Business before Questions
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we begin today’s business, I want to make a short statement on the work of the Speaker’s Conference. The House knows how seriously I take the security of this House and its Members, staff and families, and so a year ago, I established the conference to consider the security of Members, candidates and elections, and the threats against them. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the many Members and Members’ staff who contributed their time and insights to the conference. Your experiences have been vital in shaping the findings and recommendations outlined in the report. We published our first report in June, and today we publish our second and final report.
We now come to topical questions to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I call Catherine Fookes. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon; I have been given the wrong piece of paper.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
The clocks went back at the weekend, and you nearly put them forward again, Mr Speaker.
I am pleased to be here answering my first set of questions as the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I look forward to my exchanges with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), and the other spokespeople in the House.
The state pension age will rise to 67 from 2028. We continue to support later-life planning by helping people review their health, finances and skills—for example, by having specific work coaches for over-50s in our jobcentres. Consideration of the future of the state pension age is already under way, as asked for under the Pensions Act 2014.
Mr Dillon
I welcome the Secretary of State to his new position. In my seat of Newbury, over 5,200 women have been unfairly affected by changes to the state pension age. Those women were wronged through no fault of their own, and they deserve justice. With a High Court hearing due in December, this could be a crucial moment for the Government—a moment to finally do the right thing. Will the Secretary of State now listen to the ombudsman’s recommendations and commit to providing compensation to women of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign?
Pat McFadden
I have to remind the hon. Member that when his party was in government, it supported the acceleration in the rise of the basic state pension age, and that has given rise to some of the questions he raises. You would not expect me to comment on ongoing litigation, Mr Speaker, and I will not, but I can assure the hon. Member and the House that we will take all relevant factors into account when considering the process for the future.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Previous to my election to this place, I worked for a homeless charity in Harlow called Streets2Homes. One of its cases involved a man who was homeless due to delays in getting his state pension. How is the Department ensuring that delays like that are not commonplace?
Pat McFadden
We hope that those entitled to the basic state pension receive a seamless and fast service. This is a pension that people contribute to throughout their life, and when they reach state pension age, we of course hope that they get it as soon as possible.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
Access to Work does an important job, but current delays with the scheme, and our ambition for an 80% rate of employment, point to the need for reform. The consultation, launched in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, closed on 30 June. We are reviewing all aspects of the scheme in the light of the responses that we received.
Bobby Dean
A constituent came to my surgery the other week who felt pretty frustrated that the Access to Work scheme, which once supported him, was pulling the rug from beneath his feet as he progressed in his career. He has been a model example; he has not let his multiple neurodivergent diagnoses hold him back. He has worked hard and, with support, has earned a promotion to a deputy leadership position. At that point, the DWP decided to reassess him, and it downgraded his support—right at the moment when he felt he needed to maintain that support, given his new responsibilities. Can the Minister assure us that when the reforms come, they will ensure that people are supported over the progression of their career, as well as into work in the first place?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Obviously, I do not know the details of the case that he refers to, but it is important that Access to Work and our wider employment support enable people not just to get into work, but to thrive once they are there, exactly as he says.
Marsha De Cordova
The Access to Work scheme provides vital support, and it is one of the best forms of support for blind and partially sighted workers, but when their awards come up for review, they find that their support and awards are being significantly reduced. Given the Government’s commitment to keeping Britain working, will the Minister explain why blind and partially sighted people are seeing their support cut? Will he agree to meet me and sight-loss organisations to see how we can address some of the challenges with the scheme?
Sir Stephen Timms
There has been absolutely no change in the policy on Access to Work, but there has been more scrupulous application of the existing policy and guidance over the last year. That means that Access to Work awards have been more consistent, and I know there have been cases in which support has been reduced. I am looking forward to attending the forthcoming meeting of the all-party group on eye health and visual impairment, which my hon. Friend chairs; that might give us an opportunity to discuss the issues she has raised.
Martin Wrigley
On 20 May, I met the Minister to speak about Access to Work claims that were being denied, changed or reduced, all contrary to the guidelines. The Minister assured me that it was a communications issue, that the guidelines had not changed and that officials were going to fix the problems by speaking to the local jobcentre. The problems were not fixed. Since then, both Dawlish Gardens Trust and the No Limits café in Newton Abbot have ceased to provide Access to Work services because the system just is not working and, they said, every claim was being rejected. That assessment has been mirrored by the Access to Work Collective. Who changed the guidelines, and why? Are they simply being ignored to save money at the cost of vulnerable adults? If the Minister would like more information, I am happy to meet him again.
Sir Stephen Timms
I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman again, but I assure him that the policy has not changed. In fact, just last week we published the spending figures on Access to Work, which went up by 17% in the last year and by 32% in the year before that. I do not know what happened in the particular case the hon. Gentleman referred to, but would be happy to look at it further.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Access to Work is vital. At the high end of the scale, it can sometimes be more expensive. I have in my constituency a very senior person in the world of theatre who runs Graeae theatre. She requires Access to Work support but, even with the right support, there is not enough for her needs, because she needs a British Sign Language interpreter with her at all times. Graeae theatre is at the pinnacle of assessing what people need, and I would love to invite the Minister to visit it, because staff there are great at supporting disabled people into work, with and without Access to Work support.
Sir Stephen Timms
I am aware that a big chunk of Access to Work funding goes on British Sign Language interpretation, and it is not unusual for people who draw on that support to hit the cap, which increased last year and is now £69,920 a year. We will look at that, along with all other aspects of the scheme, in the review we are undertaking.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Back in May last year, while in opposition, the Labour party was outraged to learn that the average processing time for applications to the Access to Work programme was running at 43.9 days. In fact, so outraged were Labour Members that they made it a manifesto pledge to tackle that problem. After more than 15 months in government, Labour is far from having slashed waiting times; applicants now have to wait an average of 93.6 days. That is more than twice the waiting time under the previous Government. After a year in government, the Labour party has doubled the misery and uncertainty suffered by disabled people—why?
Sir Stephen Timms
We are fixing the very serious problems left behind by the previous Government. The number of people who are processing Access to Work applications has been increased by 118 since May last year, but the hon. Gentleman is right that delays are still a problem. That points clearly to the need for reform, which is what we are getting on with.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
Skills are vital to give young people opportunity, for economic growth and to our country’s renewal. That is why, as part of our youth guarantee, we are increasing short courses for high-demand sectors such as artificial intelligence and construction, expanding the number of youth hubs, and partnering with sports clubs to get help to people where they are in the community. Last week, we published the skills White Paper, which sets out the next steps for training the workforce of the future.
Baggy Shanker
I still want every young person in Derby to see technical education and apprenticeships as first-class, not second-best, routes to success. University technical colleges, from which students are four times more likely to progress on to apprenticeships, are key to unlocking that success. Will my right hon. Friend meet Pride Park UTC to discuss its plans to give young people in Derby real choice and real opportunity by rolling out a new technical centre in our city?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend has spoken often about this, and I believe that he started his career as an apprentice. As a former Rolls-Royce worker, he will have noted the skills White Paper, and of course he knows all about the importance of that company to the city of Derby. I congratulate Pride Park UTC on its plans for a new technical skills centre, and I will ensure that he gets a meeting with me or with the relevant Minister.
Helen Hayes
My Committee’s recent report on further education and skills highlights the poor amount of information on vocational and technical training opportunities, including apprenticeships, available to young people while they are in school. We recommend that UCAS be expanded to provide a single portal for information on academic, vocational and technical opportunities, so that every young person is aware of how they can train in the skills that they need to access a good job. Will the Secretary of State consider this recommendation, and work with the Department for Education to deliver it?
Pat McFadden
I welcome that question, as my hon. Friend raises a very important point. If we are going to have equal status for higher education and apprenticeship routes, we should look at how the information about them is disseminated to potential applicants. I hope that she will be pleased to hear that I have already asked the Department to begin work in this area.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
One of the worries about the new regime and Skills England is the loss of independence, and the loss of what we had in the former Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education: a guaranteed business voice, written into law. How will the Secretary of State ensure that business has a voice in setting standards, and in making sure that those standards are upheld, so that everybody can have confidence in the changed system?
Pat McFadden
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the business voice and employers’ voice is very important in this. When I wrote the new remit letter to Skills England, I asked it to take into account the views of employers, because it is very important that the skills system is training people in a way that employers want, and that meets the future demands of the labour market.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place, and to his new responsibility for skills. The Government recently reduced the amount of funding for level 7 apprenticeships, so can he tell the House what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of this reduced funding on the number of nurses in training?
Pat McFadden
The apprenticeships and skills budget, like every other budget, demands choices. We are choosing to prioritise the level that we need in the economy, and the areas where the value is greatest. That does imply certain choices, and I am confident that the choices we have made will benefit the workforce as a whole, and future opportunities.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
We are determined to open up opportunities in work for people with health conditions. The Keep Britain Working review will be published soon. In Pathways to Work, we have 1,000 work advisers supporting this group, and we will devolve powers, so that areas can shape their own joined-up local work, health and skills offer.
Steve Race
I recently visited Pluss in Exeter, which supports people living with physical disabilities and mental health conditions back into employment. I met some of the fantastically committed mentors, who provide tailored training and support, helping hundreds of people who have been long-term unemployed into meaningful jobs, boosting their confidence and helping them rebuild their lives. Does the Minister agree that under the last Tory Government, disability employment was shockingly neglected? In contrast, this Government’s recent announcement about Connect to Work funding for Devon will help many more people back into the workplace.
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The disability employment gap has been stuck at around 30 percentage points ever since 2010. What he refers to in his constituency sounds like a great example of exactly the kind of resource we want to draw on in each area to make sure that disabled people have the opportunities in work that they were denied in the past.
Emma Lewell
The Motability scheme provides a lifeline to people with disabilities, allowing them to get to health appointments, study, maintain employment and so much more. Cuts to the scheme risk increased health needs and increased unemployment, which are likely to cost much more than any short-term savings. Does my right hon. Friend agree that before any proposed cuts are implemented, it is vital to carry out a proper impact assessment?
Sir Stephen Timms
I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no changes to the eligibility conditions for the mobility component of the personal independence payment, or indeed other aspects of PIP, until the conclusion of the review, which I will be leading and co-producing with disabled people. That is expected to report in autumn next year.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
When severe mental illness strikes, it can be devastating and totally debilitating, but the problem from the Department’s point of view is that its symptoms are invisible. There have been reports of people faking mental illness in order to gain benefits. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that his Department has appropriate checks in place?
Sir Stephen Timms
Yes, appropriate checks are in place. As I have just mentioned, we are undertaking a review of the PIP assessment, and we will need to look carefully, together with disabled people, at the way in which those decisions and judgments are made.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
At a recent roundtable at the Eyres Monsell club for young people in my constituency, parents told me that their young adults with learning difficulties, who volunteered for years, often with major supermarkets, still struggle to secure work. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that young people with high-functioning learning disabilities in long-term volunteering roles can access clear pathways into paid employment?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman raises a very good point. He will have seen, as many hon. Members will have done, recent publicity about a particular case of this kind. At the moment, the proportion of people with severe learning disabilities who are in employment is tiny, so we are working with employers and some very good supported internship programmes in the hope of opening up opportunities for work, and I hope we will see many more opportunities in the future. We appointed an expert panel earlier this year to look at how better to support people with neurodivergence into work, and the panel is coming forward with some interesting proposals.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Health Equity North recently produced an analysis for the Select Committee that revealed that getting just 5% of people with disabilities or health conditions into employment would yield cost savings of over £12 billion. What progress is being made with employers to enable sick and disabled people who want to work, and are able to do so, to get into employment?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I agree with her about the tremendous value, for the people who benefit and for the economy more widely, of opening up opportunities in employment in the way that she described. That is exactly what the Keep Britain Working review, led by Sir Charlie Mayfield, is looking at. I am looking forward to Sir Charlie’s report, and I am sure my hon. Friend will find it interesting. I expect it to be published quite soon.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Four thousand people in Somerset, many of them with disabilities, are being transitioned from employment and support allowance to universal credit. They were assured that they would not lose out, but one constituent waited three months with no income at all, until an intervention by me and the Department. Somerset was not warned about this transition, which is causing it huge difficulties with assessing the implications for council tax benefits. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that, just as people were told, they will not lose out in the transition to universal credit?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am not sure why the news of the transition did not reach Somerset; the plans have been quite well publicised. We have put in place a careful enhanced support journey for people, including a number of people on ESA, who might struggle with the transition. The hon. Gentleman raises a particular case, but if there are other cases where there are difficulties, we are able to provide extra support to ensure that people can make the transition without hardship.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
Some 975,000 people are being paid carer’s allowance in England and Wales, including some 900 people in the hon. Member’s constituency.
Dr Chambers
We all know that carers give everything to care for their loved ones—physically, emotionally and financially. The Government received the carer’s allowance report three months ago, and under Lib Dem pressure have agreed to publish it by the end of the year. Do we know how many carers will be unfairly penalised in the six months between the Government receiving the report and publishing it?
Sir Stephen Timms
I agree with the hon. Member’s characterisation of the degree of commitment and sacrifice being made by very large numbers of carers right across the country. As he has said, the report, which we commissioned from Liz Sayce, will be published by the end of the year, together with the Government’s response—and his question will be addressed in that response.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
When we came to office, almost 1 million young people were not in education, employment or training. This Government are determined to offer young people proper opportunities. Our youth guarantee will ensure that 18 to 21-year-olds are learning or earning, helping to prevent them from becoming economically inactive almost before their careers have even begun. As my hon. Friend might have seen, the Chancellor has announced that a jobs guarantee scheme will be a future part of this work.
Kirsteen Sullivan
With one in six young Scots not in education, employment or training, including hundreds across my constituency, I welcome the Government’s youth guarantee to give young people the training or job support they need. However, with stubborn youth unemployment, the Scottish Government’s swingeing cuts to the college sector and employers warning that Scottish apprenticeships are less favourable than those in England, how will the Secretary of State work to ensure that young people across the UK can benefit from this Government’s ambition?
Pat McFadden
Not for the first time, we have to point out that the Scottish Government have benefited from the biggest financial settlement since the introduction of devolution. It should not be too much to expect that at least a proportion of that should be spent on expanding opportunity for young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency and throughout Scotland. Scotland has given so much to the world in creativity and innovation, and it is absolutely critical that the next generation of young Scots get the chance to do the same.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Skills bootcamps in Cumbria have provided a great opportunity: 60 hours of training for young people in disciplines as varied as coding, scaffolding and project management. The cost to deliver those bootcamps across the whole of Cumbria is £2.7 million—chicken feed compared with the benefit that those young people and their future employers get out of them. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with his friends in the Treasury to ensure that that scheme is maintained and continued?
Pat McFadden
I am always having conversations with my friends in the Treasury. I agree with the hon. Member that flexibility and some short courses in the skills and training system are very important. Not everything has to be done according to the exact same formula and recipe, and shorter training courses have a big part to play.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his new job and wish him luck in it—especially because, with every day that passes under this Government, we see fewer people enjoying the chance to start a new job. Unemployment has gone up month after month. Nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training because of this Government’s policies, jobs tax and business red tape; even the Pensions Minister’s former think-tank agrees with me. People all around the country are out looking for work—young people who want to get on in life and all those trying to provide for their families—so can the Secretary of State tell us and them when he will get unemployment down?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Lady has a short memory. The Government in which she served presided over the biggest slowdown in living standards in recent memory, and there are 358,000 more people in work now than there were at the start of the year. We will keep supporting young people into work and will change the system that we inherited, which had the wrong incentives and a lack of support. We are putting both of those things to rights.
Helen Whately
No surprises there, Mr Speaker; the Prime Minister can put new faces on the Front Bench, but they still do not have the answers. The right hon. Gentleman criticised the previous Conservative Government, but we got unemployment down to a 40-year low—a record Labour could only dream of. The Government do not want to be held to account. Worse still, the right hon. Gentleman knows that what he is doing will not work, because the country is looking down the barrel of more tax rises in next month’s Budget, which will kill yet more jobs and opportunities. Whether it is graduates looking for their first job or older people being made redundant, people are crying out for a Government who are on their side. What will it take to get the Chancellor to understand that it is businesses that create jobs, not the Government, and does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the more the Chancellor damages the economy, the bigger the welfare bill will get?
Pat McFadden
Since we came into office, interest rates have been cut five times, helping businesses and households. According to Lloyds, business confidence is at a nine-year high, and there is to be much more private investment, including the £150 billion announced during the recent state visit. Add to that the trade deals that the Conservatives could not secure—there are reasons to be optimistic about the future of the economy and I hope the hon. Lady shares them.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State co-chairs the ministerial child poverty taskforce, which is leading our work across Government to develop the UK-wide child poverty strategy, which will be published later this year. We are considering all available levers to give every child the best start in life, building on work that is already under way across all four nations. Ahead of publication, the Government have already taken action for the whole UK, including introducing a fair repayment rate and improving the adequacy of the standard allowance of universal credit from April 2026.
Seamus Logan
The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that because of this Government’s policies—especially the two-child cap—more than 100 children are dragged into poverty every day. That equates to almost 3,400 children between now and the Chancellor’s autumn statement at the end of next month. Here is a lever: as child poverty in Scotland is falling, why does the Minister not finally listen to reason by scrapping this cruel policy? Why is he waiting? Why does he not just act now?
Andrew Western
This Government are acting now. We have already announced that all children in families in England that are in receipt of universal credit will receive free school meals, lifting 100,000 children out of poverty. We have capped the cost of school uniforms, and introduced a new crisis and resilience fund. Our Child Maintenance Service reforms will lift 20,000 children out of poverty, and much more will be done when the child poverty taskforce reports later this year.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Despite what those on the far right try to claim, the cost of living crisis remains the main issue that people face. One way to really help struggling families would be to lift the two-child benefit cap—that would lift hundreds of thousands of children across the country out of poverty, including many in my constituency. Is it not the case that the forthcoming Budget should announce that the two-child benefit cap will be scrapped?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend will understand that I am not going to make policy from the Dispatch Box. What I would say to him, as I have already said to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan), is that all available levers are under consideration as part of our child poverty taskforce, which will report later this year. We will do what it takes to bear down on child poverty. There are many levers that we can look at using to do so; we have pulled some already, and we will continue that work.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Every Member in this Chamber shares a commitment to lifting people out of poverty, especially children; we just have different views on how to go about it. Children in workless households are nearly four times more likely to live in poverty than those in households where adults work. We know that work pays, yet we on the Conservative Benches find ourselves surrounded by parties that are just itching to scrap the two-child benefit cap, resorting to yet more sticking plasters, like universal breakfast clubs, to reduce uncomfortable figures without putting in the hard work to tackle their causes. Does the Minister share my concern that lifting the two-child benefit cap will increase worklessness, and can he guarantee that taxes will not go up in next month’s Budget for adults who work hard and make careful decisions about family size in order to pay for the £3.6 billion it will cost to lift that cap?
Andrew Western
I am stunned to hear that the fight that the Opposition Front Benchers are choosing to pick on this occasion is opposing universal free breakfast clubs, when we know that well-fed children have hungry minds. [Interruption.] For those chirping from a sedentary position, that is exactly what the shadow Minister. What I find even more staggering are the lectures from an Opposition who left almost 3 million people in this country economically inactive and around 1 million young people out of work. They dragged 900,000 children into poverty, when the last Labour Government lifted 600,000 out. It is the last Labour Government who we will be taking lessons from, not the last Tory one.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I note that last year the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said that it is open to debate as to whether the two-child limit is harmful. I note also that this policy has been the most impactful in driving children—more than 730,000 of them—into poverty. Will the Minister acknowledge that the two-child limit is harmful and work with Treasury colleagues to overturn it?
Andrew Western
I am happy to acknowledge the findings of the Child Poverty Action Group, which I think has put forward the statistics that the hon. Gentleman sets out. I remind him and all Members of this House that this is not the only lever available to us and that all levers are under active consideration. I also remind him, as I have reminded other colleagues, of the steps that this Government have already taken, including the roll-out of free school meals to all families in receipt of universal credit, which alone will lift 100,000 children out of poverty.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
The skills White Paper, which we published last week, will create more opportunities. As I said in response to an earlier question, my remit letter to Skills England makes clear the importance of working closely with employers. Employers have told us that they want more flexibility in the apprenticeships levy, so the growth and skills offer is delivering that, with more foundation courses and short courses launching next year.
Claire Young
At a recent roundtable meeting in my Thornbury and Yate constituency, small businesses told me about the particular challenges they face in delivering apprenticeships. Given that the Secretary of State’s Department is now responsible for this important policy area, what is he doing to reform apprenticeships to make them easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to deliver, and what support will he provide so that more can do so?
Pat McFadden
We want apprenticeships to be available to employers of all sizes. We have reduced the length of time an apprenticeship needs to take, and I think we can go further with short course flexibility, which should be particularly helpful to small and medium-sized employers.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I recently visited Premier Forest Products in Newport to learn more about the vocational training and employment opportunities that the business is offering to care-experienced young school leavers in Newport, with some wonderful success stories. Will the Department look at the model that company is creating and can the Secretary of State say more about how the Government are working with businesses to make sure that such opportunities are more accessible for people from all backgrounds, including those who are care-experienced?
Pat McFadden
I am happy to look at the experience of that particular employer. I enjoyed a recent visit to a different part of south Wales to open an opportunity hub, which is aimed precisely at getting more young people into work, particularly those who have been out of the labour market through long-term sickness issues. We want to support Wales in doing that, and we have allocated an extra £10 million to this work over the coming year.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
I obviously recognise the challenges facing those without inflation protection, particularly after the cost of living pressures of recent years, and I think that recognition is shared by Members on both sides of the House. I met a cross-party group of MPs earlier this year to discuss exactly this issue. Reforms in the Pension Schemes Bill give trustees more flexibility to share surpluses in their DB pension schemes with employers, and to negotiate for members to benefit from any such sharing of surpluses. That could include discretionary increases to address the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith).
Dame Nia Griffith
As a result of the efforts of pensioner associations, we know that there have been unintended consequences of the Pensions Act 1995, which made it legal to stop payment of indexation to the pre-1997 pensioners of successful multinationals such as 3M and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, who, having been recruited with the promise of index-linked pensions, are now suffering hardship. Their pensions have already been frozen for at least 15 years, despite healthy funds and trustees’ pleas. What will the Minister do to stop this dishonourable practice, so that these companies deliver the financial security that they promised?
Torsten Bell
I absolutely recognise the issue that my hon. Friend has raised: any of us in that situation would want those pension increases to continue. She is aware of the legal background, but I should point out that scheme rules govern when inflation-linked increases can be paid. They are not changed retrospectively, but the Pensions Regulator has spelt out that trustees should consider those who are not receiving inflation-linked increases when making their decisions, and should also consider the history of making such awards—particularly in some of the examples that my hon. Friend has given. As I have said, I think that the provisions in the Pension Scheme Bill give trustees more power to argue for those increases.
Helen Morgan
I have been contacted by a constituent who, along with her husband, worked for Hewlett Packard. They accrued their pensions before 1997, and now, along with about 50,000 members of the Pre-97 Alliance, they are facing real financial hardship. In 10 years’ time, their pensions will be pretty much worthless. Will the Minister not consider legislating to ensure that these people are not left in poverty, having been promised proper pensions when they started work for the companies concerned?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Lady has mentioned a specific company, although a small number of others are in the same position. I am sure that not only the people running that company but the trustees will have heard the powerful case made by Members on both sides of the House. These decisions must be made in line with the scheme rules, but no one wants savers to see the value of their pensions fall over time, and I hope that employers will take the case being made in the Chamber seriously.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
It is unacceptable that 23% of children in Cornwall are living in relative poverty. We will set out measures to tackle its structural and root causes in our child poverty strategy later in the year.
Ben Maguire
Child poverty cannot be tackled if children have nowhere safe to live. One of the most shameful legacies of the last Tory Government was Cornwall being left with more than 700 children living in temporary accommodation, while only 1.4% of homes are now affordable to families receiving the local housing allowance. What assessment has the Minister made of the extent to which that shortfall in affordable homes is driving child poverty rates even higher, and what urgent steps will he take to reverse it?
Andrew Western
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the appalling living standards and conditions in which some children—and, indeed, some members of the broader population—find themselves living. My advice to any Liberal Democrat Member would of course be to stop blocking the homes that we so desperately need. Let me also remind the hon. Gentleman that this Government have invested £39 billion in the delivery of social and affordable homes, because, unlike the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party is determined to tackle the housing crisis and to “build, baby, build”.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. This is a Cornish question, and I am calling Perran Moon, so I ask others please not to stand.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Mr Speaker.
I represent the most deprived constituency in Cornwall, which is itself one of the most deprived areas in northern Europe. Child poverty shot up under the Conservatives. Today our local further education college—Cornwall college, rated “outstanding” by Ofsted—is turning away young learners in construction and engineering because of a lack of space. The college has a solution allowing it to expand, but will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the issue and help our amazing young people to break this cycle of deprivation?
Andrew Western
I am sorry to hear of the situation that my hon. Friend has outlined. If the Secretary of State is unable to meet him, I would be more than happy to do so.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
The trailblazers are up and running and have been delivering support for young people since earlier this year. That includes, for example, mental health support and flexible work experience sessions. We have extended the programme for a further year, bringing the total funding to £90 million. The insights from those trailblazers will inform the national roll-out of our youth guarantee.
Patricia Ferguson
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the actions of this Government, in supporting young people, are in stark contrast to the situation in Scotland, where we have had 18 years of SNP neglect, with the college sector suffering a 20% cut over the past five years? Does he also agree that, as the energy sector in Scotland transitions to greener forms of energy production, the jobs and skills needed to bolster that industry could be taught at those colleges, and that we risk having a double whammy of young people not being able to take on these important jobs, while lecturers are paid off and our colleges are in dire financial straits?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of the energy transition. As I said, the Scottish Government are receiving the largest spending review settlement in real terms since devolution was established. We know that young people in Scotland have the talent, but are their Government backing them by giving them the opportunity? We believe that a proportion of those funds should be devoted to that. I am pleased to say that, for example, BAE Systems will be a major beneficiary of the £10 billion deal to build Type 26 frigates for Norway—a critical investment in European security, and one that I hope the Scottish Government have got around to supporting.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place and wish him well in his new role. I am quite confident that he will give us all the answers we wish to have. Northern Ireland continues to have a higher proportion of young people not in employment, education or training—some 11% to 13%—compared with the UK average, so what discussions has he had with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that the necessary support and opportunities are provided to young people in Northern Ireland?
Pat McFadden
There should be no part of the United Kingdom in which we do not give young people the maximum opportunity. I had a good working relationship with the Northern Ireland Executive in my previous post, and I hope to have a good working relationship with them in this post, with the shared agenda of giving our young people the best possible chance in life.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
Work coaches are required to tailor work-related requirements to claimants’ capabilities and circumstances, and they can pause them if that is appropriate.
Josh Babarinde
My constituent Ross has neurodiversities and is in employment, working at a garden centre, but his income is supplemented by universal credit. After inadvertently missing a telephone appointment with a job coach, he was sanctioned, losing out on two months-worth of rent, and he risked being made homeless and losing his job if his parents had not been there to step in. Can the Minister assure folks such as Ross that they will be powered up by our benefits system, not punished when they make innocent mistakes?
Sir Stephen Timms
We certainly do want the system to support people such as Ross. If work-related requirements are missed, the reason for that should be asked for, with seven days allowed for an answer. There should also be a pre-referral check before a sanction referral takes place. If the hon. Gentleman would like to send me the details of what happened in that particular case, I will happily look into it.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
I am very conscious of the responsibilities of the Department, which touches millions of lives in this country every month. We have joined up skills and employment support in the Department to bring the skills system closer to the labour market, and, as part of our youth guarantee, we have announced that it will include a backstop jobs guarantee. Together with that and Connect to Work, we are both tackling the incentives in the system and providing critical support, because my priority is to have a welfare state that looks after people when times are tough, but also provides a platform of opportunity to help get them out of welfare and into work.
Catherine Fookes
At the Conservative party conference, the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury called for the state pension to be means-tested. This has caused deep concern to pensioners in Monmouthshire who have worked hard all their lives and built up modest savings. Under the Conservative party’s plans, they would risk losing their state pension. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, under this Labour Government, the state pension will remain available to all?
Pat McFadden
I am happy to say that what my hon. Friend says about means-testing is not the Government’s policy, but can the Conservatives confirm whether it is theirs? The shadow Chief Secretary let the cat out of the bag. Can she confirm that this is not her policy, or is it that her leader still sticks to the position she set out earlier this year when she said:
“We are going to look at means-testing”?
Are they still looking at it, or are they not?
Mr Speaker
The good thing is that the Government are only responsible for their own problems. I call the shadow Secretary of the State.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Indeed, questions are to be answered by the Government on this occasion.
The right hon. Gentleman has an important and not always easy job. I am sure that we all remember the fiasco before the summer when the Government tried to make welfare savings and ended up legislating for welfare spending. Since then, the Prime Minister has said that there is a “clear moral case” for welfare cuts, and the Chancellor has said that she “can’t leave welfare untouched”. Does the Secretary of State agree?
Pat McFadden
I notice that the hon. Lady did not want to clarify the position on means-testing the state pension. Welfare reform is happening all the time. We passed important changes to the universal credit system that were voted through by the House and, as I said, we are putting in place important employment support to help not only long-term sick and disabled people but young people into work through many of the policies that I have talked about today.
Helen Whately
I cannot help but notice that the Secretary of State continues to attempt to deflect from his job of answering the questions. The fact is, we just heard that he will not commit to making the welfare savings that his Prime Minister and his Chancellor have said they need to make. I thought the Prime Minister was meant to be in charge.
Getting people off welfare and into work not only saves money; it is morally wrong to condemn people to a life on benefits. Without welfare reform, this country is stuck on Labour’s broken record of higher taxes and lower growth. We have even offered to help the Secretary of State, so why will he not commit to making welfare savings?
Pat McFadden
We inherited a situation that had 3 million people inactive and almost 1 million people not in employment, education or training. We are putting in place critical employment support to help long-term sick and disabled people into work, we have changed the incentives through legislation on the universal credit system, and we are increasing the number of face-to-face checks in the system, which fell on the Conservatives’ watch. What do people think it fell by? Do we think it fell by 10%? Do we think it fell by 30%? No, it fell by 90% under the system over which the hon. Lady’s Government presided.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
Demand for Access to Work has risen sharply. I mentioned earlier that spending went up by 17% over the past year, but I do not think Access to Work can replace a well-designed support programme. That is what we are determined to put in place, and the Department’s new, independent disability advisory panel will help us work out the best approaches to employment support.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Government have made a promise that those transferring from legacy benefits to universal credit will find themselves no worse off, yet Liberal Democrat colleagues from all over the country are finding that people are worse off. Will the Minister share evidence of how the Government are supporting the most vulnerable where they find themselves worse off?
Sir Stephen Timms
Transitional protection is available for people making the transition across, and I spoke earlier about the support being provided through the enhanced support journey to people for whom the transition may be particularly difficult. I am thinking, for example, about some people on employment and support allowance. If the hon. Member is worried about particular cases and would like to send me the details, I am very happy to look at them.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Pat McFadden
People should not be denied the opportunity to work, which is why the Department has backed the economic inactivity trailblazer in the north-east with £10 million this year and a further £10 million next year. It is testing new ways to help people overcome barriers to work. We are determined to turn around the situation that we inherited from the Conservative party, and we are working closely with the excellent Mayor of the North East to bring these policies together.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Member raises an important point, and I agree about the importance of not wasting talent in the future. That is the reason for the reforms we are introducing. Earlier this year we set up an expert panel to advise us on how best to support people with neurodivergence into employment, building on the work of Sir Robert Buckland and his review of autism employment in the last Parliament. We have now received that advice from the expert panel and are considering how to take that work forward.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Government plan to consult on changes to the calculation that will automatically capture more income types within that calculation. Where parents wilfully avoid their financial obligations, the CMS financial investigation unit does have the powers to act and will investigate. Child maintenance is key to keeping children out of poverty, and we will use these powers wherever necessary.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Sir Stephen Timms
I would be very happy to look into the particular case the hon. Member raises. Of course, an appeal process is available, so I hope that her constituent has submitted an appeal. If she lets me have the details, I will gladly have a look at the case.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Pat McFadden
The Spear programme was one of the first organisations to go through an evaluation with the data lab a few years ago. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the findings from that were really positive, and I am delighted that his constituency is located in one of the youth guarantee trailblazer areas. As we have reiterated several times, it is crucial that we do everything we can to help young people into work and address the issue, which we inherited, of people not in employment, education or training.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Sir Stephen Timms
There is a problem in the interaction between housing benefit, which provides housing support for people in supported accommodation, and housing support in the universal credit system. That interaction does cause difficulties, and I think that is what the hon. Lady is referring to. We are looking at that at the moment. We are talking to other parts of government and working with people such as YMCA and Centrepoint to look at the problem and what we can do to fix it.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
Andrew Western
The Department is prioritising ensuring that there is adequate staffing resource available to support claimants and deliver migration smoothly and on time. I am concerned to hear what my hon. Friend says about the experience of his constituents in Coatbridge and Bellshill. I will look into this issue further on his behalf and report back to him.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Trussell Trust recently reported that three in 10 people who were referred to food banks in 2024 were in working households and that the majority, 72%, were on universal credit. What more can the Government do to ensure that work pays and we can take low-paid workers out of poverty?
Pat McFadden
I recently spoke at an event in Parliament hosted by that organisation. I am pleased to say that its report said there had been a small drop in the use of food banks over the past year. We have put the household support fund, now the crisis and resilience fund, on a proper basis for the next three years to support those families in the most desperate need.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
Giving sick and disabled people agency and drawing on lived experience sets the only path to getting policy right, so that they can access work appointments and get out of their homes, avoiding worklessness, health decline and isolation, with their mobility support needs recognised through PIP. Further to the Minister’s previous answer, will he ensure that any policy reforms to PIP mobility payments are fully co-produced with sick and disabled people?
Sir Stephen Timms
I can reassure my hon. Friend that the review of the PIP assessment, including the mobility element of that benefit, will be undertaken fully in co-production with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations. I will be setting out very shortly how the review I am going to be leading will be undertaken.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Business is crying out that the Employment Rights Bill will cost jobs. Now, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, the spiritual home of the Secretary of State— [Laughter.]—says it will cripple the jobs market, especially for young people. It is not a laughing matter. What is the Secretary of State’s view? Will the Employment Rights Bill help his Department to increase employment, or will it cost even more jobs?
Pat McFadden
It should be no surprise that a Labour party supports better rights at work for people. History is replete with warnings that better employment rights would result in fewer jobs. Those were the warnings the Conservative party gave when we introduced the national minimum wage many, many years ago. Of course, it is important that when legislating on these issues we do it closely in consultation with employers. That is precisely what we intend to do.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Some 47% of children in my constituency live in poverty. The Minister mentioned that he will consider all levers. Does that include speaking with the Treasury to look at a wealth tax to bring in much-needed money to the Treasury to remove the two-child cap?
Pat McFadden
As we have discussed a number of times, of course we want to reduce child poverty. My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that, when it comes to tax, that is a matter for the Chancellor and not for me.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place and wish him well. Last week, I attended a drop-in for the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign where I was informed that there are currently 4,320 women in Dewsbury and Batley affected by the WASPI scandal. That number was previously higher, but many of the women have already passed away without justice. On 27 July I wrote to the former Secretary of State regarding her support for the WASPI campaign after being contacted by more than 40 of my constituents, but I have yet to receive a response. With the Government still refusing to engage in civil mediation to deliver justice to the WASPI women, will the new Secretary of State reconsider meeting campaigners to find a just way forward?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
The previous Minister for Pensions met representatives of the WASPI campaign in order to hear directly from them about their experiences. She was the first Minister to do so in eight years. I will look into the details of the letter the hon. Gentleman mentions.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his office and thank the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), for a recent visit to the DWP debt and fraud centre in my constituency. There are 95 jobs at the centre doing tremendous work across the UK, proving that civil service job dispersal does work. Is this not a template for other Departments and an example to the SNP Government in Scotland, who have dispersed no jobs, no power and no funds from Edinburgh?
Andrew Western
I endorse everything my hon. Friend has said. I had a fantastic visit to the very beautiful constituency that he is fortunate enough to represent, where I saw exactly what can happen through our places for growth initiative, which looks to relocate jobs out of London and into places such as Stornoway.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I have met many pensionable-age constituents, most of whom live on the Duck estate, who have lost their entitlement to pension credit because of as little as 50p. Does the Minister agree that pension credit, the employment and support allowance and PIP assistance could all do with more common sense and a little less of a “computer says no” mentality?
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. In general, lots of life could do with less “computer says no”, so on that basis we will agree. On the specifics of the question she raises about pension credit, the nature of the system is obviously that it provides a guaranteed level of income; it is not setting out an entitlement like universal credit, so there does have to be a limit somewhere, and I am afraid that that does mean that some people will always be on one side of it. What we do not want to see in a system is too many things in that winner-takes-all perspective—I take the point she raises.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I recently visited Drake Hall women’s prison in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, which has the brilliant initiative of a Halfords training centre to support people into employment once they leave the prison estate. It supports people all over the country, not just in my constituency. Can the Secretary of State tell me what conversations are happening with the Ministry of Justice about supporting or expanding schemes like that?
Pat McFadden
That sounds like an excellent initiative. Of course, if we are to rehabilitate prisoners, it is important that they get training and the chance to get into constructive employment after their sentence. I am sure that that applies not just to the prison in my hon. Friend’s constituency but throughout the country.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Alan Marnes is a constituent of mine in Southoe who has staunchly campaigned since 2002 on the issue of the lack of indexation for pre-1997 pension rights, having been one of 140,000 people who lost their occupational pension. I wrote to the Secretary of State more than two months ago asking whether the newly revived Pensions Commission will address the issue of failed pension funds and I have still not received a response. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and Alan to provide some much-needed clarity on such a long-standing issue?
Torsten Bell
I am not absolutely clear whether the particular case that the hon. Gentleman is raising relates to people within the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme or to a pre-1997 indexation within a solvent pension scheme, but if he writes to me with the details I will absolutely make sure that I come back to him.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
One in three children in my constituency is growing up in poverty. With the Budget approaching, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about scrapping the two-child limit—a policy widely recognised as one of the biggest drivers of child poverty in Britain today?
Pat McFadden
We have already taken action to reduce child poverty, by extending free school meals to all families on universal credit, and we will of course explore other avenues. We want to reduce child poverty—in stark contrast to the record of the Conservatives.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
When my constituents move into new social housing, they find it stripped of perfectly good white goods, curtains, carpets and so on. What can the Government do to address this? It is driving my constituents further into poverty and benefit dependency. It is also environmentally destructive. Surely there is a way through this issue, so can I call on the Minister to work with others across Government to address it?
Andrew Western
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. It might be better raised at questions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but as he asks me to pick this up with Ministers across Departments, I am happy to do so. I can tell him that the crisis and resilience fund—formerly the household support fund—is in place to support people setting up in their new homes, as are grants that are available from housing associations directly.
North Sea Oil and Gas Industry
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on the future of the North Sea oil and gas industry.
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
The North sea will be at the heart of Britain’s energy future. For decades its workers, business and communities have helped to power our country and our world, and they will do so for decades to come. The oil and gas industry has lost around a third of its entire workforce in the last decade as oil and gas production has declined. A plan is now needed. That is why in March we consulted on a framework for building a world-leading offshore clean energy industry in the North sea, alongside managing existing oil and gas fields for their lifespan. We will respond to that consultation in the coming weeks.
Alongside that, we published our clean energy jobs plan, which sets out that over 400,000 more good jobs are to be created across the UK, including 40,000 in Scotland, by the end of the decade. That is facilitated thanks to record investments in clean energy as well as over £50 billion of private investment since July 2024 thanks to the certainty our plans have created.
Turning to today’s news, colleagues will be aware that Petrofac Ltd has for some time been working on a restructure relating to its global portfolio. The restructuring plan failed, following the unexpected termination of a contract by TenneT—a Dutch transmission company. At 7 am today, holding company Petrofac Ltd announced that it will be entering administration. While that is obviously disappointing for the company, it is the product of long-standing issues with its global business.
Contrary to misleading reports today, the UK arm of Petrofac has not entered administration and is continuing to operate as normal—as an in-demand business with a highly skilled workforce and many successful contracts. Indeed, only last month Petrofac’s UK arm extended two significant contracts, demonstrating that the business has a viable future. Today’s announcement covers only the top-level holding company Petrofac Ltd, which has no employees. The Petrofac group has faced long-standing challenges, including a high-profile £77 million financial penalty imposed in 2021 following a Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery.
We understand that there is reason to be optimistic about a commercial resolution that includes the UK arm. The Government have been, and will remain, in close contact with the company. I repeat this to the House: the UK business has not entered administration. It is successful and growing, and it will continue to operate as normal.
Andrew Bowie
Another week and yet another hammer blow to our North sea oil and gas industry, another gut punch to energy workers and another blow to our energy security. Whatever the Minister says today, the blame lies squarely with this Labour Government. [Interruption.] They do not like to hear it, but it is true.
Today, the energy giant Petrofac has entered administration, casting doubt over the future of its 2,000 employees in Scotland—as its global headquarters is in Aberdeen—and the countless more who are supported indirectly through the supply chain. As the Minister said, this company has had issues for many years, but the hostile environment in the UK continental shelf created by the Government has made operating here nigh on impossible for far too many companies.
Our offshore energy industry has seen thousands of redundancies since the 2024 general election. Harbour Energy completed a new round of redundancies just last month and, with depressing regularity, we hear of more job losses in the North sea. Whether at Harbour Energy, Apache, Hunting or Petrofac, each job lost means uncertainty for a family, a mortgage jeopardised, investment fleeing our communities and our world-class supply chains and skilled workforce pushed towards extinction.
How many more will it take for the Secretary of State to change course? These are political choices. This is a manufactured decline. As a direct result of the hostile trading environment, the “closed for business” sign is hanging over the UK continental shelf. From the energy profits levy extension increase to the ban on new licences and the refusal to defend the Government’s decision on Rosebank and Jackdaw, the odds are stacked against the North sea industry, damaging the business environment, threatening investment, harming our economy and undermining our energy security. These are political choices that have resulted in job losses.
What steps are being taken to support Petrofac’s HQ employees in Aberdeen? How many more jobs have to be lost across the industry for the Government to change course? When will the thousands of jobs promised through GB Energy for Aberdeen and around the United Kingdom materialise? Will the Minister personally act and ask his boss—the Secretary of State for Energy—to change course, or is he content to sacrifice Aberdeen, the north-east and our energy industry on this vainglorious campaign to destroy our fossil fuel industry?
Michael Shanks
On Petrofac, the hon. Gentleman should be careful with his tone. To come here and try to undermine efforts to find a buyer for the UK arm and to talk down a business, which, as I just outlined, is a successful and growing business in the North sea, is deeply irresponsible. There have been long-standing issues at the company; he of all people should be well aware of that, given his previous role as a Minister in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. All of us across the House have a responsibility to support the company at the moment, not to undermine it, and to send a positive message to those workers, the suppliers and the customers that the UK arm is continuing to operate as normal. All the signs are that there is a viable long-term future for the company, but that will not happen if we have comments like those made by the hon. Gentleman undermining that business.
On the wider question of the North sea, the hon. Gentleman should know as well as anyone that we lost over a third of the jobs in the North sea during the Conservative party’s time in government. He wants to pretend that the transition arrived in July 2024, but he was in government when those jobs were going, and the Conservatives failed time and again to come up with any credible plan for managing the future of the North sea. We will not do that. We will come up with a plan. That is why we are building the industries of the future on hydrogen, on carbon capture, on offshore wind and on the supply chains—the very investments that he and Conservative Members turn their backs against time and again. They are turning their backs on the future of the energy story in the North sea as they are more interested in exploiting problems than solving them. Time and again, they have learned no lessons from their time in government, when they left these workers without a credible plan. We will not do the same again.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend outline to the House how the Government are delivering the clean energy jobs plan, which will see 40,000 new jobs in the clean energy industries in Scotland by 2030? I am sure that move will be welcomed around the Chamber. Will he advise us what support will be given to that plan by the Scottish Government?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend makes an important point about building up the industries of the future. I have said on a number of occasions that we should rightly be proud of six decades of oil and gas in the north-east of Scotland, and we should be proud of the work that that workforce has achieved, but we should also recognise that we have been in transition for a long time. Building up the jobs of the future in carbon capture, hydrogen, offshore wind and supply chains is how we ensure a long-term, viable, sustainable future in the north-east—alongside oil and gas for many decades to come.
The particular work that the Scottish Government need to do in this space is about improving the skills offer so that more of Scotland’s young people can take up the 40,000 jobs we will create over the coming years. That is a huge opportunity for Scotland’s young people, but only if we improve Scotland’s education system.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
This is worrying news. Petrofac is one of the North sea’s largest offshore contractors, but it is entering administration today after years of financial difficulty. While I cannot share the desire of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) to ditch the Climate Change Act 2008, I do share his concern for those 2,000 jobs in Scotland and those workers who face uncertainty about their future, so the Secretary of State must act swiftly to find a sustainable path forward, hopefully secure a buyer and safeguard those skilled jobs.
This underlines why the Liberal Democrats have called for an independent just transition commission, putting oil and gas workers and local communities front and centre. It was good to see the much-awaited publication of the Government’s clean energy jobs plan last week. However, we know that job creation is not happening fast enough to keep up with job losses in the North sea, so can the Secretary of State and the Minister confirm what will be done to fill that gap in the meantime—in the short term—and to deliver a genuinely just transition that keeps those skilled workers powering Britain’s clean energy future?
Michael Shanks
First, can I just say what a contrast it is when someone rightly responds to this concerning issue in a serious way and does not talk down the industry? This is where the House should stand taller and recognise that that company is doing good work and that there are 2,000 workers out in the North sea right now carrying out their duties. We want to ensure that there is a viable future for the company, and we are doing everything that we can in that space. All the signs are that it is a growing, successful business, and we should recognise that and talk it up, not talk it down, as the Conservative party seems hellbent on doing.
On the hon. Lady’s wider point, she is right to say that the future of clean energy involves tens of thousands of jobs across Scotland and hundreds of thousands across the UK, but that we need to ramp those jobs up as quickly as possible and ensure that people can achieve those jobs. We are doing what we can around looking at the skills framework, but we also ensuring that, through the investments we are making through Great British Energy, those jobs come forward much faster and that people are supported to move from jobs in oil and gas into jobs that have a real correlation in skills. We are picking this work up after the failure of the previous Government to have any plan. We are moving as fast as we can, and we will see more on that North sea plan in the coming weeks.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I have to say that this is a very underpowered urgent question. It is similar to a two-stroke engine attached to a rowing boat—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. When I decide on an urgent question, I do not need to be questioned about how urgent it is, or whether it is like a two-stroke engine or a 50 cc—actually, some of us think it might be a three litre.
Torcuil Crichton
I was, of course, referring to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who knows full well that he has missed the story here. Petrofac went into administration because the Dutch Government cut a contract for offshore wind farm developments. I dare say that that raises concerns about the viability for finance and the supply chain for the offshore wind farm industry, but as the Minister has pointed out, and as the shadow Minister well knows, Petrofac is successful in the UK. It has 2,000 jobs in the UK and it has contracts in the UK, so we need less scaremongering from this underpowered Opposition and more assurance from the Minister that he will look after those jobs.
Michael Shanks
I will just reflect on something that my hon. Friend said. This is a global company, and it has not had its troubles to seek for some time. It was subject to an investigation back in 2017, and it has gone through a number of restructuring routes since then. Ultimately, that process came to an end when it lost a significant contract from TenneT, one of the Dutch transmission operators. This is a company that has faced global headwinds for some time, but I repeat to the House that the UK business has a viable long-term future. It is already growing, it is successful, and we have a responsibility across this House to talk up British businesses and the workers in those jobs, not to talk them down.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
May I convey in the strongest possible terms to the junior Minister the anger and anxiety that is felt by my constituents in Aberdeen? Right now they are providing energy security to each and every one of us on these isles, as well as revenue to his Treasury, yet their only reward, and the only certainty they seem to have on this Government’s watch, is that of looming job losses. May I ask—[Interruption.] He shakes his head. May I ask him to come to Aberdeen and explain to my constituents when he is going to listen to the trade unions, the academics, the workers and the industry and protect that industry, not only for our energy security but for Scotland’s economy?
Michael Shanks
I am in Aberdeen regularly and do meet constituents of the right hon. Member who work in renewables, carbon capture and hydrogen as well as in oil and gas. It is his constituents who will benefit from the investments that Great British Energy will make, for example, which he failed to vote for, and who tell me that after a long period of having no credible plan—[Interruption.] He can shout me down all he wants; he asked a question—
Mr Speaker
Order. I brought the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) in early because I thought that was right for his constituents and because he had applied for an UQ, but I do expect a little respect, even if he does not like the answer.
Michael Shanks
The right hon. Member asks a serious question, and I am trying to give him an answer, if he would but listen for a few moments. We take the issue of job losses seriously—of course we do—but we have to recognise that over 70,000 jobs have been lost over the past 10 years because there has not been a credible plan on the future of the North sea. We are going to deliver that alongside new jobs in the energy future.
I also say to the right hon. Member that I am somewhat confused what the SNP’s policy is on this because, as far as I understood it, it is exactly the same as this Government’s policy, which is to look at the licensing position. If he is telling us now that the SNP’s position has changed, that is news to me and, I suspect, to the House, but of course, the SNP has not published the draft energy strategy, which has been in draft form for two years, so it is hard for anyone to know.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the UK arm of the company, which is an in-demand business with a highly skilled workforce and many successful contracts, has a long-term future in the UK, particularly in the context of our clean energy jobs plan announced last week and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) pointed out, some of the risks around the development of offshore wind in Holland?
Michael Shanks
We have obviously been liaising with the company over quite a long period of time on the restructuring; indeed, the previous Government did as well. We have been looking at this issue and will continue to work very closely with the company to ensure that there is a viable long-term future for the UK part. But it is an in-demand business and, as I said just last month, it expanded some of its contracts, which shows that it is successful. Of course, it has a highly skilled workforce working in a huge range of jobs right across oil and gas.
The wider question about investment into renewables is also one that we should take seriously. We have a huge opportunity in the United Kingdom to capitalise on the economic opportunities that come from offshore and onshore wind, hydrogen and carbon capture, but that requires consistency and a view that the UK is a safe place to invest—things that were threatened by the Conservatives.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Anyone who has met businesses in Aberdeen will know that they rely on the oil and gas sector. This Labour Government’s “net zero at all costs” policy is a disaster for high-quality skills and jobs in the north-east and across Scotland. What urgent action will the Government take to restore confidence and stability in the energy sector?
Michael Shanks
I reject the hon. Member’s assertion that this Government are somehow following a course without looking at the evidence. Clearly, oil and gas is a crucial part of our energy mix and will be for decades to come—we have been clear on that—but so too is building up what comes next. That means investing in the supply chains that were so often not part of the building of infrastructure that we have in our waters. We towed things in and switched them on, but had none of the jobs that went with them. We are determined to change that, but that comes with having a credible industrial strategy and a long-term plan for the future of the North sea, which we did not have under 14 years of the previous Government.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Ind)
Incredibly, it is now eight months since the Prime Minister announced £200 million from the National Wealth Fund for the industrial future of Grangemouth. I have had meetings with numerous companies that have proposals and are, frankly, impatient to get started. When will this money be spent, and when will those jobs come to my town? All there is to show for it so far are the bones of an unjust transition and industrial devastation.
Michael Shanks
We have been looking at a number of proposals. I met the five companies that are the frontrunners for National Wealth Fund investment, along with the Scottish Government Energy Minister. A number of propositions are to be taken forward, and I hope we will have an announcement to make in due course. Of course, we have been trying not to just spend £200 million on the first thing that comes along but to find the genuinely long-term, viable industrial opportunities that deliver jobs at Grangemouth, not just for a year or two but long into the future. The hon. Gentleman is right that for far too long the site has been the victim of a lack of planning, and it is an example of a just transition done wrongly. We want to make that different by having a serious plan for long-term jobs on the site. The NWF has brought companies to the table, and we will deliver an announcement on that in due course.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I accept the Minister’s comments about Petrofac, but it is a very worrying day not just for the 2,000 workers whose jobs are at stake but for the entire oil economy in north-east Scotland. Two things are missing that we desperately need in Scotland: one is investment in the jobs and skills that we will need for the renewable industries the Minister talks about, and the other is the reform of the taxation system and the windfall tax to ensure that it is consistent for the North sea area. What are the Government going to do about those things?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Lady is of course right that any announcements like this are worrying not only for those directly involved but for the wider community. I entirely recognise that point. She is right that it is critical to invest in the jobs of the future. We have worked with the Scottish Government—because we do work with them—to deliver joint funding for transition support so that workers can get the direct skills support they need to move from an oil and gas job into a renewables job. That is really important, but we also need to see much more upskilling of the next generation, who can take advantage of the jobs we will create in the clean energies of the future. On the question of taxation, I am afraid that is a matter for the Chancellor.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
My constituency includes small and medium-sized enterprises and large businesses that work in renewables, oil and gas, solar, onshore wind and offshore wind. Does the Minister agree that some of the outbursts today from Opposition Members, both Conservative and SNP, will do nothing but undermine confidence for those companies? Furthermore, can he please reassure me that he is working extensively with colleges and employers in Scotland to ensure that we see a skills transition from oil and gas into renewables, so that people in my constituency can take full opportunity of the investments that the Government are making?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that huge opportunities are coming. I have said that we should be proud of the history of oil and gas, and we should also be really proud of what the industry is doing to transition into the future. We need to do much more to ensure that jobs are delivered now, but certainty and confidence that the plan is not going to change overnight is critical for how we get private sector investment into the UK to deliver on those jobs. That is also why it is so important that we look at skills in the round.
