together to form the first modern co-operative, the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers.
Paul Waugh
My hon. Friend may not be aware that four of the original 28 Rochdale pioneers were warpers and weavers from Spotland Bridge, which is where I grew up. That makes me incredibly proud of the sense of working-class ingenuity and self-help that lives on today. Directly to my hon. Friend’s point, does he not think that the most important statistic about co-ops is that co-operative start-ups are twice as likely to survive beyond the first five years as any other start up?
Mark Ferguson
That point is very well made, and my hon. Friend is right to be proud of his forebears, who were doughty working-class politicians and representatives of his area, as he is.
The Rochdale principles, established by the Rochdale pioneers, have formed the basis of modern ideals for the operation of co-operatives across the globe. The UN General Assembly declared 2025 to be the International Year of Co-operatives, recognising the positive impact that co-operatives have around the world.
The Government have made clear their strong commitment to supporting the co-operative sector, and we have already begun to make our commitment a reality. At her Mansion House speech last November, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced measures to support the growth of co-operatives. That included welcoming the establishment of an industry-led mutual and co-operative sector business council, which is already providing a powerful voice for the sector. The Government have been working closely with the council to understand what the sector needs to grow further, and the council has been developing sector growth plans, which we look forward to receiving.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mark Ferguson
I have to make progress—sorry.
Additionally, the Government asked the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to produce, by the end of 2025, a report on the wider mutuals landscape, which is well under way. The Government are continuing to fund the Law Commission’s independent review of the legislation that governs co-operative societies in Great Britain, which is expected to be published later this year. That review will consider ways to update and modernise the legislation for co-operatives and community benefit societies, including on methods of raising capital, to ensure that those societies operate in a supportive regulatory and legislative environment. That is exactly the sort of access to capital that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North referenced. The Government look forward to reviewing the report when it is published, and will consider its recommendations closely.
Of course, our commitment to doubling the size of the sector is an ambitious target that requires a cross-Government effort, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton rightly noted. The Treasury works closely with other Departments on achieving that ambition, and will continue to do so, and the Department for Business and Trade has also taken steps to support the sector. It has announced a call for evidence to explore how the Government can better support co-operatives, and has included co-operatives and alternative business models in its business support initiatives, such as the growth hubs and the business growth service.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has provided support for co-operatives in its Pride in Place strategy. Its new co-operative development unit will work closely with local and combined authorities to support the growth of local co-operative and mutual economies. Beyond those examples, Departments across Government, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, have been considering how the co-operative sector can support their priorities. This is a united, cross-Government effort that reflects our commitment to a diverse and resilient economy with a range of business models.
As today’s discussion has shown, the Government remain committed to supporting the growth of the co-operative sector now and in the future, recognising the important role of co-operatives and mutuals in our economy. I thank all Members who spoke in this important debate—because co-operation is an essential part of rebuilding Britain.
Jim McMahon
First, I want to say how pleased I am at the turnout for this debate. It recognises the importance of co-operation in our communities, our economy and our politics. One thing that I observe in Britain today is that many people feel, in politics, the economy and society, that they are powerless, and there is something in this debate about how we collectively rebuild.
The fact that this debate has had cross-party support—from Northern Ireland to Norwich, and from both the Liberal Democrat and Conservative shadow teams—just shows that, in the end, success can have many fathers. When we can build something that is positive and brings people together, it can act as a magnet for people genuinely to come to, so I thank Members for having this debate.
My final point is for the Minister on his first outing at the Dispatch Box. He undertook it with flair and enthusiasm, and I am sure he has great things ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for the co-operative sector.
Local Government Funding: North-west England
(1 day, 14 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 Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered funding for local government in the North West.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the Minister for being here today.
I will start by reading the words of Stuart, who lives in my Cheadle constituency, and who wrote to me just two days ago—a timely admission for this debate. He said:
“I am writing as a resident of Cheadle Hulme to express my deep concern about the level of council tax and the prospect of further increases. My current council tax is £275 per month...This level is already difficult to sustain, and any further rise will make it unmanageable for many working households like mine. I understand that a large proportion of council spending now goes toward adult and children’s social care, but the current trajectory feels unsustainable without fundamental reform or additional central government support.”
Stuart is right: the current situation is completely unsustainable, and I am sure Members here today will agree that it cannot go on.
I am sure we all entered politics to effect change—campaigning to keep a school open, fundraising for a library or creating a community group. We know that change starts small, with one person, one area or one community. We must take to heart the saying that all politics is local. Local government is at the forefront, the most frequent point of interaction between the British public and government. As a former councillor myself, I know the amazing things that local government can achieve and the real and lasting impact it can have on a personal level.
Local governments are the key to unlocking growth, improving health and poverty outcomes, and providing the best support to the most vulnerable. But our local authorities, as Stuart rightly points out, are suffering tremendously from years of cuts and a systemic failure to properly fund even the most essential services. Our local authority finances are on their knees, and this country cannot deliver growth, reform public services or improve life changes without first fixing local government finances.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. He is absolutely right to underline the importance of local government. I served as a local councillor for some 26 years before I came to Parliament, so I understand the importance of local government. He is outlining why Government needs to commit to funding for local towns and cities across all of the United Kingdom. Does he feel that Government’s interaction with local government should be the first stop when it comes to organising funding and understanding what the real issues are on the streets?
Mr Morrison
I completely agree. There has to be a two-way dialogue, in which the Government talk and work with local government to work out the challenges that need to be fixed.
The Local Government Association reports that 29 councils needed exceptional financial support in 2025-26 to set a balanced budget. That is 11 more than the previous year, and I am afraid that number will only continue to grow. The Government’s pride in place strategy is meaningless when local authorities are still being encouraged to sell community commodities such as libraries and leisure centres to avoid financial ruin. That is no way to set our communities up for success. It is stripping away the key things that make a community, the places where people gather and access the support and services that they need. Drawing on dwindling reserves is not a sustainable financial plan.
However, there are also regional inequalities to the issue, which slice across all aspects of daily life, from transport to potholes. Last year’s fairer funding review lacked all nuance, basing criteria for recovery grants on deprivation figures from over a decade ago. Stockport council missed out on any recovery funding; it is now left to pick up the pieces, and to continue fighting tooth and nail without the £20 million it so desperately needs to sustain long-term services, despite having some of the most deprived wards in the UK in our borough. In just three years’ time, Stockport council will be underfunded by £63 million. Despite that, the council won local authority of the year in 2025—a testament to its officers and councillors.
Stockport is a council that does not shy away from hard decisions. It was promised more from the Government, yet things have not changed. In opposition, the Labour party decried the underfunding of local councils across the country and said that things could only get better under its tenure. Well, councils are facing the same problems across the north-west, and we are seeing the same lack of ideas from the Government that we did under the Conservatives. Real-time cuts to local government funding in Stockport alone have reached more than £133 million in the past few years. As a result, Stockport council was forced to find £24.5 million of savings just for the 2025 budget.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
As a fellow Stockport MP, I am delighted that my hon. Friend has secured this debate. I strongly agree with the points he is making about the underfunding of local government over a period of years, particularly in our part of the world. I wonder if he agrees that the root of some of the problems is the unsustainability of social care. As his constituent Stuart mentioned, for Stockport council, £3 in every £4 is spent on either adult or children’s social care. The demand for that is increasing, yet the funding available is not. Does he agree that the Government taking three years to do a review into social care is too long, and that they should crack on?
Mr Morrison
I completely agree. The point, when it comes to social care, is political will. All parties have talked about the importance of social care and of getting the funding right. There is no need to wait for three years; we should indeed crack on.
Regional growth drives national growth. If regions are not invested in, we cannot expect the country to thrive. There are ever-expanding divides between regions, which have consequences on the quality and even length of people’s lives. According to the Institute for Public Policy Research, transport illustrates that divide exceedingly well. In London, people receive £1,183 per head for transport, but in the north-west it is less than half that figure, at just £540 per person. In total, across the north, that is an investment gap of £140 billion.
Our growth is low and slow as a country because areas outside the south-east have been neglected time and again. Anne, another constituent of mine in Bramhall, wrote to me recently to explain her frustrations. She said:
“Residents are being asked to pay more while receiving less and now must pay extra just to maintain a service that was previously included. Public frustration is escalating rapidly across online forums, community groups, and social media. What can be done about this?”
It is no wonder the public are increasingly frustrated when core spending power for local government remains 16.4% lower in real terms this year compared with 2010. The services that local government provides are vital to people’s everyday lives: bin collections, green space maintenance, street cleaning and social care for our most vulnerable residents.
If local governments can no longer sustain those services, our country will decline rapidly as people’s everyday quality of life suffers. Although the guarantee of multiyear settlements and a move away from fragmented, ringfenced grants are a step in the right direction, that is still not enough. Those changes will not be felt and frustrations will continue to grow, especially as the Government continue to work on the basis that local authorities will continuously raise council tax by the maximum 4.99% each year.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
I am pleased that the hon. Member is leading this debate and glad that he is raising the point of regional inequality. Does he agree that council tax is the most unfair, regressive tax in Britain, and that it is long overdue a proper overhaul to link property values to the amount of tax paid, as is not the case at the moment?
Mr Morrison
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention and agree completely that council tax is regressive, impacting the poorest in our communities. All parties should commit to finding a new way forward to reform it.
Councillors and council staff do not want to raise council tax. The public, already squeezed by a difficult cost of living crisis, will struggle to pay more time and again. It does not have to be that way. We must have the political will to empower our local governments to deliver their full potential. I want to outline to the Minister that politics is local. Chronic national issues will turn into deeper crisis if local governments continue to be squeezed to the point of no return. The Government must understand the benefits of investing in local authorities to do their jobs right and give the people of Cheadle, the north-west and all areas the good quality of life they deserve.
Giving all councils the power and resources to invest in community centres, parks, libraries, children’s centres and green spaces will restore people’s trust and respect, not just for their local authorities, but for central Government. We are now in a situation where the Government need to invest in councils just so that they can keep the lights on without fear of going bankrupt. It really is that serious.
Local government is capable; given the resources, it will deliver for our communities. We need to invest now without delay. Proper support now to address challenges earlier will lead to fewer councils requiring more intensive and costly interventions later down the line. Local government is the linchpin for change. It is a pool of potential waiting to be unlocked, and I urge the Government to do just that.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for initiating the debate on this important topic. He rehearses arguments I heard made in this Chamber and in the Chamber of the House of Commons for 14 long years, as local government funding was slowly undermined by the Tories. The Osborne cuts—I am making myself sound very old, Mr Turner, but you will remember those days—fell on town halls almost more than anywhere else. I have great sympathy with the hon. Member’s argument.
Our country is diverse and all our towns and cities face unique challenges arising from their own economic and social history. As the hon. Member rightly set out, when local government is successful, people experience public services that are specific to them, and every place is given the best chance of growth. He is right to connect dissatisfaction with politics overall with the place of local government. It is in all our interests to see it succeed.
With the UK Government and local government working closely together, we can achieve our collective aims. As the Member of Parliament for Birkenhead in Merseyside, I am more than aware of the challenges and opportunities that our region faces. The Government are committed to making sure that local government in the north-west and across England is put on a sustainable and secure footing. Doing so after 14 years of damage will be complicated, but I believe we can make progress.
The local government finance settlement for 2025 to 2026 made available £69 billion of funding through core spending power, of which £9.4 billion—14% of the total for England—was allocated to the north-west. The settlement marked the beginning of the Government’s commitment to rebuild and stabilise local government. That commitment included introducing a new £600 million recovery grant targeted at those areas with greatest need and demand for services and less ability to raise income locally.
I hear what the hon. Member for Cheadle says about Stockport and the recovery grant. I repeat the comments I just made: it was specifically targeted on the basis of need. In recovering the financial position of local authorities, an important golden thread that runs through all the steps that the Government will take is that we will objectively consider need, deprivation, poverty and inequality to make sure that we are supporting local government to help rebalance our country and provide services in a way that helps everybody to have the best chance of thriving. In the north-west, 78% of councils received an allocation of the recovery grant, totalling £146 million—24% of England’s total. That is the first meaningful step towards funding reform, which was not achieved under the Tories.
Our ambition does not stop at this year’s settlement. The spending review provided more than £5 billion of new grant funding for local government over the next three years, allowing us to move forward with reforms that will reduce the pressure on local government. This year my predecessor embarked on a consultation on the long delayed fair funding review because the outdated way in which local authorities are funded has left some places behind. We intend to redirect around £2 billion of existing funding to the places and communities that need it most, ensuring the best value for Government and for taxpayers.
For the first time since 2013-14, the Government are updating the relative needs formulae that form a key part of how local authorities’ funding allocations are calculated. This year, those reforms will be delivered through the first multi-year settlement in a decade, giving councils the certainty that they have long called for, enabling more spending on prevention and less on paying for the costs of failure. I would be a rich woman if I had a pound for every time somebody in local government, over the past 14 years, had asked me for multi-year settlements to enable forward planning and focus on prevention. Introducing them is an important cornerstone of the Government’s new approach to local government.
The reforms will also change the fragmented local government grant funding landscape. We will consolidate as much revenue funding as possible into the local government finance settlement, bringing funding together into the multi-year settlements so that we do not have such a complex mix of funding. For 2025-26, we consolidated almost £700 million into the settlement. We are going further and faster for 2026-27, and will deliver the biggest programme of funding simplification to date. That frees up resources for public services and helps local authorities to decide for themselves the most effective way to spend money in their communities.
However, funding reform is only one part of the story. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) mentioned, we have to change public services to best serve residents and communities. There are areas where we have to consider not just funding but how the services are changing, and how need for them has shifted. The spending review confirmed more than £2 billion over the next three years for children’s social care reform. We are determined to invest in prevention, fix the broken care market and crack down on excessive and exploitative profit making. We will set out further detail on funding for children’s social care reform in the local government finance settlement.
We are also committed to reform the adult social care system, and to build a national care service. We will consider recommendations from phase 1 of the independent commission into social care led by Baroness Casey when she reports in 2026. The Government have made a major step in boosting the wages and working conditions of adult social care workers across England, with an extra £500 million investment into the first ever fair pay agreement for care workers.
For special educational needs and disabilities, we have ensured that funding for schools is increasing by over £4.7 billion a year by 2028-29 compared with the 2025-26 core schools budget that was published at the 2025 spring statement. With that funding, we will reform the SEND system to make mainstream schools more inclusive, improve outcomes and stop parents having to fight for support.
We also recognise the pressures that local authorities are facing because of their dedicated schools grant deficits. In June, we announced a two-year extension to the DSG statutory override, which is now due to end in March 2028. We will set out further details in our plan to support local authorities with historical and accruing deficits through the upcoming local government finance settlement.
The Government have also already taken the first steps to getting back on track to end homelessness, including investing over £1 billion in homelessness and rough sleeping services this year—an extra £316 million compared with the previous year—to prevent rises in the number of families in temporary accommodation and to prevent rough sleeping. That may sound like an objectively good thing to do—which of us thinks that families could possibly thrive in temporary accommodation? —but having looked at the books, I am also extremely worried about the cost of homelessness and temporary accommodation to councils. The aim of the investment is therefore not just to stop the terrible moral stain of homelessness, but to help maintain the structural integrity and funding of our councils.
On top of that, the Government are setting the foundations to deliver on our plan for change commitment to build 1.5 million homes in England this Parliament, and will deliver the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation. That investment will also be preventive and help to secure councils’ funding in a better way.
To focus on the north-west, the Government are investing to help revitalise our districts, towns and cities and to foster thriving communities. Through the local regeneration fund, the north-west is benefiting from over £1.5 billion of investment, combining the levelling-up fund, the towns fund and the pathfinder pilot scheme. That reduces the monitoring burden on councils and lets them prioritise how they deliver locally, without micromanaging from Whitehall. In Stockport, that includes a £1.2 million active travel package, £4.4 million for Cheadle eco business park, and £8.2 million for Cheadle railway station.
We have an ambitious programme of reorganisation taking place across England, ending the two-tier system of local government and establishing single tier councils everywhere, including in Lancashire in the north-west. That streamlined approach to local government will also help it to work better.
The north-west, I am very proud to say, has led the way on devolution, as part of the Government’s ambition to see all of England access devolved powers by establishing strategic authorities that can make key decisions to drive economic growth and celebrate our towns and cities. Greater Manchester combined authority and the fantastic Liverpool city region are two excellent and long-standing examples in our region of what can come when devolution happens.
In particular, Greater Manchester has secured a £630 million single funding settlement under its trailblazing devolution deal. That replaces fragmented funding pots and gives the combined authority greater flexibility to allocate funds across priority areas. It has been a pleasure, both in my previous role and this one, to work with Mayor Andy Burnham to bring the vision of city governance for Greater Manchester to life, and to devolve functions from the UK Government to Greater Manchester so that he can integrate services and work with local authority leaders to get the best service for residents.