I have to say that, despite the outbursts today, the SNP in Holyrood and the UK Government are working closely on ensuring that the skills opportunities are delivered. Would I like that to go further? Of course I would, and I hope we will have a change of Government and can make that happen. This only works if we have a serious approach to recognising the challenges, building the jobs of the future and ensuring that people can take advantage of the opportunities right across Scotland.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
We urgently need to restore confidence and stability in our oil and gas sector, or we will be here again and again as more and more businesses suffer and more and more jobs are lost, whether in my constituency, across north-east Scotland, in Scotland as a whole or in the UK as a whole—there are oil and gas and energy jobs everywhere in the UK. The future of Petrofac’s 2,000 skilled and expert staff, as well as the indirect jobs that rely on them, are now at risk and reliant on Petrofac being able to find a buyer for its North sea assets. Does the Minister think that the job of finding a buyer has been made more or less likely, given that the Government have created, in the industry’s words, “the most unstable fiscal” environment “in the world”?
Michael Shanks
I have enormous respect for the hon. Lady, but I have to say that this is not the day to be talking down this particular company. She can make the wider points about this Government’s policy—I totally recognise that—but this is a hugely important moment in which not to undermine a successful and growing company. We need to ensure that the suppliers, related companies and customers of Petrofac continue to support that business, because as of today it is operating as normal. It is incumbent on us all to ensure that that continues to be the case. We are working closely with the company to ensure that that outcome is delivered—the hon. Lady is right to mention the wider impact—but those 2,000 jobs and the supply chain jobs that rely on them have continued as normal today, and any suggestion to the contrary is just not correct.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to speak responsibly, with care and accuracy, about the successful UK arm of Petrofac? To do otherwise will only serve to undermine the business and job security that we all want to see across the House. What steps is he taking to ensure that it has a long-term future in the UK?
Michael Shanks
I rightly expect to be challenged in the House on the Government’s policies. A strong back-and-forth exchange is important. In this one instance, however, and separate from any view that Members might have on the wider policies of this Government, it is important that we come together where we can and say that this is a strong, successful, growing company. It is in all our interests across the House to talk up the importance of that company’s continuing to be successful so that a buyer or another commercial resolution is found and those jobs can be maintained. That is surely in all our interests.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Every single one of us has been criticising Government policy, not criticising Petrofac, the expertise and workers at Petrofac, or any of the workers in our oil and gas industry. The Minister says that he has been spending time in Aberdeen. Does he have any idea how it feels to be in Aberdeen just now, with another hammer blow coming? And it is because of the Government’s policies; it is because there is this massive gap. Skilled workers in the oil and gas industry will just go abroad; they will go elsewhere. It does not matter whether we retrain them; the jobs are not there for them right now. What is he going to do to plug that gap? What will he do to keep these skilled workers in Scotland, in Aberdeen and in these islands, and not drive them away?
Michael Shanks
I take the hon. Lady’s first point with a pinch of salt, after her second point that this comes as a hammer blow to the community. There is no hammer blow; those jobs have been protected—today 2,000 workers are waking up and doing the same job they were doing last week.
I am often in Aberdeen but I do not pretend that I hear as much from people there as the hon. Lady does from her constituents. Although I have made an effort to be there as often as possible to hear the concerns, I recognise that we need to move further and faster than the previous Government did for 14 years, and the Scottish Government did for 18 years, to put a credible plan in place for the future of those jobs. That means not only investing in future jobs, but ensuring the processes are in place so that people can take advantage of those jobs much more easily. Passporting, which was stuck in the mud for years, is now being delivered because we helped to unlock it. There is a lot more to do, and we will say that in the coming weeks when we publish our future of the North sea plan, but we are the ones driving forward investment that creates the jobs of the future. I am afraid that other parties—I did not count the hon. Lady’s party as one of those until today—are harking back to the past rather than recognising that the jobs of the future need to go hand in hand with good, well-paid oil and gas jobs in the short term.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and the confidence that he is showing in those workers. We have heard from the SNP. The difference between Labour and the SNP just now is that the SNP wants to scrap the energy profits levy but does not know what it will replace it with other than something that is fairer. Does the Minister think that is the kind of leadership we need in the oil and gas sector?
Michael Shanks
We recognise that the energy profits levy will come to an end and have consulted on what the future of that looks like with industry. It is a matter for the Chancellor to outline tax policy, as is standard practice in this House; it is not for me to comment on that. But there is a broader question about how we ensure that we drive forward investment. Talking down the investment in carbon capture, hydrogen, offshore wind and the supply chains is not the way to drive forward the jobs of the future, alongside the critical, important oil and gas jobs that will be with us for decades to come.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Why does the Minister refuse to issue new licences for the exploitation of new gas fields and new oil fields in the North sea? That is what the industry would like, and that is what the country would like, because we would like a stronger balance of payments, more tax revenues for the Exchequer, and a future for the North sea oil industry. What is the point of choking off our own North sea oil and gas industry when we have to import those fuels from other countries?
Michael Shanks
We will respond to the consultation on the future of licensing in due course. This Government were elected on the manifesto commitment to not issue new licences to explore new fields, but it remains our position that we will support existing licences and fields for their lifetime. We must manage the future of the basin, which has been in decline for 20-plus years—we hit peak oil in 1999 and peak oil in 2000, so we have been in transition for a long time—and that means investing in the industries that come next, alongside oil and gas.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I am reassured that it is this Minister who is looking at the issue and fighting for those jobs in Aberdeen. I am acutely aware that the previous Government did not take full account of the impact of this situation. We now know that using Rosebank, which the shadow Minister raised, would create 50 times more climate-harming gases than the previous Government admitted, and that the climate crisis is one of the biggest drags on growth. I know that the Minister is committed, in common with all Labour Members, to protecting jobs and the planet, but what more can we do within our supply chains to support his work in getting growth and the just transition that this country desperately needs, without Rosebank?
Michael Shanks
The House will understand that I will not be drawn on applications that are currently awaiting decision, so I will not comment on that specific application. On my hon. Friend’s broader point, as has already been said, the net zero economy is growing three times faster than the economy at large, and it is our economic future. I recently attended the G20 in South Africa, where Ministers from across the world were talking about the opportunities offered by the clean power transition in their own countries. It is the economic opportunity of the 21st century, as well as how we deliver on climate leadership: contrary to what Opposition Members might now think, that still matters. It is only right that we deliver a genuinely just transition for the workers who have powered our country for the past 60 years. We have seen where transitions have not been done well. The previous Government failed to put in place any kind of plan, but we will deliver a plan that delivers a just transition and our economic future.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I hear the Minister’s reassuring words, but surely he can understand the worry of the workers waking up this morning to the news that they heard. It is not just warm words that are causing the problem: it is policy, the energy profits levy and the ban on exploration. It is not just me saying that: those who are concerned include the Port of Aberdeen, Robert Gordon University, the North Sea Transition Authority, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change and the Scottish Affairs Committee. What will the Minister do to address these policy problems?
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his tone and I accept the point that he makes. As I have said, we can be clear that there is a viable future for those 2,000 workers and we should be positive about that—it is important that we talk up the future potential of the company—but I recognise that that does nothing for those who might be worrying. We accept that the EPL will come to an end. We have consulted with industry on what the future of that looks like. We want to ensure that the Treasury gains value from price spikes, a point on which his party and mine agree, and that is a matter for the Chancellor to take forward. If he is in favour of a tax cut for oil and gas, it is important that he says where that significant amount of revenue will come from to fund the public services on which he and I rely.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s mention of tiebacks in a consultation earlier this year. The development of tiebacks is important because it reduces costs and extends the life of existing critical infrastructure. However, many existing hubs are reaching the end of their life and we may miss the opportunities that are in front of us. Will the Minister look at tiebacks as a pragmatic step to help aid the transition?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is always a great champion for the industry. Although we often talk, quite rightly, about Aberdeen and north-east Scotland, she is right to champion her own community, where there are a significant number of oil and gas workers. I always welcome her straightforward challenge to me on many points. I will not get into the detail of the response to the consultation, which we will publish in due course, but we have been clear that we want a credible, long-term plan for the future of the North sea. That is why we consulted on a range of factors, not just the future licensing position, and we will come to a pragmatic position on what the future of the North sea looks like.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
For how many years, in the Government’s estimation, will we have to keep importing foreign oil and gas, as a result of not being allowed fully to exploit our own supplies?
Michael Shanks
Perhaps I should switch the question back: for how many years have we already been importing oil and gas? That gets us to the fundamental point. The Conservatives want to pretend that in July last year, we switched to being a net importer of oil and gas. That is not what happened. The right hon. Gentleman’s party oversaw that transition over many, many years. I recognise that, to some degree, given the geology of the basin, there would not have been different decisions taken if we had been in government, but what we could have done differently was ensure that the transition was happening, and delivered the economic opportunities that come along with what comes next, and that is what we will do.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
Does the Minister share my concerns about Reform and the Conservatives denying the reality of climate change, and denying that the best way to protect people’s jobs, including energy jobs, is to follow the green jobs plan? Does he agree that nuclear, including as Heysham 1 and 2 in my constituency—and, if I get my way, new nuclear at Heysham—is vital to the clean energy jobs plan?
Michael Shanks
I was going to say that that might be a note of consensus across the House, but I remembered that the SNP has an ideological objection to nuclear in Scotland, so it will not benefit from the economic opportunities that come from thousands of well-paid, skilled and trade-unionised jobs in nuclear. We believe that there is a long-term future for nuclear, which is why we announced funding for Sizewell C, concluded the small modular reactor programme, and have been working with the US Government to bring forward private funding partnerships to build the latest technology in the UK. That comes with thousands of jobs, will help us to deliver on energy security long into the future, and helps to tackle the climate crisis. This party believes that the climate crisis is an existential threat, and we should do everything that we can to tackle it.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Thousands more jobs are at risk, alongside the thousands of families and jobs at risk at the Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire, all because of this Government’s policies on net stupid zero, yet the Minister talks warmly about the growth prospects for Petrofac. To grow, we need an industry; to have an industry, we need more oil and gas licences. Will the Minister change course and allow exploration and more licences to produce oil and gas in the North sea?
Michael Shanks
I am not sure that there was a hugely coherent argument there. The hon. Gentleman seems to say that the future might be in clean energy jobs, but he says, “They might not be delivered fast enough, so we should not bother doing it.” We think there is an important long-term future in delivering clean energy, including in his constituency, where many supply chain jobs will be delivered, and he is against that economic investment. He should explain to his constituents and to the wider country why Reform wants to make this country more energy-dependent, not less energy-dependent, and why it is against the economic opportunities that our proposals bring. Even if we disagree on the climate crisis—which I find staggering, given all the evidence; I accept that he might be burying his head in the sand—we should at least agree that there is a huge economic opportunity, and an opportunity to maintain our energy security.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I recently visited the Bacton gas terminal in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), which is on the North sea coast. It already provides up to one third of our nation’s gas supply, and is ideally placed to be a carbon capture and hydrogen hub. The Minister has just talked about jobs; I want those jobs in my area. Will he recognise the vital role that the east of England plays, back Bacton’s plans to ensure its low-carbon future, and help to secure good, local jobs?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that this is a huge opportunity, which the previous Government talked about a lot but did not actually move forward on delivering. In the spending review, there were significant amounts of investment to move forward with the carbon capture clusters, and we have followed that up with specific investments over the past few months. I have been privileged to visit some of the sites and see the potential for maintaining existing jobs in industry while building the jobs of the future in carbon capture. We are hugely positive about the future vision for carbon capture across the country, as a way to tackle our emissions, help us get to net zero, and create good industrial jobs.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I thank the Minister for the engagement we have had over the future of Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency. Can he give any indication of what support the Government might give, and when a final decision might be taken? Will he at least acknowledge that new licences in the North sea would offer job opportunities for those people whose jobs are at risk?
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the engagement we have had on this issue. Obviously, the failure of the company that was previously running the Prax Lindsey oil refinery has had a really significant impact. We have been working to make sure that the process that the official receiver is going through is concluded as soon as possible. It is for the receiver to decide who the potential buyers are; it is looking at a shortlist of credible candidates, but given the nature of the insolvency, it is not for the Government to decide what is built next on that site.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s second point, I genuinely do not think that the licensing question will decide the future of jobs for that site. We want to build up an industry for the future on that site, with long-term, sustainable jobs, and all the evidence we have seen about managing the future of the North sea basin suggests that that while oil and gas will be important for many years to come, that is not the long-term future for the North sea.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
It is very important to increase the number of skilled jobs in renewables and in hydrogen. I welcome the Minister’s mention of the Government’s clean jobs plan; can he say more about that plan, and in particular about training and development for younger staff, as well as retraining for existing staff?
Michael Shanks
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and particularly for mentioning retraining. We see huge opportunities for people who are in the middle of careers to transfer into the energy system. Just in the past few weeks, we have been looking at a scheme to support veterans who are leaving the armed forces in getting jobs building infrastructure. There are huge opportunities in that sector if we can capitalise on the clean energy transition.
We also need to invest in the future of the next generation of workers. In England, we are looking at technical training colleges to make that happen. Funding goes to the Scottish Government to do that in Scotland and, of course, to the Welsh Government as well. The future of our energy system is clean energy; we want to make sure that we have the jobs and training opportunities that go with it, so that the people of our country get an economic advantage, as well as the country getting the energy security.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Today’s Petrofac news has nothing to do with UK oil and gas policy. This is a company with a long history of financial challenges and mismanagement; it was fined millions for bribery, lost £6 billion in value since 2012, and has now lost a contract with the Netherlands. Does the Minister agree that any attempt to claim otherwise is blatant political point scoring by the Tories and others with a head-in-the-sand climate denial agenda, and is a distraction from what really matters, which is ensuring that every worker whose job is affected by today’s news is properly supported?
Michael Shanks
I agree with the hon. Lady on the wider point, which is that—as I outlined in my opening answer—Petrofac has not had its troubles to seek. She has outlined a number of those troubles, but I reiterate that the UK arm of that business is successful and growing. We want to make sure that that continues—that there is a buyer, or another solution, so that it can continue long into the future. Others will seek to politicise this news for the sake of their own political narratives, but it is incumbent on all of us to send as positive a message as we can to the workers, suppliers and customers of Petrofac—the message that the UK arm continues to operate as normal, and that we want that to continue.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Every month, 1,000-plus people lose their jobs in North sea oil and gas. Contrary to the case that the Minister presents, the industry says that this declining basin still has 4 billion additional barrels that could be extracted, if only there were new licences. He tells the House that that oil and gas will be needed for decades to come, yet he cuts off all new supply, mortally damaging the whole supply chain, of which Petrofac is part. The Minister cannot deny responsibility, and he needs to persuade the Chancellor—if not his Secretary of State, who is probably beyond persuasion—that we need to move to a practical policy that includes new licences. We need to optimise this, because green and fossil fuels do not need to be in tension; we want the transition, but we must keep those jobs for now.
Michael Shanks
First, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s recognition—which we seldom hear from his party’s Front Benchers these days—that this is a transition, and that we want the economic opportunities of oil and gas and those of renewables. It is a delight to hear him say that; his Front Benchers should say so more often and talk up the phenomenal renewables industry, which the Conservatives should take a bit of credit for. Over the past 14 years, they built up so much of that industry across the country, but they have turned away from that now.
Turning to the licensing point, I cannot remember at what stage the right hon. Gentleman was in the Government, but of course, the previous Government said that they would not issue new licences. Later, they briefly did; then they recognised that that was the wrong policy—I think it was the Liz Truss years in which they changed around. A tiny fraction of the licences that have been issued have ever resulted in extraction from the North sea. We will manage existing licences for their lifespan, and will take a pragmatic view on the future of the North sea, which we will announce in the coming weeks, but the long-term future of the North sea does not lie in oil and gas; it lies in renewables, carbon capture and hydrogen.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
Does the Minister really consider this a just transition? We have thousands of contractors arriving in the highlands. They stay in workers’ camps, and very few legacy houses are agreed. The companies are not employing local people, and this is all in an area with the greatest fuel poverty in Britain.
Michael Shanks
We know that winter has come when the hon. Gentleman turns up in his lovely knitted jumpers; it is a pleasure to see them back again. He and I have had a number of conversations on this issue, and I recognise how seriously he takes it. There have been some good moves recently to look at the legacy left behind, particularly housing. This is about building housing that suits the workforce, but can be left behind for communities afterwards. We need a lot of work in partnership with the Scottish Government, who have responsibility for housing policy, to make sure that the opportunities are taken forward. The Minister for energy consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), will say much more in due course about our plan for warm homes. That will result in significant spending in Scotland, but that will be in the hands of the Scottish Government, who have cut this budget time and again. I hope that they will change their ways, and will help the hon. Gentleman’s constituents to have warmer homes this winter.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Has the Minister made any estimate of the likely impact on Petrofac and similar enterprises of the extension of the energy profits levy?
Michael Shanks
As I have said in a number of answers, the UK arm of Petrofac is a successful and growing business. Its holding company went into administration today due to a number of factors, including the loss of an international contract. It is nothing to do with our policy in the North sea.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I say to our colleagues on the Green green Benches that of course climate change exists. We need green investment, green jobs and the green transition, but is there not a fundamental flaw at the heart of the Government’s policy, which is that it is ideologically driven? Have we not learned anything from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine about energy security, energy sovereignty and energy independence? I put it to the Minister, with the greatest respect, that in the medium to long term, if we continue down this track too quickly, without a stable transition for workers and the energy sector, the Government could end up undermining the UK’s national security.
Michael Shanks
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for how he has put the question. Energy security is at the heart of what we are trying to do, because our exposure to fossil fuels is what led to some of the most significant price spikes in all our constituents’ bills—spikes that they still face today. Our continued exposure to the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—even though none of that Russian gas now reaches us—is because of the international markets; they drive this forward. The only way to take back control of our energy is by building the clean power system of the future, and the pace of that transition is absolutely right. We are driving forward momentum, to make sure that the investment comes forward to create jobs in the economy right now. That has been successful; there has been £50 billion of private investment just in the past year. My view is that 10 or 20 years ago, both under the previous Labour Government and under the Conservative Government, we should have recognised that a transition was under way and put in place a credible plan for protecting the jobs. That was not done, but we are determined to do it, so that the transition for oil and gas workers is into good, well-paid jobs in renewables, carbon capture, hydrogen and other technologies, and we have a genuinely just and prosperous transition.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Job losses in the North sea come from the lack of a strategic energy transition plan. The same applies to nuclear in Wales, where the lack of a plan for Wylfa has seen nuclear jobs in Ynys Môn fall to a record low. Does the Minister agree that future-proofing our energy industries against job losses and rising costs requires a clear strategy and timely decisions from this Government?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Lady rightly takes every opportunity to ask me about the range of energy issues in her constituency, and I thank her for that. We have concluded the small modular reactor programme that we inherited from the previous Government, with Rolls-Royce winning that competition. The future of nuclear will be taken forward with Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C and the future of the SMR programme, but also with private sector investment in the US-UK partnership, which will build it. The decision on where the SMRs will be is under consideration by my noble Friend, the Minister for nuclear, and we will have more to say about that in due course.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
This Government like to tell people that growth is their first priority, but growth requires abundant and cheap energy. Does the Minister recognise that the only things they are growing by cutting the oil and gas industry are domestic prices, business prices and the number of job losses in the industry?
Michael Shanks
No, I do not. The clean power that we are trying to build will enable us to ensure that we remove gas as the price setter on our system. At present, gas sets the price 80% of the time, although it is often clean power that is powering the country. That is a problem that we have to end, so that all our constituents—but also businesses—benefit from cheaper power. The cheapest form of electricity that we can build at the moment is solar. I know that the hon. Lady objects to a number of those schemes in her own constituency, as she is perfectly entitled to do, but I would say to Conservative Members that if we want to build a power system that brings down bills, we have to support the infrastructure that goes with it.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Sadly, this is not an isolated case; regrettably, it is a pattern of decline that we are seeing under this Government. Can the Minister tell us how many companies must go under before the Government realise that Great Britain cannot build a resilient and secure energy system by shutting down the energy industry?
Michael Shanks
Let me just challenge the premise of that question once again. Petrofac’s UK arm has not gone under; it is working today as it did yesterday and the day before and the day before that, and as it will the day after. It is a successful, growing business, and we have a responsibility to talk up the industry to ensure that it has a viable, long-term future. In the next few days we will continue to work intensively with the company to make that happen, but we do have a responsibility not to undermine a successful business, which is what the UK arm of Petrofac is. The company that went into administration today is the topco of Petrofac, which has no employees.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The United Kingdom’s electricity price is set by gas 98% of the time. By contrast, the electricity price in the European Union is set by gas less than 40% of the time. If the electricity price in the UK were set by the price of clean energy more often, would the UK not be a more attractive destination for investment in energy generation? [Interruption.]
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, although I think I heard a “no” from the Opposition Front Bench in response to his question. The only way in which we can deliver long-term energy security is to get off the rollercoaster of fossil fuels. The future is in clean energy: we see that across Europe, where nuclear and renewables are driving down the cost of electricity, but also insulating countries from the price spikes that we have seen as a result of, for instance, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We are too exposed to gas at the moment, which is why our electricity prices are high, even though for much of the day our power is being generated by clean energy, which is considerably cheaper. Clean energy is the economic opportunity of the 21st century. It is how we deliver our energy security, how we tackle the climate crisis, and how we bring down bills for people now and in the long term.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
While Labour continues down the path of net zero, the UK now imports more than 40% of its total energy needs from overseas. Given that the UK is the second most expensive country in the world for household electricity, will the Minister issue new oil and gas licences so that we can get oil and gas out of the North sea to support jobs and help energy companies to cut fuel costs for people right across these isles?
Michael Shanks
I do not know whether the footnote to the hon. Gentleman’s question says this, but even if we were to issue new licences, what we extracted from the North sea would be traded on the international market and we would pay the price that is traded on the international market. I would like to understand the hon. Gentleman’s logic in respect of how that would help us to bring down bills; it is not the case. Let me be clear about this: the long-term future of our energy system is a mix of nuclear and renewables. Removing ourselves from the volatility of fossil fuels is the only way forward, but it is also an economic opportunity for his constituents and those of Members on both sides of the House. We will build this infrastructure here with a proper industrial strategy to create the jobs of the future.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Can the Minister explain to my constituents how banning new drilling for oil and gas while importing gas from other countries at a higher cost will bring their bills down by £300, and can he say when that will happen by?
Michael Shanks
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and indeed to anyone’s constituents, that over the past few years they have been paying the price for what happens as a result of our exposure to fossil fuels. The last Government had to spend tens of billions of pounds on reducing people’s bills because of that exposure. The hon. Gentleman may have forgotten about that, but I can tell him that his constituents will not have, because they are still paying the price for it. This Government are determined not to make the same mistake again. The Opposition are willing to go back to the fossil fuel casino again and again and hope that it gives them a better hand, but we are going to build the clean power system of the future and bring down bills for good.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I have a number of constituents who depend on the North sea oil and gas industry for their employment. The Minister will be aware that if a buyer is not found, the knock-on effect will not be limited to those families facing redundancy, but will affect our nation’s energy security. Does the Minister accept that the uncertainty of Government support has had an effect on the future sustainability of the industry, and that we should be realistic and acknowledge that the Government need to continue to invest in the industry until we approach that far-off time when, just perhaps, we do not need oil and gas?
Michael Shanks
I always welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contributions in our many debates on energy, both here and in Westminster Hall. He is right that the impact of job losses goes well beyond the individuals, although I reiterate that in this case there have been no job losses in the UK; Petrofac continues to be successful, and it is in all our interests to make sure that remains the case.
On the hon. Gentleman’s wider question, I know that the impact is felt on supply chain jobs in his constituency and across the country. That is why we need to build up the new energy infrastructure here as well. For too long, all those offshore wind platforms that were towed into British waters gave jobs to other countries, instead of creating jobs here in the UK. We are determined to do something different. We are driving forward investment in the supply chains to make sure that there is a viable future for his constituents and for those across the country.
Prisoner Release Checks
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
I would like to make a statement on the release in error of Hadush Kebatu from HMP Chelmsford last Friday morning.
As the House will be aware, Mr Kebatu was apprehended by the Metropolitan police on Sunday morning in the Finsbury Park area of my constituency. He is back where he belongs: behind bars. I thank the Metropolitan police, Essex police and the British Transport police for their swift action to return him to custody, and the public who helped to locate Kebatu after the police appeal. I can tell the House that he will now be transported for deportation back to Ethiopia as quickly as possible. However, that does not change the fact that Mr Kebatu’s victims are rightly outraged about what has happened. I am livid on their behalf, and on behalf of the public. This was a mistake that should not have happened. The victims expect better, the public expect better, and this Government expect better from a critical public service, which plays a vital role in our first duty: to keep the British people safe and free from harm.
On Friday 24 October, Mr Kebatu was scheduled to be transferred from HMP Chelmsford to an immigration removal centre, from which he was to be deported. Due to what appears to have been human error, he was instead released into the community at 10.25 am. Shortly after 12 pm, concerns were raised about the release to the duty governor, and, following checks, staff were dispatched to locate him. When it became clear that he was no longer in the vicinity of the prison, Essex police were notified and a manhunt began.
His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service instigated an immediate investigation, and I have asked for the initial findings to be with me this week. The House will appreciate that, in the meantime, there is a limit on what I can say. Members will be aware that there are national security considerations within a case like this. I will update the House in the appropriate way as soon as I can. What I can say today is that there must be, and there will be, accountability for what has happened.
When I was first informed of the release in error, I spoke immediately to the duty governor at HMP Chelmsford and senior HMPPS leaders in order to understand what was known and to seek assurances about the immediate measures being taken. I tasked my officials with working through the night and co-ordinated a response with the Home Office and the police, and I put on the record my thanks to the Home Secretary for her engagement over the weekend. I also chaired three operational meetings with the police, and on Sunday I was able to travel to Wood Green police station, just outside my constituency, to personally thank the police officers who caught Kebatu.
I have been clear from the outset that a mistake of this nature is unacceptable. We must get to the bottom of what happened and take immediate action to try to prevent similar releases in error in order to protect the public from harm. First, on Friday I instructed the chief executive officer of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to carry out an urgent review to look at the checks that take place when a prisoner is released, and to identify immediate changes that could be made to the process, in order to mitigate the risks of release in error. As a result, HMPPS has taken steps to make these processes more robust. There will now be more direct senior accountability for ensuring that protocols and checks are correctly applied, including a clear checklist for governors to determine that every step has been followed the evening before any release takes place. These are the strongest release checks that have ever been in place. They will apply to every release from custody and are effective immediately.
Secondly, any foreign national offender being removed through the early removal scheme—the scheme through which Kebatu was supposed to be removed from the country—can now be discharged only when the duty governor is physically present, and there will be no ERS removals from HMP Chelmsford for the rest of this week.
Thirdly, I am today announcing that there will be an independent investigation by Dame Lynne Owens—I spoke to her yesterday. She is a former deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police and a former director general of the National Crime Agency. She will fully establish the facts of Kebatu’s release and whether staff had sufficient experience, training and technology. She will also talk to the victims in this case to understand the effect that this incident had on them. Her report will highlight points of failure and make recommendations to help prevent further releases in error, which have been rising year on year since 2021—from an average of nine per month in 2023 to 17 per month in the period spanning January to June 2024.
I am clear that a single release in error is one too many, which is why we have launched this independent investigation. I can tell the House that it will have the same status as those into other prison incidents, including the awful attack on three prison officers at HMP Frankland in April and the escape of Daniel Khalife from HMP Wandsworth in 2023, under the last Government.
Releases in error are a symptom of the system that we inherited from the Conservative party. Jails were full—almost to breaking point—and there was the threat of a total collapse in law and order. The fact is that we were left with prisons reeling from historic funding reductions: a 24% real-terms cut between 2010 and 2015, and 30% cuts in staffing. Today, we have been left with over 50% of frontline prison officers having less than five years’ experience. When the system has been brought to its knees, it is little wonder that errors like this happen.
We must also be honest about how the previous Government’s approach to this crisis—piecemeal, complex emergency releases in the hope that the system would not collapse—has added a level of complexity and pressure that makes errors more likely. This Government have been transparent about the difficult decisions necessary to fix the mess for good so that prisons can keep us safe and future Governments need not find emergency solutions to free up capacity.
This Government have brought forward the Sentencing Bill, which is currently making its way through this House. It will ensure that we have a suitable criminal justice system, and one that can deliver punishment that works, cuts crime and keeps the public safe. This Government are also building 14,000 additional prison places, so that we have the capacity to lock up the most dangerous offenders. This is the largest prison expansion since the Victorian era, and let us be clear that there will be more people in prison at the end of this Parliament than there ever have been before. We have already built 2,500 additional prison places in just over a year, compared with the 500 added overall to the prison estate under the Tories.
We are deporting more foreign criminals than the last Government. We changed the law last month to speed up the early removal scheme—which, to be fair, the shadow Justice Secretary called for—so that most foreign prisoners can now be deported after serving 30% of their custodial sentence, rather than the previous 50%. Through the Sentencing Bill, we will go even further to deport foreign criminals as soon as possible after sentencing. I can confirm that, in the year to July 2025, we sent 5,179 foreign national offenders back to their countries of origin, which is a 14% increase on the previous 12 months. This frees up desperately needed prison places and saves the taxpayer the £54,000 per year it costs to hold an individual offender.
This context sets out the scale of the challenge, but I am clear that releases in error are not simply a fact of life. The public will not accept that and neither do the Government. We will get to the bottom of what happened in this case, and we will take whatever steps necessary to tackle the spike in releases in error, so that we can uphold the first duty of every Government, which is to keep the public safe from harm. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Dear, oh dear, where to begin? This Justice Secretary could not deport the only small boat migrant who wanted—no, who tried—to be deported. Having been mistakenly released, Hadush Kebatu came back to prison asking to be deported not once, not twice, but five times, but he was turned away. The only illegal migrants this Government are stopping are those who actually want to leave the UK. His officials, briefing the press, called it “the mother of all—”. Yeah, they are not wrong, are they? Calamity Lammy strikes again. It is a national embarrassment.
Today the Justice Secretary feigns anger at what has happened. He says he is “livid” that Kebatu was mistakenly let out, but under his plans to abolish short prison sentences, which he forced through the Commons last week, Kebatu would never have even stepped foot in prison in the first place. Let us get it straight: we had the spectacle of the Metropolitan police scouring London to find a man the Justice Secretary is simultaneously legislating to avoid sending to prison. What an absolute farce! I must commend the Justice Secretary’s performance: it is truly BAFTA-worthy. He has perfected the art of performative outrage to a tee.
On Wednesday—[Interruption.] They may be laughing, but let me finish this point. On Wednesday, the Justice Secretary will force every one of his MPs to vote again on the Sentencing Bill, which will see hundreds of sex offenders just like Kebatu avoid prison altogether—sick men who destroy the lives of young girls, who steal their childhoods from them. They will be free to roam your communities to steal the childhoods of your constituents. I will tell you who will be livid then: the British public will be livid and they will know who is to blame.
The Justice Secretary says he has launched an inquiry into what has happened, but he should be able to provide some basic questions to the House now. With respect to the prison in question, HMP Chelmsford, there is clearly a very significant problem. In a previous internal audit at Chelmsford, officials had marked their own homework as “good”, yet inspectors rated it as of “serious concern”. What is the Justice Secretary going to do now to address the way in which problems in our prisons are covered up routinely or wished away?
On the inquiry itself, you will not be surprised to hear that I am—how shall I put this?—sceptical about this Government’s ability to conduct inquiries with any competence. Why are they limiting themselves to this particular security farce and not the other glaring errors, such as the doubling of drone sightings above prisons, the soaring assaults on prison officers or the rampant extremism we are now seeing in our jails?
Shocking as this accidental release is, it is not a one-off blunder. It has come to be the norm under this Government, as the number of prisoners mistakenly let out early has more than doubled. Will the Justice Secretary tell the House how many of the 262 prisoners let out mistakenly in the year to March were violent or sexual offenders? And how many are still at large? There are now record numbers of foreign nationals clogging up our prisons—more than under the last Government. How many of those 262 prisoners accidentally released are migrants, like Kebatu, who were awaiting deportation?
Can the Justice Secretary give the House his cast-iron assurance that this man will be deported from our country by the end of the week, as he promised on the news on Sunday? If he fails, will he take responsibility and resign? Lastly, on Tuesday the Justice Secretary blocked my amendment to release the migrant crime data. Does he now finally acknowledge that there is a link between the small boats and crime in this country? Will he call the small boats out for what they are: a national security emergency?
This man should never have been in our country in the first place. That is the truth. He should have been detained. He should have been deported. Instead, he was put up in a hotel in Epping and allowed to prey on schoolgirls. Now we learn that some Labour officials privately concede that they were wrong to scrap the Rwanda plan. Be in no doubt: from start to finish, the Kebatu fiasco was a creation entirely of Labour’s own making. So, I say to the Justice Secretary, there is no point coming to the House today professing to be livid at the consequences of your own policies. The British people, they can see straight through you.
Mr Lammy
This is a serious issue and that is why there will be a full independent investigation.
The shadow Justice Secretary—I will give him this—is smooth. But as my mother would have said, if he was chocolate he would lick himself. He should hang his head in shame. The crisis in our prisons that we face today is because of 14 years of failure under his Government. As they were packing their bags to leave office—he knows this—there were temporary release failures under his watch. They presided over 17 mistaken releases per month.
This did not happen overnight, and it was not inevitable; it was due to the choices made by the right hon. Gentleman’s party over 14 years of chaos. The Conservatives said that they were the Government of security and safety, but again and again they oversaw rising instances of violent crime and crumbling courts and prisons. They promised 20,000 extra prison places, and they managed only an extra 500—500 in 14 years. They promised to remove more foreign national offenders from our prisons, and they failed. They promised investment and expansion in the prison system, but budgets stalled. They promised investment in the police, but we saw police numbers cut by 20,000. They promised increases in access to justice, but we did not see that; instead, we saw almost the collapse of legal aid. Under the right hon. Gentleman’s watch, violence, self-harm and drug abuse went up in our prisons while prison officer numbers were cut, yet he has the brass neck to come here and give the impression that this problem started just 14 months ago.
Let me just pause there. William Fernandez, a sexual predator, was released in error in March 2021. After he was let out of prison, he raped a 16-year-old and sexually assaulted another young woman. Was there an independent investigation? No, not from the Conservatives. When Rayon Newby, another man who was mistakenly released from a category B prison, was released in error in March 2023, was there an independent investigation under the right hon. Gentleman’s watch? No, there was not. When Lauras Matiusovas was released in error in December 2021, was there any independent investigation? There was none at all. The right hon. Gentleman has some brass neck.
I have asked Lynne Owens to look at this incident and to do so in eight weeks, and we will of course come back to the House when that is done. All of what the right hon. Gentleman has said—looking at what happened over this period of time—will be subject to that review.
The right hon. Gentleman also says that the sentencing review will let out more foreign nationals, but he is wrong. We have actually brought down the threshold, so that someone can now be deported with just a suspended sentence. He knows that. If he reads clause 42 of the Sentencing Bill, he will understand that properly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Given the pressure on prison front desks and the complexity of rules for release, this was an accident waiting to happen. One thing that might bring down the number of releases in error is the digitising of prisoner records. On visits to prisons, Justice Committee members are often horrified to find staff relying on handwritten files. While some parts of the justice system are entertaining artificial intelligence, why are our prisons still run on pen and paper systems?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend raises an important point. As he knows, there is to this day largely no wi-fi or anything like that available on our prison sites, in part because of concerns over the use of technology by prisoners. For that reason, prisons use a paper-based system, which will always be subject to some human error. In the context of this continued early release scheme being done on the quiet under the previous Government, and indeed because of the changes that we are making in the Sentencing Bill, it is right that we have a proper look at this. I discussed this matter with Lynne Owens when we spoke yesterday.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
We Liberal Democrats are relieved that Kebatu has been recaptured after what must have been a terrifying few days for his victims, and we echo the Justice Secretary’s remarks thanking Essex police, the Metropolitan police and British Transport police. However, Kebatu’s recapture does not excuse the serious mistakes that caused his release to happen in the first place—it is totally unacceptable that the safety of the public was ever put at risk.
HMP Chelmsford is a remand prison that regularly deals with prisoners coming and going, and it should therefore be highly capable of handling situations like this. Yet we know from His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons that there are deep-seated inadequacies at Chelmsford, including inexperienced staff and a lack of adequate training, identified especially in pre-release documents. At the same time, we have seen worrying trends nationally in mistaken prisoner releases, with 262 prisoners released by accident in 2025, up from 115 the previous year.
We Liberal Democrats recognise that the Government inherited a mess when it comes to prisons, but they should have taken serious steps to address the shortfalls and staffing issues in prisons, which are now clearly putting the public at risk. What steps are the Secretary of State’s Government taking to address work culture and training issues in our prisons, especially prisons such as HMP Chelmsford where concerns had already been raised?
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of an independent investigation, following repeated calls by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), whose constituents were put at risk, but will he confirm what consequences those found at fault will face? Also, pending the outcome of the investigation, does he agree that anyone responsible should face the sack? Does he believe that the new safeguards he is putting in place will prevent this from ever happening again?
Finally, Kebatu’s victims will have spent the weekend incredibly distressed. What support was provided to those victims and their families over the weekend when they were aware of the perpetrator being at large, and will that support continue?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for the tone of her remarks. She is right that what happened was entirely unacceptable, and understandably the victims of Kebatu’s crimes and their families would have been very anxious over the course of the weekend. The public at large would also have been very anxious, particularly women and children. She is right that there are issues in our prisons; 50% of our prison staff are effectively new on the job as a result of what we inherited from the Conservatives. It is important that we give them the appropriate support and training over this period.
The hon. Lady knows, because I have said it from the Dispatch Box, that it is our intention to grow the number of prison places—14,000 places by 2031—and build new prisons. In that context, it is also important that we grow the number of officers and support them. The hon. Lady knows too the importance of probation in this context, and the £700 million we have allocated to support our Probation Service at this time is really important. She will recognise that, in a system that releases 57,000 prisoners every year, many prisoners are released appropriately under licence. Some of them are reporting to probation or at home or for tags, and many of them—a proportion that has gone up—are reporting for early removal. For all those reasons it is important that Lynne Owens gets to the bottom of what happened in this circumstance.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
On the weekend we heard Conservative Members talking about the Labour party releasing this prisoner early. That is a rather silly comment, as the Labour party did not release anybody. Does the Secretary of State agree that what has caused, created and contributed to the problems that have enabled these mistakes to happen has not come from the 14 months we have been in power but from the 14 years of austerity and cuts that the Conservatives oversaw?
Mr Lammy
As a statement of fact, the Conservatives recognise that the inheritance we had in this context was poor. The public want to ensure that whoever is in government keeps them safe and that people are not being released from prison in the wrong way. That is why it is important that there is a full and independent investigation into this incident and that the system learns lessons from it. I listed previous cases where there was no full or independent investigation. We could have learned from these cases earlier if the Conservatives had acted.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The crisis of small boats crossing the channel is utterly debilitating and is alienating millions of people from the whole political process. Imagine how the whole atmosphere would have lightened if the Government had come here today and said, “This sort of farce cannot continue. We will get out of any convention, and from midnight tonight if you land illegally on these shores, you will be detained and deported immediately back to where you have come from.”
I want to ask about a particular constituency point. Such is the crisis around how to house these people that there are reports today in The Times and other newspapers that the Government are thinking of opening disused military sites and are looking at two or three in particular. The Government gave a solemn promise that they would not use RAF Scampton to house illegal migrants. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that solemn promise still stands?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the Housing Secretary this morning talking about how we are looking at military sites. We are looking at a number of them intently. I am afraid that I am unable to give him reassurance in relation to his constituency because I have not got the list in front of me, but I will ensure that the appropriate Minister makes contact with him.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is deeply concerning that a dangerous criminal was released on to the streets—that should not have happened—but I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his honest assessment of what happened and for acknowledging that it was wrong. Does he agree that we are dealing with 14 years of Tory neglect with overcrowded and understaffed prisons, and that when things go wrong—as they have done—it is essential that we take swift and decisive action so that the public’s trust in the justice system is maintained, and that that is exactly what we are doing now?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The truth is that, under this Government in our first year in office, more than 5,100 foreign national offenders were removed from this country. We have removed 2,500 more from prison than in recent times. Under the last Government, there were 800 releases in error and no full independent investigation. That is the truth. It is on this watch that we are going to change that.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
The trial, sentencing and mistaken release of Hadush Kebatu all took place in the heart of my constituency, and it is entirely unacceptable. First, I thank Essex police, British Transport police and the Metropolitan police, as well as the public for their vigilance, for ensuring that he was apprehended and will now be deported. I welcome the announcement of an independent investigation, but the Government must ensure that any recommendations are implemented in full without delay and not just left to gather dust on a bookshelf. On prison leadership, does the Justice Secretary agree that scapegoating a single prison officer for systemic failure is unacceptable and that if leaders—including prison governors—are found to be at fault, they should resign?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I know that this case has been shocking for her constituents and that the reports and scenes of this prisoner wandering around Chelmsford will have been incredibly disturbing; particularly so for the victims of the crime. I know that she has spoken to the Prisons Minister—I grateful that she reached out as she did—and I think that she has spoken to the governor as well.
We have suspended the officer involved pending an investigation—that must be right and proper—but I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that, having asked Dame Lynne Owens to look at this case closely, we will of course take seriously her recommendations. I will ensure that the House can fully scrutinise those recommendations when they come forward.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The case of Kebatu has exposed deep failings in our prison system as a result—as we have heard—of 14 years of failure by the previous Tory Government. Those failings were made worse by chronic staff shortages.
The immediate, reckless skilled visa rule change risks forcing hundreds of experienced overseas officers out of the service overnight. At HMP Liverpool, 40% of staff could be affected. Will the Secretary of State explain how stripping our prisons of trained staff will make them safer or help prevent further failures like those seen in Mr Kebatu’s case?
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
My thoughts are with the victims of this sex offender’s crimes, including the 14-year-old Epping schoolgirl. They and their families want answers as to how this major breach could have happened. The Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary have said that they were “appalled” and “livid”. Well, that is great—so is everyone—but Ministers are not commentators; they are in charge and ultimately they are accountable. This issue has not gone away for the people of Epping. The twice-weekly protests continue. No one wants our town to be repeatedly the lead story in the news, but the events of recent days have again raised community anxiety and distress. Will the Government now get a grip on this issue, address the illegal immigration crisis that has spun out of control on their watch, and do the right and safe thing and close the Bell hotel immediately?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman was right, at the beginning of his question, to centre the victims of these crimes and their anxiety, and to hold that dear. That is why the first thing I said to Lynne Owens was that she should reach out to those victims and hear from them as she went about her work. I know Epping very well, and I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents know that the crisis that we inherited began under the last Government. Their discontent with asylum and immigration—the inability of the last Government to deal with the gangs and the collapse of the Rwanda scheme—and the outrage of asylum hotels all began under the last Government, and he knows that as well as I do.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to the House today to address this serious issue. Many of my constituents raised it with me over the weekend. I notice that not a single Member from Reform is here, especially not the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin). I am assuming that she is still running scared after her horrific racist remarks over the weekend. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the deportation of Kebatu will proceed unhindered and without delay—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to ponder his words. I suggest that he withdraws the remark that he has just made about another hon. Member.
Chris Webb
On your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw that remark. To finish my question, will the Secretary of State ensure that there is a swift plan, so that when mistakes are made we can ensure that public trust in the justice system is retained?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right, and it is hugely important to put this in the context not only of the victims, who will have been anxious, but of the inheritance of the backlog in our courts that is preventing people from getting justice. He is also right to reference the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby, who I see is not in her seat despite her very inflammatory statements over the weekend.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is outrageous that Kebatu was not deported at the end of his sentence. What is worse is that the number of prisoners released by mistake has more than doubled under this Government. If the Justice Secretary is determined to release thousands more prisoners early, how confident is he that this mistake will not be repeated again and again on his watch?
Mr Lammy
There is actually a point of agreement between the two main parties: that foreign national offenders who commit crimes should be deported as quickly as possible. We are attempting to do that with the Sentencing Bill. The shadow Justice Secretary has raised that matter, and it is one point, at least, of agreement. I am serious about getting to grips with the early release issue and am serious when I say, and the hon. Member knows this, that this story began before we came to office. It is why one of our most senior police officers will be looking at this issue and, of course, we will take all her recommendations seriously. It is hugely important that the public sees the system working and that they feel safe.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Hadush Kebatu is clearly a depraved individual and a dangerous pervert who should be booted out of the country without delay. But my constituents are sick and tired of having to foot the bill for the cost of housing foreign national offenders in British jails. Will the Home Secretary therefore reassure them that the Sentencing Bill will make it much easier to deport those individuals and ensure that they are in foreign jails where they belong, rather than clogging up our prisons?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is exactly right. It costs £54,000 a year to have any individual in prison in our country—that is a lot of money. That is why it is important that we reduce the period that they are in our country, and that once they have been convicted and served 30% of their time, we can deport them back to where they come from. That is, of course, where Kebatu should be and what he should experience over the course of the next few days.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The breakout from prison of Hadush Kebatu sounds less like “The Great Escape” and more like “Fawlty Towers”. It has helped bring to light that 262 prisoners were released by mistake last year and 115 the year before. On mistaken releases, what assurance can the Justice Secretary offer that the responsible contractors or subcontractors will be subject to the sort of financial penalties that motivate them to prevent further mistakes from happening?
Mr Lammy
I am not sure in this circumstance that this was subcontracted. The hon. Member will understand that when we look at the 56,000 or so prisoners who are released from prison, many are being released into the hands of probation and asked to report to a probation office. Some are released for time served. There are housing and employment assessment needs. Many are tagged at home. He is right on what is behind his question. For some reason, Kebatu found himself in the wrong stream because for foreign national offenders, it is an immigration removal centre and it is off on a plane, and that is what should have happened.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that Dame Lynne Owens will be speaking to the victims of Kebatu to understand the impact on them, but will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm whether the previous Government made any steps to speak with victims affected by prison release errors that happened on their watch due to the system being starved of funding?
Mr Lammy
There were many cases of early prisoner release. As I said before, whether it was William Fernandez in March 2021, Rayon Newby in March 2023 or Lauras Matiusovas in December 2021, there were no independent investigations under the last Government. Very little was said or, it would seem, learned even though 800 prisoners were released early. This story goes back a long way. It is in part because of the scheme set up under the last Government, which was revised four times in the run-up to the general election, and it is why we must take a thorough look and reassure the public.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Justice Secretary will know that police operational independence, free from political interference, is crucial and is enshrined in the police protocol. Yet, on page three of the statement which the Secretary of State just gave, he told us—I checked against delivery—that over the weekend he
“chaired three operational meetings with the police”.
What has changed?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman has tremendous experience in this Chamber, and I think he would think it was extremely lackadaisical if the Justice Secretary did not seek an operational update from the police over the course of the weekend, when this was at the top of the news cycle and of huge anxiety. Of course, operational matters are for the police, but I am hugely grateful, as I said to Mark Rowley this morning, and I was very pleased that local officers in the London borough of Haringey were able to detain Kebatu, which is why I went up to Wood Green to thank them personally for what they had done.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
The erroneous release of this individual was an appalling error. I am grateful that he has been caught and that the Justice Secretary will take steps to get to the bottom of what went wrong in this case. I will be grateful if he comes back to the House in due course to report on his findings.
When they started last year, this Government inherited an appalling situation in respect of the prison estate, with prisons fit to bursting and short of staff. Perhaps that is why the general election came when it did, rather than in the autumn, because there would have had to have been a prisoner release scheme under the previous Government later that year.
I am sick of people coming to my constituency surgeries who have been victims of crime but feel that justice is not being done. I urge my right hon. Friend to redouble his efforts to build up the number of prison places, but also to take steps to ensure that, certainly at lower levels of crime, people do not get into crime in the first place, because that is how we will save money in the long run.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right to mention the end of the early supervised licence scheme that was set up by the last Government and revised four times, and under which 10,000 people were released. It was effectively done on the quiet, in a chaotic way, and that is when we began to see the spike. It is not about making partisan or political points, but the truth is that we all know that the prison system that we inherited was in a dire situation. We now need to get a grip where mistakes are being made, which is why the officer involved has been suspended under investigation, the checks and balances in place are now the toughest we have had, we are asking duty governors to look at cases the night before, particularly in relation to foreign national offenders, and we have Dame Lynne Owens doing a further investigation.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I put on the record my role as the co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group. Everyone here will want to make sure that this kind of outrageous error never happens again. The chief inspector of prisons warned today of a “systematic problem” of increased releases in error, citing “very busy people, often quite inexperienced, with huge caseloads”. He also warned that prisons are dependent on west African officers whom we might now lose thanks to the changes to visa thresholds that are expected to cause “an enormously damaging effect” on some prisons. With that in mind—because the Government have control over it—will the Justice Secretary press the Home Office to look again at how changes to the skilled workers visa are directly causing prison staff shortages and worsening prison performance?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for putting on the record the challenge we have with junior staff. I am very grateful for the work in our prison system of those staff, who are much beloved, who have come from west Africa, largely Nigeria, to support the system for a period of time. I recognise the challenges that the right hon. Lady articulates and, of course, as she would expect, all such matters are under discussion.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I thank the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) for starting his question with a recognition that the situation really affects the victims of this terrible crime. We all need to recognise the devastating effect on the families and those who are victims of crime when the person who committed those crimes is released in this way. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give to residents in my constituency that this Government will finally get on the front foot when it comes to this issue and tackle it?
Mr Lammy
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend; he has just returned from paternity leave. I know his constituency of Harlow very well—I think it has one of the highest proportions of Spurs supporters in the country—and I know that folk will have taken this very seriously. I want to reassure them that we have asked one of our best senior police officers to lead the review, and we have put in place immediate checks in the system that are the toughest that have ever been in place for release. Of course the officer involved has had to be suspended pending that full investigation, and the Prison Service itself has immediately begun its own investigation and will report to me later this week.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Mr Kebatu came to this country by small boat, allegedly because he was seeking asylum against oppression in Ethiopia. At his trial, however, he changed his mind and decided he would rather be back in Ethiopia. What bothers me about the state of our immigration system is that if, after he has been punished in Ethiopia, he hops on another small boat and comes back again and says that he is seeking asylum because, as a result of his conviction for sexual crimes, he faces disapproval and possibly persecution in Ethiopia, we would have to go through this farce all over again, wouldn’t we?
Mr Lammy
I recognise the concern that may well be on the minds of the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and indeed mine, but the biometric system that we have in place should alleviate that of course. The right hon. Gentleman is right that Mr Kebatu said in the trial that he wanted to go back to Ethiopia, and that is where he now belongs.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The Secretary of State rightly talks about prisons reeling from historic funding and staffing cuts, yet he admits that other current Ministers have added to this problem by changing the visa rules in July, which will force many overseas prison officers out of the country. He just called them “much beloved” staff and just said that he recognises the challenges, so will he confirm that he has asked the Home Secretary to look again at her visa changes for these prison officers?
Mr Lammy
It is my job to ensure that we have the right amount of prison officers in the system and that they are supported to do their job. Of course the hon. Lady would expect that that is a No. 1 priority for the Department: the right number of prison officers to do the job, recognising that many of them now have little experience as a result of the changes that were made under the last Government, but also the right number of probation staff, and we are doing both.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Kebatu’s accidental release is beyond belief; it is a national embarrassment. But what I have found really disturbing has been sitting here on the Back Benches watching the Justice Secretary laugh at some of the responses. I find that wholly unpalatable and am left wondering what the victims must be thinking. When will he resign?
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I think we all know that it is the notoriety of the Kebatu case which has brought the Justice Secretary to the House today, but we also know that there were 262 such wrongful releases in 2024-25. How many independent investigations were held into any of those and with what result, and how have we got to the point where, on average, we have five wrongful releases per week? Shouldn’t action have been taken long ago?
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The fundamental responsibility of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, but—from the mistaken release of a dangerous foreign sex offender to scrapping future prison sentences for over half of offenders—which side is Labour on? Is it on the side of the hard-working, law-abiding British public, or the criminals who target and exploit them?
Mr Lammy
After the horrific legacy left by the last Government, I think that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will be pleased that we are increasing the number of prison places, that we are reversing some of the cuts made under last Government, that the Sentencing Bill is passing through Parliament and that we have come forward with a courts Bill. Those measures are all to deal with the chaos that we inherited in our justice system. I have got to tell the hon. Gentleman: his question is really rich when it was his party that cut 20,000 police officers in our country.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
May I say to the Justice Secretary that referring to the last Government’s record is wearing a bit thin? This Government have been in power for over 12 months, so what he says is not going to wash with the British public. May I also say to him that I think he does his calm better than he does his livid?
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), I think he paraphrased his own statement, but his statement clearly says:
“Over the weekend, I chaired three operational meetings with the police.”
Hon. Members will know that we can attend strategy meetings, but we never interfere with operational matters. The House, members of the public and police officers deserve clarity about that. He also said:
“Members will be aware that there are national security considerations within a case like this.”
We are talking about a criminal conviction made in open court, so what are those national security implications?
Finally—so he knows that I have not been too tough on him today—I commend his decision to appoint Dame Lynne Owens; she is a first-class public servant.
Mr Lammy
Despite the nature of the right hon. Gentleman’s questioning, he and I are actually friends. I think it was important that the police were able to give me an operational update, and I thank the Metropolitan police, Essex police and the British Transport police for their work, which I am sure his constituents value. I am sorry that he does not want me to mention the record of the last Government, but I have a feeling that when he was sitting on the Government Benches, he was hugely disappointed with their record on crime and on the justice system.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
As the House will be aware, I was once an Epping Forest district councillor and an Essex county councillor, so I know both Epping and Chelmsford. Given the high-profile nature of this case, public confidence is at an all-time low. Did the Justice Secretary consider his position? If not, why not?
Mr Lammy
I really think that is a ridiculous question. The hon. Gentleman knows that the answer is no. What I considered carefully was what my predecessors were up to in the last Government to allow the spike and do nothing about it. When I looked at the cases—particularly the case involving someone who was let out and went on to commit a sexual assault—I wondered why no independent investigations were set up then.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
As the Justice Secretary admits, there is a staffing crisis in our prisons that his Government inherited from the brass-necked Tories. Over a third of prison officers now have less than two years’ experience. With too many officers leaving the profession and too few joining, is it any wonder that mistakes like this happen increasingly frequently? While the Ministry of Justice has sought to address the prison officer shortfall by recruiting overseas, the Home Office, as we have heard, is undermining those actions by raising the payment threshold for the skilled worker visa. I have a simple question. Is the Justice Secretary asking the Home Office to add prison officers to the skills shortage list—yes or no?