I thank the hon. Member for Cheadle and everybody who has contributed for the insightful points raised and their ongoing dedication to making sure that local government—our councils—in the north-west have the most powerful voice in this place. We cannot overstate the damage done to the foundations of local government over the past decade and a half. Change has begun and we are ready to listen to all local authorities about how we get this right. I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Mandatory Digital ID
(1 day, 14 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
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of mandatory digital ID.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Mr Turner. I did not know I was so popular today. I am delighted to see so many colleagues joining us in this short debate. I warmly welcome the Minister to his new role. We were shocked and appalled by his unjustified defenestration at the Scotland Office. We were energetic supporters of the “get Ian a job—any job” campaign, so we are delighted to see him here in his rightful place today. It has to be asked, though: who has he upset in the last few weeks to be landed with this particular poisoned chalice? But here we go again. It has taken 20 years, but ID cards are back, this time in a shiny new digital format, turbocharged by all the new features of modern technology.
Tony Blair famously tried to introduce ID cards back in the 2000s before being forced to abandon them by a fantastic campaign by civil liberty campaigners, Members of this House, and the millions of ordinary UK citizens who simply refused to have ID cards foisted upon them. But they are back. Like a spectre from the political grave, ID cards are with us once again. It is just possible that Tony Blair might reach his ultimate aim and aspiration of getting ID cards back, only this time in the form of his proxy, the current Prime Minister.
I had the misfortune of being around back in the 2000s, along with the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who is sitting behind me. We were part of the campaign that defeated Tony Blair at that point, and we look forward to defeating him again. The tone of the debate seems eerily familiar. Once again we have a Government earnestly assuring us that digital ID is a benign, benevolent scheme designed purely to make life easier for the general public. They talk about the Tesco clubcard and never having to find your utility bills ever again, as though it is nothing more than a boarding pass. It is a sort of, “Do not worry your silly little heads about this mass data collection or our new-found ability to monitor your every move. We are the UK Government; of course you can trust us.”
Well, we have heard it all before, and we know that this campaign is only going to be ramped up because the concerns remain the same: the threats to our privacy and civil liberties, the risk of mass surveillance, the dangers of Government overreach, and the too real vulnerabilities that come with storing vast quantities of personal data. We have only to look at the newspaper headlines this morning to see the true effects of that particular fear, with the breakdown in Amazon workplaces. Imagine if it were the personal data of everybody across the United Kingdom.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate, because it is an issue that the general public are engaging in. He will know that Scotland has its own identity card, known as the Scot card, which is used to store benefits data, debt data, the checks to make sure people can work with vulnerable people, court data and tax data. It is quite incredible. There are real fears that this—
Pete Wishart
I am not going to waste time responding to all that nonsense. It is a voluntary scheme. Does the hon. Member know the difference between voluntary and mandatory? All he needs to do is shake his head or nod. The detail is at hand. This new scheme has been objected to because it is mandatory—one of the few mandatory ID systems anywhere in the world. The Scot card is great. It is up to the individual user what gets put into it and what gets shared.
This new scheme could barely have got off to a worse start. Support for digital ID has collapsed since the public have been able to see the Government’s proposals. The petition calling for the proposals to be scrapped has become one of the fastest growing ever. It is now at almost 3 million signatories, and I am pretty certain that by the time I sit down it will be well over 3 million.
I heard the Minister’s car-crash interview on Radio Scotland. He told us simultaneously that the Government plans were both compulsory and voluntary, and went on to say that apparently digital ID would be “mandatory for some purposes”—a sort of partial compulsion, a digital half-pregnancy. Maybe this is a Schrödinger’s Britcard.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Does the hon. Member agree that the vast majority of the population across the UK, including in Northern Ireland, clearly see this for what it is—as a breach of their data, as spying on them—and that the mass of the population are now opposed to it?
Pete Wishart
Absolutely. As I said, support for it has been plummeting right across the United Kingdom, and I am not surprised.
Let us just dispel the notion that this is voluntary. This is a mandatory scheme. It is compulsory. It is to be compulsory for work, and if it is compulsory for work, it will be mandatory full stop. The only people who will not need one of these Britcards are those who plan never to work, rent a home, have access to public services or take part in normal life.
As we know, all this emerged from our friends in Labour Together. It was they who first proposed it, and it has been adopted by the Labour party. For some reason, they thought they would call it the Britcard—almost immediately alienating most of Scotland and probably about half of Northern Ireland at the same time. Given its recent controversies, it is probably a good idea for the Minister and his Government team to stay as far away from Labour Together as they possibly can.
Let us have a proper look under the bonnet of the great British Britcard. The Government say that it will be free of charge this time around, and available to all citizens and legal residents. So far, so good, but we still do not know its reach. Who will be expected to take one? There are already rumours that 13-year-olds might have to have a Britcard, although that has been disputed by the Government, and we already know that our veterans will be the first of the many digital guinea pigs.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
As a veteran, I was disgusted to see yesterday that veterans are being used as guinea pigs, with a smokescreen, to test this system. Our veterans do everything for us. They are brave people. They should not be the ones on whom this is tested. Does the hon. Member agree?
Pete Wishart
I most definitely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is absurd and unfair that our veterans are the guinea pigs who will test this out for the Government.
We are told that digital ID is essential to tackling illegal working and illegal migration. When we look at the evidence on mandatory ID across the world, that just does not stack up. Under the Government’s plan, anyone seeking work must prove their right to work through this digital ID, giving the Home Office sweeping new powers over individuals’ daily lives, from employment to housing and basic public services. There is no clear evidence whatsoever, from anywhere mandatory ID is in place, that it reduces illegal working or irregular migration.
Let us be absolutely clear: illegal working does not stop because people are forced to carry digital ID cards; it stops when people are allowed to work legally, contribute to society and live without fear. Big Brother Watch has called mandatory digital ID a “civil liberties nightmare”, and it is absolutely right. Amnesty International warns that such a scheme risks becoming “a honeypot for hackers” and a tool for state surveillance—again, absolutely right.
The UK has never been a nation where it is normal for someone to have to prove who they are when they are not suspected of doing anything wrong. I do not share the concept of being British, but there is something particularly un-British about having to surrender huge amounts of personal data just to access basic services. A “papers, please” culture, even in digital form, seems so alien to this country.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I agree with most of the hon. Gentleman’s conclusions. Does he agree that, in hindsight, the Scottish Government’s use of a covid passport was a mistake, especially in a way that exposed the Government to criticism from the Information Commissioner about the lack of transparency on how that data was used?
Pete Wishart
We are getting a little bit off-track, but I will answer that because the right hon. Gentleman needs an answer: no, I do not think that was a mistake. It was the correct thing to do.
Mandatory digital ID would fundamentally change the trust-based relationship between citizen and state, replacing it with one of constant verification and oversight. Let us not forget about the danger of mission creep. Once this type of infrastructure exists, it rarely stays confined to its original purpose. The Government say that the police will not be able to demand to see a person’s digital ID, but does anyone seriously believe that will not change over time?
This is about not just what this Government might do, but what every future Government might do. We are empowering not just this Labour Government, but every Government that will come after it. Imagine Prime Minister Farage, with all his authoritarian tendencies, with the data of the nation at his fingertips. It scares me half to death and it should scare the whole House half to death.
Then there is the cost. The Government have been very coy about the cost. They are reluctant to give us even a ballpark figure, and they are absolutely right—those prepared to work out an estimate on their behalf have said that, initially, this could cost anything between £1.2 billion and £2 billion. That is a gross underestimate. Laughably, our friends in Labour Together told us that it would be £1.4 million. We need only look at the costs of the physical ID to get a sense of what it will eventually cost. The physical ID would cost £5.4 billion. Some people reckon it would get above £15 billion, possibly to £19 billion or £20 billion.
Digital ID is much more technical and complicated to administer than the physical version. Do the sums work out? How much will this cost? All our constituents should be asking every Member of Parliament whether we should spend billions of pounds on a scheme that nobody wants and that there is no demand for when a cost of living crisis is raging in every single one of our constituencies. Are we seriously going to spend billions of pounds on an unpopular, crackbrained scheme that no one wants or needs?
Then there is what is happening elsewhere. We have heard foreign examples to suggest that this is just business as normal for this Government. They are keen to promote the Estonia scheme. I have had a good look at Estonia. Estonia is 10 times more digitally engaged than the United Kingdom. It is an entirely different nation. But even with all their knowledge, experience and digital systems, there have been catastrophic data leaks, which has led to real problems and issues for the citizenry. Look across Europe: Europe, like Scotland, is developing its own type of digital wallet. That is the right thing to do. People like having these things in a digital wallet. The key difference is that it is not mandatory—we come back to that feature again.
In Scotland, we are developing the ScotAccount, which has proven very popular. I encourage people to use it. There is nothing wrong with having things in a digital wallet. It becomes wrong only when it is made mandatory—when people are expected to carry one even though they do not want to.