Mr Lammy
As I have said, it is right and proper that the Home Office has a thorough regime for skilled workers, and I support it in that endeavour. It is also important that we have the bank of prison officers that we need, and it is my job to ensure that we have that, whether they are able to come from abroad or—as the vast majority do—from our own country.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
There are almost a dozen pages in the statement and the Secretary of State has taken questions for almost an hour, but there is one word that I have not heard: “sorry”. That is really important, particularly for the 14-year-old victim and her father. The Justice Secretary has said a number of times that he has personally reached out and thanked the police. Has he personally reached out to the victims? Has he tried to speak to them? Has he tried to say sorry?
Mr Lammy
Of course I am sorry—sorry that any victim of crime had the anxious weekend that they had. It was important for me to ensure that police liaison were in touch with them, and I am grateful to Essex police for doing that. It is also important to me that Lynne Owens is able to speak to them so that their concerns are reflected in her full and final report.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
How many of those released in error under this Labour Government are still at large?
Mr Lammy
As the hon. Lady would expect, a number of people are released under different regimes: some will be released at home and will, hopefully, lead productive lives; others will be back in prison; and some are recalled under licence. All that will be examined by the independent, full investigation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The fact of the matter is that some 262 prisoners were freed in error in the year to March, which is almost an epidemic. That is compared with 115 in the previous year—a increase of 128%, according to data from the Ministry of Justice. The Justice Secretary knows that I have absolute respect for him, but does he accept that this is absolutely shameful? It exemplifies the changes needed in our justice system: to restore justice, and to remind people that the penalty for crime is to lose their way of life and their rights. Those who commit crime should not simply to be placed in a holding cell to tap their fingers and wait while serving a fraction of their sentence, hoping that they are one of the growing number simply to be sent home without being rehabilitated; rather, they should be detained in the system.
Mr Lammy
I associate myself with all the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman. He is completely right; this is totally, totally unacceptable. People who commit crimes deserve to be punished. I think the public also want them to be rehabilitated—it has got to be punishment that works—and to be released in an appropriate fashion into the community or sent back to their country in the appropriate way. We have to ensure that the system gets that right every single time.
Points of Order
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Saturday, the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) said:
“It drives me mad when I see adverts full of black people, full of Asian people”.
The hon. Member also said:
“It doesn’t reflect our society”.
As the MP for Brent East, one of the most diverse constituencies in the UK, let me say that you can be black or brown and be British, so I am completely offended by that comment. It is a racist comment.
Madam Deputy Speaker, can you imagine the constituents of that MP going to see her, knowing that she is a racist? These comments appear to be in breach of the MPs’ code of conduct, in particular the seven principles of public life—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Can the hon. Lady please reflect on her language and withdraw the remark about another hon. Member in this place?
Dawn Butler
Madam Deputy Speaker, the comment that I referred to is absolutely a racist comment. Can we not call out that comment in this House? It is in breach of the Nolan principles for MPs. I want to know if you can help me in ensuring that—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. For clarity’s sake, the issue is the calling of a Member of this House a racist.
Dawn Butler
Madam Deputy Speaker, let me just quote again what the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby said:
“It drives me mad when I see adverts full of black people, full of Asian people…It doesn’t reflect our society”.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is a racist comment, and it is against the Nolan principles. How can we ensure that Members of Parliament—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. It is not about the comment that the hon. Member is referring to; it is the fact that she called the Member in question a racist that is an issue. Can she please reflect on her remarks, in which she has called a Member of this House a racist, and stick to the comments being racist instead? It may be that the hon. Member considers that to be dancing on the head of a pin, but it is important that we all act with respect and set an example to the country.
Dawn Butler
This is giving me déjà vu. I appreciate that in this House, we are not supposed to be disrespectful and call Members of Parliament what they actually are. Ultimately, the comment is a racist comment. It is quite strange that I am unable to call out the Member for being a racist, after she has made a racist comment.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am having to say this time and again—can you please consider withdrawing the comment about a Member of this House being a racist?
Dawn Butler
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want to be thrown out of Parliament—again—so I will withdraw the fact that I am referring to the Member of Parliament as a racist because of her racist comments.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Has the hon. Member informed the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby that she intended to refer to her in the Chamber?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The Chair is not responsible for comments made by individual Members outside of this place. If the hon. Member considers that there has been a breach of the code of conduct, the proper procedure is to complain to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point of order relates to the same person, but it is a different point.
I rise to raise a matter of both parliamentary courtesy and political accountability. I have been informed that last week, the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) held a political meeting in my constituency without giving me any prior notification. I have informed the hon. Member that I would be raising this as a point of order. Although there is no formal rule preventing Members from visiting other constituencies, it is a fundamental convention of this House that MPs respect the local representation of their colleagues and notify them before seeking to engage with their constituents.
They know that they are not welcome—coming into my constituency, stirring up hate and division. To ignore this convention of the House is discourteous; to do so in a city like mine, with a very long and proud history of diversity, is politically provocative. I call on the House to recognise that such actions undermine the norms of mutual respect between Members and disregard the right of constituents to be represented by their elected MP. The people of Liverpool Riverside do not welcome this opportunistic political activity. Madam Deputy Speaker, do you agree that this matter requires urgent attention, and can you reaffirm the principle that parliamentary conventions and respect for local representation must be upheld by all Members?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order, and for confirming that she notified the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby in advance of making it. Mr Speaker has always been clear that Members intending to visit a colleague’s constituency, except for purely private purposes, must inform that colleague in advance.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) is absolutely right to draw the attention of the House to the Nolan principles of public life. Keeping a weather eye on those principles falls within the auspices of my Select Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and of course this year is an important anniversary of the Nolan principles.
Given the fact that it is an important anniversary, and given that the Government have pulled together a whole variety of propriety and ethics under one body, might it now be appropriate for the authorities of this place to reissue those principles to all Members, and to re-emphasise that they are as enduring and relevant today as they were when Lord Nolan first penned them and that if we all abided by them fully all the time, political and public life might be a little better?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. It is a very interesting idea. The principles are set out in the code of conduct, but I will ensure that Mr Speaker is aware of his comments.
Royal Assent
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Bus Services Act 2025
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Act 2025
Renters’ Rights Act 2025
Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill 2025
General Cemetery Act 2025.
Victims and Courts Bill
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 152 / Noes: 337 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 165 / Noes: 323 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:39 - The House divided: - Ayes: 166 / Noes: 322 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:51 - The House divided: - Ayes: 153 / Noes: 332 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 14—Restriction of parental responsibility for child conceived as a result of rape.
New clause 1—Child sexual abuse victims and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme—
(1) The Secretary of State must amend the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme to—
(a) widen eligibility for compensation to all victims of child sexual abuse, including online-facilitated sexual abuse;
(b) ensure applicants with unspent convictions are not automatically excluded where offences are linked to the circumstances of their sexual abuse as a child; and
(c) increase the time limit for applications for compensation from victims of child sexual abuse to seven years from—
(i) the date the offence was reported to the police; or
(ii) the age of 18, where the offence was reported while the victim was a child.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a new draft of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme within six months of this section coming into force.”
This new clause would widen eligibility for compensation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme to all victims of child sexual abuse.
New clause 2—Sentencing: duty when giving custodial sentence to offender who has a child—
(1) At the time of passing a custodial sentence by a judge or magistrate the relevant court must instruct HM Courts and Tribunals Service (“HMCTS”) to determine whether an offender has—
(a) a dependent child,
(b) parental responsibility for a child, or
(c) a child living in their household.
(2) As soon as reasonably practicable after establishing whether an offender has responsibility for or contact with a child as under subsection (1), HMCTS must notify the relevant local authority and relevant agencies where a child lives with such information about the sentenced individual as the Secretary of State sees fit, which must include—
(a) offence type,
(b) sentence length, and
(c) the offender’s registered home address and date of birth.
(3) In this Section—
“local authority” has the same meaning as in the Children Act 2004 (see section 65);
“relevant agency” in relation to a local authority area in England, means a person who exercises functions in that area in relation to children.”
This new clause would introduce a duty on courts to ascertain whether an offender has responsibility for, or contact with a child at the time of passing a custodial sentence and for the courts to notify relevant local safeguarding teams details of the sentence passed by a judge or magistrate.
New clause 4—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 5—Duty to collect and publish data upon sentencing—
(1) At the time of passing a sentence by a judge or magistrate the relevant court must provide to HM Courts and Tribunals Service (“HMCTS”) the following information regarding the sentence passed—
(a) offence type,
(b) sentence length,
(c) such information about the sentenced individual as the Secretary of State sees fit, which must include—
(i) nationality,
(ii) method of entry to the United Kingdom,
(iii) visa route,
(iv) visa status,
(v) asylum status,
(vi) country of birth, and
(vii) biological sex.
(2) HMCTS must collect and collate the information on the basis set out in subsection (1) on sentences passed in the courts.
(3) Once every three months, the Secretary of State must publish statistics based on the information collected by HMCTS under subsection (2).”
New clause 6—Court transcripts of sentencing remarks—
(1) All sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court must be published within two sitting days of being delivered.
(2) All publications must be freely available to all members of the public.”
New clause 7—Extension of Victim Contact Scheme—
(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that the Victim Contact Scheme is made available to—
(a) victims of offenders sentenced to less than 12 months for violent and sexual offences,
(b) victims in cases involving coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking, or harassment, and
(c) bereaved families in manslaughter or death by dangerous driving cases.
(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that information under the Victim Contact Scheme is communicated in a timely and trauma-informed manner.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish data each year on uptake and accessibility of the Victim Contact Scheme.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to extend the Victim Contact Scheme to certain categories of victim. It would also ensure information is provided in a timely, trauma-informed way and require annual reporting on the Scheme’s uptake and accessibility.
New clause 8—Access to free court transcripts for victims—
(1) Victims of criminal offences shall be entitled to receive, without charge, court transcripts of—
(a) sentencing remarks,
(b) judicial summings-up,
(c) bail decisions and conditions relevant to their case.
(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that such transcripts are provided within 14 days of a request.
(3) The duty under subsection (1) shall apply irrespective of whether the victim gave evidence in the case.”
This new clause would give victims a right to receive, free of charge, court transcripts of sentencing remarks, judicial summings-up, and bail decisions relevant to their case. It requires that transcripts be provided within 14 days of a request and clarifies that this right applies whether or not the victim gave evidence in the case.
New clause 9—Victims of online and technology-enabled crimes—
(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, commission the Victims’ Commissioner to undertake a review of the support provided to victims of online or technology-enabled offences including, but not limited to—
(a) harassment and threats;
(b) deepfake image generation; and
(c) the premeditated filming and online sharing of violent attacks where the intent is to humiliate or cause distress.
(2) The review should consider the effectiveness of—
(a) the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in England and Wales;
(b) any guidance on the treatment of victims in the criminal justice system; and
(c) support provided to victims by the criminal justice agencies.
(3) The Victims’ Commissioner must publish a report making recommendations to the Secretary of State within 12 months of the start of the review.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake and publish a review of the support provided to victims of online or technology-enabled offences.
New clause 10—Duty to commission support services for victims of abuse and exploitation—
(1) This section applies in respect of victims of offences relating to—
(a) domestic abuse,
(b) sexual violence, or
(c) child criminal exploitation.
(2) It is the duty of relevant authorities to commission sufficient and specific services for victims under subsection (1) in accordance with the Victims Code of Practice for England and Wales.
(3) Victim is defined as outlined in Section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.
(4) The services commissioned and provided for under subsection (2) must include, but are not limited to—
(a) specialist services for adult victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence,
(b) specialist services for child victims of exploitation, sexual abuse and domestic abuse,
(c) specialist advocacy and community-based services for victims with specific needs including (but not limited to)—
(i) child victims,
(ii) Deaf and disabled victims,
(iii) Black and minoritised victims, and
(iv) LGBTQ+ victims,
in compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty.
(5) In this section—
“child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given in the Crime and Policing Act 2025;
“relevant authorities” has the meaning given in section 13 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2025.”
New clause 11—Duty to commission support services for caregivers of victims of abuse and exploitation—
(1) This section applies in respect of victims of offences relating to—
(a) domestic abuse,
(b) sexual violence, or
(c) child criminal exploitation,
where the victim—
(i) at the time of the offence, was under the age of 18, or
(ii) is an adult at risk of harm.
(2) It is the duty of relevant authorities to commission sufficient and specific services for the parent, guardian or person who has responsibility for the victim under subsection (1) for the purpose of securing the rights of the victim under the Victims Code of Practice for England and Wales.
(3) Victim is defined as outlined in Section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.
(4) The services commissioned and provided under subsection (2) must be—
(a) appropriate to the needs of the caregiver in supporting the victim,
(b) trauma-informed and culturally competent, and
(c) accessible without unreasonable delay or procedural burden.
(5) In exercising their duty under this section, relevant authorities must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
(6) The Secretary of State must publish such guidance within six months of the passing of this Act, following consultation with relevant stakeholders including—
(a) victim support organisations,
(b) organisations representing children and vulnerable adults, and
(c) persons with lived-experience of the effects of sexual or violent offences.
(7) In this section—
“child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given in the Crime and Policing Act 2025,
“adult at risk of harm” means a person aged 18 or over who—
(a) has needs for care and support,
(b) is experiencing, or is at risk of, abuse or neglect, and
(c) as a result of those needs is unable to protect themselves against the abuse or neglect or the risk of it, and
“relevant authorities” has the meaning given in section 13 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2025.”
New clause 12—Application of the Victims’ Code in respect of victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad—
(1) The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 2, insert—
“2A Application of the victims’ code in respect of victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad
(1) This section applies in respect of victims as defined under section 1(2)(c) who are a close relative of a British National resident in England and Wales, who was the victim of—
(a) murder;
(b) manslaughter; or
(c) infanticide,
committed outside the UK.
(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations issue an appendix to the victims’ code, setting out how the code applies to victims in the circumstances set out in subsection (1).
(3) The appendix must set out the services to be provided to victims as defined under subsection (1) by those persons based in England and Wales appearing to the Secretary of State to have functions of a public nature relating to—
(a) victims, or
(b) any aspect of the criminal justice system.
(4) The appendix must make provision for services based in England and Wales which reflect the principles that victims require—
(a) information to help them understand the criminal justice process;
(b) access to services within England and Wales which provide them with emotional and practical support (including, where appropriate, specialist services);
(c) in circumstances where the criminal justice process is engaged in England and Wales, the opportunity to make their views heard in the criminal justice process; and
(d) the ability to challenge decisions which have a direct impact on them.
(5) In setting out the services to be provided to victims under this section, the Secretary of State must specify the following:
(a) how such services will be provided with accessible information;
(b) how they access emotional and practical support.””
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to create an appendix to the Victims’ Code which outlines how the code applies to victims whose close relative was the victim of murder, manslaughter or infanticide outside the UK.
New clause 15—Right to referral to restorative justice services—
(1) A victim of an offence has the right, at any stage following the commission of the offence, to receive from a relevant criminal justice body—
(a) information about the availability and purpose of restorative justice services; and
(b) a meaningful referral to restorative justice services, where those services are available.
(2) A referral under subsection (1) must be made—
(a) as soon as is reasonably practicable after the offender is identified; and
(b) at subsequent appropriate stages of the criminal justice process (including pre-charge, post-charge, and post-conviction) or if requested by the victim.
(3) In exercising the right under this section, a victim must at all times give informed consent, and participation in any restorative justice process shall be voluntary.
(4) A relevant criminal justice body must maintain a record (in such form as may be prescribed by regulations) of—
(a) the times when referrals under subsection (1) are made; and
(b) statistical information on how many victims accept, decline, or do not respond to referrals.
(5) For the purposes of this section, “relevant criminal justice body” includes (but is not limited to) the—
(a) police;
(b) Crown Prosecution Service;
(c) His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service;
(d) courts; and
(e) Commissioned victim service providers.
(6) The victims’ code must include provision consistent with this section for—
(a) the form, timing, and content of information to be given to victims about restorative justice;
(b) mechanisms and standards for referral and re-referral; and
(c) oversight and review of compliance with this section.
(7) In this section “restorative justice services” means services facilitating a process through which a victim and offender (or their representatives) may, with appropriate support, voluntarily engage to deal with the harm arising from the offence by means of a facilitated dialogue or meeting such as conferencing, or indirect exchanges of communication via trained practitioners.”
This new clause seeks to strengthen victims’ statutory rights to access restorative justice services.
New clause 16—Duty to report on the use of restorative justice services—
(1) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the use of restorative justice services by victims in England and Wales.
(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the level of use of restorative justice services;
(b) recommendations for increasing the use of restorative justice services; and
(c) any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment before Parliament.
(4) In this section “restorative justice services” means services facilitating a process through which a victim and offender (or their representatives) may, with appropriate support, voluntarily engage to deal with the harm arising from the offence by means such as mediation, conferencing, or reparation, under standards of safety and fairness.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the level of use of restorative justice services, and make recommendations for increasing their use.
New clause 17—The Victims’ Code: right to veto licence conditions relating to an offender’s release—
The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, revise the Victims’ Code to ensure that a victim of a serious or violent offence has a right of veto over licence conditions relating to the release of an offender from prison, including temporary release, which fails to reasonably prevent an offender travelling to specific locations and provide adequate protections to the victim.”
This new clause gives victims of a serious or violent offence a right of veto over licence conditions relating to the release of an offender from prison.
New clause 18—Victim navigators—
(1) The Secretary of State must, with six months of the passing of this Act, make provision for each police force in England and Wales to have access to one or more independent victim navigators.
(2) The purpose of an independent victim navigator under subsection (1) is to—
(a) liaise between the police force and potential victims of offences relating to slavery or human trafficking; and
(b) assist in the provision of specialist advice for either the police force or the potential victims.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide further guidance on the functions of independent victim navigators.
(4) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, and may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause seeks to introduce provisions for Independent Victim Navigators to be in operation on a national level in England and Wales, acting as a liaison between the police and potential victim of slavery or human trafficking in accessing the appropriate support.
New clause 19—Requirement for Strategic Planning and Funding of Victim Support Services—
(1) Each local authority and relevant authority must prepare and maintain a victim support strategy setting out how they will meet the needs of individuals affected by—
(a) offences related to domestic or family-related abuse,
(b) sexual offences, and
(c) offences related to child criminal exploitation,
in accordance with their rights under the victims’ code.
(2) Strategies prepared under subsection (1) must include—
(a) identification of gaps in existing services,
(b) specific plans to fund and deliver services for adults and children,
(c) measures to ensure accessibility for victims with particular needs, including (but not limited to) those who are disabled, deaf, from racially minoritised communities, or LGBTQ+.
(3) Any body subject to a duty under subsection (1) must report annually to the Secretary of State on progress in implementing their victim support strategy, including outcomes for service users.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
“victim” has the meaning given in section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024;
“child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given in the Crime and Policing Act 2025; and
“relevant authority” has the meaning given in section 13 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2025.”
This new clause would require local authorities and other relevant bodies to prepare victim support strategies for meeting the needs of victims of offences relating to domestic or family-related abuse, sexual offences, or child criminal exploitation.
New clause 20—Duty to report on availability of support services for carers of victims—
(1) Relevant authorities must prepare an annual report on the availability, accessibility, and adequacy of support services for carers of victims affected by—
(a) offences related to domestic or family-related abuse,
(b) sexual offences, and
(c) offences related to child criminal exploitation,
provided for the purpose of securing the rights of the victim under the victims’ code.
(2) A report produced under subsection (1) must include—
(a) an assessment of gaps in existing services for carers,
(b) the types of support available, including emotional, practical, and advocacy services,
(c) measures in place to ensure accessibility for carers with specific needs, including those who are disabled, blind, deaf, from racially minoritised communities, or LGBTQ+, and
(d) planned actions to improve service provision where gaps are identified.
(3) Relevant authorities with a duty under subsection (1) must publish the report and submit a copy to the Secretary of State no later than six months after the end of each financial year.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
“carer” means any individual providing unpaid support to a victim as defined in section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024,
“child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given in the Crime and Policing Act 2025, and
“relevant authority” has the meaning given in section 13 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2025.”
This new clause would require relevant authorities to prepare an annual report on the availability, accessibility, and adequacy of support services for carers of individuals victims affected by offences relating to domestic or family-related abuse, sexual offences, or child criminal exploitation.
New clause 21—Duty of the Secretary of State to make a statement following publication of reviews or reports relating to the experience of victims in the criminal justice system—
(1) This section applies where any review, report, or inquiry—
(a) is commissioned, conducted, or sponsored (in whole or in part) by the Secretary of State or the Victims’ Commissioner, and
(b) relates to the experience of victims in the criminal justice system.
(2) Within two weeks of the date of publication, the Secretary of State must make a statement to both Houses of Parliament setting out—
(a) the principal findings and recommendations of the review, report, or inquiry, and
(b) the Government’s initial response, including any intended actions or further consideration to be undertaken.
(3) The statement under subsection (2) must be made by oral statement unless exceptional circumstances make a written ministerial statement more appropriate.
(4) For the purposes of this section a review, report, or inquiry may be statutory or non-statutory.
(5) The Secretary of State must publish guidance on the operation of this section within three months of the passing of this Act.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Justice to make a statement to Parliament within two weeks of the publication of any review, report, or inquiry relating to the experience of victims in the criminal justice system, including those commissioned or conducted by the Victims’ Commissioner. The statement must summarise the findings and set out the Government’s initial response.
Amendment 8, in clause 3, page 6, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert
“for a serious sexual offence committed against a child.”
This amendment would extend the provision of restricting parental responsibility where a parent is sentenced for a serious sexual offence committed against a child, regardless of whether it is their child or on the length of sentence handed down.
Amendment 1, page 6, line 1, leave out
“of 4 years or more”.
This amendment would ensure that where a person is sent to prison because of a sexual offence the court would be under a duty to make a prohibited steps order.
Government amendment 10.
Amendment 2, page 6, line 2, leave out
“for whom the offender has parental responsibility.”
This amendment would ensure the court was under a duty to make a prohibited steps order where anyone is sent to prison because of a sexual offence against a child, whether or not that child was one for which they had parental responsibility.
Amendment 3, page 6, line 20, leave out from “section” to end of line 25 and insert—
“ceases to have effect if the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal.
(5A) A prohibited steps order made under this section does not cease to have effect if the sentence is reduced, on appeal, so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of 4 years or more.”
This amendment would ensure that a prohibited steps order would cease to have effect if the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal. It would also require that a prohibited steps order remain in effect where a sentence is reduced on appeal so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of four years or more.
Government amendments 11 to 21.
Amendment 4, in clause 11, page 12, line 21, at end insert—
“(aa) in that sub-paragraph omit “28” and insert “56””
This amendment increases the window for applying to the Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme from 28 days to 56 days.
Amendment 5, page 12, line 23, after “(2)” insert—
“unless an application is made by a victim, or their deceased victim’s next of kin, in which case notice of an application shall be given within one year.”
This amendment increases the window for applying to the Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme to one year for a victim of a crime or a deceased victim’s next of kin.
Amendment 6, page 12, line 29, leave out “28” and insert “56”.
This amendment is contingent on Amendment 4.
Amendment 7, page 12, line 39, at end insert—
“(5) In accordance with the provision under sub-paragraph (1) the Crown Prosecution Service must write to the victim, or a deceased victim’s next of kin, within 10 working days of the sentence being delivered to make them aware of their ability to apply for a review of sentencing.”
This amendment is contingent on Amendment 5. It would require the CPS to write to a victim, or a deceased victim’s next of kin, within 10 working days of a sentence being delivered to make them aware of their ability to apply for a review.
Alex Davies-Jones
It is truly an honour to open this debate and to bring the Victims and Courts Bill before the House. This Bill is about people—victims who have suffered unimaginable trauma and their families—and ensuring that they receive justice. It is about restoring faith in a justice system that can often feel cold and confusing, and it delivers on this Government’s driving mission for safer streets, making sure that victims are supported, that offenders are held to account, and that justice is delivered swiftly and fairly.
The deep-rooted issues in our criminal justice system need no repeating here. The House knows that the system requires large-scale reform after years of neglect. There is a long road ahead, but this Bill takes an important step forward. At its core are victims’ experiences. This Government are bringing forward real, tangible measures to ensure that victims’ voices are heard, their needs are recognised, and their rights are respected. The Bill will strengthen our courts, improving efficiency and fairness across the system. These are much-needed changes, and I am deeply grateful to hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House for their time and their insight in considering the measures, and to all the organisations, advocates and survivors who have shared their experiences and helped us shape this legislation.
I am sure that the House will therefore join me in paying tribute to the families of Jan Mustafa, Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa, and I welcome to this place Ayse Hussein, Cheryl Korbel and Antonia Elverson, who are in the Public Gallery today. I also thank Jebina Islam, Farah Naz, the Justice for Victims group—which includes Susan and Jeremy Everard, Glenn and Becky Youens, Katie Brett, Paula Hudgell and Ayse Hussein—and the Bethan family for their courage and strength in campaigning amid immense grief for their loved ones.
Three Government amendments on Report will further strengthen the Bill, delivering clearer, stronger protection for victims, and I will turn to them briefly now. I again thank all those who have worked so constructively with me and officials in the Ministry of Justice to discuss their issues and concerns.
New clause 14 and amendments 12 to 21 restrict the exercise of parental responsibility for perpetrators of rape, where their crime has resulted in the birth of a child. These amendments will protect children, but will also help shield the victim from their perpetrator interfering in their lives, because those who commit this horrific crime should clearly never be able to use parental rights to control or torment their victim. I take a moment to pay tribute to a woman who I am proud to call my colleague and even prouder to call my friend. Many in this House will already have deep admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), and I place on record that this change is hers. It is for her, her children and those just like them up and down the country—the people to whom she has dedicated her life to fighting tirelessly for.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I add my personal admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), who has been a fantastic champion for this new clause. Her predecessor in the House was called the beast of Bolsover, but I think she is the brave of Bolsover, because every time she speaks in this House she is incredibly brave, and I pay tribute to her.
Alex Davies-Jones
I echo those sentiments entirely It has genuinely been my privilege to hear her story, and to work with her to ensure that this measure stops rapists taking an active role in a child’s life when that child was conceived as a result of rape. I cannot imagine the enormous complexity that mothers such as her face in this situation, and I am in awe of her bravery and that of so many others. This measure will ensure that rapists cannot take active steps in a child’s life when that child has been conceived as a result of the crime for which they have been convicted.
In order to protect as many children as possible, our measure features a two-track process. When the Crown court is satisfied that a child was conceived as a result of rape, it must make a prohibited steps order restricting the offender’s parental responsibility, unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so. We recognise that rape can occur within an abusive relationship, and that this may make it difficult to prove at a criminal trial that it led to the child’s conception. When that is the case, but the court considers that the rape may have led to the conception of the child, it will refer the matter to the family court via the local authority. This two-track process sends a clear message that we will protect all children born of rape, no matter what the circumstances.
The Government recognise the clear risk that serious child sex offenders pose to their children, which is why we tabled amendment 10, which will expand clause 3 of the Bill. It means that when someone is sentenced to four or more years for serious child sexual abuse, against any child, the courts will automatically restrict their parental responsibility. The process will remain the same: at the point when an offender is sentenced, the Crown court will be required to make a prohibited steps order restricting the offender’s exercise of parental responsibility for all children for whom they hold it. For offenders to be in scope of the amendment, they will have demonstrated that they are unable to protect children and to consider their welfare. That is why it includes all serious child sexual abuse offences against all children. Unlike the last Government’s plans in the Criminal Justice Bill, this proposal is not limited to offences of child rape. What is more, unlike the last Government, this Government will actually deliver on it. We are taking this important step today to protect even more children by preventing these individuals from taking active steps in their children’s lives.
We have recognised the strength of feeling on this issue, and I am grateful to Members—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, whom I have already mentioned, but also my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), and Baroness Harman. They have been unwavering in their advocacy for the protection of children. Safeguarding children is of the utmost importance to this Government, and amendment 10 ensures that we are doing just that.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has just mentioned some pioneering women in the House who have campaigned on this very issue for a number of years, but today’s amendment stands on the shoulders of the brave victims and survivors who have spoken out for so long. It will correct a historic injustice whereby, while children are protected from convicted sex offenders and paedophiles, their own children are not, through no fault of their own. This Government are now taking steps to ensure that children and their parents are protected from these vile sex offenders.
Alex Davies-Jones
My right hon. Friend is right. The Bill is a testament to those brave victims and survivors who have spoken out about this injustice, and it is this Government who are correcting that. My right hon. Friend also said that the amendment stands on the shoulders of brave, brilliant women in this place who have come before us and are still here, and it is apt for me to pay tribute to her as well, because new clause 13, concerning the misuse of nondisclosure agreements, is a testament to her brilliant campaigning.
The Government are very clear about the fact that NDAs must not be used to silence victims or witnesses of crime. Victims must be free to tell their truth, to seek help, and to warn others. New clause 13 will void NDAs to the extent that they seek to prevent a victim or a direct witness from speaking about criminal conduct to anyone, and for any purpose. It will also protect disclosures about how the other party responded to the conduct or allegation, so that victims are not prevented from sharing the full context of their experience. It builds on the Employment Rights Bill, which addresses the use of NDAs in cases of workplace harassment and discrimination. It will bind the Crown, but will not apply to a narrow cohort of specified agreements for national security reasons. It includes regulation-making powers to define “excepted NDAs”, where both parties genuinely wish to retain confidentiality, and to ensure that certain disclosures will always be permitted. Once commenced, this measure will replace section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which allows limited disclosures to certain bodies. Together with the Employment Rights Bill, we are taking the necessary steps to ensure that NDAs cannot be misused to silence victims or obstruct justice.
Let me now briefly address a number of other concerns that have been raised and led to the tabling of amendments. I will not pre-empt what will be said later today, and I will give Members the time to make their cases. However, I again thank those in all parts of the House for engaging with me and setting out their concerns.
New clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), would place a statutory duty on the Crown court and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to determine whether an offender has parental responsibility for a child following sentencing. The new clause is well intentioned, but it risks creating practical difficulties. Determining whether a person holds parental responsibility, has dependent children or has children living in their household may require interpretation of family court orders, birth records or informal care-giving arrangements. These are matters for the family court; imposing such a duty on the Crown court risks delaying sentencing. This Government gave a manifesto commitment to identify and provide support for children affected by parental imprisonment, and the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Education are working together to determine the best way to deliver on that commitment and ensure that every child gets the support that it needs.
The right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) have tabled amendments to remove the four-year custodial threshold that applies to clause 3, and to expand the number of cases in which the clause will apply. This is not simply about when parental responsibility should be restricted; it is about when that restriction should happen automatically. We need to be mindful that this is a very novel proposal. Removing the threshold would add a very large number of cases to what is an untested approach. More cases will also mean more applications to the family court, and it is important we do not overwhelm the court and create delays that would put the vulnerable children already in the system at further risk.
We want to be sure that there are no adverse consequences for those children and their families who are already in the family court. That is why we have sought to keep these measures narrow, so that we can understand exactly how they are working in practice and what the impacts are. As I said on Second Reading and in Committee, this is just the beginning. As part of the implementation of these measures, we will seek to understand how they operate in practice and ensure that there are clear routes through the family court for the restriction of the parental responsibility of any perpetrator who does not fall into this category.
The right hon. Member for Newark has tabled amendments on the unduly lenient sentencing scheme. Parliament intended the scheme to be an exceptional power, and I recognise the importance of finality in sentencing to avoid ongoing uncertainty for victims, those convicted, and society more broadly about the sentence to be served. However, I also recognise the exceptionally difficult circumstances for victims and their families in making a referral to the Attorney General within the 28-day limit.
The Law Commission is carrying out a review of criminal appeals, and held a public consultation that sought views from a range of individuals on reforms to the ULS scheme, including extending the time limit and offences in scope. The Government will , of course, carefully consider the review’s final recommendations, but I can assure Members on both sides of the House that I have heard the strength of feeling on the ULS scheme. The amendments that have been tabled on the matter raise important issues, and I will continue to look at the issue carefully as the Bill progresses towards the other place. On that, I make a commitment.
The right hon. Member for Newark has also tabled an amendment on victim personal statements, a topic on which I must pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) for his dedicated campaigning. Victim personal statements can be an incredibly powerful way for victims and their families to tell the court how the crime has impacted them, and for the court to directly hear evidence about the harm caused when considering its sentencing of the offender. This is the victim’s voice in the courtroom.
It is important to understand that these statements are evidence submitted to the court to assist it in determining sentences. As evidence they are subject to strict rules, which the court applies to ensure that the criminal justice process works fairly and effectively. That is why the content is limited to explaining the impact of the crime.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
This takes me back to speaking with the family and father of young Violet-Grace, who was killed in 2017, at four years old, by someone who was going 80 mph in a 30 mph zone and then went missing. During the court case some years later, the family wanted to read out their victim statement fully in court. The defendant’s barrister objected, and the judge accepted that objection.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the case of Violet-Grace. She has been a tireless campaigner and supporter of the family for many years. I have had the privilege of meeting the Youens family several times and hearing directly how they were affected by their experience with their victim impact statement and the limitations placed on them as to what they could say in court. It essentially silenced them, and meant that their pain was not heard by the perpetrator. I am committed to working with them and the other Families for Justice campaigners. I have had extensive conversations with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), and with many other hon. Members across this House, on looking for a way forward to ensure that victims’ voices are best represented in sentencing.
We do not need legislation for that. In fact, legislation could potentially make things worse through retraumatising victims by making them give two separate statements or by limiting—even further—in statute the parameters of what can be said. I do not want to limit or silence any victims; I want to work with them to ensure that there is universality, that there is support for them when completing their victim impact statements, and that the guidance is there so that everyone knows exactly what can be said in that impact statement. It is vital that we give victims a voice, and I am determined to achieve that.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft will speak to her amendment on placing a duty on certain authorities to commission specific support services for victims—and caregivers of victims—of abuse and exploitation. Again, this measure is well intentioned, but we do not agree that it is helpful to place a statutory obligation on certain authorities to commission certain support services.
The Ministry of Justice already provides grant funding to police and crime commissioners that is used to commission support services for victims of abuse and exploitation. That includes ringfenced funding for sexual violence and domestic abuse services. It is for the PCCs to determine what support is best for their local areas. However, I remain committed to working with my hon. Friend and others to ensure that victims get the best support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has tabled an amendment that seeks to reform the criminal injuries compensation scheme in relation to compensating victims of child sexual abuse. This Government are, of course, absolutely committed to supporting victims. However, we believe that reforming the scheme in a way that benefits only victims of child sexual abuse—or any other single crime type—would undermine its principle of universality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham—as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), and all those who attended the Westminster Hall debate earlier this year—will know the strength of feeling about the criminal injuries compensation scheme: it is not working, and it needs reform. I am committed to working with them and others, including victims and survivors, to ensure that that reform is not piecemeal and to look at how we can make it the most effective and sustainable scheme, to provide compensation to victims.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) will no doubt speak to his amendment on support for families bereaved by homicide abroad. Bereaved families will, in many instances, need support tailored to their cases. We have heard that these families need more clarity about that offer from UK agencies, what the homicide service even is, and how to access it. That is why we are working with Departments across Government, agencies, and the Victims’ Commissioner to produce a clear, accessible guide to support families bereaved by homicide abroad. I am grateful to the charity Murdered Abroad for working alongside us to ensure that that guidance delivers on its aims, and that we help those families who are stuck in limbo.
I will close by emphasising again the importance of this Bill. It is a foundation for a better justice system—one that provides even greater protection for victims and that delivers swifter and more efficient justice. It will not solve every issue we face overnight, but it is a strong, determined step forward: a signal that this Government stand shoulder to shoulder with victims.
Again, I sincerely thank Members on all sides of the House for their engagement with this Bill. We work together in this place, and it is at its best when we come together for the sake of victims and survivors. I look forward to hearing the debate and responding to all of the views—I am looking forward to a really healthy debate. For now, I commend the Government amendments and new clauses to the House.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The cornerstone of our justice system should always be the support and protection of victims and survivors—ensuring that those who have suffered at the hands of others can go on to live a life without fear, and not be defined by the actions of those who harmed them. That is achieved by putting victims’ and survivors’ needs at the heart of the justice process, and ensuring that justice is served—and seen to be served—swiftly, through properly funded support. Both protection and rehabilitation must also be robust and effective.
All of that has underpinned many of the issues that victims and survivors currently face—the things that fill our local surgery appointments and our inboxes, often with harrowing accounts of system failures that continue to compound their trauma. We recognise that this Labour Government is having to untangle that mess: the court backlogs that delay justice; prison overcrowding; criminals released on to the streets without warning; and the hollowing out of support services that victims rely on.
We in the Liberal Democrats therefore welcome the intention of this Bill, and its many measures aimed at ensuring that victims are listened to and that their experiences in the system improve. In particular, we welcome the measures compelling offenders to attend their sentencing hearings. For many victims, that is seeing justice done—an important aspect of the process—a moment of closure or, for some, the beginning of their recovery. It is something that, more often than not, they have waited far too long to see. Offenders being seen to face the consequences of their actions is vital for many victims’ journeys.
We also welcome the provisions, both in the Bill and in the Government’s amendments, to restrict parental responsibility in instances of rape or sexual assault against a child, including when a child is conceived after a rape and when an offender has parental responsibility for any child. I give credit to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for being a tireless advocate for this and for being so brave in sharing her personal story.
That change is something that my hon. Friends the Members for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) also called for in Committee, and it has been a long-standing campaign for families and victims across the country. It is reassuring that the Justice Secretary and the Minister for Victims have heard their calls, picked this up and made it an important part of the Bill.
We are also really pleased to hear about the victims helpline, which could provide valuable support for so many, although we remain concerned about the sufficiency of the resources behind that to make the service genuinely effective. I would appreciate further clarity from the Minister on the resources being made available for the helpline.
Likewise, the extension of the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers is a constructive move. Empowering them to work on behalf of victims when a case is in the public interest is important for improving the experiences of victims and witnesses and, most importantly, for learning lessons for the future, which successive Governments have not been very good at doing.
We also believe that there are gaps in the provisions of this Bill that could be improved on. These have formed the bases for our amendments, but I am pleased to hear the Minister say that this is not the end of the journey, and we are laying out where we would like to see the Bill go. To that end, new clause 7 seeks to extend the victim contact scheme to repair some of the gaps in provision. Ensuring that victims have information about offenders, and about how they can apply for licence conditions, provide statements to parole hearings and appeal decisions, is vital for many victims’ journeys after a crime and for their feeling of safety. We therefore believe that the scheme should be extended to victims of offenders serving less than 12 months for violent or sexual offences, to victims in cases involving coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking or harassment, and to bereaved families in cases of manslaughter or death by dangerous driving.
New clause 8 would ensure that victims of criminal offences are entitled to free court transcripts, which should be universal to ensure transparency and an accessible method of processing court cases for all those involved in the criminal justice system, given that so much that happens in a court trial feels like a foreign language to so many accessing it, who need to process it afterwards. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) has done exemplary work on this topic and that the issue has support across the House, notably in an amendment tabled by the Conservatives, despite their decision to ignore it during the decade in which they were in charge of the Ministry of Justice. The roll-out of free court transcripts for victims of rape is a welcome step, but it should not be the end of our ambition to ensure that all victims can have this important document following a trial.
New clause 21 would require the Secretary of State for Justice to make a statement to the House within two weeks of the publication of any review, report or inquiry into the experiences of victims, including those produced by the Victims’ Commissioner. When things go wrong in serious national cases where hundreds, or perhaps thousands, have been let down by the justice system, it is vital that the country sees acknowledgment, apology and action from the relevant authorities, including the Government. This new clause would give hon. Members from across the country the opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s response in all instances.
New clause 19 would specifically mandate local authorities to prepare strategies for victim support, to ensure that there are no postcode lotteries in support services relating to domestic abuse, sexual offences and child exploitation. New clause 20 would require relevant authorities to prepare an annual report on the availability and adequacy of support services for carers of victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault. These services are essential for victims finding pathways to moving on from horrific crimes.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
This Bill’s support for domestic abuse survivors is very welcome, but it is only half the story. In Horsham, one of my constituents arrived at court to see her abuser stand trial, only to be told at the courthouse door that the case had been pulled due to a lack of capacity. That trial was delayed for two years, by which time her abuser had breached two restraining orders. Does my hon. Friend agree that unless we see concrete measures to improve capacity above and beyond the recent increase in sitting days, this Bill cannot fulfil its promise to the public?
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the impact that court delays have on victims. I think it is an opinion shared across the House that it is totally unacceptable when a victim arrives to have their day in court and then gets sent away. The reason that we have a lot of legislation coming through at the moment is because the Government are trying to address the issue from multiple different angles, and I hope to see ambition in this area.
I will briefly highlight the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), who tabled new clause 12. It would require necessary updates to the victims code for relatives of victims of murder or manslaughter abroad, who currently sit outside the victims code. Although this affects around 80 families annually, the toll on them from falling out of scope and receiving little to no support, or from not knowing where to go to get support, is unacceptable.
As has been outlined, we Liberal Democrats are concerned about gaps in this Bill and believe that more can be done to support victims and survivors, but we recognise the ambition behind it. We urge the Government to take on board our amendments to better protect victims and survivors.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
In the interests of time, I will focus only on new clause 2, which stands in my name, though I also support new clauses 1, 10 and 11, and I very much welcome Government new clause 14. I thank the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) for originally tabling new clause 2. His subsequent elevation to the shadow Cabinet means that he has had to withdraw his name.
On 21 May 2024, I introduced the Children (Parental Imprisonment) Bill—with immaculate timing, as it turned out, as the general election was called the next day. I was delighted that despite the lateness of the hour I managed to have a quick word with somebody from the Leader of the Opposition’s office, and a commitment to identify and support such children made it into the Labour election manifesto. I would rather the commitment in the manifesto had not quite been framed in the way it was, which was about breaking the cycle of reoffending. That is certainly one factor, but to focus solely on it risks adding to the stigma and shame that is often felt by children in this situation. However, the important thing was that the commitment was there.
At the time, we did not know how many children had a parent in prison, as most figures were based on out-of-date research or unreliable estimates, but we saw the publication of an official estimate 13 days after Labour were elected. I know that we were quick off the mark as a new Government, but that work was the result of lots of lobbying and campaigning that we had managed to get the previous Government to agree to. They set up something called the Better Outcomes through Linked Data project. Through that, we now know that around 190,000 children are affected by parental imprisonment each year—a huge number—but that is still only a ballpark figure. It does not tell us where in the country these children are, who is looking after them, whether they are getting support, what trauma they are going through and, in far too many cases, how long they have been coping completely on their own.
My Bill called on the Government to set up a statutory mechanism so that at the point when an adult is sentenced to imprisonment, efforts are made to find out whether they have any children at home, and if so, whether those children are being taken care of. That is what new clause 2 also seeks to achieve. I have to say that I was a little disappointed by the Minister’s reply, because it rather misses the point of what we are trying to do with this new clause. It has nothing to do with making a judgment about who has parental responsibility or not. The new clause says that the court should look at whether the offender has a dependent child, parental responsibility or a child living in their household. It talks about
“responsibility for or contact with”,
so there is no legal decision that needs to be made as to whether that parent is the sole carer or responsible for the child; it is about whether there is a child in the picture.
I very much believe that the Minister is passionate about this issue, and I know she has met representatives of the excellent charity Children Heard and Seen. I know she wants to act, but 16 months on from the general election, there are still no timelines for when identification and support will be brought forward for these invisible children. I want to make it very clear that this is about the welfare of children; it is not about prisoners. There is important work to be done on the rehabilitation of prisoners, and we are fortunate to have an excellent Prisons Minister who totally gets that. Research has shown that maintaining family ties for prisoners is very much part of that rehabilitation, but that is not what we are talking about today. I am concerned with the welfare of the children and specific child-focused support for those with a family member in prison, regardless of whether they have contact with that parent or not. We should not conflate the two, and I am concerned that the MOJ does so, which is in part because its responsibilities and funding streams are all focused on prisons and prisoners, whereas in the Department for Education there is a risk that these children get lost in the mix among other children who are suffering adverse childhood experiences.
In their responses to me, Ministers have highlighted the “Working Together to Safeguard Children” multi-agency working statutory guidance, published under the last Government in 2023. This guidance says that prisons need arrangements in place that take prisoners’ children’s needs into account. It recommends that on the first night of a prisoner’s sentence, they are to be
“supported to make suitable care arrangements for any dependent children”,
with the involvement of children’s social care services where needed. It advises the Prison Service to ask all prisoners during their custody screening whether they have caring responsibilities for children under the age of 18.
The inclusion of that in the guidance was positive, but it does not address the fact that some prisoners deliberately avoid revealing that they have children at home. Children Heard and Seen, the charity I mentioned, reports that some parents are scared of their children being taken away by social services, so much so that they do not tell anyone about their children. Furthermore, the prisoner in question might not have caring responsibilities. They might not even any longer have contact with the child. They might have been convicted of domestic violence against the child’s mother, or convicted of sexual abuse or offences against the child themselves, but their imprisonment is still important in terms of the trauma, stigma and shame that the child will be going through. I have heard of so many cases where children of sex offenders have had their homes targeted. They have been driven out of where they live, they have been humiliated at school, and they have had to move town and change their names because of what their imprisoned parent—usually the father—has done.
The Government’s “Keeping children safe in education” statutory guidance for schools and colleges, which was published in September, rightly notes that children with family members in prison are at a higher
“risk of poor outcomes including poverty, stigma, isolation and poor mental health.”
It signposts to the National Information Centre on Children of Offenders as a source of support for school staff helping children with a parent in prison, but the guidance has not been properly maintained for years. Many of the resources it redirects to no longer work, but families and professionals are still being referred there. On the MOJ side, the Government published a multidisciplinary training offer tender for professionals on the impact of parental imprisonment, but this tender was taken down and the Department will not clarify why or when it will go back up. In the meantime, children are still being left without support.
Given that all prisoners have contacts with His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, there is a missed opportunity for early identification of such children. This new clause would not necessarily pick up all of them, but it would be a really good step forward. New clause 2 would go further than current guidance by instructing courts to determine whether prisoners have children, to ensure they are protected. This could include using official data and working more closely with councils or local authorities, as well as speaking to the offender directly about how a child will be looked after. It could also involve working with schools.
The new clause would present another opportunity for prisoners, before they enter the prison estate, to report that there are children at home. The more opportunities that prisoners are given to do that, the more likely they are to tell officials. I was particularly struck by one of the accounts I heard, in which a woman had been in prison for about four months before revealing—she was having a counselling session or something—that she had children of school age who were left behind at home by themselves. The new clause could also bring forward a structure and process for having those conversations to reassure prisoners that informing the authorities about any child at home is the right thing to do for their children. Statutory guidance is non-binding official advice and cannot carry the force of the law, but the new clause would instruct the relevant agencies to go further in their legal duty to protect children. As I have said, it will not catch all children, but it would be a major step forward. Will the Minister say in her response how, if we are not going to do it this way, we are going to do it?
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
I wish to speak to my new clause 12. Each year hundreds of families get a knock on the door from the police who must deliver the worst news that a family can ever hear: the news that one of their closest relatives has been murdered. However, about 80 families each year receive the news that a family member has been murdered while abroad. That can be via a police officer, but the news often comes from a newspaper, or from a journalist who has found out and has reached out to the family directly. In many cases when British citizens are murdered abroad their families are left to deal with unimaginable grief for their loved one, all while facing the full weight of an unfamiliar, bureaucratic and different system, and they do that alone. They have to navigate foreign legal procedures, untranslated documents and distant court proceedings with patchy, inconsistent support from their Government, all at a time of trauma, vulnerability and mourning.
This is where new clause 12 come in. It seeks to add an appendix to the victims code so that this group of bereaved families, who currently fall through the cracks in our system, will no longer do so. The principle underpinning this Bill is clear: victims deserve to be at the heart of our criminal justice system. They deserve information, support and the opportunity to be heard. These are not privileges; they are fundamental rights. Yet there is a cruel anomaly: if a British citizen is murdered on British soil, their family receives structured statutory support through victim liaison officers, aid, court procedures and counselling services, but if the same British citizen is murdered abroad—while on holiday, working away or studying in another country—their family is so often left to navigate an overwhelming maze of foreign bureaucracy, often in a language they do not speak, with inconsistent and inadequate information from the Government, who should be standing behind them.
Ruth’s sister Faye was killed in 2019 while in Nigeria, where she was working for a non-governmental organisation. She was shot alongside her boyfriend in a double homicide. Ruth and her family were left to deal with an overwhelming number of agencies without proper support to understand who had responsibility for what, with limited communication and poor casework consistency from the British authorities. Vital information, such as the arrest and subsequent death of a suspect in custody, which the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office knew about, took years to reach Ruth and her family. They have still not obtained a full and accurate account of what occurred on the night of Faye’s murder.
Alison and Paul’s son Danny was murdered in Amsterdam in 2022, aged just 22. Alison and Paul have explained how navigating the lengthy and complex Dutch judicial procedures in a foreign language, while having to arrange matters such as repatriation without any support, was an immense challenge. They have described being in a state of turmoil and trauma, and are uncertain how they managed to endure the circumstances. They have outlined how the stress took a significant toll on both them and their daughter.
Theresa’s husband Stephen was killed in a violent attack by a gang while on holiday in Spain in 2009. His two teenage sons sustained permanent injuries in the attack. Stephen’s body was repatriated to the UK and was held by the coroner in a mortuary for eight years before the inquest was held. The inquest concluded with a verdict of unlawful killing, at which time the body was released to his wife and children—eight years after his death. Stephen’s family received no support from the UK for repatriation, travel and understanding the trial in a foreign country and in a foreign language. Stephen’s wife, Theresa, recounted how she and her family had been living through a nightmare—not only of having to navigate the complex judicial system in Spain, but of feeling retraumatised by the lack of support they received.
Andrew’s son was murdered abroad when he was 18 years old. He says that, despite the FCDO having a duty to care for UK citizens, the family received minimal support. The FCDO provided poor and inconsistent communication, leaving the family without clear updates at critical stages. The family was forced to navigate a foreign judicial system with no help in understanding procedures, local laws or rights, which added to their distress and confusion. They received no structured aftercare or follow-up support, despite the psychological impact of such cases.
These horrible incidents are not isolated. They show a broken system that fails British families at their most vulnerable moments. New clause 12 aims to address this by adding an appendix to the victims code setting out how the code applies to close relatives of British citizens murdered abroad. It states that the appendix must provide specific guidance explaining how families affected by murders abroad can access support, including clear information about foreign justice processes, which are often complex and distressing for bereaved families, in unfamiliar legal systems. This can include dedicated liaison officers, translation services and guidance on how to deal with foreign authorities. I have spoken to far too many families who were pointed to Google Translate for death certificates and descriptions of judicial processes in foreign languages. That is simply not good enough in our country. Under the new clause, families would also be entitled to emotional and practical support, including specialist bereavement counselling. Some police services across the country do this really well, but others do not do it at all.
Let me be clear about what this amendment does not do. It does not seek to interfere with foreign judicial systems, and it does not place unrealistic expectations on the FCDO. What it does is establish as a baseline a statutory framework that ensures bereaved families have access to the same quality of support and information here at home as any other victim of homicide would receive. The Murdered Abroad campaign is made up of bereaved families who have turned their grief into a really powerful call for change. They are not asking for any special treatment. They are asking for the same structured statutory support that families would receive if tragedy strikes on British soil. The families who suffer these specific horrors should not be forgotten because the crime goes beyond our shores; a British life lost is a British life no matter where in the world it happens. Compassion in the face of tragedy is not optional but a duty, and new clause 12 provides a way to fulfil that duty. I thank right hon. and hon. Members who have supported it, and I ask everybody to vote for it this evening.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
I will speak to Government new clause 14. It means that rapists will no longer have access to children conceived by their crime. It puts the right of survivors above the rights of criminals. It protects mummies and their precious babies. It is not okay that it took so long for the law to change—to keep up with common sense—but to get this change the Government fought to get us on these Benches and into government, bringing with us our real-life experience and that of our community, supported by Ministers, right up to the Prime Minister, determined to tackle violence against women and girls.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
My new clauses 15 and 16 concern restorative justice. They are supported by the charities Why Me?, for whom I am an ambassador, and Calm Mediation, as well as the Restorative Justice Council and others who work every day with victims and offenders. I thank hon. Members from my own party and from the Labour and Conservative Benches, who asked me to add their names in support.
The need for these clauses could not be clearer. After years of Conservative failure, our justice system stands at breaking point, with unacceptable delays. Our courts are clogged, witnesses drift away or begin to forget, and our prisons are stretched beyond breaking point. The Tories have left us with a legacy of neglect, and the people who suffer most are the victims, whose voices are too frequently ignored. We must do more to put the victim at the heart of the criminal justice process, rather than simply as one of the pieces of evidence to be heard in court. Victims are more than just witnesses to the crime, but too often that is their only role in court proceedings.
Increasingly, when we talk about justice for victims, the debate collapses into retributive justice, as if all victims want is to lock the door and throw away the key. Even David Gauke, the most liberal Lord Chancellor in my political lifetime, in his recent and mostly excellent sentencing review falls into this error with a chapter on victims focusing keeping them better informed about their sometimes unrealistic expectations concerning the severity of punishment. His review, like today’s Bill, makes no mention of restorative justice, which should be at the heart of giving victims access to justice. Victims of crime do not want retribution but closure, and giving them the opportunity to enter into a process that allows them to share their feelings concerning the crime with others, often culminating in a meeting with the perpetrator, has repeatedly been shown to achieve just that.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Does the hon. Member accept that, actually, there are some victims of very, very serious crimes who do not want a meeting and a resolution, but want to see a very serious offender spend a long time in prison?
Mr Kohler
Well, of course, restorative justice is not right for every victim. I have said to the hon. Member that it is right for many victims, including myself. I do not begin to understand why he finds that a difficult point to understand.