Pete Wishart
I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
That is the issue, and the Government seem cloth-eared about it. In Scotland, we will have to pass what is called a legislative consent motion to allow this to go through, given our responsibilities for devolved services. We are not going to do that. The Minister will have to decide whether he accepts the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament or whether he will do a Tory and impose it on us anyway. I challenge him to do that in the run-up to the Scottish election, because he will turn this into a nightmare for the Government and a constitutional nightmare for the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur).
We do not want these things. We think they are thoroughly bad. We saw them off in the 2000s, and we will see them off again. The public hate them, and I believe the petition now has more than 3 million signatures, so we are getting there with the general campaign. I pity the Minister for having to take this through; he would have been much better off had he kept his place in the Scotland Office.
We saw off ID cards in the 2000s. Twenty years on, whether it is plastic cards or digital apps, this is still a data-grabbing, liberty-eroding, multibillion-pound waste of time. We beat them in 2005; and the SNP, with our leadership of the campaign in this Parliament, will ensure that we see them off once again.
Several hon. Members rose—
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
I will have to impose a one-minute time limit on speeches. I call Jo White.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Turner. Wow, that is a big announcement!
Just over a month ago I visited Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, a country that has been using digital ID for 30 years and a country we can learn from—how it works, how it reaches the digitally excluded and how it protects people’s security. What struck me most was that everyone I spoke to said the same thing: with digital ID, they know exactly what information the Government hold on them, and most importantly, they know who has looked at it and why.
That level of transparency and personal control should be the gold standard, but here it often feels the opposite: social media giants and private companies know more about us than we realise—often more, I would say, than our nearest and dearest. We need to have absolute control.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
It is interesting that my hon. Friend talks about the Estonian experience, as I often hear my constituents’ frustration that they do not know what the Government are doing with their data, and how they even have trouble accessing it. Does my hon. Friend think that a scheme like Estonia’s would help the citizen to be in charge?
Jo White
I totally agree with my hon. Friend.
From the moment we are born, the state begins to gather data: our birth is registered; the NHS stores our health records; we are issued with national insurance and NHS numbers; and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs tracks us. By having a digital ID, we can see the information the state holds on us, who has been accessing it and why. We can even determine that other people cannot see our data. It is about us having control over our own data.
It is also about security, because the way it is divided and split up means there is absolute security as nobody can see data from one Department to another. It is about people having personal control, which is what people in my constituency are calling for.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
In view of the time limits, I will focus solely on the scandalously insecure One Login procedure. I will be writing to ask the National Audit Office to investigate because, apart from the strategic weakness of having a single login, the Government’s handling has been a disaster.
As early as 2022, the information assurance team responsible for ensuring the security of the system raised concerns that it was being developed on unsecured workstations, by contractors in Romania who did not have security clearance. When it ran a red-team operation to see how secure it was, they broke into the system easily. They would have been able to install malware, and they were not even detected by the people running the system.
What will happen when this system comes into effect is that the entire population’s entire data will be open to malevolent actors—foreign nations, ransomware criminals, malevolent hackers and even their own personal or political enemies. As a result, this will be worse than the Horizon scandal.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. For reasons of timing, I will not repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) said about the important change in the relationship between citizen and state that could come from digital ID—putting the citizen in charge rather than the state knowing too much about us without our knowing what they know.
However, there is another reason why we might want a free, digital, Government-backed ID: £11 billion is lost each year to fraud, and ID theft costs us about £2 billion a year. People need to prove who they are at each and every moment. For too many people, that involves a passport or driver’s licence, which is not affordable for many. Having an ID that allows us to prove who we are could be more secure. We will also need it to show that we can work—there has been a 40% increase in illegal working—and to prove our age, including for the big changes made by the Online Safety Act 2023.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
My hon. Friend raises the Online Safety Act. Some of my constituents have raised concerns about identity checks to access material online. Would it not have been far easier to prove one’s age online safely and securely if we already had a digital ID, and would that not have helped us to introduce safer checks online?
Emily Darlington
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All the complaints I have received are about people giving their information to third-party verifiers. If they had a free, digital, Government-backed ID, they could have proved their age to access any over-18 content. People are also concerned that those who should not be accessing the NHS are doing so. The reality is that if there were a Government-backed digital ID, it would be clear whether a person can access the NHS.
I have come up with a list that debunks what the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) said, and I am happy to pass it to him afterwards. I think we need to add a few scientific facts, but I do not have time.
Emily Darlington
I am happy to go through it. First, it is not about centralising data. Rather, digital ID allows the citizen to access federated data. The data stays in the individual Departments; it does not stay on a card—this is not about a card. Digital ID adds a level of security to Government datasets. There is no travel or location data. There is no access to external providers. It uses sovereign tech that allows citizens to know what the Government hold and who is accessing it. There is no new data that the Government do not already hold, and a single login is actually better for a person to prove who they are with a digital ID.
Emily Darlington
I think the right hon. Member will find there is a split in the community because there is a lack of detail.
Emily Darlington
I agree, but there is a lack of detail. When we are at the beginning of the conversation and going out to consultation, which is exactly what we are doing, we have to ask the public what they want. Do they want either of the two scenarios that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw and I presented, or do they not want access to their Government data in a way that enables them to know what is happening, and so that they can prove who they are without having to pay for a passport or driver’s licence?
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
We should start not by asking what the Government can do, but what the Government should do. Mandatory ID cards are an overreach and far above what any Government should be doing. I have reached out to my South Shropshire constituents with a survey to ask for their views, and they are strongly against it. Among the points they have raised is digital exclusion.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentions digital exclusion. Some 28% of people over the age of 75 do not have a smartphone. How are they going to access digital ID?
Stuart Anderson
My hon. Friend raises a valid point. That has been a concern in South Shropshire, where I have huge areas that do not have high-speed connectivity. A lot of elderly people are not able to use an iPhone or computer, so they feel that they will be digitally excluded. Whether it is mandatory or voluntary, it is still—
Stuart Anderson
The hon. Member has just highlighted the confusion around this. If the Government are considering hard copies, the costs could be into the billions of pounds, as the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) mentioned. There is no money, and there is not a problem in this area, so why create a problem, spending billions of pounds that the country does not have on something that no Government should be doing?
On the subject of digital exclusion, a large percentage of my population is not connected or does not use IT. My concern is whether the digitally-excluded pensioners in South Shropshire will be hounded by the police. Will the police be chasing them around, asking them to sign up? Will people find that they cannot get a job unless they have digital ID? There are huge concerns about this. [Interruption.] Members can shake their heads, but the scheme is being rolled out to stop illegal immigration. It is a dead cat story, and no Government should be looking to do this.
I have major concerns, and so do my constituents. I am worried about the security of the scheme. Look at China and Russia: we have continual cyber-attacks on the UK, as we have just seen with Jaguar Land Rover. With the advancement of AI, if we believe we can keep our data safe, why have spreadsheets been emailed to the Taliban? Mistakes happen, but imagine having the whole country’s data. It was done by a civil servant, and it is a disgrace it happened under whoever’s watch. We should not be joking about things like data going to the Taliban. This is a major issue. It is the start of an authoritarian Government, and I do not believe we should have any involvement with it. It should be cancelled straightaway.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
The public did not vote for this, and the country cannot afford it. When we look at the Government’s stated purpose, there is also no evidence behind it. If we are looking to scrutinise the grey economy, employers are ignoring the documentation whether it is digital or paper. Of course, we have to come down on employers that exploit labour and do not pay their taxes, but this scheme will simply not achieve the aims that have been presented.
When I meet digital experts and academics in my constituency who deal with encryption and the risk of data leakage, they say that 12,400 data breaches have happened in the last year—those figures are from the Information Commissioner’s Office. We know that there is no security. One thing the scheme has achieved is to unite my constituents. I am glad that the Government will consult, but this is not the way forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate. There is no doubt that this is a contentious issue for many, but the position of me and my party is clear. It is one of opposition at every stage. The intention of these online IDs is blurry, and it is completely the wrong approach to the issues that the Government claim the cards will target.
I have received hundreds of emails over the last month showing clear opposition to the introduction of these cards. Many have stated that digital ID schemes threaten to undo the tradition of British liberty and replace it with a bureaucratic checkpoint culture that completely undermines the democratic process. It is not just the older generations who object; the younger ones have also contacted me to object. They say, “We are private citizens, and this system of digital ID is oppressive.” Furthermore, there is the danger of potential cyber-hacking.
I am proud to be able to say to my constituents that I have stood against this draconian plan at every stage. I can look them in the face and say that my party and I have no plans to support this scheme—we never will—and the quicker the Minister catches on, the better.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Ind)
The No. 1 issue facing this country is inequality. Civil liberties will potentially be infringed by the collection of private data. Millions of older people, people living in poverty and many disabled people will face digital exclusion. Of course, big tech corporations and their shareholders will be the real beneficiaries of the policy. There will be more inequality at home, and more taxpayers’ money going abroad.
However, the SNP’s hypocrisy on digital ID is frankly staggering. It wants Scotland to forget about the £7 million of taxpayers’ money spent on a covid vaccine passport that breached data privacy laws. Unlike the SNP, I have been and will continue to be consistent in my opposition to mandatory digital ID.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate. This is one of the most controversial and divisive issues currently supported by the Government, who have form. I am here on behalf of my constituents, as nearly 100 have written to me opposing the scheme, and nearly 4,000 have signed the e-petition.
We have heard the risks and the issues around data privacy, surveillance culture, user profiling, exclusion, focus creep and scope creep. Having worked in the IT industry for over 20 years, as well as in the cyber-security industry, I can say that there is no safe system at the moment. Relying on third-party software, owned by foreign states or companies—
Emily Darlington
Is the hon. Member aware of the Government’s statements that the system would be held internally and use sovereign tech?
David Davis
The tech has already been abroad. It has already been in Romania, and it is quite possible that malware is already inside it.
Iqbal Mohamed
One of the reasons for proposing the scheme was to give citizens and residents of the UK easy access to Government and public services. We have been crying out for joined-up government for decades, under the previous Government and the Labour Government before them. Our systems across Government Departments are islands of automation. They are separate—they do not connect; they do not talk to each other. Before this ID could be effective, we would need a fully integrated, safe, joined-up Government system with systems that talked to each other. There are people working in the NHS who have multiple log-ins to do their normal job. That is the environment that we are in.
My constituents and millions across this country are opposed to the scheme because they see the breach of their civil liberties but do not see the benefits of the scheme. The Government have not articulated them or the use cases. I asked the Secretary of State in the Chamber about what use cases the Government want to introduce the scheme for, about whether the prerequisites to deliver those use cases have been met, and about how the public can have guarantees about security, privacy and breach concerns before they are required, compulsorily, to sign up to the scheme.
The scheme needs detailed review. The pilots and previous attempts to implement such schemes have failed. They have exposed our country to third-party risks. Our data is already out there, and we cannot introduce a system that will make the rest of the data, which is not out there, easily accessible to those criminals.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
The Government say that digital ID will eradicate illegal workers in the UK. It will not. Mandatory digital ID will not stop any more unscrupulous employers than does the check for the right to work in the UK, which is already in place. It is a vanity project that will cost the taxpayer billions of pounds and will not achieve the desired outcomes.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour needs to wake up? This scheme could put our personal data at risk, while costing taxpayers billions and doing little to restore public trust in the immigration service.
Martin Wrigley
I agree. Many of my local residents are still digitally excluded. Lack of mobile signal and in many places no fast internet access means that digital-only solutions leave too many people out in the cold.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the very idea of “Ihre Papiere, bitte” is not something that my constituents, or the British people more broadly, will stand for? That explains this cross-party opposition—which I, as a true Liberal, fully endorse.
Martin Wrigley
I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. The elderly, the disabled and those on low incomes are most likely to be adversely affected by this policy. The Government published a digital inclusion action plan in February 2025, but I hear from constituents that, seven months on, they have seen little or no improvement.
It appears that digital ID will be required not just for accessing employment but as a proof of right to rent, which risks placing additional burdens on people already marginalised in society. Mandatory digital ID also brings a deep unease about the growing relationship between the Government and large tech companies such as Palantir, Apple and Google. As a member of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, I have raised concerns about those relationships and have yet to receive satisfactory answers. Knowing that the Government are willing for those companies to hold and have access to such sensitive data is worrying. I will continue to push for answers and will oppose mandatory ID cards.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I have serious concerns about digital ID, based on civil liberties, data security and practical delivery. First, on civil liberties, we should remember that although we may live in a benign social democracy today, that cannot be guaranteed in the future. When bestowing new powers on Government, MPs have a responsibility to think about how those powers could be used. Secondly, on data security, when the Government centralise vast amounts of personal data, they create a target for hackers and cyber criminals.
Thirdly, there are the practicalities. One argument that the Government have advanced for digital ID is that it will help to crack down on illegal working. However, there are already requirements on employers to check that applicants have a right to work in the UK. Why would an employer who did not carry out a right-to-work check for, say, a passport, suddenly carry out such a check for digital ID?
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Digital IDs are nothing short of a direct attack on our freedoms and I am utterly opposed to them. The claim that they will help to tackle illegal immigration is utter nonsense. If the Government were serious about that, the Prime Minister would strengthen border security, crack down on smugglers and traffickers, and invest in real enforcement. Quite frankly, digital IDs will not stop a single boat and they will not stop the endless cycle of people illegally entering the UK, mostly of working age, who do not want to work and will not work.
Digital IDs are not wanted by the people in my constituency of Upper Bann—they feel that it is “Big Brother is watching you” on steroids. At the end of the day, who pays for digital IDs but the ordinary people here in the United Kingdom? We have rejected digital IDs before and we will absolutely reject them again.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
When the Prime Minister unveiled this plan at the Global Progress Action Summit 2025, he referred to digital ID only as a tool for right-to-work checks; there was no mention of any linkage to public services. Within a matter of weeks, though, digital ID appears to have encompassed a disturbingly large part of people’s lives.
I was astounded to see the Secretary of State for Scotland on the BBC defending the sudden push for “Britcards” by comparing them to boarding passes, train tickets and Tesco clubcards, which are on many phones already. Every one of those things is available in physical form and a Tesco clubcard is clearly optional. That cannot be said for this “Britcard” scheme.
Ministers have repeatedly said that the scheme is not mandatory, yet the Prime Minister said it was mandatory for work purposes. He explicitly said:
“Let me spell it out: you will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have a digital ID.”
Surely, in anyone’s books that is mandatory.
One of the most glaring issues is the fact that digital ID is a rewiring of the relationship between citizen and state, and is being done without a democratic mandate. A “Britcard” is not wanted and is not needed. It is a waste of public money and should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I recently conducted a local survey after being contacted by hundreds of constituents about this digital ID issue. The results were clear. Over two thirds of respondents opposed the introduction of mandatory digital ID, with the majority of them being “strongly” against it. Over 80% of respondents said that they believed such a system would infringe on personal privacy and do little to tackle illegal migration. Around 30% of respondents supported some form of digital identification, often for specific limited purposes. However, even among that group, most respondents said that they did not believe it would meaningfully address illegal migration or illegal working.
Stuart Anderson
Does my hon. Friend agree that the way this idea was launched is a complete smokescreen and did not reveal the real reason for digital ID? The real reason is to gain control over the British people.
Gregory Stafford
I agree with my hon. Friend. At a time when trust in Government is so low—I think that it was about 12% in the last poll—it is totally wrong for the Government to introduce such a reckless policy, which fundamentally affects personal freedom and privacy without a clear case, clear cost or, most importantly, clear consent, because it was not in the manifesto. My constituents feel that this decision is being forced on them without consultation, without explanation and without consent.
Like many others, I have deep concerns about privacy, data security and Government overreach. People are rightly worried that digital ID could pave the way for intrusion into areas such as banking, health records or even social credit-style monitoring.
Other Members have raised the issues around digital exclusion, which I entirely agree with, and most importantly the cost of the scheme. We must oppose digital ID every time that it comes in front of us. As has already been said, 3 million people have signed a public petition opposing digital ID. The message from my constituents and from the wider public is simple: the proposal is unwanted, unjustified and unwise. The Government should stop, listen and think again. My constituents demand transparency, safeguards and solid evidence that any proposed system will genuinely solve real problems without sacrificing privacy, liberty or fairness.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.
At a time when public trust in politics is low and confidence in Government competence is falling, I cannot think of a worse idea than a mandatory and highly expensive digital ID scheme, which inevitably will have to be delivered by private sector consultants. Of course, citizens should benefit from digital innovation, but between them the UK Government and the Welsh Government still struggle to transfer patient data from Hereford to Brecon. That is what my constituents want—they want their hospital records to be able to come back from Hereford. With that low level of capability, why would anyone believe that this Government can securely and effectively deliver a national ID system?
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I have three key questions. Will ID cards reduce illegal work? Probably not. Secondly, what price are we willing to pay for convenience? This seems a very high one. Thirdly, should we wonder when a prominent advocate of digital ID receives large donations from silicon valley, which has already shown a blasé attitude to personal data?
Meanwhile, we are looking at high opportunity costs; potential hacks and attacks on our personal data; and a card that starts out voluntary but rapidly becomes mandatory in all but name. Above all, there is the question of trust: a future Government could easily repurpose a digital ID scheme as a tool of surveillance or control. That is precisely why this country abandoned compulsory ID cards in 1952. The Liberal Democrats believe that technology should serve citizens, not monitor them.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing this lively debate and eloquently sharing his views and concerns.