As I know from personal experience, when my wife, eldest daughter and I met one of the attackers who subjected me to a murderous attack in my home and terrorised my family, restorative justice is not about forgiveness, although that often happens as a by-product, but in giving the victim time and space to move on from the crime. My daughter, who moved out of the family home following the attack, moved back in after the restorative justice meeting. It allowed her to demythologise the perpetrator: no longer a monster, but a deeply flawed human being who she could look straight in the eye and cast from her nightmares.
That meeting transformed our family and her life. Yet for far too many victims, restorative justice remains out of reach. Sadly, only one in 20 adult victims with a known offender are routinely told about it. That is why new clause 15 is so crucial: it would create a statutory right to a meaningful referral to restorative justice services; not a token leaflet or tick-box exercise, but a proper referral made as soon as reasonably practicable once the offender is identified, and offered subsequently at appropriate times during the criminal justice process. I emphasise again that participation would always be voluntary, but every victim would have the right to be informed and supported to decide for themselves—what is wrong with that?
The Government may argue that they are considering strengthening the victims code; indeed, clause 8 enhances the Victims’ Commissioner’s reporting. That is welcome, but not enough. The commissioner can report only on what exists. New clause 15 would ensure that there is something meaningful to measure: a statutory right to referral. Without it, access to restorative justice will remain inconsistent and uncertain.
While new clause 15 would establish a meaningful statutory right, new clause 16 would ensure a meaningful review process by requiring the Secretary of State to report on the uptake of restorative justice and to make recommendations to improve access. If the Government truly value restorative justice, let them prove it with evidence—let Parliament see the data and the plan to expand its use. The reporting duty would complement the commissioner’s powers while they review compliance with the code. The new clause goes further, reporting on usage, barriers and ways to increase participation. Together, they create both the right and the oversight that victims deserve.
These new clauses carry no cost implications. It is about co-ordination, not cash. The infrastructure already exists; what it is missing is the statutory backbone to ensure that every victim, wherever they live, has equal access to restorative justice.
Let us not forget that while restorative justice is all about putting the victims at the heart of the criminal justice process, it also has the proven added advantage of cutting rates of recidivism. The Government often speak about tackling the causes of reoffending—employment, housing, addiction—but restorative justice tackles the psychology of criminality. It changes behaviour by confronting offenders with the human consequences of their actions—not every offender, of course, but a significant number.
If the Government truly stand with victims and want to cut reoffending, they must not simply make meek promises to review the code or commission another pilot; they must make access to restorative justice meaningful and real. They must support new clauses 15 and 16—if not today, then in the other place—and allow restorative justice to do what punishment alone cannot: heal the victim, reform the offender and mend the system on which we all depend.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Before I begin, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for her bravery and for the remarkable work she has done in her short time in this place, including on this Bill with new clause 14. I am so proud to be on these Benches with her.
I am going to speak to a measure at the heart of the Bill today. Attendance at sentencing hearings will compel convicted criminals to attend those hearings and provide the strongest of consequences when they refuse. This law is for Olivia Pratt-Korbel and other victims.
In August 2024, two of the most remarkable women I have ever met walked into my first MP surgery. They were my constituents Cheryl Korbel and Antonia Elverson, who are with us in the Gallery today. Cheryl is Olivia’s mum, and Antonia is Cheryl’s cousin. On 22 August 2022, Olivia, a little girl—just nine years old—was murdered by a stranger in her own home. The murderer, Thomas Cashman, fired a bullet through the door of Olivia’s home, which passed through the wrist of her mum, Cheryl, before hitting Olivia in the chest and ending her life. Cheryl fought with her heart and soul to save her baby.
No mother should have to go through such unimaginable pain. While nothing in this world can bring Olivia back and nothing can hold back a grief so great, looking the person responsible in the eye and telling them to their face the cost of their crime, and the effect it has had on the lives of their loved ones, can give victims just a small semblance of justice and closure. But Cheryl never had that chance. Under our current justice system, the ball is in the criminal’s court—criminals can choose to opt out of attending their sentencing, which is exactly what Olivia’s murderer did. Cashman chose to remain in his cell, refusing to face the court to hear Cheryl’s words or look her in the eye. It was the act of a coward.
However, instead of collapsing under this weight, Cheryl fought back. She and her family have campaigned with their all so that no other family will suffer what they have suffered. That is why I read out Cheryl’s victim impact statement in full on Second Reading. They were the words that the murderer and coward Thomas Cashman refused to hear. I wanted the words of Cheryl Korbel committed to this House so that they would be on the record in this place forever. I wanted her words to ring out in this Chamber for all the world to hear, as they should have done in Cashman’s ears that day.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
What a privilege it is to follow those powerful speeches from the hon. Members for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) and for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet). They are clearly two very formidable parliamentarians, and it is a privilege to be in the same debate as them.
I stand today to speak on behalf of my constituent Bethan and her parents, who are in the Gallery today. I am going to do that rare thing on the Opposition Benches of thanking the Government for making changes to restrict the parental responsibility of convicted sexual offenders. It is hugely important and clearly the right thing to do. When Bethan, whose story was covered by the BBC, learned that her ex-husband had been convicted of some of the most serious child sex offences imaginable, she also learned that he retained access to her child. I am sure it is not lost on parliamentarians across this House that in those instances, for those paedophiles and sexual offenders, that access is the last bit of coercive and toxic control that they retain.
In the previous Parliament, when Baroness Harman and the Minister for Violence Against Women and Girls, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), pushed for a new clause on this matter in the Criminal Justice Bill, I had the privilege of watching with my constituents from up in the Gallery. Sadly, that Bill did not make it through the parliamentary wash-up, so the work was not completed at that time.
Bethan’s family had to spend £30,000—not a resource accessible to all—of their own money to get their case through the family courts. They have gone on this journey so that more victims—parents and mothers—can take advantage of this legislation and be protected even if they do not have that resource. I speak to be the voice of Bethan and her family. Although I will not take up much of the House’s time, they wanted me to place on the record their gratitude to Baroness Harman and to Alex Chalk, the former Secretary of State for Justice, who stayed in touch with them while there was work to be done. I am pleased we have got to Report stage. They also wanted me to place on the record their thanks to Laura Farris, to both Ministers present, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley, and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and to the Justice Secretary, because they really have protected vulnerable mothers and innocent children and spared them from excruciating distress.
While I do place on record my gratitude, it would be remiss of me not to ask a couple of questions on behalf of Bethan and her parents. They have queried the restriction to four-year sentences and the sexual harm prevention orders, which kick in with a two-and-a-half-year sentence. Could the Minister provide clarity on that? The measure refers to the children of sex offenders and the restriction of parental rights, but I do not think it refers to future children. [Interruption.] I see the Minister nodding her head. Perhaps she will state that on record for clarity.
Today I have the very easy task of being the voice of Bethan and her parents in saying thank you. This Bill is a really important measure to pass.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
I really welcome this Bill, which delivers long-overdue reforms to protect victims and goes a long way to rebuilding confidence in our judicial system. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for their powerful contributions to the debate.
I also thank the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) for tabling new clause 12, relating to UK citizens who are murdered abroad. The previous Conservative Government failed to address this issue in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, so I thank him for raising this important issue once again. As he has explained, the lack of any statutory support for the families of British nationals murdered abroad is a glaring gap in our legal system. Families who find themselves in this deeply distressing circumstance must deal not only with their immense grief but with difficult practical issues, such as navigating a foreign legal system—often with language barriers—and unfamiliar police forces and judiciaries.
New clause 12 would address that anomaly by creating an appendix to the victims code that sets out how it applies to close relatives of British nationals resident in England and Wales who are the victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide committed abroad. The hon. Member for Maidenhead is right that families in those awful circumstances need more support and are being failed by the current system. At the very minimum, they deserve the same recognition and support under the law as those whose tragedies occur within the UK. Currently they are only able to access discretionary support that may be given by local chief constables, Government Departments and national services, such as the National Homicide Service and the victim contact scheme.
That is not good enough. We need statutory rights for families in these circumstances to be treated and supported as victims themselves. Rather than just an appendix to the victims code, we need a framework that is more bespoke, offering tailored help to families who need to navigate a particularly difficult set of circumstances. That could include help with the repatriation of their loved one or keeping them informed about the police investigation or court process that may be happening on the other side of the world, often in a different language.
Although I wholeheartedly agree with the principle behind new clause 12, I cannot support it. I think we need to go further, with both Justice Ministers and Foreign Office Ministers working together on a specific framework to support UK families who have lost loved ones while abroad. I am afraid I also cannot support the new clause because, by my reading, subsection (1) to proposed new section 2A is too narrowly drawn. I am currently supporting the family of a constituent from Strood who has died in suspicious circumstances abroad in India. They have struggled to get the right support from the Foreign Office and came to me in desperation as they did not know where else to go for help. Kent police has been helping them through its missing persons unit, as distressingly the first they knew of anything having happened to their father was when they were sent a video of his cremation, received at 3 am UK time. However, there are obvious limits to what Kent police can do in this situation.
As there is currently not even a murder or manslaughter investigation, since it is unclear what happened, the family would not be covered under subsection (1) to proposed new section 2A, despite needing the same support as families in those situations who the hon. Member for Maidenhead is nobly trying to help. Rather than pushing new clause 12 to a vote, I urge the hon. Member to join me in welcoming the Minister’s opening comments about action in this space and calling for her to commit to working with her Foreign Office equivalent to design a specific framework that will give statutory rights not only to the families of UK residents who are the victim of murder, manslaughter or infanticide but to the families of those who have died in suspicious circumstances. That way, everyone who is facing this difficult set of circumstances can get the support that they need.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this raft of very important changes. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards). I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) to address the points raised—I am not qualified—but I imagine that the purpose of new clause 12 is to make technical changes so that the measures are even more effective, which, clearly, we would all support. In any case, my understanding is that it would require the Secretary of State to bring forward such changes rather than stipulating what those changes are in detail.
Like others, I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) on a very impressive and powerful speech. I know that the Minister congratulated her in advance on the campaign she has run. Equally, the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) made a very powerful speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead made strong cases as well.
I repeat the reminder of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) that the primary purpose—this is certainly what I have always said—of custodial sentences must be public protection. It is on that issue that I wish to concentrate. My remarks are entirely informed by a case I have been pursuing on behalf of my constituent Tina Nash. The Minister is aware of this, because I have corresponded with her on the subject. Tina was horrifically attacked by her former partner in 2012 for a 12-hour period until she managed to escape. In that time she was battered and had her eyes gouged out and her jaw and nose broken. It was an appalling beating that she was lucky to survive—and a survivor she is.
The following year her former partner was jailed for life with a minimum term of six years. However, earlier this year he was moved to a category D prison, with open conditions. My constituent was not consulted about this and was only informed about it after the decision had been taken. Bearing in mind that she is blind, it is understandable that she fears that, if she went out shopping, he could be in her company without her knowledge. She is incredibly scared as a result of the decision. She had no say in it, and nor was she consulted.
I tabled new clause 17 to urge the Government to accept that victims have a right to a veto in reasonable circumstances for their own protection—not in all circumstances and not in every condition, but we should certainly ensure that they are properly consulted. As a result of this experience, I think there are a number of other failings in the system that require the Government to ensure belt-and-braces support for victims throughout the process.
Tina wanted to pursue this matter with the Parole Board, but it did not respond to her until my intervention, and then there was an offer of a meeting. That is not good enough. It should not be down to a Member of Parliament to force a response. She was given the support of the victim contact scheme, which I will come to in a moment.
My constituent was given the opportunity to complain—the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman provided her with a complaint form—but months after she had completed the complaint, she was informed that the ombudsman had assumed she was the prisoner, not the victim. Can that level of incompetence or her treatment throughout the process be believed? She was treated appallingly, while the process wasted her time and stressed her out. Her complaint was rejected as outside the PPO’s remit—that fact was not initially communicated to her—which caused her enormous distress and confusion. Despite circumstances in which she was blinded by her perpetrator, she still somehow has to navigate and overcome all these processes and problems. Of course, the PPO apologised for its error, but with a lack of empathy for my constituent in an officious response that directed her to the Victims’ Commissioner.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
When I served in the police force, my work often ended when we put perpetrators behind bars, or sometimes when I stood in court to give evidence, but the victims’ ordeals do not end there. Many reached out to me long after my role was done to tell me they still felt unheard and unprotected, and that justice for them was never truly served.
Too many survivors live in fear, with victims checking over their shoulders and altering their routines, wondering when the person who hurt them might walk free and attack them again. That is no way for anybody to live in society, and that is precisely why I welcome provisions in the Bill such as expanding the victim contact scheme, which will give victims vital reassurances, protecting them from being blindsided by their offender’s release and helping them reclaim a sense of safety.
I am particularly pleased about Government new clause 14—many hon. Members have spoken about it passionately—which would see the presumption of parental access suspended for parents who commit crimes against children, because one child lost due to a criminal parent being granted unsupervised contact is one child too many. No one should ever have to risk their child’s safety because of a system that puts rights before reason.
Ordering offenders to attend their sentences is another critical step in that process and the next process as part of the Bill. Victims deserve the chance to look those responsible in the eye, to be heard and to begin their healing. Perpetrators must face the full weight and impact of their crimes. There must be no more hiding from the consequences of what they have done.
On that point, I must highlight the work of the Justice for Victims group: an organisation of families who have turned their pain into purpose. I have had the privilege of meeting them on several occasions. Sasha Marsden was 16 when she was raped and stabbed more than 100 times by her killer. Tony Hudgell lost his lower legs as a result of child cruelty by his own parents. Sarah Everard was abducted by a serving police officer while walking home, raped and murdered, and her body was disposed of. At just four years old, Violet-Grace Youens was killed by a dangerous driver in a stolen car driving at 80 mph in a 30 mph zone. The perpetrator spent barely more time in prison than Violet was alive. Last, but not least, of this group, Jan Mustafa was killed by a serial sex offender who stored her body in a freezer alongside another murder victim, Henriett.
The families of those victims are just a few of many who have been let down by the justice system’s treatment of victims in one way or another over time. One victim told me that their victim impact statement was so heavily edited by defence lawyers that they barely recognised their own words. How can anyone find closure when their voice is silenced in that way? It is not right. That is why I have spoken about this in depth several times to my hon. Friend the Minister, and why I welcome the outcomes that she has brought forward.
It is also why I have campaigned so much to see real reform of victim personal statements. No family should ever have to water down their grief or pain just to spare the feelings of the person who caused it. Victims deserve to be heard in their own words honestly and fully. Offenders must also be made to hear every word to confront the true devastation they have caused. That principle ties in directly with the provisions of the Bill. Yes, offenders should be compelled to attend their sentencing, but they should also be compelled to listen to how their crimes have impacted victims and their families. There should be no place to hide for perpetrators and no reason for victims to edit or soften their voices to fit the comfort of those who harmed them.
Justice for Victims is also calling for clarity on terminology. Life sentences do not mean life, so we should stop pretending that they do. Justice for Victims is also right to call for clarity in life sentences, with life meaning behind bars for life. Yes, we have whole-life sentences, but it does no favours when life sentences—not whole-life sentences—can be equivalent to, I think, 12 years. The public deserve honesty and victims deserve truth.
Additionally, there must be changes to the time limit for victims’ families to appeal offenders’ sentences. Katie Brett, who is Sasha’s sister, said that victims and families currently have only “28 days to appeal” unduly lenient sentences, normally at a time when they are
“grieving and traumatised. But criminals are allowed to appeal after this in ‘exceptional circumstances.’ Why don’t victims and their families get this right?”
That question cuts to the heart of this debate. Victims and families deserve fairness and they deserve to be heard.
These are not radical reforms. They are small, practical, compassionate steps that will make a profound difference to people’s lives. I wholeheartedly support the Bill and the progress it represents, but I urge the Government to go even further to deliver real justice for victims and survivors, and to ensure that no one who has already suffered once is ever failed by this system ever again.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
I want to start by thanking the Minister for accepting the principle behind amendment 9, which I have now withdrawn, and for introducing a new amendment to restrict parental responsibility for serious child sexual abusers who offend against children who are not their own, building on the Government’s welcome step of restricting it for those who do. This represents a real step forward for child safety, and I pay tribute to the collaborative spirit of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and to the many Members across the House who supported the amendment, alongside Fair Hearing and the many victims who have fought so hard for this change. I also want to put on the record my support for new clauses 1, 2 and 18, and to give my heartfelt love to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and her eloquent bravery.
I would like to speak to new clauses 10 and 11, which stand in my name, although I will not be pushing them to a vote. These twin new clauses seek to place statutory duties on the relevant authorities to commission specialist services for victims of abuse and exploitation and those who care for them. The Government have already committed, in their tackling child sexual abuse progress update earlier this year, to increase access to support for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, and the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which reported three years ago last week, recommended a national guarantee of support for victims of sexual abuse.
New clause 10, which is supported by Women’s Aid, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardo’s, Action for Children, Catch 22, the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, SafeLives, Respect and the Independent Domestic Abuse Services, as well as 49 of my colleagues across the parties, seeks to make this a reality by ending the postcode lottery that victims face and ensuring that we have adequately funded specialist services for whoever might need them.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that community-based services supporting the victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, such as Next Chapter, the Centre of Action on Rape and Abuse—CARA—and Restitute in Essex, do vital work that should be backed by multi-year settlements and enhanced commissioning arrangements in the east of England and beyond?
Jess Asato
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and pay tribute to the services in her local area. We all have many such specialist services, and I am sure that we will want to pay tribute to them this evening.
The Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse estimates that there are 55,000 adults and children in England and Wales on waiting lists for support following child sexual abuse, and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner has found that over a quarter of domestic abuse services are having to turn away children who are victims of abuse. It is a stain on this country that fewer than half of domestic abuse victims are able to access the community-based support that they deserve. I expect that the public would be astonished to know that there is no automatic right to specialist support after a terrible, traumatic crime such as rape or domestic abuse. Even though the victims code specifies that people have a right as a victim to be referred to specialist services, this is not an actionable right. Victims cannot sue anyone if it is not upheld.
The sad reality is that specialist services are on their knees. Twenty-three child sexual abuse support services have closed in the past 18 months due to financial pressures. Just the week before last, Jewish Sexual Abuse Support was forced to close due to cuts, which have had a particular impact on small by-and-for organisations. Its chief executive, Erica Marks, gave the stark warning that we could
“expect to see more community sexual violence organisations fail”.
That is unacceptable if we want to halve violence against women and girls. By-and-for services such as hers are the backbone of our response to victims of abuse. They help to reach some of the most excluded in our society. Losing the vital, lifesaving support provided by organisations such as JSAS and others will not make victims safer.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for her fantastic speech. I recently met some kinship carers who with very little support often take on family members who have suffered terrible trauma and abuse. They do not understand the child’s trauma and they do not understand how best to support them. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to get the best results for child victims, we need to think about how we extend support to kinship carers, so that they can support those children who have been through the worst of times?
Jess Asato
I absolutely agree that kinship carers, parents and partners are different from those of the primary victim, and they need support in their own right. When we fail those third-party victims, we fail the primary victim, too. We allow them to disengage from the legal process, and we deprive them of the wraparound support they need when they are at their most vulnerable.
New clause 11 is supported by the organisations Restitute, We Stand, Acts Fast and Ivison Trust, and a version of it was first laid by Baroness Sal Brinton in the other place in a Bill last year. It would place a statutory duty on commissioners to ensure that appropriate independent services are available for the parent, guardian or person responsible for the care of a victim who is under 18 at the time of the offence, or who is an adult at risk of harm. Once again, that should already be happening—it is supposedly a right in the victims code. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse recommended that support for non-abusing parents and carers should be statutory. New clause 11 would bring that crucial recommendation to fruition. Families should not have to wait years; they want action now. As with victim services, severe funding shortages fail to make the ambition set out in the code a reality.
Together, new clauses 10 and 11 would ensure that if any one of us here, or someone we cared for, were abused or exploited, we or they would be supported. It is an ambition long supported that must now be met with action. I look forward to working with the Minister and colleagues across the House on saving our specialist services and saving victims and their families, and I will be pleased to vote for the Bill tonight.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 1 in my name. It would ensure the implementation of recommendation 18 from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. Survivors of child sexual abuse have been let down for years by a national compensation scheme. Too often their applications are delayed or denied, not because the legitimacy of their abuse is in any question, but because of loopholes set by the very organisation that was established to support them: the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.
The many limitations of the scheme were considered during IICSA, which resulted in a clear recommendation to remove the unfair barriers set by CICA, but in April Ministers rejected that recommendation. My new clause 1 would overturn that decision. It has commanded the support of 27 Members from across the House and the backing of 29 charities and experts. They include the Marie Collins Foundation and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, which have campaigned passionately on this issue. In opening, the Minister said that she wants a universal scheme without hierarchy, but unfortunately that is not the case at the moment.
My amendment would widen the eligibility of the scheme to include those who have been victims of online-facilitated child sexual abuse. The recent Casey audit found that 40% of the 100,000 recorded child sexual abuse offences last year took place online, so that is around 40,000 children who will struggle to access compensation because their abuse is not considered by CICA “violent” enough to qualify. As IICSA rightly concluded, that rule
“does not take account of the extent of the harm and damage”
of online abuse, such as the ongoing fear that images of sexual abuse will remain available online indefinitely. By continuing to leave online abuse out of scope, CICA reinforces the risk that online sexual abuse is perceived somehow as less serious or less deserving of redress, but nothing could be further from the truth.
New clause 1 also seeks to increase the time limit for applications so that survivors have seven years from the date the offence was reported to the police, or from the age of 18 if the offence was reported while they were a child. The scheme currently has just a two-year time limit, but the average time it takes for a survivor of child abuse to come forward is 24 years to 27 years. There are many reasons for that, and we have heard some in the Chamber today: trauma, fear and shame, not to mention the length of time to go through the court process. The Minister knows this, which is why she and the other Justice Ministers rightly abolished the three-year time limit for civil claims by survivors of child sexual abuse, in line with IICSA recommendation 15.
However, the decision means that survivors face a strange paradox: no time limit for them to take legal action against their abusers, but tight restrictions if they wish to seek compensation for that same abuse. The Government have argued that there is discretion in the scheme to allow applications after the time limit has expired. That is indeed true. However, the proportion of resolved cases accepted after the time limit has fallen each year between 2020 and 2024. In 2020, 87.3% of applications received outside the time limit were resolved. By 2024, that was down to 66.9%. By contrast, the compensation model in Quebec allows seven years for all types of crime except for domestic abuse, child sexual abuse and sexual violence, which have no time limit at all. Surely that is the model we should be following.
Finally, new clause 1 would prevent survivors of child abuse from being affected by a rule that blocks or reduces compensation for victims with unspent convictions. APIL shared with me the case of a woman who was sexually abused by her father. She had suffered with her mental health as a consequence and was hospitalised. While in hospital, she threatened to kill herself with a letter opener. The hospital called the police, and she was convicted of possessing a knife. Because of that conviction, she was then refused the compensation by CICA that had been originally offered to her. That is why new clause 1 would ensure applicants with unspent convictions are not automatically excluded where offences are linked to circumstances of their sexual abuse as a child.
Anti-slavery charities have also been in touch to explain how this particular rule impacts on victims of trafficking who try to access the compensation scheme. It is not unusual for victims of slavery or, indeed, child or criminal exploitation to be forced into criminality by their exploiters. Those convictions, however, commonly lead to immense difficulty for those victims to then access compensation—something that victims of modern slavery, for example, ought to be entitled to under article 15 of the European convention on action against trafficking.
The criminal injuries compensation scheme is supposed to be a support scheme of last resort. Sadly, for many survivors, it is not even that. In the long term, CICA needs a complete overhaul. In the short term, however, survivors are keen to see the swift implementation of recommendation 18, because in doing so this House and this Government can send a powerful message that their abuse is recognised, that their future is prioritised and that meaningful change is under way.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I want to speak in support of new clauses 10 and 11, which would place a duty on authorities to guarantee support for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and child criminal exploitation, as well as their care-givers. I am proud to support a Government who are committed to halving violence against women and girls and who just last week announced some of the most significant steps towards supporting victims of abuse, including denying rapists access to children born of rape and an end to the presumption of contact in the family courts—not just words but action. I support calls for meaningful action today.
Victims are not only dealing with the trauma of what has happened to them. For many, the thought of the court case risks retraumatizing them. Given the backlog in our courts—a backlog left by previous Governments—victims are waiting months and sometimes years before cases are heard. That wait takes a huge emotional toll. We have to address the fear of the process if we are to meet our target of halving violence against women and girls. We have to support victims throughout the process. I urge the Government to build a system that gives victims the confidence to come forward knowing that they will not be left to cope alone.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Being a parent is a privilege, not a right. I rise to speak to Government new clause 14, on the restriction of parental responsibility for a child conceived as a result of rape. It will appear on the face of this Bill because of the fierce campaigning force of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet)—my friend and my hero. Her law change, to be engraved in the Government’s Bill, puts the needs of survivors above the needs of rapists, casting in law a shield for women who have had a child as a result of rape, and for their babies. Those rapists will no longer be able to retraumatise the mothers, nor to demand access to or endanger the children.
If anyone says politics does not make a difference, I say, “Look at my hon. Friend, who shared her own experience of being groomed and abused and having a child as a result.” Her extraordinary strength raised that beautiful baby girl. That strength meant that she did so alongside becoming a Member of this House and, within her first year as a parliamentarian, will today change the law to protect a generation of women, girls and children. This is the difference that politics in the hands of Members like my hon. Friend makes for our communities and our country: protecting women and children from vile sex offenders. It is a non-negotiable priority, central to our Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade.
This matters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, 10 babies a day are currently born as a result of rape. Yet we still do not know the true scale of physical and sexual abuse at the hands of known domestically abusive parents. We do know that 60% of cases in the family courts involve domestic abuse, and that 40,000 children will have experienced domestic abuse in the private law Children Act cases that were received by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service in the nine months from April 2024.
My formidable constituent, Claire Throssell MBE, lost her two beautiful boys 11 years ago, at the hands of her known domestically abusive ex-husband, while they were on a five-hour court-permitted contact visit. He lured them into the attic of their home with the promise of a train set, and set fires around their house. Claire promised her boys that she would ensure their voices were heard by campaigning to repeal the presumption of contact, the legal principle brought about by the Children and Families Act 2014, amending the Children Act 1989. The principle means that the courts always prioritise having both parents in a child’s life over the child’s safety, including when there is a known history of domestic abuse.
There have been 67 deaths at the hands of known domestic abusers since Women’s Aid started to report on this issue just 30 years ago. Five previous Conservative Governments—look at the empty Benches opposite—did nothing, despite the Conservative Government in 2020 leading the harm panel report, an expert review of domestic abuse and the family courts; despite that report recommending that the presumption of contact should be urgently reviewed; and despite Women’s Aid research finding there have been 19 more child deaths at the hands of known domestic abusers since Jack and Paul died. No response was published for four years under those Conservative Governments. Where are Conservative Members today?
I first met Claire at a remembrance event at my old school—the same school that her eldest son Jack went to. I knew of the tragic deaths of her sons, but hearing from her what happened was heartbreaking. I promised her that if I was elected as her Member of Parliament, I would help to fulfil her promise to her boys. Last week, I took Claire to No. 10 Downing Street to meet the Prime Minister—the sixth Prime Minister since her beautiful boys died, but the first to promise Claire that he will deliver Jack and Paul’s law. Last week, on the 11th anniversary of the boys’ deaths, he announced in this Chamber that our Government will repeal the presumption of contact.
The Prime Minister’s promise made it clear that the repeal of the presumption of contact will form part of a broader package of family court reforms aimed at better protecting children involved in private law proceedings. That is truly decisive action by our Government to change the law to protect generations of children where the Conservatives failed to do so. The reforms will ensure that decisions about child arrangements put the child at the centre of decision making and are based on a robust assessment of the potential risks, particularly when domestic abuse is present.
Our message is clear: the safety of children is paramount. We will stop at nothing to make sure that they are protected in our courts, prioritising children’s safety and wellbeing and their right to grow up free from harm. The changes will reinforce new clause 14 and the exceptional work set out in the Bill by putting children at the centre of the family courts.
I am proud that our Labour Government is packed full of brilliant women who stood behind Claire Throssell, Natalie Fleet and I to ensure that our Government fulfil her promise to her boys. Those women include the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services, the Minister for Victims, the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, and my hon. Friends the Members for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) and for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle). I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for his work and allyship.
Repealing the presumption of contact is urgent. Will the Minister confirm that it will be repealed as soon as the parliamentary time allows, thereby fulfilling the promise that the Prime Minister made to Claire Throssell last week? Expediting the repeal of the provision in the statute book will ensure that no more towns like mine will grieve, and it will ensure that Jack and Paul’s law is at the heart of our family justice system, where it belongs. I commend the Bill to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I am very conscious that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) made an impassioned and moving speech, but I remind Members that we must refer to her as the hon. Member for Bolsover.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I will speak in favour of new clauses 13 and 14 and the expansion to clause 3. I served with some colleagues in Committee, but may I begin by thanking all Members who have contributed tonight? We have had a series of impassioned speeches from across the House, and I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for their powerful contributions.
The amendments we are discussing this evening are a significant step forward in protecting victims of serious violence and they will help thousands of people. They will help to ensure the safety of victims of serious sexual abuse and victims of crime who have signed a non-disclosure agreement, and, crucially, these amendments will also protect children.
New clause 14 will ensure the protection of children born of rape. On Second Reading, I spoke of a constituent who had had a child as a result of an abusive relationship. She told me of the extreme difficulties she had been facing as she had passed through a long and complex custody battle. She asked me if we, as politicians, could look again at parental rights in the context of abusive relationships. I am very pleased that new clause 14 will protect children born in such circumstances. No longer will children born of rape, or their mothers, be forced to have a relationship with a rapist. Currently, mothers in some cases must co-parent with a rapist. Women should not be forced to include their rapist in decisions on their child’s healthcare, schooling, or any other aspects of a child’s life. Children should not have to be raised by rapists.
Mothers who have a child born of rape should be safe in the knowledge that having a child will not tie them to their rapist. Automatic restriction of parental responsibility will ensure that mothers and children are safer. Rapists should not have the automatic right to interfere with their victims’ lives. This clause frees families from the stress and pain of applying to court by ensuring that this restriction is immediate.
The expansion to clause 3 similarly ensures that any person convicted of serious sex offences against any child has their parental rights removed. The safety of children is the utmost priority, and expanding this measure from those who have abused their own child to those who have seriously abused any child will ensure the safety of the children the perpetrator is closest to. Paedophiles should have no right to look after any child.
I am also pleased to see that new clause 13 will allow us to clamp down on the misuse of non-disclosure agreements, which are used to hide instances where a crime has occurred. Victims of crime should not have to worry about who they speak to regarding the crime of which they are a victim, and non-disclosure agreements should not be used to silence victims of crimes, nor should they stop witnesses coming forward. This change will mean that victims and direct witnesses of crime can speak to their friends, their family and their support system, but they can also speak to their employers and, if necessary, to journalists. I very much welcome the closing of this loophole, which allows criminals to scare victims into not sharing their experiences. The law must not protect those who seek to silence victims.
These amendments will allow us to take significant steps towards the Government’s aim of halving violence towards women and girls. But more than that, these amendments serve to give victims of serious violent crime justice.
Dr Mullan
I rise to speak in support of new clause 4 and the other amendments in my name and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and other members of the His Majesty’s Opposition.
I know the Minister will join me in beginning by thanking all the witnesses who came and gave evidence to us in Committee on the behalf of victims, including Dame Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner; Baroness Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner; Katie Kempen from Victim Support; Rebecca Bryant from Resolve; Suky Baker from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust; Andrea Simon from the End Violence Against Women coalition; Farah Nazeer from Women’s Aid; Glenn Youens and Paula Hudgell from Justice for Victims; and Mark Brooks OBE from the ManKind Initiative. We all benefited greatly from their evidence and the victims’ perspective they gave.
Alex Davies-Jones
The shadow Minister is right that there are certain things that victims should be able to say in their victim impact statement—we agree on that—but there are things that are clearly not in the remit of what should be openly discussed in a sentencing hearing. They include information pertaining to the offender’s family, for example. Victims may want to reference that in their victim impact statements, but for the safety of those other family members, they should not be mentioned. It is right that we have strict guidance, and I am willing to work with him and other hon. Members to ensure that the victims have a voice in this.
Dr Mullan
We have been clear that victims do not have carte blanche—they cannot say literally whatever they like—but our proposed new clause allows the Government to set what those things will or will not be more clearly in law. That puts the onus back on the judge to disregard things that will not be of relevance to the sentencing. I think that is a perfectly reasonable way to organise things.
Alex Davies-Jones
The shadow Minister has just outlined exactly why it would be wrong to put this into statute. The issue of victim impact statements is not black and white—there is a large grey area—which is why having a specific list of what can and cannot be put in place is not the right approach. We do not need legislation on this, but we do need proper guidance and training to support victims and families so they can have their say in a sentencing hearing.
Dr Mullan
With non-exhaustive lists, parts of which are in legislation and parts of which are not, we can agree the things that are vital for people to be able to say, while other things could be determined through guidance. However, legislation is needed because, as the Minister pointed out, there are fundamental things about the definition of a victim personal statement that we think are wrong. That will need to be changed in legislation to give people freedom to comment on those issues. We can go on to decide how the judge might handle that.
I commend my friend the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) for his work on new clause 4. I met Eve Henderson, from the charity Murdered Abroad, who has long campaigned for better recognition and support for the families of British nationals who have lost loved ones to murder, manslaughter and infanticide overseas. Far too often, those families find themselves in a position of deep grief, while also having to navigate complex and unfamiliar foreign legal systems with little or no support from home. They can be left without clear information, a voice in proceedings or access to the services that victims of crime in this country are entitled to expect. To correct that injustice, the new clause would set out explicitly how the victims code applies in such circumstances, guaranteeing access to practical and emotional support, clear information about processes and the ability to challenge decisions.
The contribution by the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) was unusual. As the consistent Government message against the measure has been that the original proposals were too broad, the hon. Lady has thought carefully and brought forward proposals that are narrow, so disagreeing with the Government objection. I will assume that is her sincere reason for objecting to the measure, and that it is nothing to do with the fact that the Whips have told Labour Members they cannot vote for it.
To conclude, there are a range of measures that we support. We welcome their progress in the House, even when they are imperfect. However, the amendments we have proposed about the unduly lenient sentence scheme and victim impact statements are the right measures at the right time. I trust the Minister’s sincerity when she says that she wants to work on those issues, but I do not trust her Government and their ability to deliver on what they say that they will. MPs have been asked by their constituents to back the amendments and I hope that they do—there is no reason not to. I ask all MPs to support our amendments tonight.
Alex Davies-Jones
I rise to close what has been an excellent debate on the Victims and Courts Bill. As I said in my opening remarks, this House is at its best when we come together and rise above party politics, to put the interests of our constituents first, and that is exactly what we have done. I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for the collaborative way in which they have engaged in the debate, as has been seen throughout the passage of the Bill. The Bill is about people: victims and survivors. The Bill has been created and drafted with them at its heart. It is about putting them back at the forefront of the justice system, where they belong, because without them we would have no justice system.
Turning to the amendments that have been proposed, I join the shadow Minister in thanking all the witnesses who gave evidence to the Bill Committee. They really helped to shape the Bill. It is because of their contribution and the strength of feeling of victims, as well as of right hon. and hon. Members in this place and the other place, that we have gone further in extending the measures in the Bill. When I and the Government hear the strength of feeling in the House, we are afraid to act. That is why I have committed at this Dispatch Box to going further again, looking at the unduly lenient sentence scheme and victim impact statements. It is right that the Law Commission is currently looking at the unduly lenient sentence scheme but, as I said in my opening remarks, I will be monitoring that closely as the Bill progresses in the other place. We are looking at how we can best support victims, so that they have representation when they feel that justice has not been fully served.
The shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti)—I had the pleasure of meeting with his constituent—raised the four-year time limit. This is a novel measure, and I am grateful to Opposition Front Benchers for their support and for recognising that this is just the beginning. We will not fail to go further, following how this is implemented and the potential consequences for the family courts. This is just the start and if it works, the Government will act and go further, but we need to test this properly.
The hon. Member also asked whether the Bill will capture future children. I can confirm from the Dispatch Box that it will cover all children who exist at the time of sentencing for whom the perpetrator has parental responsibility. We cannot bind future children or children yet to be born. However, necessary safeguards will be in place through the family courts. Should that perpetrator come out of prison and go on to have other children, and should they be at risk, the normal route to strip parental responsibility in the family courts will still exist. Unfortunately, we are unable to bind future, hypothetical children, but this Bill will cover any children who exist at the point of sentencing for whom the perpetrator has parental responsibility.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I really welcome this Government’s move to restrict the access of abusers to their children, in order to protect them. All too often, however, victims who are members of tightly knit, small religious groups are pressured to interact with their abuser when they get out of prison. Some religious leaders and organisations that I am aware of commonly tell victims that God has forgiven their abusers and they therefore need to do so as well. In some cases, I have seen those victims be ostracised or shunned if they refuse to engage. Does the Minister agree that the Government need to think about how we can seek to resolve that cultural problem in small religious groups?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that thoughtful intervention, and he is right. We need to get this right for all victims of all crimes—that includes intersectionality and vulnerable victims.
That point speaks to the heart of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) in relation to by-and-for services and specialist support services. She mentioned Jewish support charities, and I am meeting Jewish Women’s Aid tomorrow to talk about how we can better support them. She is right that this has to be holistic and comprehensive, because one size does not fit all when it comes to victims of these crimes.
Saqib Bhatti
I place on record once again my gratitude to the Minister for the time that she gave to meet with Bethan and her parents on this serious issue. The change that came about really does restore many people’s faith in what we do.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman again for his time and for his support in providing help to Bethan and her parents. Meeting them and hearing their story was a privilege, and it is in their name that we have gone further today in this Bill. It is for them and for all victims and survivors that we stand here to do more. As other Members have said this evening, the difference that being in government makes is that we can actually do those changes.
Let me come to some of the other amendments tabled. I welcome the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), to her place—this is the first time in the Chamber that we have had the opportunity to discuss issues of justice. I had a fantastic, collaborative relationship with her predecessor, and I look forward to continuing that as we work on these issues. She mentioned specifically the resource available for the helpline that will be set up to allow victims a direct route to provide information about their case, which is essential. We, too, are conscious of resources, and we will continue to monitor and refine the resource required for the helpline. Where possible, we will of course act if there is demand. We feel that currently resource there is needed, as is set out in the impact statement, but we will keep that under review and will not hesitate to act in the fiscal environment given.
The hon. Member for Chichester also mentioned new clause 7, about extending eligibility for the victim contact scheme. She will know that we have extended that eligibility in the Bill. Again, we will keep that under review if there is a need to expand it further and look at how we can best support victims.
The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) mentioned the right to know in relation the victim contact scheme and the victims code. We will launch a consultation later this year on victim rights and the victims code, looking at exactly what should be in there and how best we can support victims. I encourage all victims, survivors and Members to feed into that. He knows that the door remains open for me to meet his constituent Tina Nash to discuss her issues at first hand and see how I can better support her and other vulnerable victims who are disabled throughout the process.
Andrew George
I have discussed this issue with the Minister, and she knows about it because we have also corresponded on it. I know that my constituent would be enormously grateful to have an opportunity to meet her, and I am very grateful for her response.
Alex Davies-Jones
I look forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman and his constituent in due course to discuss the failings in the criminal justice system that led to her experience. No victim should go through what she did, and I stand ready to support her and improve the situation.
Let me turn to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), which I touched on in my opening remarks. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards), the Opposition Front Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), and others in this Chamber spoke to that amendment. I know that many Members will have had horrifying casework in which families are stuck trying to differentiate between a language barrier and a different jurisdiction or legal system, all while trying to get answers on what has happened to their loved one. That is unacceptable.
I remain of the view that the victims code is not the right place for these victims to have that framework, because the victims code is based on the justice system in England and Wales. It does not apply, and it is not right. However, I am committed, and I have already met with the Minister in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), to discuss the FCDO and the MOJ working together on how best we can support victims, and working with the Victims’ Commissioner and the charity Murdered Abroad on creating the dedicated framework and guidance on what victims in this country can expect.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way in a crucial part of her speech. In the work that she is doing, I implore her to remember my constituent, whose sister Rita Roberts was brutally murdered in 1992 and not formally identified until 2023. Rita has still not had justice, as she was murdered abroad, and her family are desperate for any support that the Minister can give.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case. It is a horrific case that I know all too well, because the previous Member for Cardiff West, who is now in the other place, raised it previously and sought to support Rita’s family. I will seek to support them in any way I can and will work with the FCDO, because justice delayed is justice denied for anyone, regardless of where they are. I make the commitment to the hon. Member for Maidenhead that we will find the right way forward to support these families, but I do not believe that his amendment is the right one, so I implore him to withdraw it.
I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who is right: these are invisible children and we must do more to protect them. This is not just about identifying them and their parents, who are the perpetrators; it is about supporting those children and better identifying them, and I make that commitment to her. She asked me directly about how we are going to do this. The Minister responsible for sentencing and the Children’s Minister have met to discuss this issue and held a roundtable with organisations to look at the best way of doing this, and I will impress on them my hon. Friend’s desire for them to move quickly and involve her in how best to bring this forward.
I will discuss the amendments on restorative justice tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). I encourage all Members of this place to go and see the play “Punch”, which is outstanding—it is probably the best example of restorative justice that anyone can see. Restorative justice is not right for every victim and will not work for everyone; it needs consent from both the victim and the perpetrator. It will not be right for every crime, but in certain crimes it is appropriate and can provide better victim outcomes and lower reoffending rates. The Prisons Minister and the new Secretary of State are passionate believers in that. We are looking closely at this issue as a Department and will continue to work with the hon. Gentleman to see how best we can bring out restorative justice programmes across the Ministry of Justice.
I come to my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop). I think we have already discussed his commitment to these victims and families for justice, and I pay tribute to him. I am committed to working further on the unduly lenient sentencing scheme to ensure that victims have the right to redress and to complain in an appropriate time, and that the victim impact statements are fit for purpose and represent that victim’s voice. For Katie Brett, the Youens family and all those who feel that they have been silenced, I make that commitment today. We also need that clarity in sentencing and transparency on what a sentence actually is, and I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friends the Members for Lowestoft and for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) talked about the need for vital support services, and they are right. Without the vital support services that support victims and survivors, we do not have victims and survivors engaged in a criminal justice system. There needs to be a multi-year settlement—my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft mentioned that as well—to ensure that they are sustainable, effective and there to support victims.
Those organisations know that we are currently going through the financial allocations process in the Ministry of Justice. We are due to complete that process very soon, because I know that these vital organisations need certainty as to the sustainability of their future, and I have committed to them that I will provide it soon. I also hear their calls for more support for child victims. Again, that is something I will be looking at as part of the consultation on the victims code later this year, because although we have identified that children can be victims in their own right, there is little to support them, and they deserve support too. I am committed to working with my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft and other hon. Members to get this right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and I have spoken many times about the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Change in this area cannot be piecemeal; we need proper change if victims are to be supported, if they are to have redress, and if they are to have the recognition that they so vitally need—that something has happened to them, and that they are a victim. As my hon. Friend mentioned, there is discretion in the scheme. There are many reasons for that, but she is right that the scheme does not work. We have heard that time and again, and I am committed to working with her to determine what scheme should be in place to support victims and survivors. I want to hear from them directly, and I am also keen to hear from Quebec—which my hon. Friend mentioned—about how the scheme there operates. If we can learn about best practice internationally, we should do so. But most importantly, we need an effective and sustainable redress scheme for victims of violent crime.
Finally, I wish to pay tribute, as others have done, to my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and for Lowestoft, and to every single Member in this place who has stood up and discussed the need for change through this Bill. They have spoken from their hearts. They have spoken with bravery and with lived experience about what is needed to support victims and survivors. Never let anyone tell you that having a Labour Government does not make a difference. What is the difference? It is delivering for victims—deeds, not words. That is what we are doing in this Chamber this evening. We are making that difference, delivering for Claire Throssell, Jan Mustafa, Sabina Nessa, Olivia Pratt-Korbel, and the countless other victims who have been failed by the criminal justice system. That is the difference a Labour Government makes. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 13 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 14
Restriction of parental responsibility for child conceived as a result of rape
“After section 10D of the Children Act 1989 (review of orders made under section 10C) (inserted by section 3) insert—
“10E Duty to make prohibited steps order following rape
(1) This section applies where the Crown Court—
(a) sentences a person (‘the offender’) for an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape), and
(b) is satisfied that a child (‘the child’) for whom the offender has parental responsibility was conceived as a result of the rape.
(2) The Crown Court must make a prohibited steps order when sentencing the offender.
(3) The order must—
(a) specify that no step of any kind which could be taken by a parent in meeting their parental responsibility for a child may be taken by the offender with respect to the child without the consent of the High Court or the family court, and
(b) be made to have effect until the order is varied or discharged by the High Court or the family court.
(4) But the Crown Court must not make a prohibited steps order under this section if—
(a) making the order is prohibited by section 29(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002,
(b) a prohibited steps order is already in force that meets the requirements in subsection (3), or
(c) it appears to the Crown Court that it would not be in the interests of justice to do so.
(5) A prohibited steps order made under this section does not cease to have effect if the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal, but see section 10G.
(6) Sections 1, 7 and 11 do not apply where the Crown Court proceeds under this section.
(7) 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.
(8) The Crown Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings in connection with the enforcement of a prohibited steps order made under this section.
(9) A reference in this Act to an order under this section includes, so far as the context permits, an order varying or discharging it.
10F Duty to apply to court where child may have been conceived as a result of rape
(1) This section applies where—
(a) the Crown Court sentences a person (‘the offender’) for an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape),
(b) the Crown Court is satisfied that there is a child (‘the child’) for whom the offender has parental responsibility,
(c) the Crown Court considers that the child may have been conceived as a result of the rape, and
(d) section 10E does not apply.
(2) The Crown Court must notify the local authority that is the relevant local authority at the time the offender is sentenced (if any) of the matters set out in subsection (1).
(3) The notification under subsection (2) must be given before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day after the day on which the offender is sentenced.
(4) Before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the day on which the Crown Court notifies the local authority under subsection (2), the local authority must make enquiries into whether—
(a) the victim of the rape, or
(b) if the victim is deceased, any person with parental responsibility for the child other than the offender,
consents to an application being made to the court (see section 92(7)) for the court to determine whether to make a section 8 order.
(5) If consent is given, the local authority must make that application as soon as is reasonably practicable and in any event before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day after the day on which the consent is given.
(6) Subsections (4) and (5) do not apply if the local authority is satisfied that the court would not have jurisdiction to make a section 8 order (see sections 2 and 3 of the Family Law Act 1986).
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the periods specified in subsections (3), (4) and (5).
(8) In this section, ‘relevant local authority’ means—
(a) where the child is ordinarily resident within the area of a local authority in England or Wales, that local authority;
(b) where the child does not fall within paragraph (a) but is present within the area of a local authority in England or Wales, that local authority.
10G Review of orders made under section 10E or following an application under section 10F
(1) This section applies where—
(a) either—
(i) a prohibited steps order has been made under section 10E, or
(ii) an order under Part II has been made following an application under section 10F, and
(b) the offender is acquitted of the offence following an appeal.
(2) The local authority that is the relevant local authority at the time the verdict of acquittal is entered (if any) must make an application to the court (see section 92(7)) to review the order.
(3) An application under this section must be made as soon as is reasonably practicable and in any event before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day after the day on which the verdict of acquittal was entered.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the period specified in subsection (3).
(5) In this section, ‘relevant local authority’ means—
(a) where the child with respect to whom the order was made is ordinarily resident within the area of a local authority in England or Wales, that local authority;
(b) where the child with respect to whom the order was made does not fall within paragraph (a) but is present within the area of a local authority in England or Wales, that local authority.””—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
This new clause, to be inserted after clause 3, requires the Crown Court to restrict the parental responsibility of a person convicted of rape where a child was conceived as a result. If it is unclear whether the child was so conceived, the local authority must apply to the family court.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 4
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.”—(Dr Mullan.)
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.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Alex Davies-Jones
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I begin by placing on the record my thanks to the Whips, the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee and all the brilliant, dedicated officials at the Ministry of Justice who have worked so hard to bring this legislation forward. Particular thanks go to Rachel Bennion, Hayley Newell and Cassie Blower. I also pay tribute to London Victims Commissioner Claire Waxman and Victims Commissioner Baroness Newlove in the other place, as well as Domestic Abuse Commissioner Dame Nicole Jacobs. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members across the House for their thoughtful contributions so far. They have all helped to shape this Bill, which will strengthen our justice system and make it one that is more responsive to victims, tackles delays in our criminal courts and delivers swifter and fairer justice.
When the Government took office in July last year, we inherited a justice system in utter crisis, with record and rising backlogs in the criminal courts delaying justice for too many people and victims more likely to be an afterthought than an important, integral part of the process. Reform of the system is essential, and this legislation will mark that significant step forward, but I have been clear that this is just the beginning.
The Bill at its core is about transforming the experience of victims throughout the criminal justice system. It will introduce measures to ensure that victims are heard, supported and treated with the dignity they deserve, and it will improve the efficiency and fairness of our courts.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
May I congratulate my hon. Friend on piloting the Bill through the House? It is an excellent piece of legislation that will make a real difference to victims. But, as she said, it is just a start. Will she and the Department rededicate themselves to bringing down that Crown court backlog? Speedy justice is what victims want.
Alex Davies-Jones
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee for holding our feet to the fire as a Government to ensure that we bear down on that backlog. The Minister of State, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), is ensuring that we deliver for victims by bringing down that backlog, with record investment in our court system, record sitting days and looking at the reforms brought forward and the recommendations of Sir Brian Leveson in his once-in-a-generation review. It is only when we get on top of that court backlog that justice can be delivered and victims will feel it has been done.
The Bill is a key part of the Government’s plan for change. It will deliver on many of our manifesto commitments to support and protect victims, restore confidence in our justice system and implement that swifter and fairer justice. I urge all hon. Members on both sides of the House to support its passage into law. I proudly commend the Bill to the House.
Dr Mullan
It is my pleasure to speak on Third Reading of the Victims and Courts Bill. Victims and their families should be at the heart of our justice system. The main goal of the justice system—as well as keeping the public safe—should be to deliver exactly that: justice for victims and their families. All too often, for many years, it has not done that as often as it could. The Bill has presented us with a number of ways in which we can at least improve how the system works by doing more to make life easier for victims and their families, helping to respond to their needs and doing more to give them a voice.
The Bill has brought forward measures to support families and children by restricting the responsibility of parents who are not fit to have a presumption of parental responsibility. It will also see an expanded role and powers for the Victims’ Commissioner. I have seen at first hand the effectiveness of that office under Baroness Newlove and I am sure that her successor will make great use of those new tools. The new measures around the victim contact scheme will also help victims feel like they know what is happening with the criminals who have harmed them, with access to information they have a right to.
I am disappointed, however, that the Government and Labour MPs have refused to accept two clear routes forward to further weight the justice system towards victims and their families. The Opposition’s proposed changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme and the victim personal statement had widespread support from across victims’ advocates, including Justice for Victims, the Victims’ Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and Victim Support. Hon. Members will know that had such a wide coalition come forward with proposals for sensible reform when Labour Members were in opposition, they would not have hesitated to back them. There is simply no good excuse for their having voted against them tonight.
The Bill is important and brings forward a range of important measures, so, as I am sure the Minister would expect, we will not oppose it. I pay tribute again to the victims and victims’ organisations. Most of the measures in the Bill started with them. I hope that Labour MPs will reflect on the measures they are still resisting and, in future stages, reconsider their decisions to vote against them. Those measures would improve the Bill, improve our justice system and help future victims avoid some of the experiences that have forced victims and their families into being campaigners. They do not want to be campaigners; they feel that they have to be. The measures that the Opposition proposed with their support were aimed at stopping other people in future from having to be campaigners.
But let us be clear: these measures and the Bill do not sit in isolation. I said at the outset that victims want justice. For the worst offenders, that means being properly punished by being sent to prison for a long time. I suggest to the Minister and Labour MPs that all the victims these measures are aimed to help, and all the people and campaign groups they speak to in support of these measures, will be appalled that at the same time that the Government are giving this, they are taking away with the other hand in a truly appalling way. Many of the campaigns and measures relate to violence and sexual offences, yet this week the Government will ask MPs to vote through clauses that will allow thousands of violent and sexual offenders out of prison earlier—[Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that that is not true, but more than 60% of rapists sent to prison will get out of prison earlier. Today, we had a discussion of the appalling, mistaken release of Hadush Kebatu. He was convicted of sexual assault. More than 85% of offenders sent to prison—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Mullan, we have to make sure that your speech is in scope of this Bill. I assume that you are coming to a sharp conclusion.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. If I have confirmed that it is not in scope for Third Reading, then it is not in scope. Conclude swiftly!
Dr Mullan
As I have said, many of the measures in the Bill are welcome, but we have to be extremely mindful that what we are doing in other proceedings in this House do not fatally undermine them and end up leaving victims feeling worse off after the positive measures that the Bill has brought forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With the leave of the
House, I will put motions 2 to 5 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Companies
That the draft Companies (Directors’ Report) (Payment Reporting) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 17 July, be approved.
Transport
That the draft Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 8 September, be approved.
Financial Services
That the draft Financial Services (Overseas Recognition Regime Designations) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 15 July, be approved.
Environmental Protection
That the draft Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 17 July, be approved.—(Deirdre Costigan.)
Question agreed to.
Committees
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We have a substantial number of motions to move so, with the leave of the House, I will take them collectively.
Ordered,
Business and Trade
That Gregor Poynton and Rosie Wrighting be discharged from the Business and Trade Committee and Daniel Aldridge and Justin Madders be added.
Culture, Media and Sport
That James Frith, Tom Rutland and Paul Waugh be discharged from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and Vicky Foxcroft, Anneliese Midgley and Jeff Smith be added.
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
That Andrew Pakes be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Terry Jermy be added.
Foreign Affairs
That Blair McDougall be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Fleur Anderson be added.
Home Affairs
That Jake Richards, Shaun Davies and Conor Rand be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Lewis Atkinson, Peter Prinsley and Jo White be added.