As Liberal Democrats, we hold a fundamental principle: freedoms belong to citizens by right. The Secretary of State spoke repeatedly about
“giving people power and control”.—[Official Report, 13 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 87.]
But I ask the Minister—control over what and whom? This essentially mandatory digital ID for every person with the right to work in this country does not leave much choice or control.
My constituent Julie, from Harpenden, does not have a phone; she does not want one. That is her choice, but she has written to me deeply concerned that she will be excluded from society because of this digital ID policy. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), cited that 93% of the population have a smartphone, as if that justified digital ID. That statistic means that approximately 4.5 million people—just like Julie—will not gain control but lose it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) rightly pushed for during debate on the data Bill, people must have the right to a non-digital identification. That includes the right to work with non-digital ID. Where is the fairness for people such as Julie in this mandatory system? That is before we consider the 8.5 million people working in the UK who lack even the most basic digital skills. Leon, who works in IT in Tring, sees this reality every day. He has written to me saying that many of his colleagues struggle with basic smartphone tasks—a digital ID will force them to navigate an entirely new system on top of that. What are the Government’s plans to upskill millions of workers, or will this yet again be another burden dumped on businesses?
Speaking of cost, experts are clear that the proposal will cost taxpayers billions, behind a trail of failed Government IT projects. Ask European citizens in the UK who have been plagued by the e-visa app’s failures, which have resulted in people being wrongly denied work, housing, education and welfare. Analysis commissioned by the Liberal Democrats shows that, of 24 major Whitehall schemes currently under way, two are already rated as undeliverable and 16 are facing significant issues. From NHS patient records to digital tax systems, the total cost of those failed or delayed projects already stands at more than £31 billion.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I have just come from a meeting with WASPI women here in Parliament who are asking for £3 billion in compensation, which they are rightly owed. The Government have said that they do not have that money—they have actually taken that group to court—yet here we are: they have pulled £2 billion out of the hat. Does my hon. Friend agree that the priorities are really wrong here?
Victoria Collins
Absolutely, and I was about to say that while frontline services are crumbling and people are needing those billions of pounds, we are seeing here is billions being spent, millions being excluded and freedoms eroded—and for what? How much taxpayer money are the Government prepared to waste on this scheme, for which they have no mandate and no public support? While those frontline services are bursting at the seams, the Government have squandered the opportunity to use technology to improve services by instead undermining trust, seemingly flip-flopping on this patchwork policy.
On 26 September, the Prime Minister announced digital ID with promises to control borders and tackle irregular migration. Last week, that narrative had all but vanished, with a shift to talking about anything from handling daycare to buying a drink. The Secretary of State herself admitted that digital ID would not be the “silver bullet” to end migration as initially promised; as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) highlighted, as did many others, we know it will not solve the problem. Meanwhile, the Foreign Secretary defended extending digital ID to 13-year-olds—something that the Government have still not ruled out.
Why are this Government so determined to press ahead? I support improving digital services on a voluntary basis, but we can modernise without mandating and must leave room for non-digital choice. Allegedly, this is about easier access to Government services, but surely we should be working on improving what we already have.
The gov.uk One Login, the voluntary gateway to digital Government, needs much improvement. As the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) highlighted, there are many concerns about security as well. Should we not fix those services, rather than create new ones?
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this timely and important debate, as well as his characteristically forceful and measured speech. It has been a fun debate with lots of contributions. I am sure there will be plenty more opportunities going forward, but I want to draw out a few particularly powerful contributions.
First, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) pointed out the issues around the prevalence of digital exclusion and the use of the veteran card. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) rightly pointed out the issues that the gov.uk One Login has had. Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) pointed out the problem of the prevalence of digital poverty among the elderly. Finally, the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), who always speaks with great wisdom in these debates, spoke about the issue of multiple NHS logins.
This plan will make Government-issued digital ID compulsory to access work. Ignore the piffle—this is de facto mandatory. Given the contentious history of mandatory ID schemes in this country, one might have expected a policy of such weighty constitutional importance to appear in the Government’s manifesto, but it was conspicuously absent—like most current Government policy.
Earlier this year, I stood across the Dispatch Box from the previous Minister, debating the digital verification system brought in by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. That scheme created a trust framework for a register of approved providers of digital identity verification services. Building on the competitive ecosystem established by the last Government, private sector companies are already providing right to rent, right to work and many other identity checks.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
Talking about the difference between the public and private sectors, does my hon. Friend agree that it is deeply concerning that, at a time of rising taxation and increasing Government debt, this Government cannot even tell us how much a digital ID scheme would cost?
Dr Spencer
The point is that we have a sector that is already developing voluntary ID schemes. It is now being let down by the Government, who are bringing in their own mandatory scheme. Not once in the course of previous debates did the Minister mention that the Government intend to launch their own mandatory digital ID system for the right to work or anything else, but the concerns with this policy go beyond questions of democratic legitimacy.
The National Audit Office’s report on Government cyber-resilience, published early this year, contains a number of concerning findings about serious gaps in cyber-security amongst Government Departments and public sector bodies. One of the most concerning is that the Cabinet Office does not have a strategy for how Government organisations could become cyber-resilient by 2030.
There is no current plan to secure the Government’s cyber-resilience over the very same timeframe that this mandatory Government-run identity scheme, which will host the data of every working person in the UK, will be rolled out. We are yet to hear from the Government a clear timescale for bringing their cyber-security and resilience Bill forwards.
Digital inclusion remains a challenge for many across this country and impacts vulnerable groups, such as those on low incomes and those with disabilities, the most. The Government’s policy of making digital ID mandatory to access work flies in the face of digital inclusion. The consideration given to digital exclusion being, “Well, we are going to consult on what to do,” as an afterthought is frankly shameful.
Digital inclusion was at the heart of the previous Government’s levelling-up ambitions. The Government published their own digital inclusion plan in February, which will be implemented over several years. Why not concentrate on putting that plan into effect, rather than diverting resources towards their own costly digital identity programme? Universal digital inclusion and robust cyber-security must be conditions precedent to any Government-run ID scheme. At the moment, we have neither.
We are left with a number of pressing questions. Why was this flagship policy not part of the Government’s election manifesto last year? Why has it been brought forward now? Why should it be mandatory rather than optional? Why are the Government pursuing a costly, Government-run ID scheme when the private sector infrastructure for digital ID services exists already? What is the Government’s plan to keep citizens’ data secure? Can the Minister guarantee that no one lawfully eligible to work will be excluded from employment by this scheme?
The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)
It is, as always, a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for his speech. It was a very good speech, but suffered from the big disadvantage of none of it being actually accurate in terms of what the policy is and what digital ID is supposed to be about.
Let me start by saying—I mean this seriously and I mean it passionately in my defence of Parliament and Government—that it is okay to debate these things. There is a huge number of people in Westminster Hall today who want to debate this subject. An hour may not be enough, and no doubt we will come back to these issues on several occasions. But there is something that is really important. There is a real task for us all to do as custodians of democracy, which is to have this debate from the perspective of the facts that are out there and not to peddle myths.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) said clearly in an intervention that all we have heard is the myths. I hope I can bust some of those myths to give comfort to some of our constituents that this scheme is not what is being portrayed by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire and what we have heard in many of the contributions. We have a real responsibility to make sure that we have proper debates—with the facts, not with what we read on social media.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The Minister says that we are “custodians of democracy”. On the back of that, and in the light of his comments, I ask this: will the Government commit to a direct vote in the House, a free vote on the digital ID scheme before it is rolled out and becomes mandatory in any form? The public and their elected representatives deserve clarity and choice.
Ian Murray
A full consultation will be launched by the end of this year. There are two options that the Government could have taken. We could have started from the position of a fully fledged programme, a fully fledged policy, and then taken that out to consultation; or we could take the approach that we are doing at the moment, which is to go out to consultation after we have had some initial consultation with people, so that the formal consultation is shaped by people’s views and the concerns that they raise.
I will give two examples, which are from the island of Ireland and from Northern Ireland and in terms of the common travel area and the Good Friday agreement. These are things that have to be resolved. We now know they are big issues, and that will go into the consultation to try to resolve them. We cannot have it both ways. We have chosen to take this particular approach in order to develop a consultation—
Ian Murray
Let me make some progress and I will give way. I want to read Members this paragraph:
“We will develop and establish a trusted and secure service for users to prove who they are, and that they are eligible for a service. Users will be able to store their information and choose to share it when applying to public services. This will improve a user’s access to services by providing a safe and secure way to prove their identity, while reducing time and cost for the public sector. Additionally, we will develop an inclusive approach for all users to ensure that…services are available for”
all, particularly those who are digitally excluded. That is from the Scottish Government in 2021. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire’s own party as the Scottish Government is developing this; it is actually SNP policy.
Let me just bust some of the myths. This is not a Brit card. I know that members of the SNP like to call it a Brit card, because that is what gives them traction in the way in which they constitutionally do these things, but it is not a Brit card. And let me just deal with the issue about compulsion and mandation, because everyone stands up and calls this mandatory digital ID. It is not mandatory. That is the wrong thing to say to our constituents. It is not compulsory in this country to have a passport, but one is mandatory to travel. If someone wants to travel on a flight, even an internal flight, in this country, they require that ID to be able to travel. It is not compulsory to hold a passport, but it is mandatory to use one for travel. It is exactly the same in this particular instance. It is not compulsory to have one. People will not be asked to show it; they will not be asked to produce it. There is a whole host of use cases that would be voluntary—
Graham Leadbitter
The Prime Minister said that this was mandatory if people wanted to work in the UK, so for every single person who wants to work in the UK it is mandatory. Is that not pretty much a compulsory ID card?
Ian Murray
No, it is not. I cannot remember which hon. Gentleman made the point about over-75s not being digitally excluded. I do not know many over-75s who are looking for work, so if they do not want to have this, they do not need to have it. And for people who are particularly challenged in terms of mental capacity or otherwise, there will be a different system—
Ian Murray
Let me finish the first point. There will be available a system that is non-digital for people to use in those particular circumstances. In terms of the way the law works now, it is illegal for an employer to employ someone who does not have the right to work in this country. There is already a process for people to use passports or driving licences to prove their identification. If the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) wants his passport or driving licence held in some dusty filing cabinet and photocopied 400 times, rather than just proving his right to work in this country on his digital ID, I would suggest that that is less secure than having it on a smartphone.
Jim Shannon
How will the Minister and the Government react to the united political opposition from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland, nationalist and Unionist, to the ID card? How can the Minister and the Government pursue something that is so unanimously opposed by everyone in Northern Ireland?
Ian Murray
Let me address that point directly. I have already been to Northern Ireland and spoken to all parties in the Northern Ireland Executive, and I have also been to the Republic to speak to the Irish Government about the processes that they have. In fact, they are about to introduce a similar scheme, because all EU countries have to have a scheme up and running by 2026. We fully understand the Good Friday agreement, the common travel area and nationality in Northern Ireland—that people can be British, Irish or both—and that will all have to be built into the system. As a Government, we have taken on board those legitimate concerns—not the myths. I have heard them directly from all parties in Northern Ireland, and we will ensure that those are resolved as part of the process. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in the consultation to make sure that those are resolved.
Martin Wrigley
It is not much of a consultation if the Government have already said, very vocally, that they are going to do it. It is really a question of how hard they want to beat people.
Ian Murray
Of course it is a consultation. It is about how we get this right, what it looks like, how it is built, how federated data is secured, how we deal with digital inclusion and how we deal with the issues in Northern Ireland. That is what the consultation is about. It is about the Government learning from that. [Interruption.] Liberal Democrat Members are heckling from a sedentary position, but their own leader, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), said on 21 September that “times have changed”, and that he had been impressed by a visit to Estonia, where a liberal Government had brought in digital ID. He said that if a system was
“giving individuals power to access public services”,
he could be in favour. Four days later, he said that
“the Liberal Democrats will fight against it tooth and nail”.
It is the same hypocrisy as the Scottish National party; it was their policy five days before they came out against it.
Victoria Collins
I would just highlight that what was stated was about the system being voluntary and about choice. We are saying that a mandatory system is a problem. Do this Government want to grow this economy or not? Do they want to give people who want to work a real choice? I do not see that at all.
Ian Murray
This is about reconnecting citizens with Government. Everyone will have constituents coming to every one of their surgeries with a form they cannot fill out, a piece of maladministration in public services, something they cannot access or a difficulty in getting access to benefits. There are still people in this country who are entitled to huge parts of the benefit system but do not claim. There are people who will need this for verification of identity and their age in buying alcohol—all those things that are a big inconvenience for people. This is about reconnecting citizens with Government—modernising government, as we have heard from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). It is about making sure that the Government can be effective and can be in the digital age with a digital population. This happens in many other countries around the world. I do not have time to run through all of them now, but hon. Members can look them up.
Let me take on two issues before I finish. The first is data and security. This is a federated data system, so I say to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) that his idea of bringing it all together in one database is the wrong option. The data does not move; it sits with the Government Department, and the digital ID system, or whatever system is used, goes into those datasets and brings out affirmative or otherwise—
Ian Murray
I do not have time.
The system brings out affirmative or otherwise information in relation to the specific information that the system requires. Having one central database is the wrong approach; there would be security issues. The dataset is federated, and does not move from the home Departments. The system reaches in to get the data it requires and bring it into what it needs to do to answer the questions.
I fully understand the points made about digital inclusion; we all do. Governments have been talking about digital inclusion for far too long, and this is an opportunity to sort it once and for all. Where digital ID has been introduced, those in the most deprived communities, furthest away from Government services, have got the best access to them. Those who would not have had access before and geographically isolated communities, like those represented in Scotland by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, have been connected the quickest and have had the greatest use from the connection to Government services.
The myths about digital inclusion, about safety and security, about the ID being called a Britcard, and about it being mandatory are not the case in terms of the policy. I look forward to everyone inputting into the consultation and the Government bringing forward the legislation in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of mandatory digital ID.
Regulation Action Plan: Corporate Reporting
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
The Chancellor today set out the progress that has been made to deliver on the Government’s vision for ensuring regulators and regulation support growth. The Government have published “Regulation Action Plan—Progress Update and Next Steps”, setting out how the Government are going further to realise the vision we set out in the action plan in March 2025.
This progress update was accompanied by a package of specific reforms, in which the Government commit to reducing the annual administrative burden of regulation on businesses by £5.6 billion by the end of this Parliament. It also outlines the actions already taken to meet this target, including that six months after we announced our action plan, we have already identified and announced £1.5 billion in gross savings, which will contribute to the target to reduce the regulatory administration burden by 25% by the end of this Parliament.
Department for Business and Trade commitments
My Department has undertaken critical work to reduce the regulatory burden on business. We have already:
increased the monetary size thresholds for micro, small, medium and large-sized companies by approximately 50%, enabling up to 132,000 companies to benefit from lighter-touch requirements; and we are eliminating duplicative or redundant reporting requirements from the director report and director remuneration report and policy, delivering £185 million in administrative savings for businesses every year.
launched a call for evidence on improving the UK’s licensing regime for the hospitality sector, following the recommendations of my Department’s licensing taskforce.
issued a strategic steer to the Competition and Markets Authority setting out how Government expect the CMA to support economic growth across all aspects of its activity. In parallel, to support growth, investment and business confidence, the CMA is embedding the four principles of pace, predictability, proportionality and process across all its work.
These actions are based on direct feedback from businesses about how certain regulations act as barriers to their success. This feedback is captured in the 2024 business perceptions survey, which I have published today. As part of the actions set out by the Chancellor in our progress update on the regulation action plan, my Department will:
run a series of policy sprints across specific sectors to identify regulatory barriers which affect companies with innovative business models and high potential scale-ups. We will also deliver a range of regulatory deep dives, looking across each sector of the economy and delivering strategic reforms that best support business.
consult in the coming weeks on proposals to provide greater certainty for businesses on whether transactions will be subject to merger control, proposals to ensure remedies are regularly reviewed, and changes to how the CMA makes decisions in mergers and markets investigations.
work with the CMA as it launches two business surveys during this financial year, aimed at gathering valuable insights and further strengthening its engagement with the business community.
bring forward a consultation on specific reform proposals to the opt-out class action regime to strengthen predictability and cost-effectiveness, and ensure effective consumer protection.
deliver in partnership with the Financial Reporting Council to clarify the UK corporate governance code guidance, making it clear that the payment of non-executive directors in shares is appropriate, enhancing the ability of UK listed companies to attract the highest calibre of talent from across the global stage.
commission the Investment Association to discontinue its public register, which tracks shareholder dissent, thereby removing duplication with UK corporate governance code requirements.
Modernisation of corporate reporting
We are committed to going further and improving the regulatory landscape for businesses. A key part of the package is my Department’s plans to modernise and simplify the UK’s corporate reporting framework. This includes legislative changes and an ambitious and holistic consultation planned for next year. Together, these measures could save UK businesses around £230 million per year in reporting costs.