Housing, Communities and Local Government
That Naushabah Khan and Joe Powell be discharged from the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and Sean Woodcock and Andrew Cooper be added.
International Development
That Alice MacDonald be discharged from the International Development Committee and Janet Daby be added.
Justice
That Mike Tapp be discharged from the Justice Committee and Tony Vaughan be added.
Public Accounts
That Nesil Caliskan and Luke Charters be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Catherine McKinnell and Tristan Osborne be added.
Science, Innovation and Technology
That Steve Race and Jon Pearce be discharged from the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and Samantha Niblett and Daniel Zeichner be added.
Transport
That Catherine Atkinson be discharged from the Transport Committee and Jacob Collier be added.
Treasury
That Lola McEvoy, Jeevun Sandher and Rachel Blake be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Jim Dickson, Luke Murphy and Catherine West be added.
Women and Equalities
That Kirith Entwistle, Natalie Fleet and Catherine Fookes be discharged from the Women and Equalities Committee and Kevin McKenna, Kim Leadbeater and Nadia Whittome be added.
Work and Pensions
That David Pinto-Duschinsky, Gill German and Frank McNally be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and Lee Barron, David Baines and Rushanara Ali be added.—(Jessica Morden, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Regulation and Inspection of Funeral Services
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
There are many issues that will divide this House and many issues that will divide society, but one thing that probably unites all of us, and indeed society, is that we have a legitimate expectation of decent and respectful treatment for our dead. I do not think that is asking too much. The vast majority of funeral directors, crematoria and hospital morgues treat the deceased with the decency and respect that we would expect and hope for ourselves.
Most of the apples operating in the funeral barrels, if I can put it like that, are good ones, but we all know that there are rotten apples in every barrel. It has long been recognised that this is a sector that operates in good faith and on a belief—often misplaced—that our expectations of the decency and respect to be shown to the deceased will prevail in all circumstances. I am not suggesting that Governments have shied away from this, pretending to turn a blind eye, as it were, but probably in the general scheme of things, until some recent high-profile incidents, they have not really thought to think about it, in the presumption that everything works well and as we would expect.
We will all remember the Fuller inquiry and the interim report that came out from that. When I was the Local Government Minister, the then junior Minister at the Ministry of Justice, Mike Freer, and I worked closely on this. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), with whom I worked closely some months back on a constituency case of hers. I am delighted to see her in her place, knowing the keen interest she has taken on behalf of her constituents.
I asked the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Ministry of Justice, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), on 22 January what changes were being proposed to licensing, or to bring in licensing, in the funeral home sector. The reply was—let me put it this way—benign. His written reply said it was a
“complex and sensitive matter that demands careful consideration to ensure a response that effectively safeguards the public.”
On the latter bit, we can all agree. It being a “complex and sensitive matter” is true. I would argue that it has already had that “careful consideration”. When one considers all the retail outlets and others—be they tattoo parlours, nail bars, cafés, burger bars, hairdressers, beauty salons and the like—that are regulated and inspected, it does seem strange that the funeral sector is effectively left to its own devices.
I know that sometimes Government and Members of Parliament press for licensing, regulation or binding codes of conduct very much against the will of the sector and find themselves in this great tussle. But the Association of Green Funeral Directors, the National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors and the National Association of Funeral Directors—I just want to pause to pay warm and fulsome tribute to the latter two for how they helped Mike Freer and me when we were Ministers trying to grapple with this when the situation was boiling up. Those three organisations, together with the Co-op, represent somewhere between 75% and 85% of funeral operators in this country. They are all desperate for either a licensing regime or an inspection regime.
Society is effectively saying to the trade bodies, which have a bit of muscle but no teeth, that they should impose standards of operation across the whole of the sector. I think the country at large would welcome regulation and inspection, and the trade bodies, which represent between three quarters and 85% of operators, are also clamouring for that.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The hon. Member sheds a light on an area that I have only just come to, and that was through a piece of casework. It was absolutely devastating to receive a piece of casework about abysmal funeral services, which included the mis-selling of a plot in a local cemetery, extortionate funeral costs and countless issues with a private funeral company. Does he agree that it is unacceptable that private cemeteries are almost entirely unregulated and are governed by burial Acts from the 1800s, which frankly are wildly out of date?
Simon Hoare
I do agree. In many respects, the only bit of legislation on which we can rest a serious prosecution is the Burial Act 1857, which deals with the corpse post internment. It is silent on the corpse’s treatment from the point of death through to the point of either internment or cremation. There is an enormous vacuum in the rules and regulations that I think most fair-minded people would say needs to be filled.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. This is the second Adjournment debate of his in which I have been involved in the last six months. He brings to the House subjects that are pertinent not just to North Dorset but to every constituency across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such an intimate and essential service for people at the most vulnerable times of their lives must be of the highest standard? We have wonderful funeral companies such as Clarke’s and Adair’s in my Strangford constituency, but we sometimes hear dreadful stories of horrific service. The fact that we regulate nail salons but not funeral services indicates that we need to consider ensuring a minimum level of service protection, and that the Government, and the Minister in particular, should at the very least instil some form of accountability into the process.
Simon Hoare
I fundamentally agree with what the hon. Gentleman said, as would the lion’s share of operators, because they are acutely aware of a crisis of public confidence in the sector’s ability to deliver.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech on an incredibly difficult topic. Next month, I am bringing two mums from Leeds down to meet the Victims Minister. They tragically lost their babies in different circumstances, but both went to the same funeral director, who did horrific things with their babies’ bodies. The police found nothing actionable because there is no regulation of the funeral industry. That needs to change. The hon. Gentleman talks about the public’s reaction, so does he agree that the more cases that come to light, the more the public realise what is possible in the funeral sector right now and the louder their calls for regulation will grow? I urge the Minister to recognise the urgent need to address this issue.
Simon Hoare
I am very sorry to hear what the hon. Gentleman has relayed; I know that the whole House will send prayers, thoughts and sympathies to his constituents. What a terrible thing to be dealing with in what are already tragically sad circumstances. He is right to urge the Minister to give a turbocharged and energised response.
As a society, our relationship with funerals is changing. We have become, as we know, a more secular society, so we are looking for other ways to deal with funeral services, rather than the traditional church service and so on. The covid pandemic certainly expedited the—I do not necessarily use this term in a disparaging sense—cheaper, faster and more streamlined approach to dealing with the deceased.
Funerals have become very expensive, when done well, because funeral directors have costs that need to be met, which is why we have seen this great rash of adverts. Anyone who watches any daytime commercial television will know that those over 55 are well insured—I qualify by a year. I am told there are plenty of machines for those who have difficulty getting out of a chair or a bed, and they can press a button and spring up and out like Zebedee. And there are 101 different funeral plan providers who will meet people’s needs very cheaply indeed.
There is little or no doubt that the lion’s share of operators are legit, above board, doing their best and doing it well, but the absence of regulation means that, if we so wished, the Minister and I could set up a funeral directors. We do not need a licence.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?
Simon Hoare
Let me just continue.
The Minister and I would not need a licence and we would not be inspected; all we would have to do is put up a sign saying “Funeral Directors” with the hours of operation on it. That cannot be right. It cannot be right that when a funeral director is running out of credit with their local crematorium they can transport a corpse from one end of the country to the other without any paperwork. If my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and others involved in livestock farming wanted to move one of their sheep from A to B, they know as well as I do about the vast amount of paperwork the Ministry requires to allow that to happen, and that is because we want traceability—that is what we need, and we need traceability in this sector as well.
Robbie Moore
My hon. Friend makes the point that many of our constituents across the country do not realise that anybody could set up and run a funeral director service. Sam Gallagher, one of the directors of Gallagher Family Funeral Directors in Keighley, wrote to me to advocate, quite rightly, that the Government should look at bringing in regulation or, at the very least, requiring that funeral directors must be a member of a trade association in order to operate. Currently we have neither, and I am sure that my hon. Friend, in summing up, will encourage the Minister to offer some warm words that we will be going in the direction of having that regulation put in place.
Simon Hoare
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a great strength to be a member of the trade association, because it gives an imprimatur of quality to the families choosing a funeral director, just as customers would choose a CORGI-registered boiler fitter or FENSA for windows. As the trade associations themselves have made clear, however, they can only exhort. They can help people by advising on what best practice looks and feels like, what a good customer experience is and so forth, but people can still trade as a funeral director without being a member of the trade association, and if the trade association kicks them out, they can still trade as a funeral director, because being a funeral director is not concomitant on being a member of the trade association. So there is all this opt-in, opt-out, and of course the best will always join the professional bodies that give them the imprimatur of quality, whereas it is the dodgy geezers—the people trying to do it on the fly—who will not, and they will always be part of the bottom end of the market.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
I have in my constituency a very well-established funeral director that operates in a large area and has been around since the Victorian era, and many other Members will have similar firms in their areas. The hon. Gentleman has talked about the trade bodies. Does he agree that such long-established family firms have a role to play in any future regulation as their experience and respect will add to the weight of the regulation?
Simon Hoare
I entirely agree, and I make this point again for the Minister’s benefit: he will not be trying to push water uphill in pushing for a regulatory and/or licensing regime. The good guys and girls want it to happen because it would give certainty.
I can share with the House—I hope it is not breaching a confidence—that when I was dealing with a high-profile incident, which I cannot reference per se as it is sub judice, one of the concerns we wrestled with was what would happen if public confidence collapsed so much that our hospital morgues became effectively logjammed. People would not be prepared to release their loved one to a funeral director because they had lost all faith in the sector as a whole. That would be a deeply worrying situation for anybody, and that is why the trade bodies are pushing so hard and so energetically to deploy their expertise as best they can in the current circumstances, but also to push Government to agree.
Simon Hoare
I want to draw my remarks to a close, but not before I have given way to the hon. Gentleman.
Ben Lake
I am grateful to my friend the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for bringing forward this important debate. I agree wholeheartedly with the arguments that he has made, as do many of the funeral directors in my constituency. I impress on him and the Minister that those funeral directors want a licensing regime. As the hon. Member has explained so eloquently, the trade bodies can only do so much, but a licensing regime would ensure a minimum standard, and we could all hope that the rest would try to excel and become members of the trade bodies in due course.
Simon Hoare
I agree fundamentally; it would be “the rising tide that floats all ships” argument. I will give way briefly to the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), and then I have a couple of suggestions for the Minister.
Tessa Munt
My constituents would be really shocked to discover the lack of clarity in this matter. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as part of the licensing regime, anyone undertaking a funeral service in the community should be clear about where bodies are kept and the various arrangements that are in play? I have heard some fairly dreadful things about arrangements for those who have passed away.
Simon Hoare
I agree. In so many choices that we make, the consumer now rightly demands the highest of standards. People want to ensure that the departure of their loved one from the world is as dignified, graceful, calm and respectful as it possibly can be.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Lady is scowling at me in such a friendly way that of course I will give way.
Tessa Munt
Funeral directors deal with people at the most vulnerable time in their lives. It is not the time when somebody asks, “What is happening? Where is my loved one’s body? What are you going to do next?” All of that detail is assumed. When people are so vulnerable, they are highly unlikely to ask the questions that they really should ask, and that they would certainly ask if they were buying any other product or service.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Lady has hit upon the key word—assumed. Why would people think to think anything else? Funeral directors have chosen their profession—it is not like there is a conscript army of funeral directors, press-ganged into dealing with the deceased—so people presume and assume that the highest standards and quality will be deployed.
The hon. Lady is right that most of our constituents would be shocked that it is only section 25 of the Burial Act 1857 that makes it an offence to remove buried remains without a licence from the Secretary of State or, in relation to consecrated ground, without the permission of the Church of England, according to the rites of the Church. There is, however, a common-law offence of preventing a lawful and decent burial, where a person conceals the death of another person. That is not the same as not giving somebody a dignified burial. The death has not been concealed, because it has been registered—they have a death certificate—but it is what is done to the deceased thereafter that is important.
Let me make some points to the Minister—he may well need to respond in writing, rather than give a detailed answer from the Dispatch Box. He will have heard from Members from across the House, and he will know from conversations that he may have had with trade bodies and others, that there is a strong and growing appetite for licensing and inspection. The default position, as I understand it, is with the Human Tissue Authority, and some changes to its terms of reference would be required, which might be a good place to start.
There was a mixed reaction from across the local government family, but I still think that our local councils know the granularity of their jurisdictions. They will often be running the crematoria and the graveyards, and they will have official relationships with the funeral directors. They also have a long track record of inspection of premises. I am certain that when local government was given the duty to inspect licensed premises and facilities serving food, they said, “We have no experience in this”, but they very quickly picked it up.
I know that the trade bodies stand ready to work alongside and with local authorities, as they were going to do before the general election, to say, “This is what best practice looks like. Come and see our leading members and get a feel for this. We will then accompany you on inspection so that you get a feel about what to look for, the right questions to ask, and so on.” It was going to be an evolution in partnership between the quality operators and the Government. I think any and all of us would support anything—there is certainly a clear role for the Human Tissue Authority, but I urge the Minister not to rule out at this stage active and engaged involvement from the local government sector.
There is also a beefed-up supervisory role for the Financial Conduct Authority. We are all familiar with the TV advertising and other advertising, which I referenced, that says, “Pay a couple of quid a month and build up your funeral kitty. Your loved ones don’t have to worry about it.” I am aware of a few cases whereby people have gone in on a weekly or monthly basis with cash, paid it in good faith and been given a piece of paper. They have been given no receipt, the funeral director has not been registered, and the scheme has not been registered with the Financial Conduct Authority—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy) will remember that she had that with a number of her constituents.
Let me share with the House that such people are not the wealthy or affluent, who can say, “I can afford to write off the £2,500 or £3,000 I have put in.” These are people on limited, low incomes and limited means who are trying to defray the costs for their family by doing the right thing. We then find that all they have is a piece of paper in their own bank book or ledger, in which they might write things saying, “This is what I have paid in. Go and talk to Mr Whoever—they are my funeral director of choice.” Guess what? That person has done a moonlight flit; they have disappeared, and there is no record. We have never heard of them. They say, “Oh no, your mother only paid in £4.20, then she did not make any payments.” Nobody stands as the guarantor of last resort. That money is just lost and written off.
If only frightfully well-to-do people were affected, we would be sympathetic with them, but I suggest that the people affected are being proactively preyed on in areas of the country where there is not a vast amount of cash to go around. People are trying to do their best to ensure that their funeral is as cost-effective and problem-free as possible for their surviving relatives, and that it gives them dignity in their choice of being cremated or interred.
The Treasury needs to step up to this issue as well. We know that the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 was amended by order in 2021, but it does not quite seem to be doing the trick. There is a problem when any issue requires interdepartmental solutions. We have the Treasury and financial regulation on one side, and there is the potential for Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government involvement on the other. There is also the Ministry of Justice as the sponsoring Department for death—not necessarily the best thing to put on a ministerial strapline, but the Minister is the Minister for death, as far as the MOJ is concerned. Who takes the lead? Who pushes it forward? Who convenes? Who gets it right?
This issue cannot be ignored. I say with the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), who I am privileged enough to count as a friend, that this is a complex and sensitive issue, and we are going to need to take our time. The canon of evidence on the need for progress is very clear and compelling. I suggest that the time for consultation and consideration has passed. The time is now for joined-up Government, energetic thinking and speedy delivery, which will give comfort and confidence to each and every constituent.
Apart from taxes, we know that there is only one other certain thing in this life: we have a span on this Earth, and it is not an infinite resource. We are all going to have to use one of these services at some point, so it is in the interests of the whole country to get this right. The Minister is jolly lucky, because the trade bodies and others are willing him on. They want to see this happen and are ready to act in quick lockstep in order to deliver it.
As the House has reflected in this evening’s debate, and as I hope the Minister will have picked up on, doing nothing and hoping for the best—hoping that somehow or another, by a process of osmosis, the bad actors disappear and the good actors rise to the fore and are the sole operators within this sphere—is, I am afraid, for the birds. I urge any right hon. or hon. Member to talk to any of their constituents, at a surgery or an event, and ask, “The funeral sector is regulated, isn’t it?” They will answer, “Of course it is.” “It’s licensed, isn’t it?” “Yes, of course it is.” When you tell them it is not, there is a look of total and utter astonishment. That situation cannot continue.
I suggest that the Minister could bring forward whatever legislation he needs, and it would probably pass this House in a couple of weeks. As the Minister has heard from across the House, this is now an urgent and pressing issue. I look forward to his reply, but more importantly, I look forward to seeing any legislation that he brings forward in order to enact a remedy that is long overdue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I thank the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for bringing forward this debate and for the manner in which he has done so, with just the right blend of humour and seriousness. In the spirit of humour, I thank him for his invitation to go into business with him as a funeral director. I think I must decline that invitation, on the basis that as a practising surgeon, it might raise some issues of conflict in my practice.
It really is an honour to respond to the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government. I completely understand his strength of feeling on this issue, and from all the contributions made by hon. Members from across this House, I know that he is not alone. Many colleagues and their constituents have written to the Government, rightly appalled by recent scandals that have shone a spotlight on the current arrangements and lack of regulation in the funeral sector. Many hon. Members’ constituents have conducted themselves with great dignity at a time when that dignity was not afforded to their dearly departed loved ones. People deserve dignity in death, and families deserve the comfort of knowing that their loved ones have been safely laid to rest.
All of us know, or will come to know, bereavement. Everyone deals with grief in different ways, but for many people, funerals can be comforting as well as cathartic—an occasion to lay a loved one’s remains to rest and celebrate the gift of their life. On these occasions, we put our trust in the commitment and professionalism of a funeral director. We trust them to not only support us through one of the most difficult and distressing times in our life, but treat our loved ones laid to rest with the utmost respect. Every deceased person deserves at least as much dignity in death as they had in life, and to receive the highest standard of care from those entrusted with looking after them. It is important to remember that, as the hon. Member for North Dorset mentioned, the vast majority of funeral directors operate with professionalism and integrity. As he has noted, though, there have recently been a number of distressing incidents in which the conduct of a small number of funeral directors and those involved in dealing with the deceased have fallen far, far short of the standards that we, as a respectable society, can tolerate.
Before I turn to the recommendations of phase 2 of the independent inquiry into the issues raised by the David Fuller case, I want to remind the House of the background to that case. As colleagues may remember, the unspeakable crimes of David Fuller took place in a hospital while he was a maintenance supervisor, first at Kent and Sussex hospital and later at Tunbridge Wells hospital. He was arrested in December 2020 for the 1987 murders of two women, Wendy Knell and Caroline Pierce. When police searched his house, they found images and videos of him committing unspeakable offences on a large number of deceased women and girls in hospital mortuary settings between 2005 and 2020.
In 2021, the previous Government established an independent inquiry to investigate how a member of staff was able to carry out such evil and unlawful acts at mortuaries in those hospitals, going unnoticed. Crimes such as these are rare, but that will come as little consolation to the victims. We owe it to the victims and their families to learn the lessons from the Fuller inquiry and to do everything we can to prevent other families from going through similar heartbreak. I take this opportunity to thank Sir Jonathan Michael and his whole inquiry team for their work. This is the first time that the security and dignity of people after death has been considered within all settings and on a major scale in England.
Turning to the inquiry findings, phase 1 of the inquiry focused on the crimes that Fuller committed in those mortuaries in Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells. The report, published in 2023, identified failures of management, governance and regulation and a lack of curiosity, enabling Fuller’s crimes to be repeated time and again. As a result of incidents in the funeral sector, the inquiry was asked by the previous Administration, as the hon. Member for North Dorset has already alluded to, to expedite its examination of the funeral sector.
On 15 October 2024, the inquiry published an interim report recommending regulation of that sector. On 15 July, the inquiry published its phase 2 final report, which looked at the care of the deceased in both hospital and, importantly, non-hospital settings. The report made 75 detailed recommendations in total, with the majority focusing on access, dignity, security and wider processes and procedures to protect deceased individuals. A smaller number of recommendations focused on independent hospitals, medical education, hospices, ambulance services, care homes, the funeral sector and, of course, faith organisations, making specific recommendations to improve the care of the deceased. The inquiry’s overarching recommendation is that statutory regulation should be in place to protect the security and dignity of people after death, whichever setting or institution they are in. Sir Jonathan specifically recommended the introduction of an independent statutory regulatory regime for funeral directors.
There are currently specific issues in Hull, which are subject to court proceedings that have not completed, so I will not comment on them specifically, except to say that I am grateful for the support and work of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who is sitting next to me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). I pay tribute to the Hessle Road community and to Tristan and Claire, constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, for how they have campaigned. They have been dignified and campaigning so hard after the distressing incidents relating to their grandmother.
The Government have committed to providing an interim update before the end of this year, followed by a full response in summer 2026. I acknowledge the challenge of the hon. Member for North Dorset that multiple trade bodies are willing to step up and work with the Government to find a workable framework that meets the needs of the mid-21st century, not the mid-19th.
The recommendations from phase 1 of the inquiry relating to the trust where Fuller committed his horrendous crimes sit largely within the remit of my Department. The trust set out its progress in February 2024 and has implemented all the inquiry’s recommendations.
The phase 2 recommendations are more complex, and do not solely sit with the Department of Health and Social Care, as the levers of action sit across Government. The recommendations focus on service-level improvements and wider regulation, including of the funeral sector, as has been touched upon in today’s debate. Those need a co-ordinated and urgent approach across Departments to determine which recommendations should be prioritised by which Department. The hon. Gentleman has my assurance of a collaborative, cross-departmental approach to get this right soon for the deceased and their loved ones.
The hon. Gentleman has put forward many proposals and challenges, including changing the Human Tissue Act 2004, which can be cumbersome. He has also put forward suggestions on the use of local government services to regulate the funeral sector, and I will make sure that the relevant Minister writes to him regarding the feasibility of that. He has similarly put forward proposals to use the Financial Conduct Authority to stop rogue funeral directors operating and exploiting vulnerable groups. It will be my pleasure to ask my colleagues in the Treasury to write to him regarding the feasibility of such interventions.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important debate forward this evening and for the views expressed by Members across this House as the Government continue to consider our response to the Fuller inquiry, including the issue of regulation. This House has my assurance that we will continue to try to work at pace and cross-departmentally to bring dignity to the deceased.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Mutual Recognition Agreement) (Switzerland) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Mutual Recognition Agreement) (Switzerland) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.
The regulations will implement commitments made by the UK under the Berne financial services agreement of 2023, and will strengthen our economic relationship with Switzerland, one of the world’s leading financial centres. In short, they will provide greater certainty and flexibility for UK businesses, helping to ease cross-border trade in financial services and boosting growth. Importantly, they will maintain and enhance robust oversight and protection for UK consumers. I am pleased that the regulations have been welcomed across industry, including by TheCityUK, and I pay tribute to the previous Government for their work on the agreement during their time in office.
There are three key elements to the legislation, which establishes a new framework for market access, regulatory co-operation and safeguard powers for UK regulators. First, the regulations will remove duplicative and burdensome requirements for UK firms, making cross-border financial services trade with Switzerland easier, more stable and more predictable. The new framework will allow Swiss investment service firms to supply certain cross-border services directly to UK clients, including sophisticated and high net worth individuals, without the need for UK authorisation. In return, British businesses, especially insurers, will be able to provide certain services directly to Swiss clients without the need for Swiss authorisation. Importantly, insurance brokers will also be exempt from Swiss localisation rules.
Secondly, the legislation will protect consumers, market integrity and financial stability by ensuring that the new access arrangements are safe and well managed. New powers and duties will be granted to the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Bank of England. Thirdly, the regulations will establish enhanced co-operation arrangements between UK and Swiss regulators, which will be supported by a formal memorandum of understanding, signed on 22 September. This will support information sharing and effective dispute resolution and will facilitate the authorities’ relevant functions for the purposes of ensuring financial stability, market integrity and the protection of investors and consumers. The FCA and the Bank, as well as the PRA, will also work closely with their Swiss counterparts in FINMA to address any risks or issues that may emerge.
Should the Committee support the legislation today, as I hope it does, the agreement will enter into force in January 2026. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I will not keep the Committee for too long. I thank the Minister for her kind words about the work of the previous Government in this area. As she rightly said, the regulations originate from the Berne financial services agreement, signed back in 2023, so it is something we have worked on. As somebody who worked in financial services for 27 years before coming to Parliament—I worked for two Swiss banks, had clients in Switzerland and did this kind of cross-border business—I can attest that this is a fantastic opportunity for our financial services sector. Anything that formalises the arrangement and makes transactions less sticky and easier to do can only be a good thing, so we will certainly be supporting the proposal 100% this evening. I thank the Minister for her excellent speech and her kind words about the work of the previous Government—I think she forgot to add “Strong and stable for 14 years”, but still.
Question put and agreed to.
GP practice in Burton, Dorset
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
Holidays During School Term Time
(1 day, 10 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
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 700047 relating to holidays during school term time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am privileged to open today’s debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thank not only Natalie Elliott, the creator of the petition, but the 181,598 signatories who have made today’s debate possible. I also thank the Petitions Committee team for their work, including the comprehensive programme of engagement they organised in advance of today’s debate. I launched my own public consultation on this issue and have received thousands of responses, and I will try to reflect the views of those I have been lucky enough to have interacted with in preparing for the debate.
Let me start by laying out the key frustration of the people who signed the petition. Holidays are expensive, and as we all know their price jumps hugely during typical holiday seasons. Unfortunately, market forces mean that many families simply cannot afford a holiday during school breaks. One parent from Keighley told me that she was quoted £1,000 more per person for a February half-term holiday than for one the following week, meaning an identical family holiday would cost thousands of pounds more simply because it was taken during school holidays. This view was reflected by so many families who feel they are being priced out by what is clearly predatory pricing from holiday companies.
It is worth pausing to seriously consider the value of a holiday. Holidays are not just frivolity; big or small, near or far, they provide a crucial few days for family members to breathe, spend time with one other and fortify themselves against the next 12 months of work and school. That is even more valuable now that many families have two working parents. Holidays are also a vital part of expanding a child’s horizons. There is an important sentiment that we should go away from home not just to see how we might improve our wellbeing, but because, when we return, we will be able to cherish all the more those things we find good and familiar.
Holidays can provide educational and vocational experiences that are impossible to replicate in the classroom. Sarah, a parent from Haworth in my constituency, told me that holidays helped her children
“get out of their comfort zone, learn something new and experience new cultures”.
Another parent, a dairy farmer from Skipton, said school holidays are the busiest time of the year on their farm, and that term-time breaks are the only opportunity to take time away as a family, reinforcing the balance between work, rest and family life.
It is not unreasonable that families should aspire to an annual family holiday, with all the benefits I just outlined, but parents are rightly concerned that the current system, which allows fines to be used for even a single unauthorised absence and requires that they be considered if a child is absent for five days in any 10-week period, criminalises them for simply wanting time with their children—not to mention the economic cost of the fines themselves. Jack, a young man from Keighley, shared that his single mother was repeatedly threatened with fines and even legal action for absences that they could not afford to avoid. He described the stress that that caused their family as “crushing”.
The fundamental challenge is that those on both sides of this debate can claim to have the best interests of a child at heart. Attendance is, of course, important, but so are family time and the educational and recreational benefits of a good holiday. We should not be pursuing attendance for attendance’s sake, or pursuing it solely because high attendance might look good in an Ofsted inspection. We need only look at the devastating effects of school closures during covid to see the catastrophic consequences of persistent absenteeism: learning is damaged, safeguarding signs are missed and children miss out on key opportunities to socialise into society. But when we consider just a few days a year for a family holiday for otherwise present children, are we really talking about the same issue? As one teacher who responded to my survey put it:
“Just because a child is physically in the building does not mean they are learning—a child who is burnt out or anxious may gain far more from a few days’ respite with family.”
It is surely true that the parents paying these fines and objecting to feelings of having broken the law are the same parents who are generally law abiding and value their children being in school. The fines are not successfully tackling the national scandal of persistent absenteeism in the wake of covid, and yet they are wreaking havoc for otherwise well-meaning families. Indeed, 487,300 penalty notices for unauthorised absences were issued in the 2023-24 academic year, an increase of 22% on 398,800 in the previous year.
At local level, many local authorities have attempted to adjust processes to improve attendance, with little to no positive impact. In Bradford, the council has issued 11,565 fixed penalty notices this year alone. Views on the issue are certainly not settled. As a serving headteacher who responded to my survey put it:
“There are only 190 school days per year and a huge amount of learning coverage to get through in the National Curriculum. A child taking ‘just’ 10 days leave each year of their statutory education would miss a staggering 25 full weeks of their education—that’s well over half a year’s lost learning time.”
On one level, there is the challenge of how we tackle absenteeism effectively without punishing parents seeking to enrich the lives of their children, and on another there is the challenge of ensuring that that does not have an impact on a child’s education.
Another hugely important area is children with special educational needs and disabilities. As we know, the SEND system is in crisis, for a whole range of reasons. For many SEND families, a family holiday is one of the key opportunities to decompress from the stress, but the busy holiday period is too much for many SEND children to handle. Natalie was very keen to put that point to me when we had our initial discussions before this debate.
For some SEND families, off-peak holidays are not a matter of money or convenience; they are a wellbeing requirement for their child. Why should a child struggling with SEND be denied the same access to a holiday as a non-SEND classmate by the threat of fines being issued to their parent? Sophie, the mother of a 10-year-old recently diagnosed with learning difficulties, told me that her daughter
“thrives and comes out of her shell”
when abroad, saying that the trips are about building confidence and life skills. Another parent, who cares for a child with autism, said that the crowded peak periods are simply impossible for their family to manage and that off-peak breaks are often the only realistic option. It is absolutely true that SEND children have some of the biggest challenges with absenteeism from the classroom, but in the grand scheme of things, are the few days of a family holiday for a child who is generally in school the days that schools and local authorities should be going after, or should other matters be considered?
It is clear that the existing model is broken on a purely practical level. For a parent with multiple children in different schools, the situation becomes even more complex. In my outreach, I heard from a number of families about the nightmare of getting permission for one child to be absent, but not getting it for the other. The parents are then left asking themselves whether to call the whole holiday off or take the financial hit. How do they make sure that one child is not blamed by another for the cancellation of their family holiday? The likelihood of getting permission can vary wildly between schools and local authorities. Government guidance has been issued, but it is clearly being treated as just that.
I want to finish with what I hope might be a solution to help us sidestep the issue that we are considering. Parents should not have to feel that they are battling the state to get the best for their child; they should be able to rely on the state to help them. Academies already possess the power to alter their term dates, provided that they meet the minimum requirement for annual teaching time. I know of a number of schools that have successfully used those powers to provide odd weeks within their school year outside term time. That slight change in term dates creates opportunities for many parents and cleanly sidesteps the whole issue, creating off-peak holiday time that is accessible to families who would otherwise feel that they had to take a term-time holiday. I stress that it does not reduce the overall hours of learning that a child undertakes annually; it merely redistributes them throughout the year. What is more, providing a clear, comprehensive week of holiday outside peak times empowers heads to remain strict about term-time holidays that are taken regardless.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The steps that the hon. Member is outlining seem clear and pragmatic. Local children used to take time off school to go to the Great Yorkshire Show. He talked about expanding horizons and the educational and vocational understanding of things. Does he agree that another pragmatic step would be allowing time off school for people to enjoy things like the Great Yorkshire Show?
Robbie Moore
As a fellow Yorkshire MP, I absolutely agree with allowing time out of the classroom for children to go to really good education settings like those provided by agricultural societies and others. That can absolutely be a way of enriching a child’s experience and learning outcomes. If a school becomes an academy, the headteacher has the flexibility to make those decisions on behalf of their students. I would advocate for all schools’ heads to consider that as part of enriched learning. Critics will be quick to point out that the solution that I have proposed is available only to academies, but I suggest that that is a reason to expand academies and expand the powers of local authority schools, and not to ignore what I believe is a sensible solution to a tricky issue.
I will close with a response that I received from the chair of governors of a local school in Yorkshire, who summed up the fundamental tension well and is against the objective of the petition. It states:
“Schools are challenged enough on attendance and ensuring children get a good education. More disadvantaged children are proportionally more affected by both sides of this argument.
The bigger question should be, what is the government doing to fund schools to allow children to get the broader experiences they are getting on these proposed days off?
How are they supporting education in different cultures, languages and travel?”
I hope that in opening the debate, I have adequately highlighted the pressures on the current, fine-based system and the many exacerbating factors, particularly for families with SEND children. I am sure that colleagues will have their own local stories and cases to share, and I hope that I have set the scene, on both sides of the argument, for a lively debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Order. Will Members please keep their contributions to five minutes, so that everyone can get in? I the Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I start by recognising the strength of feeling on term-time absences from school, particularly among the almost 182,000 people who signed the petition. Family life is precious, and there are so many pressures bearing down on families that serve to make time spent together relaxing and enjoying one another’s company all the more important. Going away on holiday; major family celebrations; religious holidays not currently reflected in our school calendar; caring responsibilities; parental separation—a whole range of circumstances can seem like more important priorities than being in school every single day of the school year, but I will set out three reasons why I do not agree that 10 days of permitted absence a year is the right way to address these concerns.
First, and most importantly, all the evidence indicates that it is in children’s best interests to be in school with their peers as much as they possibly can. The link between attendance at school and attainment is strong: the Government’s data shows that key stage 2 pupils in year 6 who attended almost every day were 1.3 times more likely to achieve the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, compared with pupils who attended 90% to 95% of the time. Missing 10 days of school a year reduced the likelihood of achieving the expected standard by 25%.
For key stage 4 pupils in year 11, the situation is even starker. Missing 10 days of school reduces the chance of gaining a grade 5 in English or maths by 50%. That is because education builds from the foundations of a subject upwards. Missing days of education results in gaps in knowledge and understanding, which can affect a child’s ability to grasp future concepts properly, meaning that they never fully catch up.
Secondly, a major concern of many petitioners is the excessive cost of holidays outside term time. Holidays are really important, and families should be able to go away. It is absolutely wrong for travel companies to exploit the constraints of families with children of school age by hiking up their prices during the school holidays. The practice is simply unfair—but the solution to the unfair pricing policies of travel companies is not to allow parents to remove their children from school to be able to afford a holiday; it is for travel companies to do the right thing and even out their pricing over the year, so that parents of school-age children are not penalised for doing the right thing and keeping their children in school.
Thirdly, I am concerned about the impact of a change in policy to allow authorised absence for some parents on the attendance of the most vulnerable pupils. We have an attendance crisis in our schools at present; more than 22% of children severely or persistently absent from school. My Committee has been doing some work on school attendance, and we know that persistent and severe absence is a complex problem with a number of contributory factors, including poverty, an increased level of social, emotional and mental health need following the covid-19 pandemic, and the crisis in the SEND system.
School leaders tell us that the pandemic broke the social contract between schools and parents, and that it has often been difficult to repair it. Introducing an entitlement to authorised absence would send entirely the wrong message to families at a time when the whole system should be pulling together to restore trust and confidence and to support children who are struggling to be in school to thrive.
For the most vulnerable children, school is a protective factor. It is where they can get a hot meal—thanks to this Government, they are able to get both a healthy and nutritious breakfast and a hot lunch—can forge positive relationships with trusted adults and can access not only education, but a wider range of enriching extracurricular activities. If we say it is fine for the children of parents who can afford a holiday to skip school for 10 days, what message are we sending about the importance of being in school to the families who may never have the opportunity to go on holiday, but who often encounter significant obstacles in getting their children to school, for a wide range of reasons?
The current challenges of severe and persistent absence demand multiple solutions. Schools must continue to rebuild relationships of trust with parents. The Government’s reforms to SEND and to the curriculum and assessment framework must ensure that school is an exciting, inspiring and engaging place for all children and young people. The child poverty strategy must remove the barriers to school attendance for the poorest pupils.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member’s argument, but does she agree that slapping on fines will make the relationship between parents and schools more adversarial, creating more problems than it tries to solve?
Helen Hayes
I have not mentioned fines, but I agree that fining parents is a very flawed area of policy. I do not want to say it is always entirely the wrong thing to do, but fines are not a particularly effective mechanism for discouraging parents from removing their children from school for a holiday. The cost of a fine is almost always cheaper than the additional costs of a holiday outside term time. That is why I said that the solution to the imbalance in costs across term time is not to enable and authorise that absence, but to deal with the exploitative policies of travel companies. Fines, undoubtedly, are an imperfect mechanism.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will recall that we in the Education Committee held an evidence session in July about school attendance. One of the witnesses stated that fines are
“simultaneously too harsh and too soft”;
too harsh, because they damage the relationship between parents and schools, but too soft to move the dial substantially on school attendance. Although, as a former teacher, I agree with the main thrust of my hon. Friend’s argument, does she have any further reflection on the need to look at the fines system again, to replace it or to come up with something more effective?
Helen Hayes
Fundamentally, we are talking about relationships in this debate, particularly between schools and parents. The best way to build strong relationships is not through punitive measures. We need to properly resource schools, through the wider policy work of Government, to rebuild the relationships that were so damaged by the pandemic, and to make progress in this area.
Finally, I come back to where I started. Family time matters, and family holidays are important periods of fun and restoration. I call on the Government to do more—to work with the travel industry to stop the exploitation of families with school-age children through unfair price hikes, perhaps by introducing a new family-friendly charter mark for companies that even out their pricing throughout the year—and to continue to ease the cost of living pressures that far too many families face, so that every child can thrive both in school and at play.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.
Parents bring their children into this world; they clothe them, feed them, love them, raise them and, yes, educate them. Schools should support families, not to replace them. Yet right now in Britain parents are being fined and threatened simply for taking their children out of school for a handful of days to spend meaningful time together as a family. Is that such an awful crime? I think not.
This is a society that treats the state, not the parent, as the ultimate authority. The Government claim that missing five days of school a year will somehow destroy a child’s education. Really? If so, we have no confidence in our education system at all. Meanwhile, schools hold teacher training days in term time, or teachers strike and shut classrooms; yet somehow it is parents who are punished when learning is interrupted.
I say they should take the teacher training days in the school holidays—there are certainly plenty of those to choose from. The state must realise that parents are not the enemy. A short term-time family holiday is not an act of neglect; often, it is the only opportunity many families ever get for such an experience, because the travel industry hikes prices to astronomical levels outside term time.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)
Would the hon. Member agree that, while price controls are a nice idea in theory, they are a terrible idea in practice? Supply and demand ultimately dictate the price of something so, while it is a nice suggestion, it would not work in real life. Does he agree?
Rupert Lowe
I agree with the hon. Member.
Why should working families be priced out of memories—particularly parents such as those in my Great Yarmouth constituency, who rely so heavily on the tourism trade during the school holidays for their careers or business activity? Parents know what is best for their children far better than a distant bureaucrat sitting in Westminster armed with a spreadsheet. Those are the same bureaucrats who thought it best to lock children away from school for months on end for what equated to a bad cold for the vast majority of them during lockdown. I think I will listen to the parents.
I suggest three basic reforms. Every family should have the right to a small number of authorised term-time absence days each year, at the family’s discretion; there should be no fines for responsible parents; headteachers must be empowered to use their own judgment. Let us end the nonsense that Government officials somehow know our children better than we do.
Childhood is short. Parents should not need permission from the state to raise their own children. It is time to return authority to parents and to shrink the reach of this bloated and inefficient state into our family lives. Let us put families back at the top of the agenda, where they used to be.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate on holidays in school term time. This issue resonates deeply with families across the country, including in my own constituency of Hartlepool, where 530 residents signed the petition we are debating today.
Let us start with the reality that every parent recognises. They search for a family holiday in June and it costs a certain amount; they search for one in August and the cost has exploded. For many families those price hikes make a break together completely unaffordable. I have taken to calling it the Center Parcs tax. This morning I searched the Center Parcs website for a short break next May. Four nights from 11 May is £599; from 18 May it is £599; but from 25 May it is £1,349—a £750 mark-up for the exact same trip, simply because it falls in half-term. It is cheaper to take the fine.
Of course, it is not just one company; the practice is rife across the entire holiday sector. Families are being priced out of spending time together, and the state’s response is to fine them for trying. It is immoral. I say to the Minister, “Ban those practices by holiday companies and end the culture of fines.” Parents should not have to choose between doing the right thing by their children’s education and giving them a well-earned family break. Families already struggling with the cost of living should not be punished for trying to give their children the same experiences as everyone else.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Could the hon. Member explain how he would stop that practice by the holiday companies?
Mr Brash
There are a number of mechanisms. The Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), offered one solution. I am a believer in price controls in this area and that the state can intervene in the market here; it is basic fairness.
Of course attendance matters. As a former teacher, I have seen at first hand the link between attendance and attainment. Students with 100% attendance are nearly three times more likely to achieve five good GCSEs, including English and maths, compared with those whose attendance drops to 65% to 70%. But let us be honest with parents: the current system is not working. Expecting families to pay fines to prove a point about attendance does nothing to tackle the real problem.
Research shows that fining parents does not improve attendance. There is no statistically significant link between more fines and better attendance rates. Indeed, the UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report found the same internationally: fines do not work, but they do harm low-income families. Instead, punitive measures often make things worse, creating tension and mistrust between families and schools. We know many children with poor attendance have special educational needs, as has already been mentioned, or anxiety or mental health issues. Punishing their parents does not solve those challenges; it just adds financial and emotional pressure. The Centre for Mental Health has even warned that fines can exacerbate the very issues that keep children away from school.
I am proud that in Hartlepool we are trying to look at things differently. Alongside nine other local areas, we are part of a pilot programme run with the Department for Education and a social enterprise called Etio. I met Etio last week, and what it is doing is simple but powerful. When it comes to attendance, the focus is on support. Its teams sit down with families to understand what is really going on, whether it is anxiety, caring responsibilities, transport programmes or financial hardship, and offer practical help to get children back into the classroom. The results are encouraging. When families feel supported rather than criminalised, attendance improves and relationships between schools and parents are strengthened. It is just common sense. If we fix the root cause, we fix the problem.
That is the approach we should champion nationally, replacing the blunt instrument of fines with early help, understanding and partnership, because the issue goes far deeper than holiday costs. It is about fairness, common sense and respect for families. Parents should not be treated as offenders for trying to spend time with their children and for giving them a holiday.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for opening this important debate. The strength of feeling behind this petition is clear, with over 1,000 signatures in my constituency alone. It was raised by my constituent, Natalie Elliott, a formidable campaigner and a vital supporter to families facing fines, often in stressful and traumatic circumstances. The petition proposes that families should be permitted to take their children out of school for up to 10 days without facing fines. While I will not pre-empt the Minister’s response, recent indications suggest that the Government are unlikely to support this proposal, given their stance that absence is one of the biggest barriers to success. However, despite differing views on the status quo, it is clear to me that both the petitioner and the Government share a common purpose: the wellbeing of our children.
I am a firm believer that a good education is one of the most powerful tools for social mobility. Coming from a working-class background, access to quality state education gave me opportunities that ultimately led me to serve in this House. However, under the current system, families face significant challenges. The national framework for penalty notices is applied inconsistently across England. Research by Confused.com found that Essex issued over 35,000 fines between 2022 and 2024, while Cornwall issued just 535. Even within local authority areas, there is a postcode lottery. Educators have told me that pressure to improve attendance can lead to overly rigid policies. Some schools mandate only four sick days per year, refuse to authorise any Friday absences and demand medical evidence for minor illnesses. That not only contradicts statutory guidance but adds pressure to an already overstretched NHS.
There is sometimes a lack of empathy for family circumstances. My constituent Chris faced court action because the local authority could not find a special school place for his child. Thankfully, the judge agreed that fining a parent because the local authority was not meeting their child’s needs was inappropriate, and promptly kicked the case out. I have also heard of fines issued during bereavement. There is no appeals process—just pay the fine or risk criminal conviction. Will the Minister consider an appeals mechanism?
SEND families are particularly affected, and the system in Derbyshire is under immense strain. Children with autism or ADHD often cannot cope with busy holiday periods, yet their families are fined for going away when it is quieter. Those children have a right to family life and legal protections, but too often they are overlooked. If this Government are serious about reducing absenteeism, I urge them to include school attendance in the upcoming SEND White Paper.
I acknowledge the Government’s efforts to ease the cost of family life, from expanding free school meals and nursery care, to breakfast clubs and cheaper uniforms. Those are important steps. But when families with the means to send their children to private schools are exempt from penalties, and those who can afford peak-season travel face no deterrent, yet others must choose between incurring a fine or forgoing a family holiday altogether, we are not dealing with a minor inconvenience but confronting a structural inequality. The injustice does not stop at the school gates. Holiday companies continue to exploit demand through dynamic pricing, pushing costs beyond reach for ordinary families. What action will the Government take to tackle this profiteering and ensure that family holidays are not a luxury for the few, but within the reach of all?
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)
It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this debate, and for a remark that he made during his opening speech, which I think we can all thoroughly agree with: everyone in this debate, regardless of view, completely supports having children’s welfare at the centre of this. I certainly champion that.
We are not debating the importance of education, because we all thoroughly agree on that. Regardless of our side of the debate, we also agree that some of the statistics relating to children’s attainment depending on their attendance records are quite striking. There is clearly a correlation there. But correlation is not necessarily causation. We have heard today that people can be there in body but not in mind. There is definitely a difference between trustworthy, decent parents choosing to take their children out of school at an appropriate time for appropriate reasons, and truancy.
We are debating whether fines are appropriate for holidays. I do not think they are at all appropriate, but I agree with tackling the causes of truancy and supporting families so that children receive an education. I hope everyone believes me when I say I am a firm believer in education. However, it is not appropriate for the Government to fine families who are decent, thorough and good—as we should assume they are in the vast majority of cases—for choosing to take their children out when there are no opportunities for debate with the school, to make exceptions or to let reason speak for itself. It is thoroughly wrong, and we are doing a lot of decent families a disservice.
I am not for letting children and families just do whatever, because I appreciate that, on the other side of this debate, are the teachers who have to manage the additional challenge that that would bring. However, we are humans and this is a human world; ultimately, we should support, not penalise, decent and reasonable people making decent and reasonable decisions for themselves. On that basis, I support the cancelling of fines for parents taking their children out of school.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
Like many constituencies across the country, Sherwood Forest sees stark evidence that educational inequalities are deeply entrenched. As someone who worked on the frontline in education, I know beyond any doubt that attendance is vital for achievement. The reality of how our education system works is that every missed school day means a gap in learning. For children already facing disadvantage, that gap can become a chasm.
When a child’s family struggles, their education is the best route out of poverty and for the future—I have seen that personally. We must do everything to support their time in the classroom. However, we also stand on the shoulders of the generations who fought for the fundamental right to a break. That is not a new concept; it is woven into our social history. Let us think of the pioneering work of Cadbury, which a century ago revolutionised the idea of the workplace, recognising that employees were entitled to leisure time and a full, well-rounded life. Alternatively, there is the proud tradition of “Nottingham by the sea”. For decades, factories and pits across Nottinghamshire would shut down simultaneously for wakes week. Families would flock to Skegness—a collective, essential journey for rest and recuperation. That was not a luxury; it was a societal commitment to the wellbeing of hard-working working-class people and their families.
The rights to a break, to a breath of fresh air and to simply spend time together as a family have long been recognised as an essential component of a healthy, productive society, so how did it become acceptable that companies raise their prices as they have?
Whether for a nostalgic caravan holiday in Skegness or Great Yarmouth, which many of us enjoyed as kids, or a much-needed trip to Spain, why are travel and holiday companies permitted to quadruple their prices the moment the school bell rings? That is not simple economics, but exploitation. It is an outrage and a stain on our society. Hard-working parents who keep our local economy moving are deliberately priced out of a basic, restorative family holiday.
Shockat Adam
In the absence of being able to change the minds of our tour operators, does the hon. Member agree that we may need to look at the whole timetable of our syllabuses and school terms? They date back to Victorian times 150 or 160 years ago. Perhaps we should have a five-term academic year and more frequent two-week breaks.
Michelle Welsh
I absolutely agree, especially as someone who has a five-year old and was trying to balance this during the recess.
Who pays the highest price for this? The children of the families who are already struggling. Those children often live in cramped housing, rely on school for hot meals and desperately need the stimulation, new experiences and simple joy of a family holiday. They are denied the chance to build memories and see the world beyond their postcode, which is vital. I have taken some of the most vulnerable children in the east midlands away on adventure holidays—they have an enormous impact on their education and wellbeing. We cannot stand by while a family’s well-deserved rest is treated as a penalty to be charged. A break for a family is not a privilege to be rationed; it is a right that must be protected.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on leading this debate and making many a point that I am about to make and agree with.
I thank those who created and signed the petition, including 357 of my constituents. I have heard from many families who are deeply concerned about the current approach to school attendance and the impact of fines for term-time holidays. Those concerns are especially pressing for those facing challenging circumstances, including financial pressures and limited flexibility in their work schedules, along with those who have children with special educational needs and disabilities, for whom routine, flexibility and emotional wellbeing are often more complex and nuanced.
At the heart of this issue is a tension between two important priorities: ensuring that children benefit from consistent education, and recognising the value of quality time spent together as a family. There is no doubt that regular school attendance is vital. Department for Education research published in March showed a strong correlation between attendance and attainment, with just 10 days’ absence in year 6 reducing the likelihood of achieving the expected standard by 25%, as has been mentioned. Persistent absenteeism can lead to gaps in learning, reduced engagement and difficulties reintegrating into the classroom, all of which can have long-term consequences and act as a significant barrier to opportunity.
We must also acknowledge that family time matters. Shared experiences strengthen family bonds, support emotional wellbeing and create lasting memories, which are vital for a child’s overall development. Those moments are not just desirable; they are necessary. We also need to consider the needs of individual children, particularly those with SEND, including neurodivergent pupils. Any parent of a neurodivergent child—including myself—will say that busier environments, unfamiliar routines and crowded travel periods can be overwhelming and distressing. For some, taking a holiday during quieter times may be the only way a family can ensure their child feels safe, regulated and able to enjoy the experience. In those cases, flexibility around term-time absence is not just helpful; it is a matter of inclusion and wellbeing.
Being unable to choose when to take time off is another broader but related challenge that many families face. For some constituents who have contacted me—notably, an airline pilot—holiday periods are allocated or restricted by employers, limiting parents’ ability to align their leave with school breaks. That lack of flexibility makes it difficult for families to spend meaningful time together, even when school holidays are available.
As we have heard a lot, the most common concern I hear—one that every person here with a child of school age will have experienced—is the inflated cost of holidays during school breaks. Those price hikes make holidays unaffordable for many, meaning that children miss out on valuable experiences, simply because their parents cannot afford to travel during peak times. For parents on lower incomes who decide to take their children on holiday during school term time, the financial challenges they face are often compounded by the imposition of a fine, which many families struggle to afford. That unfairness is exacerbated by a perception of inconsistency. Families tell me that requests for authorised absence are handled differently from one school to another—in particular, between schools in the state sector and independent schools. That lack of uniformity creates confusion and frustration, and can feel unfair to parents trying to do the right thing.
There is no straightforward answer to any of these challenges, but I have long been an advocate of switching to the five-term school year. That model would offer more evenly distributed holidays throughout the year, reducing pressure on the summer break and giving families greater flexibility. It could also help ease the financial burden by spreading demand more evenly across the calendar, potentially lowering travel costs. For teachers, the benefits of a five-term year are equally compelling. Teaching is a demanding profession, and the current long stretches between holidays can lead to fatigue and burnout. More frequent, shorter breaks would allow teachers to recharge regularly, improving wellbeing and job satisfaction. It would also support better curriculum planning, reduce the pressure of end-of-term assessments and create a more sustainable rhythm for teaching and learning.
It is important to recognise that each family has its own unique circumstances, and there is not a one-size-fits-all rule for when spending time together is appropriate. While I agree that school attendance must remain a priority, we must recognise the realities that families face. A more compassionate, flexible and consistent approach that values both education and family life is not only possible but necessary. By rethinking the structure of the school year and advocating for greater flexibility in the workplace, I believe we can create a system that works better for everyone.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on introducing the petition, and I thank the petitioners themselves. I am also grateful to the 865 people in Stevenage who signed this petition, showing how strongly families feel about the issue.
I will shortly turn to some of the reasons why the petition really matters, but before I do, I must be clear that every day in school counts—and parents agree. In addition to the evidence that we have heard from the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), 78% of parents say that every school day matters, according to the charity Parentkind. The evidence backs them up: missing even a few days can have a big impact. Year 6 pupils with near perfect attendance are 30% more likely to meet expected standards. Secondary pupils with near perfect attendance are almost twice as likely to achieve a grade 5 in English and Maths. Persistently absent pupils could earn £10,000 less by the age of 28.
Normalising the taking of time off in term time would send the wrong message. It would undermine teachers’ hard work and risks widening the attainment gap. Every missed day is not just a lost lesson, but a lost opportunity. I am sure that many of the parents who signed this petition would wholeheartedly agree with that, but, as the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley explained at the outset, it is simply the only way they can afford quality family time together.
Just last week, a constituent told me that the only way they can afford a holiday is to take their children out of school one or two days before the end of term, knowing they would not risk a fine but can still take advantage of cheaper prices. If parents have to play the system like that, we know that the system itself is broken. The real problem, which many Members have touched on, is that families are not breaking rules because they do not care; they are simply being priced out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) started with Center Parcs, so let me turn to Center Parcs. Four days at Center Parcs Woburn Forest, near me, in term time is £429. In February half-term, that goes up to £1,449—an increase of 238%. At Center Parcs in Longleat, four days in term time is £579, but in half-term it is £1,599—an increase of 176%.
A British Airways flight from Heathrow to Geneva costs £184 in term time, but in half-term that goes up to £3,072, which is a 1,570% increase—and it is outbound only. In May half-term, a TUI Tenerife package for seven days in term time costs £1,204, and in half-term it costs £2,384—an increase of 98%. A Jet2 flight to Bodrum in term time is £500, but in half-term it is £1,065, which is an increase of 113%. Then there are the summer holidays, which are much longer, but people still get hit. A Ryanair flight from Newcastle to Faro in term time is £140, but in the summer holidays, it is £340—an increase of 143%. With packages in Spain on Go.Compare, seven days in term time is £290 per person, but that goes up to £384 in the school holidays, meaning that a family would pay £760 more.