The legislative changes, which we aim to bring forward as quickly as possible, will implement two significant exemptions, to lift up to 51,000 thousand companies from unnecessary reporting obligations, as well as removing the requirement to produce a director’s report for all companies required to produce one. The changes we intend to make are:
first, the Government will aim to exempt most medium-sized private companies from the need to produce a strategic report as part of their annual report and accounts. This means that medium-sized businesses that can benefit from existing exemptions will no longer need to prepare narrative reporting, so they can focus on running their business, rather than producing information that is disproportionate to their scale and ownership model.
secondly, the Government will aim to exempt wholly owned subsidiaries from the need to produce a strategic report where their disclosure is included in the annual report of a UK parent. This will eliminate duplicative reporting within corporate groups.
thirdly, the Government will aim to remove the requirement for any company to produce a director’s report as part of their annual report and accounts. This report is often seen as a cluttered, compliance-driven document that has accumulated numerous disclosures over time, which offers little useful insight for investors. Through the removal of the director’s report, we will remove redundant and duplicative reporting, building on the changes that came into force earlier this year https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/1303/contents/made However, some useful reporting requirements, including reporting on energy and emissions, will be retained and moved elsewhere in the annual report.
Impact of changes
These reforms are anticipated to benefit up to 44,000 medium-sized private companies, and around 7,000 subsidiary companies, who will no longer be required to produce strategic reports. Approximately 440,000 companies will no longer need to compile a director’s report.
In October 2024, the previous Secretary of State for Business and Trade announced plans to consult in 2025 on measures to simplify and modernise the UK’s non-financial reporting framework. Stakeholder engagement over the summer indicated that only reviewing non-financial reporting would fall short of what is needed. Businesses, investors and professional bodies have urged the Government to adopt a holistic approach in order to consider the annual report and accounts in their entirety.
The Government have listened and expanded the scope of their reforms, now framed as the Modernisation of Corporate Reporting programme. A broad consultation will be delivered in 2026. To meet what industry has asked for, we will co-design reforms covering remuneration reporting, corporate governance reporting, and the financial reporting framework, as well as improving regulatory alignment across reporting frameworks, and we will consider how corporate reporting should function in a digital age.
This broader initiative reflects a commitment to far-reaching reform, aiming to restore company reporting to its original purpose, and providing concise, decision-relevant information for investors and creditors, while removing unnecessary burdens on business.
Next steps
The Government will continue to improve regulation in the UK, ensuring that it enables growth and does not unduly hold back investment.
To drive progress, I have also published “Unlocking Business: Reform Driven by You”, a business questionnaire, to gather direct insight from firms on where regulation is creating unnecessary burdens. This is a chance for businesses, investors, representative organisations and charities to tell us which regulations, forms, compliance processes and regulators are imposing the undue or unnecessary burdens, so we can deliver a pro-business programme of regulatory reforms.
The Government will continue to put industry at the heart of this programme, working with regulators and Parliament to ensure that the regulatory system protects consumers and supports competition, but also encourages new investment, innovation and growth.
The full regulation action plan progress update and business questionnaire are available on gov.uk.
[HCWS973]
Regulation Action Plan
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
Improving regulation in the UK, ensuring that it enables growth and does not unduly hold back investment, is an essential part of this Government’s growth mission and delivering on the plan for change.
In March, the Government published an action plan which set out how we will overhaul the regulatory system so that it not only provides critical safeguards and protects consumers, but drives sustained economic growth across the country, is targeted and proportionate, transparent and predictable, and keeps pace with innovation. To achieve that vision, the Government committed to delivering a package of reforms over the course of the Parliament that focus on tackling the complexity and the burden of regulation, reducing uncertainty across the regulatory system and challenging risk aversion.
Six months after the action plan’s publication, the Government are setting out the tangible progress we have made to deliver on that vision and setting out a range of new reforms to the same end.
The Prime Minister committed to reduce the administrative burdens of regulation on business by 25% by the end of the Parliament. We have now established a baseline for the administrative burden of regulation on businesses of £22.4 billion a year, which means that the Government target is to reduce the annual administrative burden of regulation by £5.6 billion by the end of the Parliament.
Alongside establishing a baseline, the Government have already taken action to meet the target, identifying £1.5 billion of administrative burden savings, for example through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill which is expected to deliver £272 million in administrative savings by the end of the Parliament; the establishment of the national underground asset register which will deliver over £185 million in administrative savings per year; and reforms to the information which the Prudential Regulation Authority requires from financial services firms, which are saving businesses over £100 million per year in administrative burdens.
We have simplified and streamlined the regulatory landscape, including through significant reforms to the Financial Ombudsman Service; the Government intention to abolish Ofwat and merge the water regulation functions of four different bodies into a single water regulator following the Independent Water Commission report; and delivering legislation to establish the fair work agency through the Employment Rights Bill, consolidating the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and the director of Labour Market Enforcement into a single public body.
The Government have also taken targeted action to ensure regulatory frameworks and processes support economic growth. We have published the UK’s modern industrial strategy and set out targeted regulatory reforms across eight high-priority growth sectors, such as overhauling our planning system, reforming the money laundering regulations to make requirements for around 100,000 businesses more effective and proportionate, and through the current statutory review of the UK’s medicines and medical device regulatory framework which will support responsible innovation, benefiting patients, the NHS and the economy. We will also take advantage of the opportunities from improving our bilateral relationship with the EU to ease burdens on business.
Today the Government have published “Regulation Action Plan - Progress Update and Next Steps”, setting out how the Government are going further to realise the vision set out in the action plan. Key actions include:
Tackling complexity and the burden of regulation
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade has made a written ministerial statement regarding legislative changes the Department for Business and Trade will bring forward to reform corporate reporting requirements, aiming to save businesses an estimated £230 million annually in administrative costs.
HM Treasury will consolidate the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing supervisory functions of 22 professional services supervisory bodies. The Financial Conduct Authority will assume responsibility for this. Reform of the UK’s AML/CTF supervision regime will strengthen the UK’s defences against illicit finance, support sustainable growth, and simplify a complex regulatory system.
Following a review announced as part of the regulation action plan and delivered through the Cabinet Office’s review of arm’s length bodies, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade intends to abolish the British Hallmarking Council and consolidate its functions alongside wider product regulation functions when parliamentary time allows.
Reducing uncertainty across our regulatory system
The Government will reform the growth duty so that the legal framework is clearer, more focused and ensures regulators must consider and promote growth. We will work with regulators to ensure they have clarity from Government regarding what growth means for them.
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade will lead efforts to strengthen regulator accountability by establishing a single regulator performance dashboard, using stakeholder feedback to support rigorous scrutiny of key performance indicators, and chairing a new regulators council to strengthen accountability and transparency across UK regulators.
Consistent with the objectives of the CMA’s own reforms, DBT will consult in the coming weeks on proposals to provide greater certainty for businesses on whether transactions will be subject to merger control; proposals to ensure remedies are regularly reviewed; as well as changes to how the CMA makes decisions in mergers and markets investigations. This includes replacing the CMA’s panel model for decision-making by replicating the Digital Markets Board Committee model, for both the CMA’s mergers and markets functions.
Challenge risk aversion
The Government will ensure that the UK is ready to take advantage of the growth opportunities presented by the next generation of aerial vehicles, including by publishing an investor-focused commercial road map for launching private drone operations in the UK, and going further to remove friction within the regulatory environment.
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will bridge the gap between innovation in AI and regulation through consulting on establishing an AI growth lab—a pioneering cross-economy sandbox, enabling carefully supervised deployment of responsible AI applications that current regulation limits.
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade has also published unlocking business: reform driven by you, a business questionnaire to gather direct insight from firms on where regulation is creating unnecessary burdens.
These actions are grounded in what businesses say about the ways in which regulation is an obstacle to their success. That feedback is detailed in the 2024 Business Perceptions survey, published today by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade.
The Government will continue working with industry, regulators, and Parliament to ensure that the regulatory system protects consumers and supports competition, but also encourages new investment, innovation and growth.
The full regulation action plan progress update is available on gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-new-approach-to-ensure-regulators-and-regulation-support-growth
[HCWS975]
Online Safety: Protections for Women and Girls
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
The Government are committed to making the internet a safer place and bringing in new protections for UK internet users. Today I am laying in draft the Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. This statutory instrument seeks to update the list of priority offences under schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act 2023, to add the cyber-flashing offence at section 66A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the offence of “encouraging or assisting serious self-harm” in section 184 of the OSA.
The addition of these offences to the priority offences list is another step forwards in our mission to halve violence against women and girls. It will also help to reduce self-harm and suicide.
By adding the above offences to the list of priority offences, online services, such as social media platforms and search services, will need to prioritise these offences under their Online Safety Act duties for illegal content and take steps to ensure their services are not used to facilitate or commit the cyber-flashing or encouraging or assisting serious self-harm offences. Services must also take steps to search for, remove, and limit people’s exposure to this content. Ofcom’s codes of practice set out the measures that services can take to comply with their duties.
[HCWS974]