What can the Government do to stop the travel industry from exploiting families with outrageous price hikes during school holidays? Fines are simply not working. According to Parentkind, 61% of parents say that the risk of a fine makes no difference to them. Families feel trapped between unaffordable prices and rigid rules. Even when they want to play by the rules, they are still penalised. A single mum in Stevenage told me that she had been fined even though it had been her ex-husband who took their child out of school.
Let us not pit education against family time; let us ensure that both are respected and that no parent is forced to choose between their child’s education and quality family time together.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.
In Mansfield, 850 people signed this petition because they believe that families deserve some fairness, freedom and a bit of common sense. I believe they also know that a rounded education is about a bit more than attendance and penalty notices. It is also about giving our children experiences, memories and time with their families—the sort of time that helps them to grow, to feel loved and to see the world beyond the classroom.
Let us be honest, for working families in towns such as mine, the idea of a week away in August has become a luxury that very few can afford. When prices triple the moment that schools break up, parents are faced with an impossible choice: break the rules or break the bank. These parents are decent, hard-working people, such as nurses, shop workers, delivery drivers and care assistants. They do everything right. They work all year and pay their taxes, and then they are told that they cannot take their kids away for a few days because it is term time. Working people deserve a break and families deserve a choice, and the state should not be micro-managing family life to this extent.
Last week, I put out a social media post asking people for their comments on this issue ahead of our debate. I have had literally thousands of comments, replies and emails from constituents. The response has been completely overwhelming, and here are just a few of the comments. Katie says:
“There’s a cost of living crisis making it difficult to go on holiday during term time as it is more expensive, we are trying our hardest to ensure our children live a happy and fulfilling life and make sure they have many happy memories.”
Lauren says:
“For many of us, especially those of us who are working in the NHS and other key sectors, aligning leave with school holidays is often impossible. Families are left with that heartbreaking choice—miss out on precious time together or face financial penalties.”
Lisa, whose name I have changed, is a foster parent with disabled children who has also been fined. She said:
“Due to the age and disability of our children, we were very limited by when suitable accommodation was available. Our children’s attendance was otherwise excellent - their only absences were for hospital appointments, over which we have absolutely no control, and there are no concerns with their academic attainment.”
Holly, a constituent of mine who is awaiting a fine, wrote to me:
“School and education is a priority for my family, but to make parents feel like criminals is not acceptable. Let’s remember children get one childhood, and life is not always simple, with family illness, death and other issues that occur, not just holidays.”
That is what life looks like for real families in my constituency and across the UK. They are not asking for weeks and weeks off; they are asking for just a few days every year to make family memories without fear of being fined for it.
Of course children need the best possible education—every one of us wants that—but education is not just about exams and attainment. It is also about experience, balance and wellbeing. Right now, I believe that we have got the balance wrong. Let us trust parents a little more. Let us treat them like adults. Let us show a bit of compassion and common sense, because families in Mansfield and right across our country have made it clear to me—and to all of us, I believe—that they want the freedom to decide what is best for their own children.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing this debate and setting out the issues, and I thank the more than 181,000 members of the public who signed the petition, 243 of whom are from my constituency.
We know that being in school is the best way for children to reach their potential. Absence from school, especially when persistent—I will come back to that later in my speech—can impact children both academically and socially. Yet for some children, our system is designed in such a way that school itself can impact on their wellbeing. The petition that has brought us here today focuses specifically on absence due to holidays. It is clear that all Members here agree that downtime with family is important: a chance to rest, to spend time together without all the usual pressures, and just to be. I hope some lucky Members have fond memories of holiday trips to my constituency of South Devon.
Research from the Department for Education that was published earlier this year highlighted that a pupil who attends 95% to 100% of the time is twice as likely to achieve English and Maths grade 5 than a pupil who attends 90% to 95% of the time, and 23 times more likely to do so than a pupil who attends less than half the time. Missing even 10% of school time can influence the grades a child is likely to achieve at GCSE. The default position should be that children attend school every day unless exceptional circumstances prevent it, and we must use all available means to encourage that.
Deterrence through fines plays a role in that, but we are concerned about the current culture of reaching immediately for the fine lever. It has lost its impact, as many parents now factor fines into the cost of any term-time holiday they take, entrenching the divide between those who can afford it and those who cannot. Instead of using blanket fines, we would seek to reduce the pressure on local authorities and schools to issue fines for absence, and we would instead encourage a collaborative approach between schools and parents that builds trust and puts the child’s wider interests at the centre. That is key during times such as family illness or bereavement, as other Members have said.
Holidays allow children to learn beyond the classroom and discover new passions, abilities and interests through new experiences and simply being in a different environment. For many families, organising a holiday when schools are closed is not a problem. However, for others, a holiday outside term time is simply not affordable. They cannot pay the enormously hiked holiday prices during high-demand periods. One of my constituents wrote to me that he had to pay £3,000 more to take his grandchildren away during the school holidays than during term time. These extortionate price hikes mean that families cannot afford to go away outside term time, and that unfairly robs children—mainly the children who would benefit most—of new and enriching experiences.
Parents, carers and grandparents should not have to choose between shelling out thousands of pounds on the additional costs of a holiday outside term time and paying a fine. Instead, airlines and travel operators should stop taking advantage of families. Nearly doubling, or more, the price of the same holiday package from one day to the next is exploitative and completely out of line with any surge in demand, as the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) so perfectly illustrated. However, the question of when people can afford to go on holiday is indicative of the wider issue that school absence is closely tied to a family’s financial situation. In the 2024-25 school year, the absence rate for those who were eligible for free school meals was 10.3%. Those who were not eligible were absent nearly half as much, at 5.2%.
The Liberal Democrats are pleased that the Government have recognised that and are taking steps to resolve it. The roll-out of free breakfast clubs to every state primary school in England and the adoption of the much-loved Liberal Democrat policy of extending free school meal eligibility to children in England whose families claim universal credit will help to address persistent absence. The Government’s provision of those meals and the new breakfast clubs indicate that they acknowledge the correlation between a family’s finances and a child’s attendance. However, I ask the Minister what the Government have done to investigate and relieve holiday-related financial burdens for the children and families that need it most.
Aside from the financial concerns, we should acknowledge that term dates are decided in part by schools, which could therefore be encouraged to organise those dates so that the largest number of families in their communities can benefit from school holidays. For example, some schools might want to shorten the Christmas holiday so that they can offer other holidays for other religious festivals. That would mean that members of other communities would not face fines if they wanted to celebrate together as a family. Being flexible with inset and training days can also enable parents to spend time with children outside school at cheaper times of the year. In areas such as mine, more flexibility would enable families that run tourism and hospitality businesses to have a holiday, which they cannot take in peak seasons.
I turn to the more worrying situation with persistent absences. Since the pandemic, absence from school has become a national crisis, which does significant damage to children’s development and impacts their life chances. The general absence rate in the last academic year was still 2% higher than the rates recorded during the six years before the pandemic, and persistent absence—defined as missing 10% of lessons or more in a year—remained well above the pre-pandemic rate of 10.5%, at a worrying 17.6% in the last academic year.
In many cases, holidays and recreation are not the main reason for parents taking their children out of school; rather, children are forced out of the system by factors outside their control. We see persistent absence from pupils with SEND, young carers and those with mental health conditions. The situation with children with SEND is well illustrated in my constituency: across Devon, the rates of school absence for those with SEND support and those with education, health and care plans have nearly doubled, from 6% and 7.5% respectively in 2016-17 to 11.2% and 13.75% in the last academic year. Nationally, more than 72,000 children with SEND missed half their lessons in the last academic school year—an increase of nearly 9,000, compared with the previous year. That is a direct consequence of inadequate SEND provision and EHCP funding. After years of neglect under the Conservative Government, the system is failing to deliver the outcome that SEND children deserve, pushing them out of school.
We must address the underlying causes of absence constructively, not punitively. No parent should be fined if their child is unable to attend school because of inadequate SEND provision, and no child should be punished for being late because they have the responsibility of caring for a loved one at home. The Liberal Democrats have long called for measures that will help to encourage all those children back into the classroom, including having a qualified mental health professional in every primary and secondary school, and giving local authorities extra funding to reduce the amount that schools have to pay towards the cost of EHCPs.
The central point is that we must first understand why a child is not attending school, whether it is the unaffordability of holidays outside term time, SEND, young caring responsibilities, religious holidays, bereavement or other factors. That understanding must be the starting point before any further action is taken. The solution to this petition and to school absence more generally is not to compel children to attend school with the threat of punishment, but to ensure that they are genuinely able to attend. We should not force them to learn, but enable them, whether by tackling the exploitative pricing structures of travel companies and airlines or removing structural barriers to regular attendance for SEND children, disadvantaged students and carers. We must think in a much bigger way about how to tackle these issues. Fining parents should be a last resort, and should be only one of a suite of options for local authorities and schools to work with parents and encourage the best attendance possible for all our children.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, and to take part in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his opening remarks on this important topic. He spoke eloquently on behalf of the 181,000 signatories of this petition, including the 208 in Meriden and Solihull East. He rightly pointed out that holidays are valuable: they provide not just rest and relaxation but the opportunity to experience new cultures and expand one’s horizons. A number of Members made similar remarks, so holidays are clearly important.
Although I do not advocate price controls—I believe in the value of the market—I thought that the remarks of the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) about the family friendly charter were interesting. I hope that companies such as Jet2 and Center Parcs are listening to this debate and thinking about how they can be more family friendly.
School is vital for every child. It equips young people with the knowledge they need to go into the world of work, whatever it may be, and contribute to society. It also plays a pivotal role in teaching young people to socialise, form relationships, take personal responsibility for their actions and behave appropriately. Put simply, school is not just about getting good grades; it is there to prepare us for life. Every single school day missed is a lesson not learned, whether that is an academic lesson or a lesson about life itself.
Across the House, we want our constituents to be able to send their children to the very best schools. I firmly believe that part of that is about ensuring that headteachers create an environment where all children are keen to get into a classroom to learn. We can, however, be in no doubt that our education system is facing a major challenge in school attendance. Although it is welcome news that the overall absence rate has fallen slightly for the most recent academic year for which there is data, absence rates remain uncomfortably high compared with pre-pandemic levels. All of us in the House have an obligation to help reverse that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley rightly pointed out, we have only to look at the catastrophic effects of school closures during the covid-19 pandemic to see the consequences of persistent absenteeism.
The current picture of absenteeism in schools is certainly challenging. In England, the overall absence rate fell to an estimated 6.9% in 2024-25, down from 7.1% in 2023-24, although still above the pre-covid rate of 4.7%. Data for persistent absence also shows a downward trend, but remains high at 18.7% in 2024-25, compared with 21.2% in 2022-23. Any child who is persistently absent from school is one child too many, losing out on vital hours in the classroom that they cannot get back. It is in that context that we must address the petition, which seeks to allow parents to take their children out of school. Even more worrying than just those headline statistics is the fact that an increasing number of people now seem to believe that it does not matter if a child is absent from school. That is not all parents, but certainly some. The impression that time spent in the classroom does not equip students for their future stands in clear contrast to the wealth of evidence that shows that children who are absent from school experience worse outcomes later in life.
As the Department for Education’s research on the link between attendance and attainment has shown, pupils who missed only 10 days of school in year 6, which the petition wants to allow, were 25% less likely to meet the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, compared with those who attended school nearly every day. At GCSE level, that trend is even more dramatic, with pupils who missed only 10 days of school in year 11 being 50% less likely to achieve a grade 5 in Maths and English than those who attended school nearly every day.
Those trends show just how damaging even marginally lower rates of school attendance can be for pupils. It should serve as a stark warning to those who would dismiss being absent from school for a few days as no major problem. It is not just grades that suffer as a result, either; children who start to fall behind in school find it difficult to make up for that lost time and catch up with what other pupils have already learned, only worsening a problem that starts with just a few days of being out of school. With that in mind, can the Minister provide an update on what the Government are doing to reverse the trend of school absences?
Attending school irregularly can lead to lower earnings later in life, a higher chance of unemployment and, in the most extreme circumstances, persistent offending in adulthood. That is why it must always be a problem when children are not in school when they need to be, no matter how innocent a few days off may seem. It is important that we make clear that persistent absence is not acceptable. We cannot create a world where absence is deemed as the norm, because that will likely lead to young people seeing it as acceptable in the workplace. Not only will it harm a young person’s job prospects; it will lead to lower productivity, which harms our economy. Does the Minister therefore have any data that highlights the link between persistent absence and the nearly 1 million young people who are not in employment or education?
Wanting to work from home with the children or go on holiday may appear to be far less serious reasons for absence from school than social issues, but any day missed has the same effect on children: to deny them the education that leads to success later in life. There will, of course, always be instances where allowances need to be made for children to be absent from school, particularly when bereavement is involved. I have had to deal with that as a constituency Member of Parliament, but headteachers already have discretion to grant leave in exceptional circumstances such as those. Both schools and the Government must always be clear that some issues cannot be deemed as an acceptable circumstance, and the headteacher should have the discretion to decide that. Although some fines for unauthorised absences may seem harsh, it is even harsher to deny families the truth about the effects of taking children out of school and setting their children up for failure later in life. Does the Minister have any evidence on whether fines work to improve absence rates?
Getting a grip on the problem of school attendance and returning rates to pre-pandemic levels require a concerted effort across the Government, schools and wider society, and I am proud of the work that the previous Government did to help achieve that important ambition. The previous Government recognised that improving attendance is essential for a variety of reasons, and that, for this to happen, we must ensure that school is somewhere every child wants to be, so they can feel safe and ready to learn in an orderly, calm and supportive environment.
The previous Government instigated a major national drive to improve school attendance through attendance hubs. Thanks to the Conservatives, there were 18 new attendance hubs across six regions, bringing the total to 32 and helping nearly 2,000 schools to tackle persistent absence. That included investment of up to £15 million over three years—providing direct, intensive support to more than 10,000 persistent and severely absent pupils and their families. There were 380,000 fewer pupils who were persistently absent or not attending school in ’22-23 than there were in ’21-22.
We were committed to working closely with schools and local authorities to drive up attendance rates, and we had a six-point plan to deal with some of the problems. That included requiring schools to have an attendance policy, appointing attendance champions and expecting local authorities to hold termly meetings with schools to agree individual plans for at-risk children. In addition, we attempted to tighten legislation, through the Schools Bill, to put pressure on local authorities to improve school attendance, requiring all schools to have attendance policies and extending the Secretary of State’s powers to intervene. What consideration has the Minister given to reviving some of those policies to help bring down absence? Labour said that persistent absence is the first barrier it will seek to break, so can the Minister update us on the progress on that and how it is being measured?
The previous Government also made schools share attendance data to help to combat low attendance, including a national framework for parental fines. Statutory guidance from the Department for Education ensured that improving education was everybody’s business, breaking down barriers to accessing education. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which has been heavily criticised by Opposition Members, contains a duty on local authorities to maintain registers of children who are not in school, as well as a duty on parents to provide certain information on those registered. Will the Minister update the House on the Bill’s progress and on when we can expect to see the consultation on the register?
We cannot allow a culture of school absence to become acceptable, and Members across the Chamber, as well as people outside Parliament, have spoken about a number of ideas for dealing with the problem of persistent absence from school. Wider debate on this issue is obviously necessary. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his thoughtful and nuanced introduction to the debate. It was brilliant to hear that he consulted a whole range of parents, headteachers and others. He set us up for what has been a very thoughtful discussion, with views from Members on all sides of the debate.
We have heard how passionately people feel about the importance of holidays to families. Many families, for a variety of reasons, wish to avoid busier and more expensive periods. I thank Natalie Elliott for her work on raising these issues and for ensuring that they could be debated here. A number of young people have joined us in the Public Gallery—during their half-term—and I commend them for being part of the discussion.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the blame should sit not with hard-working parents who just want affordable family time, or with school leaders who want pupils not to miss out on education, but with the predatory travel companies we have heard about, which jack up their prices when term time is finished?
Georgia Gould
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point and all hon. Members who have done copious research on the various travel companies and prices at different times. I hope that those companies watch the debate and hear the strength of feeling. The Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), made a suggestion that I welcome and will explore further, because it is important that they hear about the impact on many families.
We have heard about not only the importance of family life, but how critical school attendance is for children and young people. Sadly, we still face an absence epidemic in this country. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), has been collegiate today, so I will point out only gently that had the Conservative Government listened to their education recovery commissioner and invested what was needed to support children post covid, we might not be in such a perilous position, with one in five children persistently absent, missing the equivalent of a day each fortnight.
We are committed to tackling the problem. As we have heard from many, absence is one of the biggest barriers to opportunity, damaging learning, health and wellbeing, future earnings and employment. Each day of lost learning can do serious harm. That is why we will not allow pupils to miss 10 days of school without good reason. However, that does not mean that we are not committed to working alongside families. This Government introduced the national framework for penalty notices, which defines a “support first” approach, working alongside families.
The shadow Minister asked what the Government have done to reduce absence. Thanks to hard work and partnership, there has been progress: more than 5 million more days were spent in school last year than the year before. That is the biggest improvement in a decade, but we remain a long way off pre-pandemic levels of attendance.
If children are not in school, it does not matter how effective or well supported teaching and learning are; they will not benefit. We are working hard to ensure that school is the best place to be for every child. We heard about some of the interventions on the cost of living crisis, free breakfast clubs, the extension of free school meals and the 30 hours of free childcare, which have made a meaningful difference for families. We are also supporting better mental health through access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, and inclusion for children with special educational needs and disabilities within mainstream settings right across age ranges.
We want to continue to work with families of children with special educational needs. We heard about how those families face some of the biggest issues with persistent absence and about how important that partnership is. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) and her constituent, whose petition led to this debate, to talk about that in more detail, given the importance of hearing from families as we think about support for young people with SEND.
I have to admit to being somewhat surprised to hear the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) championing the views of parents. I had wondered whether he agreed with the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) that SEND provision is
“being hijacked by…parents who are abusing the system, taking it for a ride.”
I wholeheartedly disagree with that and want to work with parents.
Linsey Farnsworth
On that point, is the Minister also concerned about local authorities such as Derbyshire county council, whose leader is parroting the sentiments of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) about “overdiagnosis” of SEND? All the families in my constituency that face SEND issues are at their wits’ end trying to get the support that they need, against the backdrop of a council that, on the face of it, does not believe in their plight.
Georgia Gould
I am very concerned by that. I welcome the fact that so many more young people are being diagnosed and getting their needs met. In previous generations, they might never have received that support. I am very concerned about that language.
I also want to echo the points that have been made across the Chamber about the strength of the evidence on attendance. Recent research shows that just an extra 10 days out of school halves a pupil’s chance of getting a grade 5 in English and maths, compared with a similar child with strong attendance. We have also seen research showing that children who are persistently absent during their GCSEs earn £10,000 a year less by the age of 28. Based on the most recent census data, a child who misses 10 days of school each year for a two-week holiday, and also has the average number of days off for sickness and medical appointments, will have missed the equivalent of a full year of school by the time they finish year 11 at age 16. That is worth repeating: a child who takes a fortnight’s term-time holiday each year, and also has the average number of days off due to illness, will miss a full school year over the course of their education. We should be very concerned about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley also made a point about consistency of application. The national framework is designed to improve consistency. I hope that new data in January will tell us about our progress in removing the postcode lottery. In the year prior to the introduction of the framework, 26 out of 153 local authorities accounted for half of all penalty notices issued. Our work is intended to reduce that inconsistency.
There were a range of questions about flexibility in term time. Schools and local authorities have flexibility to plan term dates and to hold inset days and other occasional days at less busy times of the year, which can help families plan breaks at times that suit them. I know, for example, of councils that have trialled a two-week half-term in October or slightly shifted their summer holidays. Those flexibilities exist at the moment.
We also heard of concerns about the ability of young people with special educational needs to travel at busy periods. I am aware of steps taken by the travel industry to improve their experience, with airports and airlines increasing their autism awareness and producing procedures for affected families. That is an important area to explore further.
I thank all Members for their contributions, and I hope we can continue this conversation. I acknowledge the strength of feeling expressed during the debate. The Government are determined to support children to attend school. As we heard, lack of attendance is one of the biggest barriers to supporting children to achieve and thrive, and it particularly impacts those from disadvantaged backgrounds. We will continue to work with parents, teachers, schools and local authorities to raise attendance levels and support opportunity.
Robbie Moore
On behalf of Natalie Elliott, the lead petitioner, I thank all the Members who spoke in the debate and the 181,000 people who signed the petition that led to it. It is clear that we all agree that good quality education is vital, but so too is family time. Good quality family time can be enriching, holistic and deeply important to a child’s wellbeing and learning experiences.
It is clear that many decent, hard-working families are being penalised by the state through a system that has been widely recognised, including in many contributions to the debate, as ineffective. It simply relies on penalties imposed on incredibly hard-working parents. The system is not fit for purpose. I therefore advocate for the Government to look at how it can be adapted and to recognise, as contributors to the debate have, that SEND children are particularly impacted by the current system.
Let me say finally that academies have flexibility in setting their term dates. I advocate for the Government to consider how academies can be empowered to use the powers they already have, and how local authority schools can use those flexibilities too.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 700047 relating to holidays during school term time.
Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay
(1 day, 10 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
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 715292 relating to statutory maternity and paternity pay.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and a privilege to open this very busy debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Calling for statutory maternity and paternity pay to match the national living wage, the petition before us has attracted a great deal of public support from families who want Parliament to look again at how we help parents in the first months of their child’s life. I thank the creator of the petition, Grace Carter, and the thousands who signed it for prompting this important discussion.
The petition highlights a simple contrast that many parents experience. The national living wage is meant to ensure a basic standard of living for workers but, during maternity or paternity leave, state support falls well below that level. At present, statutory maternity pay after the first six weeks equates to just £4.99 an hour, compared with the national living wage of £12.21—55% lower than the income that the law defines as the minimum required to live on. It is hard to justify there being a minimum income for work but not for caring for newborns, and families really feel that gap in their pocket.
In response to the petition, the Government have stated that statutory payments are designed to provide “a measure of…security” rather than a full wage.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
A shocking 37% of children and young people in Greater Manchester live in poverty, yet maternity pay remains far below basic living standards, as my hon. Friend just said. Does he agree that raising statutory maternity pay to a liveable wage would help to tackle the crisis of child poverty in the UK and give children a better start in life?
Jacob Collier
I agree, and those are some of the themes that I will come on to. We know, from parents such as Grace and from the stories that we will hear throughout today’s debate, that the current system leaves huge gaps and does not support families or children in the way it should.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
My constituents Stacy, Caitlin, Julia and Alison maintain that the current rates of maternity and paternity pay are woefully inadequate. One advised me that they delayed having children until they were financially secure, and it is unlikely that they will consider having a second child. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that, while introducing parental leave as a day one right is a welcome first step, the review of parental leave should include a significant rise in the rates of statutory pay to at least the level of the national living wage, and six weeks for dads on 100% pay? Current pay is far below basic living standards, and families in my constituency cannot afford leave.
Jacob Collier
My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituents. Many of the issues that he notes will come out in the debate today. He is right to say that the Government have begun the first ever full review of parental leave and pay, which is a serious and welcome step.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for leading this debate. Many of my constituents, including Helen, Lauren, Laura and Kayleigh, have written to me, and Helen asked me to raise this point in particular. When she went on maternity leave, she needed support from her partner. One in four women has a caesarean birth, and the physical recovery can often take six weeks, yet their partner must return to work after only two weeks’ paternity pay. That is why we need the wide-ranging review. It is heartbreaking for mothers and fathers, who are left in a difficult position, with mothers sometimes unable even to lift and carry their young child.
Jacob Collier
I know that that is the experience of many parents, and I am sure that the Government will look at it as part of the review that they are undertaking.
Under the current arrangements, a mother or primary adopter can receive maternity pay for up to 39 weeks. For the first six weeks, that pay is 90% of average weekly earnings. For the following 33 weeks, it falls to a flat statutory rate, or 90% of earnings—whichever is lower. Statutory paternity pay lasts for two weeks at the same flat rate.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The current support for multiple birth families is inadequate. Samantha from Wincanton is a mother of twins, and after giving birth she received the same statutory maternity pay as a parent of one child, despite having to pay double for the cost of essential childcare equipment and so on. Does the hon. Member agree that there should be financial equality for parents of twins and that the Government’s forthcoming parental leave review must address that disparity?
Jacob Collier
The hon. Lady has highlighted an area that needs to be addressed.
One of the starkest, most glaring inequalities in the system is that dads who are self-employed or freelance are not eligible for anything. That is something that the Government should look at.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
Another glaring missing piece is that, as well as supporting mothers and fathers, it is important that we support those who suffer the tragic loss of a baby. Will my hon. Friend therefore join me in welcoming our Government’s commitment to introduce a right for workers, including those who experience pregnancy loss before 24 weeks, to take time away from work to grieve?
Jacob Collier
Yes, absolutely. My hon. Friend is a real champion of his constituents, and I too welcome the Government’s commitment.
Shared parental leave was designed to bring flexibility, but in practice very few families can afford to take it at the current levels. The House of Commons Library notes that only 5% of eligible fathers take it up, with most saying that they cannot afford it. The United Kingdom offers one of the longest periods of maternity leave in the developed world, yet one of the lowest payment rates. The outcome is predictable: mothers often return to work earlier than they would like, fathers and partners take little to no time off and the unequal division of care that begins at birth shapes the patterns of earnings and progression for the years afterwards.
Recent research by the University of Bath and its partners, Working Families and the Fatherhood Institute, tested the impact of a more generous and flexible leave offer for fathers and modelled what would happen if paternity leave were extended from two to six weeks, to be taken flexibly within the first year and paid at a meaningful rate. The findings were striking. Better pay produced much higher take-up by fathers, improved wellbeing for both parents, maintained a closer connection of women to the workforce and lowered staff turnover for employers. When only jobs and earnings were considered, the policy still brought a net gain to the economy; when wellbeing and family outcomes were added, those benefits rose sharply. In every scenario, families and employers were better off when parental leave was properly paid.
Those are not just numbers. They mean families spending real time together, children getting a better start and businesses keeping valued staff. The evidence is clear: when leave is paid at a level parents can afford, everyone benefits.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I have been contacted by a number of constituents concerned about the requirement to have worked continuously with the same employer to qualify for statutory maternity pay. Women who change jobs shortly before pregnancy are excluded from statutory maternity pay. They miss out on the six weeks at 90% of average weekly earnings and instead receive a lower maternity allowance. That creates a financial strain, forcing people to return to work early and harming the wellbeing of mothers and children. Does my hon. Friend agree that that issue must be addressed and that we need to provide fair support for all working mothers?
Jacob Collier
I agree. The day one rights that the Government will introduce will be helpful in the context that my hon. Friend sets out. Ministers have rightly said that they want to remove the barriers that discourage people from having the children that they would like to, and parental leave and pay are at the centre of that effort. If families feel that taking leave means that they cannot get by, they will delay decisions. We know that the support needs to be in place so that they can make those choices freely. Changing the system is therefore about supporting families and maternal health and sustaining a strong economy that is built on fairness and security.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
This is a valuable and important debate. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as well as having new policies, we have to know that they are being implemented properly and fairly, and that therefore it will be necessary to require large employers to publish their policies and data in the same way that they have for gender pay? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Jacob Collier
The hon. Member can hear from the Chamber that there is support for that position. I am sure the Minister has heard that.
Trade unions have welcomed the Government’s review—I declare an interest here, as a proud Unison and GMB member. The GMB says that it is pleased that the Government are listening, and calls for 12 months’ maternity pay, stronger protection against discrimination and fairer rights for fathers and partners, including six weeks’ paternity leave on equal pay. The union’s model parental leave agreement also advocates paid emergency bereavement leave and carer’s leave, recognising that decent parental pay and leave boosts retention and wellbeing. The Trades Union Congress, representing over 5 million workers, warns that the current system entrenches inequality by excluding many women, the self-employed and those in insecure work.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
My hon. Friend knows that under the current system far fewer dads take parental leave, which worsens the gender pay gap. In the five years after becoming mothers, many workers lose up to £65,000-worth of earnings. It is clear that better paid, longer and more usable partner leave is beneficial for all families. Does he agree that in their review, the Government should look at examples such as Spain, with its 16 weeks at 100% pay, to see what progress Britain could make?
Jacob Collier
I do agree. I think the Government will look at those international comparisons and where Britain is in the league tables.
The TUC seeks day one rights, individual entitlements to paid leave and higher pay rates so that all families can benefit, including single kinship, adoptive and surrogate parents and those in atypical roles.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that the Government’s ongoing review into parental leave is a cracking opportunity for them to fill a gap that currently exists for those who are self-employed and seeking to grow their family by adoption? Currently they are not entitled to maternity allowance or maternity or paternity pay. Does he agree that that would be a very good thing to come out of the parental leave review?
Jacob Collier
Yes; the hon. Lady highlights a stark inequality that the Government need to address.
Behind every statistic is a story. The recent campaign by Pregnant Then Screwed gathered testimony from families across the UK who face the brutal consequences of the current, inadequate system. Laura from the west midlands had to return to work just 11 weeks after giving birth because she could not afford the mortgage repayments on her low maternity pay. She said that she had been
“overwhelmed with guilt over the limited bonding time”
that she had had in those early months due to returning to work, and it had greatly impacted her mental health.
Izzy from Chester, recovering from an emergency caesarean section, was left alone in pain, unable to feed herself and her baby. Her wound later ruptured and became infected. She believes that that would not have happened if her husband had been at home longer. Neya from London told us about the aftermath of her traumatic birth and its impact. She slept on the floor for weeks and was unable to function. She said that she could barely think about how she would have coped if her husband had not been around. Another parent, who wanted to remain anonymous, shared a reflection that captures the long-term cost of the current system:
“I’m struggling to see how we can possibly have a second child because of all of this. I’m very happy, grateful and content with one but it feels like the choice is starting to be taken out of our hands.”
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that kinship carers, people who adopt children and foster carers should be included in any review? We can give those people—the heroes of our communities—as much time off as we want, but they need some financial stability during that period, and the £4.99 that he mentioned before quite simply is not enough.
Jacob Collier
I agree, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a long-time campaigner on these issues. I know that that is something that the Government have heard him say and will continue to hear him say.
We know there are huge costs involved. A nursery place for an older child at this time can cost up to £1,200 a month for three days a week, while the average mortgage is between £800 and £1,000 a month. Add in household bills, food bills and transport costs, and it becomes painfully clear how impossible it is to survive on the statutory maternity pay of £4.99 an hour.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has articulately laid out the reasons to reform the current system. Does he agree that the best way to do that would be for the Government to deliver the new deal for working people in full, including reforming parental leave? Families deserve fair pay and a real choice to care for their children, without financial strain.
Jacob Collier
I do agree, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in this area. Every change must be responsible with public money and it must be manageable for employers. The evidence suggests that that can be achieved. Changes can be phased in over time, so that payroll systems and budgets can adjust.
However, it is crucial that the cost of this reform is not simply passed on to employers, who are already facing rising costs. As the petitioner has argued, this change should be about Government investment, recognising the economic and social value of supporting families, just as we do with other forms of social security.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for boosting maternity and paternity pay. Does he agree that if we are to give meaningful choice to families about whether they would like to spend more time at home in the early months of a child’s life—shown to have real developmental benefits for children—or go back into the workplace, we must address the fact that, as he has set out so clearly, maternity pay, paternity pay and shared parental leave pay is less than half the minimum wage? It is not excessive, as the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), has previously stated.
Jacob Collier
I agree. It is quite stark that lots of parties are represented here today, but apart from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), there is not one Member of the official Opposition here.
Ultimately, this issue is about the country that we choose to be. The first months of a child’s life are not a private indulgence; they are a public good. When parents are able to be present, children flourish, mothers recover, fathers bond and families become the firm foundation of a stronger, healthier society. When that support is absent, we all pay the price—not immediately, but inevitably. This issue is not merely a question of fairness; it is a matter of foresight and basic national good.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I am not quite sure how to contribute to this debate: I am married to a doctor who is an obstetrician and gynaecologist; I am a triplet; and I have an 18-month-old daughter, who was born just three weeks before the general election was called last year. I am never sure which way to pivot. I want to make the macro argument, which is that our birth rate as a country is between 1.41 and 1.56, depending on what is being looked at. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a pure and very simple economic argument to making sure that our country is growing its population from the grass roots? If we fail to do that, the cost in the long run will be considerable.
Jacob Collier
Absolutely. I know that my hon. Friend has a lot of experience in his own family to bring to this debate, and I wonder if his daughter is watching it. A parental leave system that works for every family, for employers and freelancers, and for single parents and kinship carers alike is not a cost to be endured but an investment in our shared future. It is in that spirit that I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. It is a very popular debate, for good reasons. I will impose an informal time limit of two minutes per speaker. I intend to call the Front Benchers at 6.58 pm, so you can make the calculations yourselves. As we get further into the debate, we will see how much time there is left at the end, to be fair to colleagues. Please keep any interventions as short as possible.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse, and I congratulate the Petitions Committee and all the petitioners on bringing this issue forward for debate.
I will home in on the specific issue of self-employed adopters. There is real inequality built into the system, where self-employed adopters are not able to access the pay or even the allowances that parents can. When someone takes a new child into their home through adoption, there are significant challenges, and it is important that they can build stability, attachment and security for that child. But without the resources to do that, many adopters have made the positive choice not to adopt a second child, and others in the process are not able to embark further on the journey. That is denying children access to a family, when we have so many children—over 80,000—in care at the moment. It is absolutely vital that we change the system to ensure that we give those parents, at least, equivalent and sufficient adoption pay.
Therefore, I ask that the Government engage with and listen to the work done on this issue by organisations such as Adoption UK and Home for Good. They have identified that although there are voluntary arrangements at the moment, they are simply not working, and we need statutory arrangements for adopters. Only 10% of adopters had their social workers tell them about the voluntary arrangements to access resources from a local authority, which are given on a discretionary basis. In fact, we found that 34% of local authorities did not even have a policy for how they would give that pay to adoptive parents. It is not for local authorities; we need statutory provision in place, and I trust that the Minister will take on that cause.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. When a child is born the world changes, not just for the parents but for the child, whose entire development begins right there in those first precious moments. The period from conception to age two—what we call the first 1,001 days—is the most critical window for brain development and emotional security. That profound scientific truth forms the ultimate moral argument for generous, equitable maternity and paternity pay. This is not a conversation about employment benefits; it is a conversation about human development and our country’s future.
The foundation for a child’s future health, wellbeing and capacity to learn is laid down in those first 1,001 days, and the very first days and weeks are perhaps the most vital. Why? Because that is the time when the baby’s brain makes billions of connections, shaped by their environment. The primary input they need is secure attachment, which comes from a loving, available and responsive parent. Let me be clear: as many in this room will know, those first few days, weeks and months are hard. I am fed up with mothers being treated as second-class citizens.
For the mother, maternity pay is crucial for physical and mental recovery from childbirth, to allow for uninterrupted bonding and to establish feeding routines, which are the cornerstones of that secure attachment. It ensures that exhaustion and financial anxiety do not hijack this delicate foundational relationship. For the father or non-birthing parent, that early time is just as essential. Their presence facilitates critical family adjustment, supports the birthing parent’s recovery and enables their own essential bonding—a key factor in reducing post-natal depression for both parents.
When parental pay is too low, parents are forced back to work too early. They are forced to prioritise their pay over their child’s neurological and emotional development. Historically, our policies have had a clear gender bias. Maternity pay, perhaps somewhat improving, still often sees the mother bear the financial penalty of taking long leave. Paternity pay, however, is also often a token gesture—a week or two at statutory minimum—sending a damaging message that the role of the father or birthing partner is secondary. The moral failure has consequences; it perpetuates gender inequality, penalises the mother’s career, entrenches her as the default primary carer and contributes directly to the gender pay gap. It limits the father’s role—it effectively blocks fathers who wish to be highly involved from the start, hindering their bond with the child.
The moral solution is equal, well-paid, non-transferable parental leave for both parents. We must elevate the financial value of the mother’s or father’s presence from a mere detriment to an essential contribution, thereby normalising co-parenting and supporting the mother. Parental pay is not a cost to the economy; it is a strategic investment in our human capital. When we support parents during that first 1,001 days, we are investing in our public health. Secure attachment leads to improved mental health outcomes for both parents and children, reducing the long-term strain on healthcare and social services. A stronger workforce in which parents feel supported would mean that they return to work more focused, loyal and productive. Generous parental leave is a key tool for talent attraction and retention.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I commend the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for his eloquent and emotionally intelligent speech. Just over a year ago, the campaign group The Dad Shift came the Parliament. I was grilled by teachers and students from Europa School in my Oxfordshire constituency about my support for better paternity leave and pay. They told me that, at two weeks off at less than half the minimum wage, the UK is among the worst in Europe for provision. That is unacceptable, so it is welcome that the Government’s parental leave and pay review’s objectives include ensuring
“sufficient resources and time away from work to support new and expectant parents’ wellbeing”
and supporting
“parents to make balanced childcare choices that work for their family”.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I have heard from many parents in the South Cotswolds whose recent experiences do not fit neatly into the Government’s model of pregnancy. Whether it is having twins, post-natal depression or managing debt, every family’s situation is different. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s current system lacks the flexibility to accommodate these different circumstances, and that that needs to be addressed in the review?
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend makes the very liberal point that we should always remember that everyone’s individual and family circumstances are different; it is important that the British state recognises that individuality, rather than expecting everyone to fit on a convenient spreadsheet.
To make some of the needed improvements, both the rate at which paternity pay is paid and the length of leave must be addressed. Currently, fathers and non-birthing parents are not supported to take time off from work because they cannot afford to do so. A large number of constituents have written to me on this topic. I am sure that many more, who have not had the time to consider writing to me, are also deeply affected by this, as shown by the large number of signatories to the petition that has triggered this debate.
Let me repeat some of the points made to me by my constituents. The low rate of statutory pay for both parents has huge financial implications for new parents, especially those in single-income households. Living on so little during one of the most vulnerable periods of their lives is a significant issue.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The Government’s stated first objective in this review is to support the physical and mental health of women after they have given birth to a child. One cannot overestimate the amount of mental stress caused by living in poverty or without enough resources for one’s family. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Liberal Democrat policy to double statutory shared parental pay to £350 a week is the right move?
Olly Glover
That is one of many excellent Liberal Democrat measures that we have proposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) will tell us more about that, and I do not want to steal too much more of her thunder.
Polling for The Dad Shift and Movember has found that the financial pressure is wrecking the health of new parents and their families, with more than half of new dads reporting mental and physical health consequences. Some 61% become less present with their families, and 57% are put off having more children. Although we in the Liberal Democrats may not be able to go quite as far as is asked for in this e-petition, we nevertheless support a number of significant changes. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park will say a lot more.
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
I remind Members to please stick to the informal time limit. If they do not, I will have to make it a formal time limit.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank Grace and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier).
I want to make a speech on behalf of every parent who is right now checking their bank balance, sitting in the back of a dingy soft-play centre, weeping silently. They are looking at us and wondering—screaming—“When will Parliament get it?” They will understand the irony that we are having this debate during half term. It sounds impossible when said out loud, but we in this country appear to think that when someone has a baby, they should live on less than the national minimum wage.
Of course this petition has merit—it speaks to the problems that begin at birth and lock in inequality throughout people’s lives. If someone is on universal credit, working and pregnant, we will claw back some money just to make their life even more complicated. Meanwhile, those who are entrepreneurs or self-employed have no help at all. Little wonder that Maternity Action shows that motherhood is often associated with debt—and it does not stop there. Let us be clear: this is not about taking time off, but about taking on another job with a very expensive clientele. It is estimated that it costs £406 a week to look after a newborn baby, and what if parents have another one? Do the maths, and realise why this place has to up its game.
This is not about counterproductive measures; it is about families. People attack breakfast clubs, but breakfast clubs are not about the state looking after people’s kids; they help parents who would otherwise find it impossible to hold down a job where they are expected to be in a meeting at 9 o’clock.
Affordable childcare is not yet affordable. A constituent who is just about to have a second child wrote to me to say that even with the 30 hours and the tax-free allowance his family still has to find £3,000 a month. It does not stack up, and that is before we get to the cost of the half-term clubs. Parents are trying to find an extra 200 quid this week, while still dealing with the credit card bill from the summer holidays.
Above all, the way we do maternity leave locks in inequality for mums, who get written off by the motherhood penalty and get lumbered with the childcare, and locks out dads from the role of second parent. We do not have time to talk about issues affecting single parents, children with special educational needs and disabled parents.
The review is great, but we have the evidence. We do not need to wait to do something now to help all those people screaming in the soft play centre. We could bring in statutory pay changes or an equal six-week right at 90%. We had a chance to do that in the Lords in the Employment Rights Bill, and we lost it by seven votes. There are interim measures that we could take. I hope the Minister will hear this cry of pain, because this week of all weeks, parents are begging for pay day, worried that they are letting down their kid. Above all, they are asking us in politics to help them.
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
Jim Shannon will still have two minutes, and then I will impose a formal time limit of 90 seconds.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
You are very kind, Mrs Hobhouse; thank you very much. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on setting the scene. This issue affects every single constituency in the United Kingdom.
When babies are born, it is a time of beauty. Learning to navigate a wee family is so precious, but the reality is that when parents cocoon their baby, the bills need to be paid, and they find themselves outlaying more money than ever. They have to buy nappies, new clothes, the pram, the crib, the car seat; it sets them back a substantial amount. Although it may seem that mum and dad being on 90% for the first weeks is okay, the fact is that they are under pressure. The mortgage, the rent obligation, the car insurance and the car payments all still need to be paid on time.
Little wonder that the 2025 Maternity Action survey revealed that 90% of respondents worried about money during their maternity leave. The financial strain has a significant negative impact on women’s mental wellbeing. A 2025 Unison survey found that 57% of respondents felt pressure to return to work earlier than they would have liked.
Some mums are told that the most important time of their lives are the early years with their baby, and yet there can be no doubt that mums are under financial strain right from the outset. That does worry me. Mum guilt is a real thing; it is not just something that people talk about, a thing in a paper or a motto. They worry about letting their child down.
In Northern Ireland, the DUP has recognised the need for childcare and has introduced a very successful scheme. I am sure the Minister is aware of it. It gives some help at a time when it is needed.
Twelve weeks of severely reduced pay will not enable the mum to get the baby into their own wee routine, and ensure her physical and emotional health is back at the level needed to return to work. I urge the Government and the Minister to work on this issue, and recognise that there cannot be stable homes if parents with newborns are wondering whether to turn the heat on or whether to just have vegetable soup for the fourth meal in a row. That should not be the case. Let us change that and give families the time they need to bond.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
There is a certain irony in the fact that last year I was given a minute in this Chamber to speak about the inadequacy of paternity leave, and this year I have been given 90 seconds.
Two years ago today, I was beginning my journey as a first-time parent. That means that it is about two years since I last had a good night’s sleep. If the Minister would like to give my little boy a birthday present today, on his second birthday, he could extend parental leave, and paternity leave in particular, so that if my son chooses to have children in the future, he can have some time with his child.
It is simply not right that fathers receive only two weeks’ statutory leave. That denies fathers a chance to bond with their children and perpetuates the outdated stereotype that women are expected to be the primary caregiver. Importantly, the way that women give birth in this country has changed: about 40% of all births in England are now carried out by caesarean section, which has a recovery time of up to six weeks. Why is a father expected to return to work, leaving his partner with a newborn baby when she is still recovering from major surgery and is unable to drive or even lift her child safely? We should be encouraging fathers to spend time at home with their partner.
I was proud to sit on the Employment Rights Bill Committee earlier this year, and to play a role in extending paternity leave rights to more dads in my constituency. But we must go further. As a country, we are getting older; we need more people to have children. Will the Minister confirm that the review of parental leave and pay will, at the very least, consider increasing statutory paternity leave to six weeks, commit to reforming shared parental leave so that it is more attractive to parents, and deliver on our manifesto pledge to give every child in Gloucester the best start in life?
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. The UK’s statutory paternity leave offer is one of the least generous and lowest in Europe, at £187 per week. In fact, the TUC reports that half of families struggle financially when a parent takes paternity leave—as does research from Pregnant Then Screwed. Research showed that 70% of fathers did not take their leave due to the cost. Statutory maternity pay is also provided at the same rate after the first six weeks, an amount significantly less than the national living wage of around £488 per week. If someone is self-employed and a man, they get nothing.
My constituent Tamara Morris is currently preparing to go off on maternity leave. The amount that Tamara expects to receive will not even cover her half of the household bills. She is really worried about how her family are going to cope. The UK Government could have rectified that during the Employment Rights Bill. I pay respect to my Plaid Cymru colleague, Baroness Smith of Llanfaes, for her efforts in the other place, pushing to increase the rate of statutory parental pay.
If child poverty is really a priority for this Government, then they must consider the impact of poor parental pay on the first few months of a child’s life. I call on the UK Government to address the issues we have set out today, and finally put them right.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for his introduction to this debate. I know from my own mailbag the importance of statutory maternity and paternity pay across Bexleyheath and Crayford. My constituents have pointed out to me that the evidence shows that the current situation with both leave and pay for new parents is bad for everyone—mums, dads, kids and society as a whole.
I will briefly say again what I said last year: I accept that we have moved forward since my twins were born 12 years ago, but my experience of my children being born nine weeks early, my wife having a C-section, one of my children being diagnosed with cerebral palsy at 12 days old, and me working through the whole six weeks of them being in special care because I was not entitled to a day of paternity pay, continues to live with me. We have seen neonatal care benefit and some benefit in paternity pay. But we must continue to battle for better rights for parents.
One in three dads do not take their paternity leave because they cannot afford to. The system is complicated and we do not always give people the support that they need. We must modernise to deliver for today’s families. A survey undertaken by Maternity Action has shown that of 1,000 new mothers, the majority have had to resort to credit cards or loans to finance their maternity leave. Over half have said that they have had to return to work early, as it is impossible to support themselves and their new baby. It is therefore vital that we ensure that new mothers have access to the support they need. They should all be supported to focus on their own wellbeing and their baby’s health, both during pregnancy and after birth.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the petitioners for bringing this important issue before Parliament. Having a baby should never be what pushes a family into financial hardship. But for too many new parents, statutory maternity and paternity pay simply do not meet the basic cost of living.
In my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon, many parents work in sectors such as hospitality, tourism and the creative industries, where income can be seasonal or irregular. I often hear from constituents who simply cannot afford to take the time they need to recover after childbirth or to bond with their baby. That is not only unfair, but shortsighted both socially and economically. Every parent should have genuine flexibility and choice in those first crucial months.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I will not be the only parent in this House who regrets every day that they are not going to spend with their children. One of my constituents is a PhD student studying paternity, and she has found that men’s mental health is particularly vulnerable at the point of childbirth and the point of return to work. The two factors that can reduce that are time and control. Will my hon. Friend join in my call to the Government that men should have a statutory right to co-ordinate their return to the workplace with their employers?
Manuela Perteghella
I was a PhD student when I had my first child, so I understand the challenges that students face.
All forms of parental leave and pay, including for adoptive, foster and self-employed parents, should be available from day one. Statutory maternity and shared parental pay should be doubled and paternity leave increased. When parents and carers are supported to take time off, children benefit from early care and attention. It helps parents to return to work, reduces pressure on household finances and supports a more equal sharing of responsibilities at home. The Government’s review of parental leave is an opportunity to act, and I hope that it looks seriously at the low statutory rates and creates a system that reflects the realities of modern family life. Families deserve the time, flexibility and security to give their children the best possible start in life.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Working families form the backbone of this country. They go to work, increase our prosperity and raise the next generation at the same time. It is a hard job. It always will be, and it should be, but it should not be this hard. Statutory maternity pay in the UK is one of the lowest in Europe—less than half the minimum wage after six weeks. Maternity Action has reported that half of new mums cut their leave short, with 97% saying that money was a reason for their choice: no choice at all.
Dads are not exactly doing better. They get two weeks at the same maximum of £187 a week. One dad in Leeds South West and Morley, a median worker, told me that he would lose £103 a day on statutory paternity pay. If a median worker is forced to make that choice, can we even call it paternity leave, especially since it does not encourage dads to take time with their children and support their partners? When my first child, Oscar, was born, he timed it perfectly. I was a teacher at the time and he arrived two weeks before half term, so I got three weeks with him, but even that was not enough. As we all know, babies do not stick to schedules and they certainly do not wait for Government reviews.
The Government’s review of parental leave is welcome, but 18 months is a very long time. The Government can already consider Maternity Action’s report, which asks for maternity and paternity pay to be increased in line with the living wage. They could also speak to The Dad Shift, which proposed increasing the length of paternity leave. They could speak with our trade union friends too, but whoever they speak to, it is clear to me and to everyone here that families need proper paternity and maternity pay, and they need it now.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I congratulate all new parents, and especially my cousin Jake and Shannen on the arrival of baby Kai Burley last week. It is a reminder of the joy that new life brings and the responsibility we have to support families at that crucial time. This is not just about numbers; it is about real families. One Portsmouth father told me that he went back to work in bits and feeling useless three days after his son was born. His partner had undergone an emergency caesarean and could barely move, but he could not afford to lose another week’s pay. Another father, whose daughter arrived prematurely, returned to his delivery driving job after just one week. He said:
“Every mile I drove, I felt I should be home.”
Those are not isolated stories. They reflect what parents across the country are facing. When fathers cannot afford to take leave, the burden falls entirely on mothers. I have spoken to new mums recovering from major surgery alone while caring for newborns, and often other kids. The toll on their mental and physical health is profound.
This is also a workplace safety issue. I heard of tradespeople who supported my tool theft campaign returning to work on almost no sleep, operating heavy machinery, driving long distances and putting themselves at risk. One plainly told me:
“I was a danger to myself. But I couldn’t afford to stop.”
The petitioners are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for fairness. They are asking for statutory maternity and paternity pay to at least match the national living wage, for six weeks of ringfenced paternity leave, and for self-employed parents to be included. The status quo is failing. This is about fairness, family and the kind of country that we want to be.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for introducing this debate. Being a parent is the hardest job in the world, and I believe that the state has a duty to make it easier. With just 90 seconds, I want to focus on just one case study.
Blanche is a fantastic mum who lives in Edinburgh South West. She is self-employed, and she found herself in an even more precarious position when she had a child. As she works for herself, she was entitled to only a statutory allowance: a flat £187 per week with no six-week cushion, unlike the statutory maternity pay situation. As a result, she had to work right up until the morning she went into labour at 41 weeks, and she returned to work almost instantly after using up her “keeping in touch” days. To quote her directly, and I warn Members that this is a bit graphic,
“it was a shock to the system, her body was sore, her breasts were leaking, she was still bleeding”.
She had to do work in that condition. She highlights that alongside the physical and logistical difficulties, she felt stigmatised by medical staff and other parents who judged her for leaving her child to return to work so early, without understanding that her financial situation forced her to do so.
I spoke to Blanche at the weekend. She does plan to have another child—she is a fantastic mum, and I am sure that we all wish her well—but she hopes that by then, Minister, things will have changed. I know that we cannot do this overnight, but I hope that the Minister can signal the start of a transition.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
I met Natalie from Raunds earlier this year, when she was seven months pregnant with her first child. She wants nothing more than to take time to care for her baby. When people are off work raising the next generation, the wages stop, but the rent and energy bills do not, and other costs go up.
This is not just about Natalie. It is about warehouse workers, firefighters, nurses and shop staff—working people who pay in their whole lives but feel abandoned when they need support the most. We want a system that respects work, family and parenthood, and that means maternity and paternity pay being raised to at least the national living wage—proper, fully paid leave, as the Fire Brigades Union is fighting for in its Fight for 52 campaign.
Parental leave is a day one right, not a privilege. I welcome the Government’s review of the parental leave system, and I welcome the fact that all current and upcoming parental leave and pay entitlements will be in scope. No parent should be pushed into debt for having a baby. No mum should feel guilty for taking time to heal. No dad should be told that two weeks is enough.
Natalie had the courage to speak up, but the petition proves that she is not alone. We are not asking for luxury. We are asking for fairness, dignity and the basic right to raise a child without being pushed into poverty.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
Lots of people in the room will have heard me speak before about the fact that statutory paternity pay is so low that men commonly do not take it, and that shared parental leave is failing in that men do not take it up at all, particularly outside London. The result is that female work and participation in the workforce are massively hindered.
What I really want to talk about is the fact that £187 a week simply does not provide enough for people to live on, and that 70% of children in poverty in the UK have at least one working parent; that group has the highest levels of poverty. We urgently need to look at what people actually need to live on when they have children, versus what we would like women to put up with. Women having been putting up with it for far too long.
The reality is that 30% of domestic abuse starts during pregnancy, and statutory maternity pay ensures that an extremely vulnerable group of women do not have enough money to live on should they choose to leave their partners. This is not about making sure that we can all have posh prams; it is fundamentally about women being able to make decisions about their safety and the safety of their children. I do not think that gets nearly enough airtime in this Chamber.
Finally, I draw attention to Maternity Action’s position on the treatment of maternity allowance for universal credit purposes. If someone receives statutory maternity pay, it is treated as pay and they get universal credit. If they receive statutory maternity allowance, it is not treated in the same way, and they are likely to be £6,000 a year worse off than they would be in an equivalent situation with SMP.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
My son Jake and his partner Amber are about to have a child, and I am very proud, but he is taking out a loan so that he can have six weeks off work, because he believes it is important. In Spain, people get 17 weeks of fully paid leave, and in Denmark they get 24 weeks. What are we doing in this country?
As a practising GP, I have seen the cost of our policy. There are higher rates of post-natal depression in women, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) said, men have sleepless nights and higher rates of mental health issues. Much more importantly, the children suffer.
Parental leave is a form of preventive healthcare. We need to build a parental leave system that recognises that caring is an investment in healthier families, happier children and a fairer society. Every parent, whatever their income, should have the chance to bond with their child without fear of financial hardship.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
When we talk about maternity and paternity pay, we are also talking about crucial economic infrastructure—the systems that underpin participation, equality, productivity and, crucially, growth. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) put it, it is a public good, not a private indulgence. Right now, our system is not delivering any of that. Analysis from the Office for National Statistics shows that mothers lose an average of £65,000 in earnings in the first five years after their first child. That is not only lost household income, but lost tax receipts, skills and human capital for our wider economy.
In theory, shared parental leave offers parents flexibility, but in practice, it remains inaccessible to most households. Data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shows that 17,000 claimants take it up per annum, but they are generally disproportionately higher-income families, and it is hardly a mass labour market instrument. Its design is complex, its rules are difficult to navigate and pay levels are too low to make genuine choice possible. Put simply, it is a policy that works only on paper. The inequity is most evident for self-employed fathers, who are excluded entirely from the statutory framework. A self-employed mother can claim maternity allowance, but no equivalent exists for fathers. The evidence is clear: when fathers can afford to take that leave, mothers are better able to sustain labour market participation, the family income rises and the Exchequer gains through productivity and tax receipts.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s full review of parental leave as part of our promise to make work pay. It will reshape the vital support that new parents are offered in Britain, so that it can effectively and compassionately align with the changing demands of our modern world. It is vital that the review also looks at the support provided to bereaved parents, because it cannot be right that when mothers and fathers face the greatest tragedy that can affect any of us—the loss of a child—there are barriers to basic support. There is more we can do to support families at the point that their child is first diagnosed with a serious condition.
I recently met a constituent, Stephen, at a street surgery in Birch Hill, and we spoke about the challenges his family faced when supporting their daughter through her cancer treatment journey. Beyond the unimaginable emotional toll of caring for his daughter Edie, Stephen spoke to me about the often-overlooked practical difficulties that arose for his family. He told me about how the cost of fuel, hospital parking and food quickly pushed his family into debt. That is why Stephen is backing calls for Hugh’s law, which would give the parents of critically ill children who are undergoing treatment job protection and entitlement to statutory paid leave from the first day of their child’s diagnosis. Hugh’s law is, of course, named after Hugh Menai-Davis, the six-year-old son of Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis.
Sarah Russell
I would like to add my voice to my hon. Friend’s call for Hugh’s law and ask him if Edie was okay.
Peter Swallow
When I met Stephen at my street surgery, I also got the chance to meet Edie, an energetic, enthusiastic young girl running around with her sister, recovering well from her terrible ordeal. She has been so brave, and I am so proud to stand here as her MP, sharing her and her family’s story.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for introducing this petition so thoughtfully, and I thank Grace Carter and the more than 100,000 signatories. For too many families, including in my constituency, our parental leave system simply does not work. In many households, especially in rural or more deprived areas, where wages are lower and transport costs are often higher, taking one’s full entitlement of parental leave is unaffordable. It is little wonder that one in three dads take no leave at all when their baby arrives, and we know the consequences of that. Around two in five births are by caesarean section, a procedure requiring considerable recovery time. In a constituency such as mine, that could mean being stuck at home without the support of family, friends or a partner. Those early weeks can be isolating, and that is before we add in the exhaustion and recovery from major surgery. That is the value of paternity leave to new mums.
On pay, so many young people are putting off starting a family because of the sheer cost of parenthood. When I speak to people my age, many women feel that they must return to work even before their nine months of maternity pay comes to an end. On the cost for employers, if we frame this in the context of staff morale, the conversation shifts to being about the cost of the system as it is now. What is it doing to fathers’ mental health and productivity at work when they are not able to take time off with their children? As part of the ongoing review into parental leave, which I am so proud of, I urge the Minister to consider the arguments and evidence of campaigners such as the Dad Shift, Pregnant Then Screwed and thousands of families up and down this country. Paternity and maternity pay should not push families into poverty, but provide proper time for parents to be parents.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Ind)
Charting a path to national renewal means making decisions today, although the full benefits may not be felt for years to come. In the first few years of life, more than a million new neural connections are formed every second. During that time, more than any other, children must be nourished and supported by the scaffolding of happy, healthy lives. That means a decent, warm home, so that babies use their energy not to keep themselves warm, but to grow and develop. It means parents not being ground down by bills piling up; it means families being shielded from the impacts of poverty; and it means mothers not being rushed back to work before their bodies have even fully healed, as is too often the case.
We hear a lot about family values in this place. That has to mean taking real steps to make daily life easier and to make the sums add up at the end of the month. As a nation, we must improve maternity and paternity pay to genuinely provide all families with security and stability. We must build a country where children are nourished in their early years, parents are treated with dignity through life’s challenges and people are not sneered at for receiving support. We must build a society that offers a helping hand, nurturing rather than sanctioning—one grounded in a belief in the value of every human life, where doing all we can to give a baby the best first steps is seen not as a cost on a Treasury spreadsheet, but as the duty of a decent society and an investment in a more prosperous country for us all.
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I thank you all for making sure that everyone got in. I hope you forgive me for being tough about it.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) and the Petitions Committee for this debate. As a survivor of three maternity leaves—all on statutory pay—a c-section and a spell in the neonatal unit, all the topics that have been raised are very close to my heart. I thank each and every hon. Member for their contributions and for representing their constituents so well.
This summer, the Government announced that they would undertake a parental leave and pay review, expecting it to conclude in 18 months’ time. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to that much-needed review of parental leave. Every child deserves the best possible start in life and the opportunity to flourish, no matter their background or personal circumstances. Too often, parents struggle on inadequate parental pay and without good enough access to shared leave. Childcare costs are eyewatering, and balance between family life and work has only become harder and harder to achieve. Not only is that unfair on families, but it weighs down our economy.
The Liberal Democrats have called for an overhaul of the parental leave system to give parents a genuine choice over how to manage their affairs in the first months of their child’s life. The Liberal Democrats were proud to introduce shared parental leave when in government. Years later, however, millions of parents are still being denied the choice to spend more time at home, with about a quarter of fathers ineligible for paternity pay.
Meanwhile, the Government are introducing wide-ranging changes to employment law through the Employment Rights Bill. The Bill will introduce a suite of new protections and entitlements for working families, including enhanced rights on leave, protection from dismissal and bereavement support. Eligibility for paternity leave and unpaid parental leave requires employees to have a minimum length of service in order to qualify, but from April 2026 the qualifying service requirements will be removed. That means that paternity leave and unpaid parental leave will become entitlements from the first day of employment, as the Liberal Democrats called for in our 2024 general election manifesto.
Sarah Olney
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Liberal Democrats support measures that work to strengthen employment rights. We welcome aspects of the Employment Rights Bill, such as boosting statutory sick pay, strengthening support for whistleblowers and increasing support for carers, all of which move us in the right direction. However, we remain concerned about the specific way in which many of the measures are to be implemented. We must ensure that the legislation strikes the right balance for employees and for business, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises.
I have spoken with businesses in my constituency that tell me that they are being left in limbo by the vague framing of the Bill, which leaves crucial detail to secondary legislation and Government reviews. That prevents long-term planning, and I am disappointed that the Government did not support the Liberal Democrat amendments, which would have created more certainty for businesses.
New measures to support workers must go hand in hand with much-needed reforms to support our small businesses and bring down their costs. We know that the Government inherited a mess. We know that the cause of the mess is the legacy of reckless economic mismanagement by the previous Government, whose record is a dispiriting picture of low growth, high interest rates and a record fall in living standards. But it is disappointing that the current Government have taken decisions that have compounded many of the challenges for communities, businesses and families, while presiding over very tight public finances and a stagnant economy.
That is why we urge the Government to put in place a range of measures that will bring down business costs, unleash the power of our SMEs and power economic growth—measures such as scrapping the unfair national insurance rise, fixing the broken business rates system, bringing down the cost of energy by decoupling electricity and gas prices, and finally repairing the economic damage caused by the previous Government’s shambolic Brexit deal by cutting red tape and negotiating a new bespoke UK-EU customs union. Those actions could breathe new life into our economy and our small businesses and would go a long way towards facilitating improvements to parental leave and pay.
In our 2024 general election manifesto, we called for statutory maternity and shared parental pay to rise to £350 a week, for paternity pay to increase to 90% of earnings with a cap for high earners, and for the introduction of an extra “use it or lose it” month for fathers and partners, paid at 90% of earnings, again with a cap for high earners. Those policies would benefit not only families, but businesses and the economy, by encouraging workforce participation and making it easier for people to advance their career while starting a family.
We hope that the Government will look closely at those proposals, while introducing a robust plan to cut business costs, boost growth and empower our SMEs. More broadly, I urge them to look into the prevalent inequality in caring responsibility. What steps are they taking to support millions of family and kinship carers who have no paid leave at all? Will they commission a similar review into provision for unpaid carers and make carer’s leave paid?
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for so competently introducing the debate, with an excellent speech, and I thank everyone else who has contributed to it.
I was particularly struck by the comments made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) about Hugh’s law and the need for further work on bereavement support. That reminded me of one of my constituents, Clara Gilley, who has a very unusual brain cancer. The real-life issues that she faced, and which I was dealing with as her MP, were the travel costs to Bristol—that is a long way to go from Devon—and the costs of adaptations. I recognise the calls for us to consider how we can help parents whose children are sick and unwell with the costs of that, and I hope that the Minister heard them. I have seen it at first hand, and I am sure lots of other Members will have seen similar issues.
The Conservatives are proud to be the party that champions family life. We recognise that strong families are the bedrock of a healthy society—that is something else that has come up this afternoon. Britain is one of the best places to have a child and raise a family, following measures introduced by Conservative Governments to extend free childcare, support flexible working and enable shared parental leave.
Alex McIntyre
As the hon. Lady is so proudly championing her party’s record, will she stand by the comments by the Leader of the Opposition, who said that maternity pay is “excessive”, and by a donor to the Leader of the Opposition, Luke Johnson, who told the Employment Rights Bill Committee that the worst thing about the Bill is its further extension of paternity rights?
Rebecca Smith
On what the Leader of the Opposition said, I am not 100% sure of the quote, so I am not going to comment on that. I think it was taken quite significantly out of context. On the Bill Committee, I will continue saying it—[Interruption.] At the end of the day, I am the one here speaking this afternoon, so I am at least interested in this debate—let’s keep talking.
We understand the challenges facing families, which is why we updated the system to enable greater flexibility in how parental leave is taken. We wanted to ensure that parents are supported to spend the precious first few weeks and months bonding with their newborn, promoting healthy attachment that sets their child up for a successful future.
Rebecca Smith
I will keep making progress, if I may. [Interruption.] It is not because I do not want to take the intervention, but because I am on a time limit.
We introduced the biggest expansion of childcare in England’s history—it is heartening to see that Labour has continued our roll-out, despite its criticisms at the time. We backed new legislation to provide additional paid leave to parents whose baby requires neonatal care, allowing them to spend more time with their baby in hospital instead of worrying about returning to work or having to take unpaid leave. We strengthened protections for pregnant women and new parents against redundancy, removing workplace discrimination and improving job security. We introduced shared parental leave for new parents, allowing parents to share up to 50 weeks of leave and up to 37 weeks of pay after the birth or adoption of a child.
However, more needs to be done to encourage uptake of shared parental leave. We know that of fathers who did not take shared parental leave, 45% were not even aware that it existed, according to a 2023 review under the previous Government. Awareness is particularly lacking among smaller businesses: 94% of managers in workplaces with 250 or more employees were aware of the provision; that dropped to 71% in workplaces with fewer than 50 employees.
Importantly, our Government brought statutory adoption leave and pay in line with statutory parental leave, ensuring that adoptive parents had the same rights as birth parents. Adoptive parents also became eligible for paid time off for up to five adoption appointments—something that I personally think is entirely welcome.
Rebecca Smith
I will keep going, because I have quite a lot to say.
Those measures rightly honour the contributions of parents who open their heart and home to children in need of a loving family; 4,500 people claimed statutory adoption pay in 2024-25. In England alone, 2,940 children were waiting for adoption as of September this year, so statutory adoption leave and pay are vital for increasing the number of adoptive parents.
As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) noted, we need to do more to support adoptive parents who are self-employed—that has come up loud and clear this afternoon. Statutory guidance allows local authorities to make discretionary means-tested payments, equivalent to statutory adoption pay. However, as we heard from the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), the charity Home for Good discovered that 34% of local authorities have no policy in place for those discretionary payments. Worse still, according to a 2022 survey by the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence, 90% of self-employed adopters are not informed about them by their social worker.
Of course we acknowledge the calls to go further with parental leave, and I am sure that the Minister heard the pleas to include kinship carers in the review. We will scrutinise the Government’s review of parental leave, launched in July this year, to ensure that it strikes an appropriate balance between supporting families and backing businesses. It is worth noting that the UK’s parental leave policies rank comparatively well against countries around the world. The UK offers the fourth longest statutory maternity leave, topped only by Estonia, Croatia and Bulgaria, and it ranks 13th globally for length of statutory paternity leave; 90 countries have no statutory paternity leave at all.
However, there is a fine balance between supporting parents to spend precious time with their child and protecting businesses from burdensome regulations. In our current economic climate, increasing statutory maternity and paternity pay would be counterproductive for businesses —small and medium-sized enterprises especially—at a time when Labour is already saddling them with extra costs. Small business owners are facing enormous pressure: 17,000 high street businesses are expected to close this year alone, and retail businesses in my constituency tell me that they now face a doubling of their business rates. The Government’s Employment Rights Bill as a whole is projected to cost businesses up to £4.5 billion annually and it could increase the number of strikes by 53%. Increased parental pay will be no help at all if people have lost their job. In this context, it is our view that significant increases in statutory maternity and paternity pay are simply unaffordable for businesses or the public sector right now. It is also not clear how the state itself would afford the change. I am sure that the Minister will address that.
We need to protect jobs for the long term. A stable household income is one of the most important factors in ensuring healthy, happy children who will grow into bold and ambitious adults. The Government’s Employment Rights Bill stifles small businesses when they are already gasping for oxygen. It overreaches, snatching choice out of the hands of business owners, who are best placed to balance the interests of their staff members with the viability of their business overall.
When it is practical and affordable, many businesses already offer enhanced maternity and paternity pay in order to retain talent—something that has been stressed this afternoon. A survey of 460 organisations by Brightmine in June 2024 found that 75% of private sector organisations and 97% of public sector organisations already offer enhanced maternity pay. Any changes to statutory maternity and paternity pay must be done after consulting businesses. We must avoid saddling them with yet more unaffordable costs at a time when they are facing immense pressure. Flourishing businesses provide stable income for families, leading to a strong economy and a brighter future for the next generation. The Conservatives’ record demonstrates our support for parents and families, but that must be done sustainably, in a way that backs businesses rather than stifling them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and to speak on an issue that is close to so many people’s hearts, as the response to the petition shows. I am speaking for the Government this afternoon, but after the previous contribution I think it is important that I set out that this is a matter of importance to all Ministers. I thank all the Members who have taken part in this hugely important debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), who so eloquently set out on behalf of the Petitions Committee the various issues facing new parents.
We heard a number of excellent and thoughtful contributions. I had intended to attempt to run through all of them and respond individually, but what was most striking about the debate—until the closing contributions —was the significant unity in the room. Members have come together from across parties to speak with one voice. That shows why the Government’s review is so important. The myriad issues that new parents face—with health, finances, spending time with their children and so on—are so complex and the need for change is not lost either on me or on the Government more widely.
I will respond to a handful of the contributions—and how could I not begin with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre)? I am afraid I am not going to give his son a birthday present today, but I send my very best wishes and congratulations. I know that my hon. Friend is a loving and caring parent and I am sure that he has something lovely planned once we get away from the votes this evening. He and several other hon. Members asked whether certain aspects of the complex web of parental pay are in scope of the review, so let me clarify the eight areas that are in scope: maternity leave and pay; paternity leave and pay; shared parental leave and pay; unpaid parental leave; adoption leave and pay; parental bereavement leave and pay; neonatal care leave and pay; and maternity allowance.
The point about discretionary payments by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) was well made. I have responded to a Westminster Hall debate before on that specific issue. I undertook then to take it away and feed it into the review, which is being led predominantly by the Department for Business and Trade. I did that then, and I will do so again now.
I want to recognise the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), who is a champion on maternity and maternity rights. She is entirely right to set out the importance of the first few weeks, months and years—the first 1,001 days. I also recognise the challenge set down by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy).
Let me say at the outset that I will be disappointing hon. Members, because I will be pointing to the importance of allowing the review to run its course. I do so because an incredibly complex web of support has evolved since 1948, with significant changes since then—the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), set out the many changes made just by her Government. We have one chance to get this right. We have waited a long time for this review. We want to take the time not only to undertake the call for evidence, which we have already done, but to consult trade unions, employers, and parents and families before we have a public consultation.
Ms Creasy
I agree that there is complexity that we must deal with. Will the Minister update us on his Department’s view of the Women and Equalities Committee inquiry, which specifically took evidence about parental leave and six weeks at 90% of pay. Nobody is suggesting we can do everything overnight, but there are things that we could do now as a holding measure to start the change that everybody wants. Labour Members and those from other parties recognise the possible benefits to the economy and the country, so perhaps the Women and Equalities Committee offers an interim way forward.
Andrew Western
That is indeed one of a number of important pieces of work that we are feeding into the review. My hon. Friend tempts me to promise that we will go further immediately, but I am not able to do so today for the reason that I have set out: we want to get the review right and to take the time to bring forward changes and recommendations, and the pathway to change, in a measured way.
Andrew Western
I will, after which I hope that Members will accept that I need to make some progress.
Andrew Cooper
I am sure everybody recognises how important it is to do this once and do it right. Is the Minister able to commit to legislating in this Parliament?
Andrew Western
We will need to see what comes out of the review, but we are committed to setting out a roadmap to change as a result of the review. I understand my hon. Friend’s point and note his desire, and that of other Members, for action to be taken as swiftly as possible.
I appreciate that parental leave and pay are vital to new mums and dads, giving them the space to spend time together as a new family. The first months and moments are critical in ensuring that a child is happy, healthy and well adjusted. It is something that runs deeper than pound signs and percentage points. Bringing a child into the world or into our home is a major event in anyone’s life. It is one that parents should enjoy free from the stresses of the workplace. However, we know that the current system is not working for everyone.
It is almost 40 years since statutory maternity pay was introduced for working women in 1987. It is half a century since maternity leave was introduced in 1975, and almost 75 years since the start of maternity allowance in 1948. In the years since, the world of work and the world at large have changed beyond recognition. Gone are the age-old stereotypes about men belonging in the workplace and women in the home. The lines between home and work have never been more blurred. As times have changed, there have been tweaks and updates: paternity leave and adoption leave in 2003; shared parental leave and pay in 2014; and neonatal care leave just this year. But, like a road network that evolves over time, the process is no longer as simple to navigate. We need something that is purpose-built for people’s journeys today.
In July, in partnership with the Department for Business and Trade, we launched the parental leave and pay review. It is time to go back to first principles, to work out exactly what the system needs to deliver and for whom—mums, dads and others—and to consider all the options before mapping out a new way forward. That starts with our remembering why maternity pay was introduced in the first place. It was primarily about the health and safety of women and their babies during pregnancy and in the months following childbirth. That is why, as the review progresses, the first objective that we have in mind for the parental leave and pay system, although not the only one, is ensuring that it supports maternal health by making sure women have enough money and time off work to stay healthy—physically and mentally—during the latter stages of their pregnancy and while recovering from birth.
Secondly, the approach needs to promote economic growth. When we give more new parents the freedom to stay and progress in work, it is not just mums, dads and kids who benefit; employers, too, benefit from keeping parents’ skills and experience. At present, just over half of new mothers go back to their old job following the birth of their child. We want to build a system in which every mother feels supported if they make that choice. New figures show that five years after a first birth, the average mother’s earnings will have dropped by more than £1,000 a month. Mothers deserve better.
Our third objective is to help children to get the best start in life by giving new parents the resources and space to give the care and attention their new arrivals need. Fourthly, we need to support parents’ childcare choices so that parents can balance care and work in a way that works for them, enabling co-parenting and reflecting the realities of modern work. Ultimately, we want a system that is fairer and easier to use, and that works better for parents and employers.
Rachael Maskell
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for his speech. Will he ensure that there is a matrix over the Government’s objective that measures inequality in family life and ensures that we close the inequality gap so that parents experiencing the greatest deprivation benefit the most from the policy?
Andrew Western
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is one of many really useful suggestions that have been made today, which I undertake to feed into the review for consideration.
Let me return to what I was saying about the requirement for a fairer system. We should not pretend that there will be easy answers as we go through this work—some difficult balances will need to be struck. The benefits of allowing parents flexibility must be weighed against the direct costs to employers and the public purse.
The petition asks us to increase the rate of statutory maternity and paternity pay to match the national living wage. We should note that maternity pay has never been intended to fully replace a mother’s earnings, and any moves in that direction should not be made lightly. The costs of statutory parental pay are largely paid by the taxpayer, with employers able to reclaim at least 92% of the cost from HMRC.
Lola McEvoy
I have raised many times in this Chamber the inequality of paternity rights when it comes to unfair dismissal. Addressing that would not cost the taxpayer or businesses anything, because protection is already in place for those who take shared parental leave, maternity leave and adoption leave. Will the Minister reflect that point in the review as well? He did not mention paternity when he gave us his overview of the review’s purpose, but I think that all Members here agree about the importance that dads feel they can take time off, especially when they are eligible to do so.
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If I did not refer to that issue, it was because I was trying to respond to an intervention and it was an oversight on my part. It is incredibly important and I will ensure that it is considered as part of the review.
I return to the petition’s specific ask of matching parental pay with the national living wage. The Government currently spend about £3 billion a year on statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance alone. This petition asks us to more than double the rate of maternity and paternity pay—in fact, it seeks a 144% increase. That would be far from a trivial expense at a time of difficult fiscal choices. I am not saying that that will not happen at this point in time—I do not know; we need to go through the process of the review—but we have to take the time to carefully consider such questions, given the significant financial implications, before any decisions are made.
I am cognisant of the time, so I will skip forward by reminding Members that maternity and paternity leave are just one part of the wider picture of financial support for parents. Maternity allowance is available for self-employed women and employed women who do not already qualify for statutory maternity pay. Child benefit is available from the date of a child’s birth, and the Sure Start maternity grant offers a £500 lump sum to mothers receiving one of a range of qualifying benefits.
Andrew Western
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) and then take one more intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), but then I will really need to move on.
Sarah Russell
The interrelationship between maternity allowance, which I made a point about earlier in the debate, and the £500 Sure Start grant is a problem, because if someone is self-employed, they are not eligible for that grant.
Andrew Western
I absolutely agree. That is one of the things that I want the review to capture. A particular range of issues is specific to self-employed people. We have already heard about that in the context of adoption, and my hon. Friend raises another example. She is entirely right to champion the rights of self-employed people in this space.
Chris Hinchliff
Several colleagues have mentioned Hugh’s law today. As the Member of Parliament for Hugh’s parents, Ceri and Frances, may I welcome the fact that the Government have committed to a consultation on the introduction of Hugh’s law? I urge the Minister to speak to his ministerial colleagues to see whether we can get Hugh’s law in the next King’s Speech so that it is delivered for families who desperately need support.
Andrew Western
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I gave way because I expected him to raise that issue, given that it pertains to his constituents.
This is probably the most powerful debate that I have attended in Westminster Hall. I will certainly ensure that all the points that have been raised with me are fed back. This is a particularly important issue not just for my hon. Friend and his constituents, but more widely.
Moving through a child’s life, starting from this year, working parents—including those on maternity, paternity, adoption or shared parental leave—can now claim up to 30 hours of free childcare for children between the ages of nine months and four years. Tax-free childcare can also help parents to save up to £2,000 a year on the cost of childminders, play schemes, after-school clubs, nurseries and nannies. All infant pupils in Government-funded schools are eligible for free school meals, as are older children whose parents receive certain benefits. Our child poverty taskforce has been looking at what else we can do to drive down family costs, raise family incomes and give every child the best start in life. Our strategy will be published later in the year.
Work will be at the heart of our approach. Good work is vital to achieve lasting change and to our central mission of growth. That is why our review of parental leave and pay is a key part of our plan to make work pay. It will build on the progress we are already making through our work to tackle low pay, poor working conditions and job security. We are breaking down barriers for parents so that we can raise living standards, and so that they can raise the next generation.
Jacob Collier
I start by wishing a very happy second birthday to William, the son of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre). Perhaps he is at a soft play centre in Walthamstow.
I thank hon. Members for sharing their experiences and those of their constituents, which has powerfully showed the need for change in this area. I also thank the Minister for setting out the criteria of the review. I know that he cares passionately about these issues. Despite what the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) said, there is a real need for change, as we have heard throughout the debate. The Government’s parental review is the very first of its kind, and while it shows that the Minister and the Department are willing to listen, it must lead to real action with clear milestones for reform so that we do not see millions of families falling into poverty.
I welcome the Minister saying that he will draw on the evidence he heard today, as well as submissions from unions, employers and families. No parent should have to face poverty in bringing up their newborn. If we get this right, we can strengthen family life, improve equity and give every child a fairer start.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 715292 relating to statutory maternity and paternity pay.
Work and Pensions
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Torsten Bell
The clause amends the onboarding conditions in these instances, to allow trustees of a scheme in PPF assessment to seek to secure their liabilities with a superfund at less than full benefits, but more than would otherwise have been secured through a buy-out that was available, given the level of their assets at that point. Based on the evidence from the PPF’s purple book, we anticipate that, on average, five in 10 so-called PPF-plus schemes could benefit each year.
[Official Report, Pension Schemes Public Bill Committee, 11 September 2025; c. 282.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell):
Torsten Bell
Based on the evidence from the PPF’s purple book, we anticipate that five to 10 so-called PPF-plus schemes on average each year could benefit.
Torsten Bell
Several hon. Members have said, absolutely rightly, that access to financial advice fell in the aftermath of the reforms over a decade ago, but there is some better news on Pension Wise. The 2024 Financial Lives survey showed that of those who accessed a defined-contribution pot within the last four years, 40% had accessed Pension Wise. I think that is probably more than most hon. Members in this debate would expect, though it may not be enough. However, those people had used Pension Wise when heading towards access; they had not used it as a mid-life MOT product, which is a different thing. That 40% was up from 34% in 2020, so some things have gone in the right direction. I am gently noting that, not claiming any credit for it because it predates the election. There is a lot of overlap between what those systems of advice are providing and the measures in new clause 1.
[Official Report, Pension Schemes Public Bill Committee, 11 September 2025; c. 323.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell):
Torsten Bell
There is a lot of overlap between what those systems of guidance are providing and the measures in new clause 1.
Football Governance Act 2025: Statutory Guidance
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
Today I am updating the House to confirm that, following Royal Assent of the Football Governance Act 2025 in July, the Government have laid before Parliament a draft of the statutory guidance on the meaning of “Significant Influence or Control” under schedule 1 to the Act. As per the Act, the draft guidance is laid in Parliament for 40 days, during which either House may resolve not to approve it. If no such resolution is made, the Secretary of State may publish the guidance.
As set out in the Act, the independent football regulator will operate a new suitability and approval regime for owners, directors and senior executives of regulated clubs. The guidance supports the schedule 1 definition of an “owner” by providing interpretative detail on “significant influence and control.” Its purpose is to help ensure that fans can identify the real persons exercising control of their clubs, notwithstanding any opaque or complex ownership structures. This will give fans the much-needed transparency they deserve.
In developing the draft, we have drawn on the approach used in the Companies Act “Persons with Significant Control” regime, to ensure that we are aligned with current precedent. We have included industry-specific examples, which have been tested with the football industry to make the concept more tangible for all who will have to interpret it, especially clubs, and to ensure that the guidance is suited to the regulated industry.
In both Houses, we committed to laying this draft guidance before clubs are required to identify their owners in their personnel statements. Laying the draft now delivers on that commitment and provides clarity for clubs in advance of the regime for testing owners commencing.
The laying of this draft guidance is a key step in implementing the Football Governance Act 2025. This delivers the Government’s election promises to combat poor governance and financial mismanagement of football clubs in this country, and to put fans back at the heart of English football.
[HCWS996]
UK-Portugal Double Taxation Convention
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
A double taxation convention with Portugal was signed in London on 15 September 2025. The text of the convention is available on the HM Revenue and Customs pages of the gov.uk website and will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. The text of the convention will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.
[HCWS993]
Post Office Capture Redress Scheme: Tax Exemptions
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
On 19 June 2025, the Department for Business and Trade announced a new compensation scheme that offers redress to postmasters affected by errors in the Capture software, which predates the use of the Horizon software. DBT has set up the capture redress scheme to compensate postmasters.
The Government are committed to ensuring that postmasters are treated fairly and will legislate to formalise tax exemptions shortly, ensuring that no income tax, national insurance contributions, capital gains tax, corporation tax, where applicable, or inheritance tax will be payable for redress received under this scheme.
[HCWS994]
Improvements to Windrush Compensation Scheme
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
Last year, the Government committed to resetting its response to the Home Office Windrush scandal, with a renewed focus on ensuring that members of the Windrush generation receive the support they deserve, delivered swiftly, fairly, and with dignity. Since that time, we have taken forward several actions to honour that commitment.
We have appointed Rev. Clive Foster MBE as the first UK Windrush commissioner on 18 June 2025, fulfilling a manifesto commitment. His crucial role provides independent oversight of the Government’s ongoing commitment to address the impact of the Home Office Windrush scandal and ensure that the voices of those affected remain at the heart of efforts to deliver justice and lasting change.
Through the work of the re-established Windrush unit, this Government have sought to strengthen engagement with victims, their families, communities and stakeholder organisations. This is enabling us to hear at first hand the impact that the Home Office Windrush scandal had and continues to have on individuals and communities, and to make sure there is a real appreciation of the impact that policies and decisions have on people’s lives.
We remain resolute in our determination to ensure that the Windrush compensation scheme reflects lived experiences and delivers compensation in a manner that is both just and prompt. We have listened carefully to urgent recommendations from the Windrush commissioner and feedback from community representatives, stakeholders and claimants. In response, I am announcing significant changes to the scheme.
For the first time, the scheme will compensate for the financial impact of lost occupational and personal pension contributions where individuals were unable to work due to being unable to demonstrate their lawful status in the UK. Compensation will also be available to those who had to withdraw funds from existing pension pots to support themselves and their families. This is in addition to existing provisions to ensure individuals’ state pensions are not affected by time spent unable to access employment.
The scope of compensation for employment-related losses will be expanded to reflect wage growth and account for the challenges of returning to work following a long period of unemployment.
The immigration fees category will be broadened to cover any application fees incurred due to uncertainty about lawful status. This includes both successful and unsuccessful applications, ensuring that no one is left out of pocket by needing to prove their status.
And lastly, we have heard the concerns from communities about individuals passing away before receiving the compensation they are entitled to, as well as the financial hardships some are suffering. In response, people will now be offered an advance payment when seeking a review of their final compensation decision. Under this provision, individuals may receive up to 75% of their total compensation before the review process is fully concluded. We will also prioritise allocation of claims for individuals aged 75 and over, alongside existing measures for those with critical or life-shortening illnesses. These changes will be applied retrospectively, and updated rules and guidance will be published in due course.
We recognise that no amount of money can undo the pain, disruption and loss experienced by members of the Windrush generation and their families, but through meaningful action, we are determined to acknowledge that harm, provide redress, and rebuild the trust that was so profoundly damaged.
[HCWS992]
Implementing Awaab’s Law
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
Tenants must feel protected and safe in their homes, which is why Awaab’s law is crucial legislation, and I am pleased to announce that it is coming into force today for all emergency hazards and damp and mould hazards. These regulations represent a landmark step forward in ensuring that every resident of social housing lives in a safe, decent home, and that swift, responsible action is taken by landlords when hazards are identified.
The tragic death of Awaab Ishak, aged just two, in December 2020, due to prolonged exposure to mould in his family’s social home, shocked the nation. His parents, Faisal and Aisha, have shown extraordinary courage and determination in campaigning to ensure that no other family suffers such a preventable loss.
Early last year, the previous Government ran a consultation on Awaab’s law, publishing the Government response in June 2024. On 25 June 2025, regulations for phase 1 of Awaab’s law were laid in Parliament, and they are now in force. The regulations prescribe requirements that every social landlord in England must comply with. Failure to do so will constitute a breach of contract, and tenants will rightly be able to take legal action through the courts, or take action through the housing ombudsman, ensuring that tenants can hold landlords fully accountable if they fail to meet the required standards and timescales. These new requirements do not replace or lessen existing duties.
Social landlords already have clear legal obligations to keep homes fit for human habitation, free from category 1 hazards, and to remedy disrepair. Many landlords go beyond these obligations to provide their residents with a quality service. Awaab’s law strengthens these obligations by introducing clear, time-bound requirements and a robust route to enforcement.
From today all social landlords must:
Investigate emergency hazards and make them safe within 24 hours;
Investigate significant hazards, including damp and mould, within 10 working days;
Provide a written summary of findings to tenants within three working days of the investigation concluding;
Take action to make the home safe within five working days of the investigation concluding;
Begin further works to prevent recurrence within 12 weeks;
Complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe; and
Offer suitable alternative accommodation if the home cannot be made safe within the required timescales.
These measures mean that no tenant will have to live in unsafe conditions without a route to take action. Landlords must act swiftly to fix dangerous hazards and dangerous damp and mould. I am determined to extend these protections to all hazards and have committed to apply Awaab’s law to hazards such as excess cold and heat, falls, structural collapse, fire, electrical hazards, explosions and hygiene risks in 2026, and to all remaining hazards under the housing health and safety rating system in 2027. By taking a phased, test-and-learn approach, I am clear that transformational change will be delivered effectively, proportionately and sustainably across the sector—ensuring consistent application of the law and full preparedness to deliver these new duties.
Implementing Awaab’s law represents a significant change. To support this cultural shift in the way tenants and landlords will engage in tackling safety issues in their homes, the Department has published guidance to aid implementation. Tenant-facing materials will be made available through the “Make things right” campaign, explaining how Awaab’s law will protect tenants and how tenants can raise concerns. Additional guidance for tenants will be published explaining how tenants can use Awaab’s law, and the Government will continue to work closely with the regulator of social housing and the housing ombudsman to ensure clear, consistent implementation.
Awaab’s law is a critical part of the Government’s broader programme to raise the standard and safety of social housing and to strengthen tenants’ voices. While many landlords already provide good-quality homes and responsive services, too many tenants still live in homes that are unsafe or poorly maintained. This must change. As well as Awaab’s law, we have also introduced new regulations that mean social landlords must have the electrics in their homes inspected and tested at least every five years.
We have also launched a £1 million social housing innovation fund to fund innovative projects that improve tenants’ engagement with their landlords and ensure that they have influence over decisions affecting their homes.
Awaab’s law is not about creating unnecessary burden; it is about ensuring that tenants’ voices are heard, that action is taken responsibly, and that homes are safe and decent. It represents the change that social housing residents have long deserved and is central to restoring trust, fairness and accountability in the sector.
Delivering the transformational change that Awaab Ishak’s family fought for is essential—and every tenant has the right to expect nothing less.
[HCWS995]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to remove the generational ban for tobacco products in England and Wales by raising the age of sale to 21.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to open Committee on this significant Bill. I have Amendments 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 126, which relates to Northern Ireland, 127, 128, 130, 131 and 217. These amendments seek to remove, from every place in the Bill, the generational element of the smoking prohibition to be brought in.
Let us not mess around. A generational ban is de facto prohibition, and there is no evidence anywhere in the world that prohibition of a long-standing legal product has ever worked. In time, it will result in the termination of a legally controlled, highly regulated and heavily taxed industry. It will be replaced by an illegal, uncontrolled, unregulated and untaxed criminal market. The idea that because the Government ban a product, they extinguish demand for it, is pure fantasy.
The Government’s policy approach of exceptionally high taxation on tobacco is already failing. A generational ban will only cement their failure. The representation of that failure can be found in the flourishing black market. So long as there is a flourishing alternative market, consumer demand will always be met with cheaper, illicit tobacco. Taxes on tobacco have become so expensive that people are switching in huge numbers to buy cheaper, illicit products. Not only does this result in a decline in vital tax revenue to the tune of about £1 billion a year, but it is doing nothing to bring down smoking rates, which have stalled since 2020, according to Action on Smoking and Health. The Government desperately need to rethink their policy towards tax and banning tobacco, as it is not working and is the single biggest driver of the expansion of the illicit tobacco market controlled by organised criminal groups.
That takes me to the second consequence of driving cigarettes underground: the susceptible purchaser of cigarettes will then be offered the other, illegal products available on the black market. Action on Smoking and Health and the Government maintain that illicit tobacco consumption is in decline, but all the evidence from law enforcement and retailers tells a different story. The Government need to pay attention to what is happening in Australia, where organised criminals have taken over control of the illicit tobacco and vapes market and violence and chaos have exploded across the streets. Retailers are facing the full force of the impact of this violence, with more than 290 arson attacks taking place in the last two years. Even Ministers in the Australian Government are calling out the tobacco black market as the biggest threat to public health in Australia, with organised crime taking a stranglehold over the illicit market.
If the Government are serious about reducing smoking rates, they need to execute a twin-track strategy of pursuing stronger zero-tolerance enforcement action against those criminals trading illicit tobacco along with prioritising more investment in targeted education programmes, youth access prevention, smoking support services and campaigns to educate smokers on less harmful alternative nicotine products.
Implementing a generational ban will be unenforceable. It will only drive more consumers into the hands of the criminally controlled illicit market. It makes absolutely no sense at all. Further, it will deprive the Treasury of much-needed revenue, which will be redirected instead into the pockets of organised criminals. Smoking rates will not decline any further, given the exceptionally low price point for a packet of illicit cigarettes—apparently between £3 and £6 for a 20-cigarette pack—and for hand-rolling tobacco, which is between £5 and £8 for 50 grams. In contrast, a packet of 20 cigarettes in a shop apparently costs about £17. One can see immediately the incentive for purchasing black-market cigarettes.
My final point by way of introduction is that this Government purport to be a keen proponent of adherence to the provisions of international law, but, as reported in the Sunday papers, it is now clear that a generational ban would not be permissible in the European Union. The ability to impose this ban is therefore a Brexit benefit—something that noble Lords will perhaps not hear from the Minister. More importantly, it would be unlawful to introduce it in Northern Ireland.
There is now clear and careful legal opinion, from the former Advocate-General for Northern Ireland, John Larkin King’s Counsel, that a generational ban would be contrary to the provisions of the Windsor Framework. I ask the Minister, in respect of the applicability of this measure across the United Kingdom, whether the Government accept that that is the case, and if not, why not? Are they content to proceed in the face of contrary legal evidence and take their chances before the courts of Northern Ireland? In the event that the law is found incompatible by the courts of Northern Ireland, do they intend to disapply these measures in Northern Ireland, thus creating an imbalance whereby 21 year-olds in Northern Ireland are able to buy cigarettes but their compatriots in Wales, Scotland and England are not?
By way of further background to these amendments, noble Lords will note that the method by which my amendments would take effect is by raising the age of purchase from 18 to 21. This would be much more practicable and manageable and a more straightforward way for retailers to enforce a stricter regime on the purchase of tobacco than a generational ban, which would be complicated, impractical, unworkable and unenforceable. Furthermore, the Government’s own modelling in preparation for the last tobacco and vapes Bill showed that raising the age to 21 would have an identical effect on UK smoking rates as the introduction of a generational ban. Moreover, the Government’s own modelling in preparation for the last tobacco and vapes Bill showed that increasing the age of purchase from 18 to 21 would result in exactly the same outcome as a generational ban, achieving 0% smoking rates among 14 to 30 year-olds by 2050.
One further aspect that I wish to touch on is the impact of the proposed generational ban on retailers. For retailers, especially small independent ones, the introduction of the generational ban presents a number of very profound challenges. Crimes against retailers are already at epidemic levels. Many independent shopkeepers are scared of the impact that a generational ban will have on their businesses and the safety of their staff. There is no getting away from the fact that the weight of responsibility for enforcing the ban falls entirely on the shoulders of retailers, who will have to navigate a new legal age threshold that will change every year and with every customer. Already, the British Retail Consortium records that violent acts of abuse and intimidation towards Britain’s retailers have leapt to an unprecedented 2,000 incidents a day, up from 1,300 incidents a day in 2024. This is a staggering increase. Retailers have consistently tried to engage with the Government throughout the passage of the Bill, but the Government have ignored that audience and their concerns at every stage.
Shopkeepers could not be clearer: the end result of the implementation of a generational ban is that they will close their businesses, with all the loss of jobs and convenience that that will entail. Tobacco and vape sales make up 20% of the annual revenues of many of these shops. With the inevitable escalation of further violence and intimidation towards themselves and their staff, it does not make economic sense in the long term to carry on. We also know that organised criminal gangs are keen to dominate the illicit tobacco market, as they have been in Australia, and, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, have sought revenge on those who are not participating in their illegal schemes.
This Government tell us that they wish to introduce ID cards. If that is right, would it not be better—if they insist on persisting with a generational ban—to await the introduction of those measures prior to introducing a measure such as this, to avoid the absurd situation when you have potentially an 18 year-old shopkeeper having to ask a 46 year-old to prove that they are in fact 46 and not 45, with no obvious basis on which to ask for that and with all the attendant risks of aggression and difficulty that that would give rise to?
For all those reasons, I beg to move Amendment 1 and commend all my amendments in the group.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 5 and 205 in this group, which, although there has been no prior discussion between myself and my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, point in a very similar direction. I propose in Amendment 5 that the permitted age of sale be raised in the interim to 21—Amendment 205 is purely consequential, so I do not intend to say anything about that separately; I will focus on Amendment 5—so that there would be an immediate introduction on the passing of the Bill of a ban on sales to persons under the age of 21, with a view to replacing the generational ban.
The arguments against the generational ban that have been made by my noble friend are compelling and comprehensive, so there is not a great deal that I can add. But I can bring some experience, which perhaps my noble friend does not have, of having had political responsibility in the past for the enforcement of underage tobacco sales in a local authority through a trading standards department and having myself been out in disguise in a fairly clandestine way, because that is how they operate on such excursions—I will not call them “raids”, because that makes them sound very dramatic; I shall just say “excursions”—in order to test sales at various premises to see whether they are complying with the law. So I have some experience of that.
I think that, in the minds of those promoting the generational ban, there is an expectation that it is going to be self-enforcing. After all, the ban on smoking in offices and in shops, which was introduced some years ago, is self-enforcing. I have never seen anybody attempt to enforce it, because there has not been any necessity. When was the last time one saw somebody smoking in a shop so that enforcement might be required, or wandering around their office with a cigarette or a pipe? It is self-enforcing.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to all the amendments in this group to which I have added my name and all those in the names of my noble friend Lord Murray and the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. Basically, these amendments offer a far more practical and balanced way for the Government to meet their goal of reducing youth smoking. Simply raising the legal age to buy tobacco from 18 to 21 would be more effective, easier to enforce and less damaging to small businesses than the proposed generational ban.
The idea of banning tobacco by birth year might sound bold but, in reality, it will be a bureaucratic and economic nightmare. Allowing one person to buy tobacco products for themselves but not for their friends born a few weeks later will complicate enforcement and lead to discrimination between people based solely on their date of birth. No other country has introduced such a complicated and confusing ban; as my noble friend Lord Murray said, this would not wash under European Union legislation.
Retailers would also be forced to check birth dates indefinitely, creating confusion and increasing the risk of violence and abuse against their staff. As noted, before, according to the British Retail Consortium, there are more than 2,000 incidents of violence or abuse against shopkeepers every single day, 70 of which involve a weapon. Retail crime costs businesses £4.2 billion a year, including £2.2 billion in theft, yet these same shopkeepers would be expected to enforce an ever-changing age threshold. This would inevitably lead to further violence and intimidation towards them and their staff.
It will also create unnecessary harm to small businesses. Independent retailers are already struggling with rising business rates, higher national insurance and the overall cost of living. Small manufacturers and importers have repeatedly warned that a generational ban would be devastating. For some, it would mean gradual decline and, for others, business closure. For a Government who pride themselves on being pro-growth, this is quite a strange way to go about it, extinguishing the future of many small, often family-run, businesses that have traded for generations.
By contrast, raising the age to 21 would achieve the same public health goals, by the Government’s own figures, without punishing retailers or driving trade into the hands of criminals, as so well explained earlier. The truth is that the generational ban, combined with already very high excise duties, would hand a huge advantage to organised crime.
We can reach the Government’s public health objective without punishing shopkeepers, small producers and law-abiding adults. Raising the legal age to 21 is proportionate, workable and enforceable. It is a policy rooted not in ideology but in common sense. So I, too, urge the Minister to review the generational ban and look at the amendment. It offers a practical path to the same goal—a smoke-free generation—without the confusion, complexity and unintended consequences on businesses.
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)
I am very sorry that the Committee stage of this Bill has kicked off with an attempt to remove the intergenerational ban for tobacco products, because these amendments self-evidently attempt to severely weaken the Bill and run counter to its central objective of ensuring that those born after 1 January 2009 will never be legally sold tobacco. I know that all noble Lords present know that, but I think we need to go back to basics here.
The objective is also to break the cycle of addiction and disadvantage, which starts very young. This is made very clear in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill and I know that all noble Lords will have read them. I wonder whether the sponsors of these amendments in this group actually support the intention of creating a smoke-free generation. The Government’s own modelling says that the Bill would virtually eliminate smoking in under-30s by 2050. These amendments would make this desirable objective far less likely.
I shall not bore the Committee with the statistics that we are all very familiar with about the extent of the harms of tobacco. They are readily available and we all know them. But it is not in doubt that the Bill’s measures, if enacted in full, would result in fewer addictions and a reduction in harms and untimely deaths. The amendments in this group would dilute these desirable benefits.
I turn to the references that have been made to the possible replacement of legal sales by the black market. I am not sure that we have sufficient evidence to make the confident predictions that we heard at the beginning of this debate. Even if we had, I would suggest that the measures in the Bill, in full, do not preclude separate government actions to tackle illicit sales—if indeed such sales and such criminal activity are a consequence of the Bill. As I said, at the moment we do not have enough evidence to predict that with total confidence.
I will make two further small points. If the Bill ends up, as these amendments seek, specifying a lower age of sale than 21, tobacco companies would be very likely to target their marketing at the threshold age, resulting in more addiction, more ill health and a greater mortality risk.
Finally, the objective to create a smoke-free generation, which the Bill unamended would do, is publicly extremely popular. In the October 2023 UK-wide consultation, 63% of the public supported a sales ban on tobacco for those born after 2009. That public support has been fully endorsed by many other opinion polls since that government survey. I would hope that those supporting and proposing the amendments in this group will not persist.
Lord Strathcarron (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of a company, one of the minority shareholders of which is a vape manufacturer.
We all start off on common ground. We all want to discourage young people from starting to smoke. What we are debating here is the best way of making this happen. I am speaking to amendments in my name and the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, to understand why the Government think that the complexities and unintended consequences of a generational ban are a better way of achieving this than the simplicities of an age limit, such as the challenge schemes that already exist and are well understood and working.
As a non-affiliated Member of your Lordships’ House, I find it surprising that the Government would not take the opportunity to improve on the previous Prime Minister’s pet project, which this was. As I know from personal experiences, he is almost professionally abstemious and does not really cater for the rest of us who are not. His generational ban stems from this outlook. For some reason—I hope it will be explained—in spite of all the evidence against it, which I will come to, the Government persist with his legacy scheme.
My first question is: why, when prohibition has never worked anywhere in the world throughout history without unintended consequences—all of them bad—do the Government think this de facto prohibition will work here now? Do the Government not understand that if you try to prevent someone buying something easily available legally, they will simply buy it illegally as they have always done and will always do? Why, when the DSHE’s own research and analysis modelling in preparation for the Bill showed that increasing the age to 21 would result in exactly the same outcome as the generational ban, do the Government ignore their own advice and everyone else’s common sense?
Why do the Government not accept endless research and the evidence of our own eyes that practically nobody starts smoking after 21 and therefore the age limit solves the problem? Equally important in this context, it polices itself. Why do the Government think it in any way sensible or reasonable to pass responsibility for enforcing their law on to retailers, many of them small family businesses, which will have to second-guess a customer’s age, which will change year by year? Surely the Government can see that on the ground in a shop, perhaps late at night with all that entails, this is completely unrealistic—especially when there is a practical age-limit solution to hand, such as the challenge scheme, which the shop will probably already be operating for other products.
Why do the Government ignore the blindingly obvious fact that, while it is quite possible to tell the difference between a 16 year-old and a 21 year-old, it is almost impossible to tell the difference between a 56 year-old and a 61 year-old and so on, up and down the age range, as retail staff will now be asked to do? Why do the Government ignore the obvious consequences of proxy purchasing, whereby all adults will be able to buy alcohol but only some will be able to buy tobacco? We will have the irregularity of all adults being allowed to smoke, but only some adults being allowed to buy what is needed to smoke. Anyway, is formalising two-tier justice really a good idea?
Why do the Government ignore the British Retail Consortium? Its members have already reported an increase in violence towards their shop workers in recent years. Its view is that the generational ban will make this violence and abuse even worse.
Why do the Government not take note of the advice of the Association of Convenience Stores? The generational ban will have a disastrous effect on its members’ shops, not just financially but on their health and well-being as they are asked to enforce, on the Government’s behalf, the unenforceable.
Why do the Government ignore the experiences of Australia? A generational ban was tried there and it was found that organised crime moved into the vacuum created by good intentions. It has resulted in tobacco turf wars and an enormous increase in illicit sales.
Why do the Government think there is any point in giving an additional £10 million to trading standards and £100 million over five years to Border Force and HMRC to clamp down on illicit sales, when the ONS figures suggest that illicit sales lose the Government £6 billion a year in tax revenue? The Home Office-funded report by the National Business Crime Centre says that the proposed generational ban means that the demand for illicit tobacco will increase dramatically—I might add, obviously. Has the Treasury been consulted about losing all this revenue?
Lastly, I make a quick point about the use of statistics in this debate. Referring to the illicit trade in tobacco, can we all admit that, by the very nature of illicit trade, none of us knows what the real figures are now or what they will be in the future, only that, by virtue of common sense, they are bound to increase with prohibition, as they always have? All I can contribute is that I know three people who smoke cigarettes and two of them tell me that they buy them by the carton illicitly at £50 a carton. By extrapolation, this does not mean that 66.6% of cigarettes smoked are illicit, but the way that some Members, and the Government, were bandying statistics around at Second Reading was quite surprising. For instance, in answer to some points that I raised, the Minister quoted a statistic and I think that, even as she was reading it, she must have thought to herself, “Hang on, this one’s a bit iffy”:
“There are around five times more people smoking non-cigarette tobacco … than a decade ago”.—[Official Report, 23/4/25; col. 741.]
In a subsequent Answer to a Written Question, she confirmed my findings that there are no statistics at all to back this up. The so-called research comes from an ASH-funded scare project—as we all know, researchers seldom bite the hand that feeds them. Without coming clean about it, they rather conveniently included shisha, some of which contains hardly any tobacco at all, and all of which is freely available on Amazon and elsewhere. The increase is accounted for by the enormous demographic change that we have seen over the past 10 years of people for whom smoking shisha is part of their cultural heritage—toes on which I would have thought the Government would be loath to tread, electorally.
Talking electorally, given that the previous Prime Minister was not always right about everything, I am sure we would all be interested to hear the Government’s response to all the questions that I have asked and about why they think that introducing all the constitutional complexities and practical inefficiencies of a generational ban is a better way to what we all want—preventing young people smoking—than the wonderfully simple, existing, workable, enforceable and Windsor Framework-friendly alternative solution staring us in the face. It would also be the Government’s own policy, not one copied from a regime that they were so quick to vilify in opposition.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the National Trading Standards Board. In that capacity, I make one or two points that I made in the Bill Committee and at Second Reading, as they may be helpful in the context of this debate on these early amendments and because trading standards professionals will of course be on the front line in enforcing this legislation. It is therefore important to know whether they are confident about it. By the way, I regret suggestions that trading standards is in some way being ineffective at the moment. It has certainly been starved of resources, but I cannot think of a profession that has found new ways of using its resources more effectively better than trading standards. I once again pay tribute to the work that it does—in no way is it ineffective.
What it currently feels about this Bill is quite interesting. In saying these few words, let me say that I have spoken to the Chartered Trading Standards Institute and it is content with what I am about to say. The first point is that, in a recent survey of all trading standards staff, 80% of professionals supported this Bill and felt that it provides a good balance between the strategy that people have to get off smoking and protecting, in particular, younger people. They believe quite strongly that the provisions in this Bill can be enforced. They feel very positive about what I would call the “one date policy” because it will avoid retailers having to check several dates on ID every year; there will be just one date for them to focus on. It will also avoid—this has not been mentioned yet—people who are currently able to buy cigarettes having that right taken away from them. That is a flashpoint for retailers; I take very seriously the point that has been made about the threat that retailers are working under.
Trading standards also points to the fact that people often say that increased regulation and increased costs cause the illicit market to boom. There is no real evidence for that—certainly not in this country. I am not a smoker, but the cost of cigarettes has increased from £1 for 20 in 1987 to £16 or £17 for 20 in 2025; that has already been mentioned. Yet the market for illegal cigarettes reduced from 15 billion sticks sold to 2 billion sticks sold in the same period; actually, that was from 2000 to 2025. So the impact of regulation and price increases has not, at least in this country, been to increase the illicit market; that market is under control.
The other two points that the professionals make are, first, that they believe that the retail licensing in the Bill will actually improve standards in the retail landscape and, therefore, they support that as well. Where do they have doubts? They want resources, of course; everyone always does. Is the fixed penalty notice a sufficient sanction? Perhaps, but perhaps not; it depends on the circumstances, I think, and it will need to be kept under review.
I am trying to paint a picture here of a group of professionals who are under huge pressure, who have great commitment to their work and who actually support most of the provisions in this Bill.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, most of the amendments here may seem limited in scope but, as we have heard, they have in fact been set down to seek both to delay and to water down this Bill.
This weekend, my daughter and I visited my 24 year-old nephew where he is currently studying. As we walked along, he rolled cigarettes. I mentioned to him that I would be involved in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill today and that the aim was to create a smoke-free generation. He stopped in his tracks, turned to me and said, “Just get this passed now”. He then said, “I never want my son, if I ever have one, ever to take up smoking”. He told me that, several weeks earlier, he had given up vaping. He told me how difficult he found it. He hopes he can keep to it, despite repeatedly seeking to give up both vaping and smoking. He started among his peers in his teens, at the age of 14. He has not managed to kick the habit thus far. No one else in his family smokes. He fully knows the risks. No amount of warning on packets can deter the urge that he has. Try as he might, he just cannot kick the habit.
We know how addictive this is, which is why it is vital to stop the habit starting among the young. My nephew’s desire in his teens to do what all his friends were doing led him to smoking via highly attractive vapes, which is precisely what the industry knows. It is also precisely why this legislation, brought forward after the Khan review and then by former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, is so visionary. We must deliver this, yet many of these amendments seek to undermine it. The industry is very adept at working on opposition, as has been the case over so many years.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on this group of amendments, which are regrettable, in my view. The previous Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, is to be applauded for what he did, as are the previous Government and this Government. This measure should be nothing to do with party politics.
Interestingly, this is a measure on health, but the proponents of the amendments have not so far mentioned the word “health”. We have heard many arguments, some of which I understand—I will address them briefly in a minute—but, in essence, this is a health measure and we have our own Health Minister, quite rightly, responding to this set of amendments. It is her measure and the Government’s measure. This is a health measure and we should not shy away from the fact that it will save lives.
Those proposing the amendments said they were in favour of bringing in restrictions—there is an age limit now—but they did not say that to me when they were proposing this. It did not sound like that. When I was preparing for this debate, I looked at this set of amendments and, at the back of my mind, I was vaguely reminded of something. I remembered what it was—and they will not like this comparison, so forgive me. It was when Jeremy Corbyn was supposedly in favour of Remain and went around giving speeches on it. Similarly, this proposal seems very half-hearted.
At the core of the current legislation is an age limit. This alters only the way that the age limit applies. The suggestion, in its hyperbole, is that we are going to face a Wild West of people opposing this and so on. Perhaps we need more resources on enforcement, and we certainly need to put in resources to anticipate what small businesses will be doing, but do not forget that this will be a gradual ban; it will not happen overnight. We also need to spend money on cessation services. All of that comes up in a later group of amendments.
These amendments address something outstanding that the Government are doing, which the previous Government were committed to. We should not shy away from it. We can improve this legislation, but this set of amendments would drive a coach and horses through what is necessary.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I find myself in difficulty in this debate. As many noble Lords will know, my party will have a free vote on the generational ban if any amendments are pushed on it. At Second Reading, I made my view about it very clear. I reaffirm my commitment to the aim of the Bill to reduce smoking and have a healthier nation, which is a crucial public health objective, and I support greater regulation that helps people quit and prevents addiction. I say that as somebody who saw both parents die of smoking-related illness, so I understand the effect that it has.
My worry about the Bill, and the reason I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is the assumption that by banning something, demand will automatically go. It will not go; it will just be shifted to a different market: the black market. That is what will happen; evidence throughout history always shows that. The question is: will the Bill therefore be enforceable to the shift in demand to different markets?
At Second Reading, I raised the issue of proxy demand. Where people are legally able to buy, how on earth will trading standards and the police be able to police every single household in this country, where adults will share tobacco and cigarettes? That is what will happen. I ask the Minister directly whether it will be legal if someone in England who is not able to buy tobacco because they are deemed below the age threshold goes to Jersey, buys tobacco, brings it back and smokes it. Will they be deemed to be carrying out an illegal activity in the UK? Where we had booze runs in previous generations, will we have ciggie runs for this generation? It is a real question.
If somebody goes to France, buys cigarettes and then gives them to somebody back in the UK who is not deemed able to buy them in the UK, will the fact that they have bought them in France but given them to somebody in the UK be an illegal act? Smoking will not be illegal; it is the buying, so if somebody buys in a foreign country, will that be deemed illegal? These are really important questions. The whole enforcement of this relies on those kinds of questions being asked. I do not know the answers, so I ask these genuine questions.
I also worry about trading standards. I heard what the noble Lord said about trading standards, but I declare an interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association. Trading standards officers and organisations I speak to are very happy with what is being proposed but raise great questions about how enforcement will be carried out. They welcome the extra £30 million over the next five years but make it very clear that, in their view, three times that amount will be required to effectively enforce this. They also worry about rolling age verification, particularly as this goes into the future—distinguishing between a 30 year-old and a 31 year-old, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said. There will be a rolling issue of enforcement.
Finally, I made clear my fundamental philosophical issue at Second Reading and I shall not dwell on it today. The illicit trade already accounts for one in four cigarette sales. That is according to figures in Civil Service World. They are not HMRC figures. The Civil Service World article stated that, historically and to date, HMRC still underestimates the illegal trade and suggested that it is more like one in four sales. My view is that, by moving demand, we will move more of this into the illicit trade and therefore the enforcement will be even more.
I come back to my central point. Legislation in itself is useless if it cannot be enforced and I have no idea how proxy buying will be enforced in individual homes. People may say that they are not buying for somebody but then pass it on. I therefore believe that the Bill will not create the smoke-free generation that some want by having a generational ban. A cut-off point of an age, followed through with better regulation and better smoking cessation policy, with money paid by the tobacco industry for those things—there are amendments further down that we will come to on that—will be more effective than this view that a generational ban will magically stop the demand and stop younger people smoking throughout their lives.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I do not want prohibition and I do not want smoking to be illegal, but I feel that I would be having a more honest discussion if that was what was being proposed. I feel that, in the end, this is a Bill about prohibition. One reason I am so uneasy about the generational smoking ban, which is only part of the Bill, is that it restricts individual autonomy by ultimately denying adults the right to make their own choices about a legal activity, whatever its harms. We are asked to focus our eyes on young people, but those born in 2009 will grow up to be adults who are then denied the choice. In the end, that restricts adult freedoms—and that is a problem.
I appreciate that that is a matter of principle that some people do not think very important. By the way, one reason I am nervous about the specific amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, is that I am not convinced that moving the legal age from 18 to 21 helps my conscience matter at all, however well motivated the amendments are. I understand their intention but they muddy the waters around adult autonomy.
I was interested in the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, about polling saying that the public are all behind this. In fact, in one poll in August 2025, 59% of respondents thought, because the question was posed differently, that if a person can vote—and that age, as we know, is getting ever younger—drive a car, join the Army, buy alcohol and possess a credit card, they should be allowed to purchase tobacco. In other words, they could see that when asked that, they thought that. By the way, only 29% thought it should not be permitted and 11% said that they did not know. Mind you, the same polling asked about the 10 most important Bills, this being one of them, and this Bill came ninth on the list of what should be seen as important, progressing through the House. The 10th, by the way, was the hereditary Peers Bill. I thought that might appeal to some people; I was playing to a certain crowd. No, but anyway, that is what the polling said.
One thing I want to ask the Minister, in all seriousness, because I still cannot understand it, is: how can the Government justify a ban that creates an unequal application of the law, whereby one group of adults, born before a cut-off date, can legally purchase tobacco while another group, born after, cannot? I just do not understand how that arbitrary cut-off point is not discriminatory by treating people solely based on their birth. I asked that at Second Reading and nobody answered me.
I also wanted to ask whether it is realistic to think that this will stop young people smoking. At the moment, young people are not allowed to smoke. However, according to ASH, in 2023 11% of 11 to 15 year-olds—400,000 people—had tried smoking, 3%, or 120,000 people, had carried on smoking, and 1% were smoking regularly. In other words, even though it was completely against the law for them to do it, they carried on smoking. The idea that the Bill will magically stop that seems a little ambitious.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare that my wife is a non-executive director of Tesco. Secondly, I spent 10 years working at the Ministry of Sound in south London, where I came face to face with the illicit cigarette trade on a weekly basis. Christopher Upton was the name of the burly character who delivered cigarettes to the club each week; he controlled the London casual cigarette business very tightly indeed. He was a charming, if burly, individual who gave us presents at Christmas and is famous among the legal fraternity for his case, Fagomatic v HMRC, in which he argued that his shiny purple Lamborghini Countach should be deductible for VAT as a business expense, which sadly he lost in 2002. That is the face of illicit cigarette trading in the UK.
Since the days of Christopher Upton, the trade in illicit cigarettes has come down by 90%, from 15 billion sticks a year to 2 billion sticks a year. Those are the statistics that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, rightly gave; they are different from those given by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, which come from the KPMG report for Philip Morris, the cigarette seller, which are not figures that I feel this Committee should lean on. I can source the number, if it is helpful to noble Lords.
May I just say a word about prohibition? I have two points to make about the prohibition of cigarettes for young people. First, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, rightly and powerfully said, there is now a clear displacement route to vaping for anyone who wishes to take up this kind of activity. In other words, there is an alternative. Prohibitions come when there is no alternative. Secondly, I remind the Committee that, among young people, interest in smoking cigarettes has collapsed: it has gone from 23% of 18 year-olds in 2011 to 10% of 18 year-olds in 2025, and it is heading downwards. We can only encourage this move with this measure.
The amendments suggested in this group would be counterproductive and are, for that reason, extremely regrettable.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Murray and others, which concern substituting the age of 21. I do so not because I think 21 is the perfect age but because it becomes a workable solution in trying to prevent the young smoking.
I am—like many noble Lords in this Room, I suspect—a reformed smoker. It sounds like one of those AA meetings, does it not? I stopped smoking on the occurrence of my illness. I did not stop smoking because I had suddenly turned against them, morally; it is just that I now struggle to pick them up and light them. Of course, we would love to live in a world of nirvana where cigarettes and tobacco had not been invented, but I am afraid that idea is long gone; it went many hundreds of years ago.
I am sorry to say that the Bill gives this Parliament rather a bad name, because we are talking here about the complexity of age-related smoking. One needs only to look out on to today’s streets. It is pretty rare to see people smoking on the street and even rarer to see youngsters smoking on the street. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lord Bethell just said, 10% of youngsters smoke and, in the normal population, the number of smokers is collapsing. That is a result of cessation products, of better education and of us all, I think, being a bit more aware—if we needed to be more aware—of the dangers of smoking this smoking product, which is, by its very nature, pretty daft.
Where the public have lost us here, I think, is that they see a lot of evils on the streets of this country. They would rather we were debating banning knives on the street or banning street fentanyl, but here we are talking about banning smoking. I think people would almost laugh at us for discussing such things at length in this Parliament.
Hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent over the years on smoking cessation products via the NHS—whether patches, gums or other such things—yet the only product to have received no public subsidy, despite it being the biggest driver of reducing smoking in this country, is the vape. It has been far more successful than all those expensive products, although I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, about vaping. Perversely, this is where the nanny state gets a weird outcome. We are now seeing more youngsters addicted to nicotine at a young age via a vape than I think we ever would have done had we done nothing except the usual education around how bad smoking is. We now have a generation of nicotine addicts where I do not think we would have done before.
This is not a Second Reading argument about how bad the Bill is, but we need to think carefully about the practicality of banning things. I am concerned about small shops, not so much about the trade they might lose, even though that is a factor, but the reality out there. Too often, we in Parliament try to create a nirvana but do not look at the real world. I had a decorator a few years ago and, every day on the way to my place, he was buying illicit cigarettes. He said that, on his route through the Medway towns, he knew of four shops where there were illicit cigarettes under the counter. Where is HMRC? Where are trading standards? I knew where this was going on; I even used to tell trading standards where they ought to be looking, and there was the odd raid from time to time, but it still continues.
In the same breath in this legislation, we have some ridiculous statements about snus, a Scandinavian product that probably has its place in taking people out of smoking by an alternative supply of nicotine. We are seriously going to have potentially two years’ imprisonment for the selling of snus, yet while illicit cigarettes are banned, or just not legal to be sold, on every street in every town across this country we have illegal, illicit tobacco being sold. To then overlay further a load of new regulation, hoping that it will be enforced, is, frankly, for the birds.
I will take the whole moving-age argument a bit further. We discussed the ages of 31 and 30. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for saying what he said, which was absolutely right. I take that a bit further. A 70 year-old and a 71 year-old are living next door. The 71 year-old is going to have a very busy shopping list when he pops down to the Co-op in 2080 when he is buying cigarettes for the 70 year-old. To think that the trader is having to ask for some sort of ID, from someone who is obviously of a reasonable age, to buy cigarettes is, frankly, lunacy. That is why I support the age limit of 21 in preference to doing nothing at all.
I also have some sympathy for Amendment 16 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. If we are seriously considering youngsters being able to vote at 16 then why not have 16, or whatever that voting age is, as a sensible measure for doing lots of things? We do not think that 16 year-olds should be using a sunbed, but we suddenly think they should be voting.
I know that this measure was introduced, or thought about, by the outgoing Government and the previous Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak; we had discussions about this very Bill when he came to visit me in—in hospital. I nearly said “in prison”; it felt like that after six months. I gave my thoughts to him quite graphically: “Yes, it begins with a B, Prime Minister”.
There is an international dimension to this, which has been picked up on by a few speakers this afternoon. What will we do with Easyjet when you have the 18 year-old traveller coming back from Malaga or Majorca? I can only imagine, because they will be in international airspace, their complete ability to buy a carton of cigarettes on Easyjet or Ryanair or whatever other plane they are coming on, or at Malaga airport or at Dubai Airport. They will be able to bring them into the country and smoke them.
What will we do about the very real, seemingly invisible, border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland that has been discussed by my noble friend Lord Murray? Will the 18 year-olds living just over the border in Northern Ireland hop over to the tobacconist, literally just over the border, to satisfy their wishes? This just becomes within the realms of lunacy.
We have to look at what has happened elsewhere in the world. In Australia, we have seen an explosion of turf wars and an increase in illicit tobacco. There are two “illicits”: there is completely made-up tobacco, which is potentially truly dangerous, or the merely untaxed tobacco that has been imported to the UK but is the genuine product. There is huge money involved, and wherever there is big money there are turf wars, violence and problems.
It is too late to stop this legislation. I think it is daft, and we really should be addressing more pressing issues in this nation. The age limit of 21 is at least enforceable and has clarity. I have every confidence that the years of smoking in this country, because of the measures of education, peer pressure and the way we are not allowed to smoke in pubs, are being reduced almost to single figures and a diminishing number. On that basis, my noble friend Lord Murray and those amendments have my full support.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly. I had the privilege, before being an MP, of working as a director of one of the major advertising agencies. We had, as clients, one of the tobacco companies. I have seen the tobacco industry for 50 years and have watched what has been happening where it has been responsible and where it has not. On the whole, the industry has been responsible. I look at the NHS and the work that was done jointly with the industry on education, particularly with general practitioners, which has worked. We all know it has worked. That is why there has been a steady decline thanks to our GPs being the voice, helped by the industry itself.
On statistics, I have an upper second in economics from the University of Cambridge, but HMRC does not have a track record—whether it is a Conservative or Labour Government—of being terribly good at its forecasting. I read that, according to the brief, HMRC says that the loss from illegal importation et cetera is £2.2 billion. We have the figures from at least as good an organisation, if not better: the ONS. Its consumer spending data suggests that the figure is over £6 billion. Either way, it is a huge figure for the current Chancellor to look at very seriously. In my judgment, it is clearly nearer the £6 billion figure than the £2.2 billion.
Lastly—nobody has raised this—have His Majesty’s Government looked at what Sweden did in terms of educating young people? The success of the Government in Sweden on their particular challenges has been the in-depth education of young people in that country about the evils of smoking. If His Majesty’s Government have not done that yet, might I suggest that it is high time they did. I believe the amendments before us are worth supporting. They may not be perfect, but they are certainly a lot better than the case history we have from Australia, which is really worrying.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I want to add a brief footnote to the excellent speeches from my noble friends Lord Bourne and Lord Bethell. This group of amendments is probably the most important one that confronts this Committee because it challenges a major plank underpinning the Government’s approach to this by challenging the generational ban. It is appropriate that this group contains not just the first of the marshalled amendments but the last.
A long time ago, I held the position of the Minister as a Health Minister. From 1979 to 1981, I was in charge of the negotiations with the tobacco industry—the Tobacco Advisory Council as it then was—and I adopted a fairly aggressive negotiation tactic. When I suggested that the health warnings should not be just on the packets but the cigarettes, they told me I could not do this as the ink was carcinogenic. In 1981, my tactics proved a little too much for the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who moved me to a less confrontational position on that issue.
I have listened with respect to the arguments made by my noble friends in favour of Amendment 1, which would basically substitute the generational ban with a ban for anyone under 21. As my noble friend Lord Howe said on Second Reading, these issues involve a balance between personal freedoms on one hand and health gain on the other, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. Noble Lords may come down on different sides of the argument in free vote territory, but it seems to me the weakness of the amendment is simply its lack of ambition. It does not appear to bring to an end the harm done by the tobacco industry which is the whole point of the generational ban. As the former Prime Minister said last week, it was one of his proudest initiatives of those he introduced when he was Prime Minister.
It is worth just reminding your Lordships that the Bill passed the other place twice, once with a majority of 415 to 47. Last year, when my party was in government and had a free vote, I noted that the vast majority of Conservative MPs voted for the Bill, with just 67 voting against, and only two members of the Cabinet of about 30 voted against. So I hope that the broad policy introduced by the previous Government will continue to be carried through by this one and that a free vote will be allowed on my side for those who take a different view. I also recognise that the Bill is actually a little different from the one that was introduced last year.
This amendment would indeed reduce the harm done by smoking, but the Government’s own assessment concludes that a generational ban promises a far greater effect on smoking prevalence and broader support among young people. We should not want a smaller scale of ambition for a product that has killed a million people in this country over the last 50 years. The increase in the age of sale was a bit of policy conceived on evidence and based on long-term public health reform. It has strong public support, and it is backed by experts.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said, this does not impact current smokers. The impact on personal freedom is less under the Government’s proposal than under the amendment. The rewards from this are substantial: fewer young people taking up smoking, fewer families suffering avoidable disease and loss, and a future in which our economy and NHS are no longer burdened by the toll from tobacco.
I will say a quick word about the black market. I can do no better than to quote what Victoria Atkins said when this point was raised when she introduced nearly the same Bill last year. On the point about
“the age of sale and the black market, tobacco industry representatives claim that there will be unintended consequences from raising the age of sale. They assert that the black market will boom. Before the smoking age was increased from 16 to 18, they sang from the same hymn sheet, but the facts showed otherwise. The number of illicit cigarettes consumed fell by 25%, and smoking rates for 16 and 17-year-olds dropped by almost a third”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/4/24; col. 188.]
So I recognise the concerns of some of my noble friends on the libertarian wing of my party, but I remind them that crash helmets were made compulsory under the Heath Government in 1973; seatbelts became compulsory for drivers under the Thatcher Government in 1983 and for all passengers in 1981 under John Major. The previous Conservative Government introduced the Health and Care Act, which unblocked progress in adding fluoride to the water supply to promote dental health. So the generational ban is consistent with my party’s approach to public health over the last 50 years and I hope it will be sustained in this Parliament.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I just make a few points that have been raised in the debate. Noble Lords will soon find out that I do not take the same view as my noble friend Lord Scriven; I take the same view as my noble friend Lady Northover. Some of the aspects of this Bill are indeed a free vote for my party.
In this group of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, intends to remove the generational element. However, as the noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Young, have just mentioned, this is not prohibition for those already addicted to tobacco. In fact, the reason why the generational ban and the way that it works through is a good idea is because it is considerate to people who are already addicted to tobacco. It allows them to have plenty of time to quit if they so wish—the fact is that most of them do, but many find it very difficult. Retailers have been mentioned. The same thing applies to retailers: this gives them an opportunity to gradually adjust their business plan as demand falls. This is a good way of doing it for them as well. Taxation has been mentioned. Of course, taxation on tobacco does not nearly cover the damage that it does, but we will come to “polluter pays” later.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, has been shouting fire about the illicit market but, on the illicit market, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and I have some helpful amendments that we will discuss in a later group, which may help. As the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, said, the central point of the powers that the Government are taking is to stop people starting in the first place and thereby reduce the market, both legal and illicit. Sadly, the Government have taken so long to bring this before us in Committee that 120,000 young people have started smoking since the Bill was first introduced. Something must be done. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said, a public health crisis.
My noble friend Lord Scriven talked about the difficulty where you have two people who are very close in age but have different rights of choice. However, if you move the age limit to 21, you have the same problem with the 20 year-old and the 22 year-old. Really, it does not make any difference to that point. A very small choice restriction on one person’s freedom of choice is for the greater good and their own good.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, we were talking about the issue of one person almost the same age as another person having less freedom of choice. The point is that once you are addicted to nicotine, your freedom of choice is extremely limited, as we have just heard from my noble friend Lady Northover. She gave the example of her nephew, who found it extremely difficult to give up. My late mother-in-law was in the same position. She tried to give up smoking until she died—and she died of smoking, sadly.
It is very important that we have a robust system of enforcement. I look forward to hearing the Minister telling us about it, and what future measures the Government might take to reduce the number of illicit cigarettes—although I am told that it has declined by about 90% since 2000. One or two noble Lords mentioned the case in Australia. The fact is that it was a lack of robust enforcement that caused the problem in Australia. Despite that, the amount of people smoking has indeed gone down—but I agree with noble Lords who say that we need strong enforcement. When it comes to a smoker who, let us say, is my age, or who will be my age in many years’ time, who needs to provide some kind of ID, as long as it is not absolutely mandated, I am sure that some form of ID will be devised by clever people for those aged 82, and it will not be very difficult for them; they will just be able to do it, and that will sort that problem out altogether.
As noble Lords might have gathered, I support the Government’s generational approach to reaching the point of a smoke-free Britain. It is a public health crisis, as is obesity, on which the Government also need to take action. Lots of amendments are coming up about various aspects that have been mentioned today, such as age-gating, which we will discuss in greater detail. This has been a very extensive and passionate debate. I must say that I find myself a little surprised that so many of former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s party are so against what the Government are trying to do achieve his ambition. However, I shall leave it at that.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Murray for bringing forward the amendments in his name, because he has allowed us to begin this Committee by engaging with one of the central and, dare I say, most controversial pillars of this Bill: the generational smoking ban. It is fitting that we start with this big policy issue, because the clause goes to the very heart of what the Government are seeking to do in creating what they describe as a smoke-free generation.
Before I turn to the points made in the debate, it is worth reminding ourselves of the context in which we are discussing the Bill—and a number of noble Lords have underlined that context. Smoking remains the single biggest entirely preventable cause of illness, disability and death in our country. It kills some 80,000 people each year. It costs our NHS and social care systems more than £3 billion annually. Someone is admitted to hospital because of smoking almost every minute. It shortens lives, it devastates families, and it deepens inequality. Yet, as we debate this issue, we can recognise that, happily, the direction of travel is positive. Smoking rates have been falling: in 1990, nearly one in three adults smoked, but, today, that figure stands at just above one in 10. The number of children who smoke is falling as well.
Those are not arguments for complacency or for not legislating, but nor are they arguments for legislating carelessly. My noble friend Lord Murray asked some pertinent questions for the Minister to answer, in particular on the Windsor Framework and the dangers of a burgeoning illicit market, but, more generally, he was surely right to challenge the Government to explain exactly how the generational ban will operate. I say that he is right, because the proposal will represent a profound shift in how the law treats adults. It will, for the first time, make a permanent legal distinction between two adults, based solely on their dates of birth. One person aged 35, say, will be permitted to buy a legal product, while another person aged 34 will put a tobacconist in criminal jeopardy for selling him precisely the same product.
I emphasise that I pay tribute to my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister. Nevertheless, serious practical questions arise from that distinction, quite apart from the questions around discrimination throughout this Bill, to which we need—I say this to the Minister—to face up. Some of those questions have already been foreshadowed by my noble friends Lord Murray and Lord Moylan but, as a starter, let me pick up the question of enforcement, which came up in the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. How exactly do the Government intend these measures to be policed? How much responsibility will fall on shopkeepers, how much on trading standards and how much on the police?
Then there is the impact on retailers. How will small and independent retailers be supported to implement the new age checks and avoid inadvertent breaches of the law? Are we just going to leave them to cope as best as they can? Importantly, there is also the question of public understanding. How will the Government communicate to the public, especially younger adults, that some people of more or less the same age may face entirely different legal restrictions?
Can the Minister confirm one point of detail, which we discussed in our meetings on the Bill ahead of Committee? Will a person born on or after 1 January 2009 be permitted to sell tobacco products to someone born before that date? In other words, will someone who is themselves legally prohibited from purchasing tobacco still be able to serve or sell such products to others who remain entitled to buy them? That may seem a minor question, but it is one of the many practical questions that shopkeepers and retailers are already asking. The answer will affect staffing and hiring practices. What age will an employee of a tobacconist have to be to handle tobacco sales? Those are not arguments against the generational ban, but I hope that the Minister can address these concerns in her reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the amendments and also the contributions today. As we know, this group of amendments seeks to change or to place conditions on our smoke-free generation policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, both observed, this group is very much at the core of the Bill and I understand the amount of interest that we have had today.
Let me say at the outset that there are a number of areas raised by noble Lords that I will return to in much greater detail, including, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, to: verification and retailers in group two; illicit sales and licensing in group 13; tobacco products that are in scope in group 16; and vaping, which is in groups five and six. I look forward to the detail of those debates when we get to them.
Perhaps I could say that I am grateful for the supportive comments on this Bill, which, as we have been reminded throughout, was introduced under the previous Government. Credit goes to them for doing so, in particular for the commitment that was shown by the former Prime Minister, the right honourable Rishi Sunak. I am therefore grateful to my noble friend Lady Carberry, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, who helpfully reminded us all that this is a health Bill, and that is what we are here to consider. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, all of whom have been supportive of the smoke-free generation principle and have emphasised to the Committee today the amount of public support for that and its role in stopping the cycle of addiction.
I will start with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, which propose changing the age of sale and proxy purchasing offences. These amendments would make it an offence to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to a person under the age of 21. They would also make it an offence to buy or attempt to buy these products on behalf of anyone under the age of 21.
I am also grateful for the points that were just made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on this group of amendments. I cannot fail to emphasise that smoking is indeed the number one preventable cause of death, disability and ill health. It is unique in its harm, because it claims the lives of around 80,000 people a year in the UK, it causes one in four of all cancer deaths in England and up to two-thirds of deaths in current smokers can be attributed to smoking. I am sure that, over the years, noble Lords have heard the Chief Medical Officer’s opinion of the contribution that smoking makes, and that there is no safe level of smoking.
To the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who spoke about restrictions on adults’ individual autonomy, three-quarters of people who smoke wish that they had never started smoking. The majority want to quit and we want to help them. In my view, smoking is not about freedom of choice; I believe that the tobacco industry takes that choice away through addiction, particularly at a young age. In my view and that of a number of noble Lords whom I have heard speak, there is no liberty if we are speaking of addiction.
Almost every minute, someone is admitted to hospital because of smoking and up to 75,000 GP appointments can be attributed to smoking every single month. There is, as has been referred to, an economic cost. It is estimated to cost our society more than £21 billion a year in England alone, including £3 billion a year in costs to our health and care service. This is far from insignificant.
That is why this Government has made a commitment to create a smoke-free generation, so that anyone born on or after 1 January 2009 will never be legally sold tobacco products. I recall the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Mackinlay, making a particular reference to the potential contribution of people bringing tobacco back from abroad, but the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Strathcarron, talked about the Bill prohibiting smoking. Let me make it clear: the smoke-free generation policy is not about criminalising people who smoke. It will not be an offence to possess or consume tobacco, regardless of your age. I can tell the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Mackinlay, that we are not imposing new restrictions on bringing tobacco back into this country.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Carberry. It is my belief—it is not just a belief, in fact; it is based on experience—that, if we raise the age of sale to 21, to which this group of amendments refers, the tobacco industry will simply change its business model and target older adults; a number of noble Lords referred to this. It will not meet our ambition of a smoke-free UK.
Similarly, the Bill makes proxy purchasing an offence such that anyone over the age of 18 cannot legally purchase tobacco products on behalf of someone born on or after 1 January 2009. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked important questions about the handling of proxy purchasing. I have explained clearly what the offence is and who would be responsible for it. This is about protecting children from the harms of smoking. I reiterate that tobacco is uniquely harmful. As I have said, there is no safe level of smoking; I emphasise that, to my knowledge, no other consumer product is killing two-thirds of its users.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I just want to pursue the issue of proxy purchasing abroad. My question was not about whether people will be able to buy tobacco abroad or whether duty-free limits will cease. My question was: if somebody buys cigarettes in a jurisdiction outside the UK and, when they come back, gives one of them to someone who is not legally entitled to buy them here, will that be an illegal act for the UK citizen who has bought that product abroad?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The purchasing referred to is within our jurisdiction.
That gives me an opportunity to make a general but important point. This is about changing culture and practice. It is not about everything staying the same. This is not just a message but a practice in terms of what is acceptable and what is not. All noble Lords have seen changes over the years, as I did when I was the Public Health Minister in the previous Labour Government, which have meant that we can speak about this Bill, as we are doing today, in a way that I do not think would have been possible just a few years ago. Tobacco is a deadly addiction, and preventing children starting to smoke is undoubtedly the easiest way to reduce smoking rates. We have to be bold and brave on this, which is why we are committed to creating a smoke-free generation.
My noble friend Lady Carberry mentioned the impact assessment. Modelling shows that creating a smoke-free generation is expected to help reduce smoking rates among 14 to 30 year-olds to near zero by 2050. That is a prize worth having, in my view. Over the next 50 years, it will save tens of thousands of lives, as well as many years lived in ill health with misery, discomfort and pain; it will also avoid up to 130,000 cases of lung cancer, stroke and heart disease. As I say, all of these are, I believe, prizes worth having.
On the impact assessment, a number of noble Lords said that an “age 21” policy would have just the same impact as a smoke-free generation policy. That is not true. We are aware that the tobacco industry has been telling parliamentarians this. I must say, again, that it is incorrect. The published modelling considered different scenarios for the impact of the smoke-free generation policy; it did not model the impact of raising the age of sale to 21. I believe that we have a responsibility to protect future generations from becoming addicted to nicotine; to break the cycle of addiction and disadvantage; and to allow people the chance to live healthier lives.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The Minister must be clear that the report was done by KPMG; it was commissioned by Philip Morris Ltd, but it was not written by that organisation.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am happy to accept that clarification, but the point that I am driving is still being driven.
I now move on to Amendments 5 and 205 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which seek to introduce an interim age of sale of 21 at Royal Assent, before the smoke-free generation provisions come into force. Although I appreciate the noble Lord’s ambition in seeking to raise the age of sale for relevant products, which we are discussing, it is my view that these amendments are not necessary; indeed, they would distract from our ambitions. Let me explain why.
Under this Bill, the smoke-free generation will come into force in 2027 when people born on or after 1 January 2009 turn 18. Subject to timetabling, these amendments would mean that any interim age of sale proposed by the noble Lord would be in place for only a year or less. Retailers and enforcement agencies—they are, as many noble Lords have acknowledged, absolutely key to the success of this measure—would not be provided with any time to prepare for the increase to 21. I do not feel, therefore, that a measure such as this one would be helpful; indeed, it would divert resources.
The important matter of communication to the public came up in the debate. The noble Lord’s amendments would confuse all such communications if a different regime were to apply for such a short time.
The noble Lords, Lord Strathcarron and Lord Mackinlay—as well as other noble Lords—referred to the situation in Australia. Let me say this in response: we are not aware of any evidence for the illicit market in Australia being the result of a change in the age of sale. In fact, I am advised that Australia has not changed its age of sale since 1998. I say this to noble Lords: the UK is highly regarded for its robust, comprehensive approach to tackling illicit tobacco. Despite what the tobacco industry may say, implementing tobacco controls does not lead to an increase in the illicit market.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, we have another Division, so the Committee is again suspended for 10 minutes.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I hope my responses have been a reassurance to the Committee and that the proposers of these amendments will feel able not to press them.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
May I ask one question? The Minister has not yet touched on the issue of Northern Ireland. Is it right that the Windsor Framework precludes the generational smoking ban coming into effect in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The Bill is UK-wide, as the noble Lord will be aware. It has been developed in partnership with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, and the intention is that the measures in the Bill will apply across the UK. I assure him that, in preparing the Bill, the Government considered all their domestic and international obligations and the Bill does comply.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the Minister for her answer and her remarks, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this fascinating group. While the amendments themselves are not fascinating—because I proposed them—the speeches of noble Lords have been. They have shown a consistent and deep interest in the topic and a variance of views.
A number of issues remain unanswered, as highlighted by the somewhat roundabout answer on the compatibility of the generational ban with the Windsor Framework. Noble Lords will no doubt still have a number of other questions, in particular in relation to the fact that there is no proposal in the Bill for possession of tobacco to be an offence, nor the smoking of it. Instead, we are told that there is to be an offence of supplying cigarettes and buying them for another. That sort of offence is unworkable and unenforceable, and is effectively window-dressing for a scheme that is highly unlikely to succeed. That perhaps stands as a totem for a problem with the generational ban more generally—it is unworkable and unenforceable and will lead to greater criminality.
We saw from the speeches by Members across the Committee that there is a range of views. Accordingly, I suspect that there is a real risk that, if this Bill were to pass with the generational ban in it, it would be revisited in the same way as occurred in New Zealand when realisation of successful implementation was seen to be too far off and the approach changed. With that, although I reserve the right to reconsider the issue on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moylan
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that regulations to specify methods of customer age verification must be made by the affirmative resolution procedure.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 3 and 17. The bulk of the amendments in this group are to do with age verification, but mine are not, and I do not intend to speak about age verification. However, the process of numerical determinism that governs our actions and procedures means that I have the privilege of speaking first in this group.
My amendments are to do with the question of whether certain regulations should be approved and made by the affirmative or negative process, which I hope is a relatively uncontroversial topic. Indeed, I hope that it will find support across the Committee, because I wish to move from the current arrangement whereby these regulations are made under the negative process to the affirmative process, which generally finds favour among your Lordships.
Both amendments require certain specific regulations—not all regulations—to be approved by the affirmative process. Amendment 3 relates to tobacco sales and Amendment 17 relates to vape sales. The activities subject to these regulations are what constitute a defence by the retailer if charged with an offence under the Bill. In other words, these regulations state how a retailer must operate if they are to have a defence under the Bill from the charge of making illicit sales. To be effective, these must be highly technical and challenging regulations which will require the broadest consultation with representative bodies, including those representing not only retailers but trading standards and enforcement officers, which I think would benefit greatly from parliamentary scrutiny.
This would involve issues such as—we will come on to this—what sort of age verification would be acceptable and other matters of that sort. As I say, they are likely to be very technical and they will have to work. If they are going to work, the greater the scrutiny they are given, the better. In that sense, the argument makes itself.
I hope that the Government see that there is nothing mischievous about these amendments; the Bill and the operation of it would benefit by accepting them, and there should be little difficulty in doing so. I am not proposing to speak on the broader question of age verification that will come up in the course of this debate, but I wish to move Amendment 3.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 9, tabled in my name, would create an offence of selling tobacco products online. This is a probing amendment.
If the generational ban policy is to be effective, or the alternative policy of an age limit of 21, there would be a clear loophole if tobacco could be bought online, as roughly 9% of sales are at the moment, without any form of age verification. Such a policy would be unusual for the UK, as there is not currently a product that is available for sale in a bricks and mortar shop that you cannot legally purchase online. However, we would by no means be the first country in the world to introduce this measure: Brazil, Mexico, Finland, France and Greece, to name a few, have all banned the sale of tobacco products via the internet, so there are some clear international precedents.
Banning the online sale of tobacco was recommended by the Khan review in 2022 and the World Health Organization, which argued that internet sales constitute
“display at points of sale”
and
“inherently involve advertising and promotion”.
Today you can look up tobacco products on any of the major supermarket websites or shopping apps and see reviews, such as:
“Quite nice for relaxing on a summers day, beside a bubbling brook perhaps or at a test match”,
as one purchaser of Pall Mall Flow Red Superkings commented. Last time I went to a test match, smoking was prohibited.
Separately from the point about the delivery of smoking products, are these the messages that we want smokers to see about such a lethal product, given that such advertising was banned on television some 60 years ago? When retailers sell tobacco products, they are not permitted to display them, yet there are pictures of products online. This seems inconsistent. Products such as heated tobacco and cigarillos have colourful packaging, as they are not captured by plain-pack laws, which seems to be a regulatory oversight. I appreciate that the Government may be doing something about this, so perhaps the Minister can give us some details—but it feels like the online world is somewhere where rules are often bent with little repercussion, and the amendment would address that.
At the moment, online sales are not heavily exploited by underage individuals attempting to circumvent the law. However, we should be mindful of that possibility in the future. If the Government are minded to resist the amendment, I hope that the Minister will explain how age verification will be secured at the point of delivery. Someone born after 2009 can order their groceries online and include tobacco, but they could not buy it in the shop. How might this be enforced without the amendment? Does the Minister plan to go down the route that we have taken for the delivery of knives? Since 2022, a retailer has to verify the age of the purchaser before he or she sells a knife and, if that knife is delivered after an online order, it has to be checked at the point of delivery. Does the Minister have that in mind for tobacco sales? Who will be responsible for ensuring the implementation of the policy if tobacco products are available online? I look forward to her reply in due course.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for introducing this group of amendments, and I agree with his proposals relating to the mechanism by which the House looks at statutory instruments. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham about the desirability of further constraining online sales. However, I do not want to talk at length about those; I want to talk simply about age-verification technology and the potential that it offers.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to address one of the practical issues that has been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, talked about restrictions at the point of use and I wish to talk about restrictions at the point of sale.
The purpose of my Amendment 23 is to propose that, in the sale of vapes and tobacco products, verification of age should be achieved primarily by a date-of-birth tag carried by banker’s cards. The proposal is contained in subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause in the amendment. The rest of the text is an embellishment by a parliamentary draftsman, which serves perhaps to conceal the simple purpose of the amendment.
I observe that the majority of purchases by consumers are nowadays made with banker’s cards. I witnessed this in our local supermarket. The automatic tills used to dispense cash when payments that had been made with notes and coins exceeded the cost of the goods that were being purchased; such machines are being removed because they have become redundant.
The efficiency of the card-reading tills is impaired only by their inability to mediate the sale of alcohol. They halt the transactions and flash a signal whenever an attempt is made to purchase alcohol. A shop assistant hovers near the machines in order to assess whether the customer is old enough to purchase alcohol. My invariable comment when buying a bottle of wine is to ask why the machine is not smart enough to tell my age, which can be assessed at a glance by the assistant. Sometimes it invokes the fatuous response that I do not look a day older than 21.
Be that as it may, the difficulty and inconvenience could be overcome if banker’s cards were to incorporate an age tag. Such a tag would also serve for age verification, which, according to the Bill, should accompany the sale of tobacco products. It may be appropriate for me to give more details of what I am proposing. Tobacconists and sellers of vapes would be required by the terms of their licence to be equipped with a card reader that would send a signal if the card holder was underage.
Another, less convenient means of identification should be acceptable, such as passports and driving licences, and even the freedom passes that are issued by London councils to pensioners to allow them to travel freely on the public transport system. A doctor’s certificate might also be acceptable, in the case of a smoker attempting to quit the habit. However, the inconvenience of these alternatives should encourage a reliance on age verification via banker’s cards.
The system as described so far would not be proof against all evasions, but it could be elaborated to incorporate a system of inventory control, which would record both the items being added to the retailer’s stock and those sold to consumers. The sales of tobacco products could be recorded item by item via a till specially equipped for the purpose. That would be straightforward since, apart from legally imported items, all legitimate tobacco products carry a machine-readable barcode. The till would also create a record of cash sales, and the purchase of tobacco products by the retailer would be recorded, so you would have a complete inventory system there. A major disparity in the records between the retailer’s stock and their recorded sales could be investigated, and it might lead to a prosecution.
It has been claimed by those opposed to age verification accompanying the sale of tobacco that it would lead to conflicts between the retailer and their customers. I tend to discount that possibility. To any person attempting to purchase tobacco products using cash and providing no age verification, the retailer could say, “I cannot do this. It would lead to a prosecution”. Surely that ought to be enough. I imagine that similar circumstances arise in medical pharmacies when someone attempts to purchase a regulated medicine in the absence of a doctor’s prescription.
So far, I have been describing purchases of tobacco products that occur in shops, but I understand that an increasing proportion of purchases nowadays are made online by the internet. These are also mediated almost exclusively by banker’s cards, and it would be a simple matter for banks to identify the age of the customer when they attempt to pay for the goods. The bank should be mandated to block all purchases attempted by underage persons.
I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Young, said about sales on the internet. I can agree with it, I think, but what I am proposing almost covers the issue in its entirety. I believe that the system I have outlined, whether or not it would become watertight through a rigorous inventory control, is the only viable system that would not greatly inconvenience the consumers of tobacco products—although it might be the intention to inconvenience such consumers. Be that as it may, I honestly believe that what I have outlined is the obvious way of achieving the Bill’s objectives. I would be most surprised if others have not proposed similar or identical systems; indeed, it surprises me that I am, to my mind, the only person who has made this obvious point.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 24 and 25 in this group. They were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, who is unfortunately unwell today; I am speaking at his request.
These amendments would apply mandatory age-verification procedures for the sale of tobacco, vapes and non-medicinal nicotine products across England and Wales. Such provisions are in line with the provisions set out for Scotland in the Bill. Also in this group are the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Lansley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, about which we have just heard. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, are, in his view, different.
First, they would apply to all tobacco products and not just vaping devices, as the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would. Secondly, they would require decisive action on the policy to be applied for age verification, rather than an evidence review. The amendments do not prescribe specific methods for age verification; they simply state that age verification would be required.
Since these amendments were tabled and debated in the other place, the Government have announced plans for digital ID cards. This Bill defines “identification” in a broad way to make space for the option of digital ID—it is understood that that option will be used for alcohol sales soon—but it is separate from any kind of mandate on such forms of ID.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, wishes to point out that the successful implementation of the policy in this Bill will require a consistent, practical and enforceable approach to age verification. In his view, this should be in the Bill. He points out that, in Scotland, there is already legal underpinning to the Challenge 25 policy; the Bill adapts this for the rising age of sale. However, there is no such legal basis in England and Wales. These amendments would remove this inconsistency by extending such an underpinning to England and Wales; he feels that it should also be extended to Northern Ireland, although that is not covered in the amendments currently tabled.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, is, therefore, seeking to provide across Great Britain consistency, clarity for both retailers and consumers, and protection for retailers who, as other noble Lords mentioned earlier, might be on the front line in implementing the policy and finding the challenges in that. He points out that, if age verification is a legal requirement, retailers can say, “It’s not me. It’s the law”, rather than shouldering the burden of difficult conversations with customers.
The Bill already creates an offence for retailers who sell tobacco to those born in or after 2009. The defence in law is that all reasonable steps were taken to ensure that the law was being followed. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, points out that this does not mean that retailers will be required to ask every customer for ID from 2027 onwards if, as in Scotland, the age of sale is obviously such that they do not need to proceed with an ID. He says that these amendments have the backing of retailers themselves. Polling shows that 83% of retailers in England support mandatory verification for under-25s, rising to 91% in Scotland where it is already law, and it provides them with clarity, protection and reassurance. The noble Lord also says that public support is equally strong, with 72% of adults in Great Britain favouring this approach.
This is not just about future generations; it is also about tackling a current problem. Despite the ban on sales to under-18s, data shows that around half of the young people who vape are buying them in shops. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said that the figure is actually higher than that. The amendment would make it clear to retailers that ID is required for not just tobacco but vapes and non-medicinal nicotine products. The Bill already allows flexibility; regulations can specify a wide range of acceptable forms of identification, including digital ID, as is already being introduced for alcohol sales.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, is acutely aware that the enforceability of this part of the Bill has been raised. He hopes that his amendments provide a practical solution that is a proportionate measure. Given that he could not be here, it seemed important to me that his amendments were spoken to so that the Minister can address these issues. I look forward to her response and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will be very interested as well.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Moylan on having the affirmative resolution procedure for statutory instruments. That seems wholly sensible.
On age verification, I strongly support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. Dealing with online sales is a real issue. We have the overseas experience of countries such as France, Mexico, Brazil and so on to look at, but this seems a neat solution to what could otherwise become a very real problem.
On the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Lansley, considerable work has been done on age gating in relation to vaping sales and, as he said, those who are vaping strongly support having some kind of process. We have the system being developed by IKE Tech in the USA, currently awaiting FDA approval, which provides a very neat and quick method of age verification via a smartphone app. It will enable adults to remain protected—it will take them only 90 seconds for the initial process and six seconds for every subsequent vape, so it will not take long. That seems a very sensible way of proceeding and I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
In relation to what the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said about what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, would have said, there is certainly an issue to be looked at. I strongly support looking at what has been working in Scotland. It seems sensible to look at what they have been doing, learn from their experience and follow it where appropriate. Again, I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that issue.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I do not think it is fair to ask a courier driver to verify the age of a person, so the noble Lord, Lord Young, has a very good point, and age verification online is very poor. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke about age gating. I can see why it is popular with retailers, because it would take some of the burden away from them.
It has been claimed that the Bill may not currently keep up with technology. Can the Minister say whether the wide powers in the Bill would allow powers to be taken in future to mandate age-gating technology if the evidence indicates that it is needed? Clearly, there is a problem even now with underage children buying vapes. A briefing that I—and I think quite a few other noble Lords—received from something called IKE Tech said that 71% of underage children buying vapes get them from retailers. That indicates that we need a really vigorous enforcement regime. It also said that 76% said they are buying them online, which indicates support for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Young.
On the whole, when people buy from a retailer, I think that I am in favour of a wide range of means of age verification being acceptable. Both these amendments aim to reduce opportunities to start vaping underage, which is a very good thing, because young people who start vaping may not be killed by tobacco but they will be made addicted and very poor by the addiction to nicotine that they will get hooked on. I look forward to the Minister’s reply on that. I would not want to prevent an adult who could not obtain digital age verification buying an effective quitting tool, so we have to be a bit careful about unexpected consequences.
One thing that I saw in the briefing was interesting. The claim is that similar tech can also prevent circulation of illicit products by embedding low-cost NFC tags into product packaging so that every legal vape can be instantly verified; this stops fakes at the border and on shop shelves. That is something that we should all be concerned about, because drugs could well be inserted into vapes—and I understand that this is happening already—so people are getting things that they do not expect to get. Of course, something like that would not be legal and, if there was a tag on them to identify anything that is legal, you would only want to buy those. I know that teachers have reported problems with children being drugged by things that have been inserted into vapes, so that is something that we should consider.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate in different ways to age verification and the role of retailers and how these new rules will be implemented, monitored, enforced and supported in practice. I begin by thanking my noble friends Lord Moylan, Lord Lansley and Lord Young of Cookham, as well as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and—through the noble Baroness, Lady Northover—the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for their thoughtful and varied contributions. Noble Lords have raised from different angles the same essential question: how can we make sure that the Bill works, not just in principle but in practice, and that those on the front line of enforcement are properly supported in the roles that they perform?
I start with Amendments 3 and 17 from my noble friend Lord Moylan, which would ensure that any regulations specifying methods of age verification were made under the affirmative resolution procedure and would implement a greater age threshold during the interim period. I fully support my noble friend. These regulations should be made subject to the affirmative procedure. The powers that we are talking about are far from minor; they will determine how retailers verify a customer’s age, what technologies can be used and what systems are deemed compliant. The verification methods will be central to the success and fairness of the new regime, and it is therefore right that they should be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny before coming into force, not least because the technology in this space is evolving rapidly and the decisions that the Government make on this front will have real implications for retailers and enforcement bodies as well as consumers. I suggest that it is becoming even more important, given the Government’s announcement around a national digital ID.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I turn next to my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendments, which would introduce requirements and provide enabling powers for age-verification technology to be built into vaping devices themselves. This proposal opens up all sorts of interesting avenues of thought. The idea of age-gating devices, using technology to prevent use by those who are underage, is innovative by any standards. As we heard from my noble friend, there is already at least one technology that would facilitate this; like him, I am led by the manufacturers to understand that it has been successfully trialled in the United States.
There could be distinct advantages to such a system: it would close a loophole that rogue sellers currently exploit; it would be more effective as a way of reducing the incidence of underage vaping; it could avoid unpleasant confrontations in retail stores, about which we know retailers are very worried; and, as my noble friend said, it would not affect the way in which adults use vapes as a way of quitting smoking. From the Government’s point of view, an amendment along the lines of my noble friend’s would act as a form of future-proofing the Bill, because it would enable them to regulate the technology in devices or packaging— a power that this Bill does not currently give them. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government have considered systems of this kind and whether officials are aware of developments in this field?
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, which calls for a review of age-verification methods. The Committee will be grateful to him for raising this idea; it links into my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment, but it also speaks to the crucial principle that we must remain properly informed about how these measures will work in practice. This Bill introduces a major new regulatory framework, so it has to be monitored and tested against real-world evidence. Age verification will, as I have said, be central to the Bill’s success, so we need credible and accurate systems to facilitate it. The noble Viscount is therefore right to emphasise the need to engage directly with those on the front line: the retailers who will have to implement these rules every day. Their experience will be one of the best indicators of whether the system is working as intended.
I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, which seek to place a statutory requirement on businesses to operate age-verification policies in England and Wales. These are well-intentioned amendments, and we share entirely the objective of preventing underage sales. However, as I read it, the Bill as drafted already makes it an offence to sell tobacco or vaping products to anyone below the legal age and provides for a due diligence defence for retailers who have taken all reasonable precautions. In practice, that means having and enforcing an age-verification policy, which is the very outcome that these amendments seek to achieve. The familiar Challenge 25 model is already a well-established part of a range of retailer compliance. So, although we understand and respect the motivation behind these amendments, we do not believe that it is necessary to restate these duties in the Bill.
I welcome the amendment from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, which would prohibit the online sale of tobacco products. This raises serious and timely questions around enforcement, fairness and the protection of legitimate retailers. My noble friend put his case very well. Online sales prevent a potential route for illicit or underage trade; as purchasing habits continue to shift online, that risk will surely only increase. We therefore see every benefit in exploring whether a prohibition or stricter control of online sales is appropriate.
If I were to voice a caveat, which I am sure my noble friend would not object to, it would be that we must always ensure that law-abiding retailers—those who comply with the law and operate responsibly—are not disadvantaged. Any new regulation has to be clear, enforceable and fair. The central question here is: has the Minister given any thought to this issue? If so, what capacity do the Government have to enforce a measure such as the one suggested by my noble friend? What mechanisms exist to distinguish legitimate traders from those operating illicitly? Can we control online sales in the way we would like to do? I am sure that the Minister will be the first to recognise that, if unregulated online trade becomes a loophole—indeed, it already is—it will seriously undermine the objectives of the Bill.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments addresses the important topics of age verification and online sales. I am grateful to all noble Lords for not just their contributions but the intent behind these amendments—an intent that I have heard as being presented to assist the Bill. I am grateful for noble Lords’ considerations; I have certainly heard the support given by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, to a number of these amendments.
I turn to Amendments 24 and 25 tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, who is not able to be in his place. We wish him well. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for presenting these amendments, which would introduce a requirement for a person carrying on a business selling tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine products, in England or Wales, to operate an age-verification policy. I certainly welcome the intention to prevent underage sales and to express a view—as I have heard not just from the noble Baroness but from other noble Lords—about supporting retailers to do the job that we are asking of them. I associate myself with that, but we believe that the Bill’s current provisions are sufficient in this regard.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Is the Minister aware of the retailers—some 3,000 of them—which have written to Ministers to make the point, which emerged in a number of noble Lords’ speeches, about how concerned retailers are about the emphasis upon them denying access to vapes? The use of age-gating technology would substantially relieve those pressures on retailers.
We need to look at what the evidence may be about whether adult smokers who wish to quit by using vapes would be at all deterred by the age-gating technology. To that extent, what worries me is that we may conclude, either through international experience or pilot schemes in this country, that they are not deterred at all. Then suddenly we do not have access to a technology that would deal with illicit sales and proxy purchasing, which the point-of-sale restrictions will not bite upon. I worry that we should have the powers available.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand the point the noble Lord makes. I believe I said that it potentially risks making vapes less accessible. I know that that is not a view that he shares. I also agree that, where there is evidence, we need to be focused on it in the measures we are taking. But the position I have outlined is the case. I will reflect on the comments that he and other noble Lords have made, which I have heard very well. I understand the concerns of retailers and I am very aware of them; that is why we continue to work so closely with their trade associations to overcome difficulties. We do not want retailers to be put in a position where they cannot do the job that they want to do. We will continue in our work in that way.
With that, I hope the noble Lord will feel about to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her concluding remarks and for the sensitive and attentive way that she commented on the debate; she has clearly listened to what noble Lords said and sought to respond within the limits of government policy. As far as my own amendments are concerned, I heard what she said with just a hint of encouragement; there was not a slamming of the door at least, so I look forward to seeing what the Government come forward with on Report.
Concerning the other amendments in this group, I refer to the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, used the words unintended consequences. The Bill potentially has quite a lot of unintended consequences. Some of them relate to age verification and the role of retailers in the architecture created by the Bill. There are potential lacunae in the Bill.
I simply say that the sooner the Government come forward with draft regulations and a clear idea of what is being required, the happier noble Lords will be and, more importantly, the happier the retailers—including online retailers—will be with the Bill as it goes forward. I hope that the Minister recognises that and feels that the Government can act on it. Perhaps we might even see some draft regulations before the Bill completes its passage through your Lordships’ House. In the meantime, with that hopeful and optimistic wish on my lips, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bethell
“Complete prohibition of tobacco products from 2040(1) In addition to the prohibition in section 1 regarding individuals born on or after 1 January 2009, the sale of tobacco products to any person is prohibited in the United Kingdom from 1 January 2040.(2) All licences to sell tobacco and tobacco retail registrations will be invalid as of 00:01am on 1 January 2040.(3) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a strategy for—(a) implementing the complete prohibition under subsection (1),(b) supporting tobacco retailers and businesses in transitioning away from tobacco product sales,(c) strengthening enforcement mechanisms to prevent illicit trade of tobacco products, and(d) enhancing smoking cessation services to support individuals ahead of the 2040 prohibition. (4) The strategy under subsection (3) must include provision for a phased reduction in tobacco product availability beginning not later than 1 January 2030.(5) Nothing in this section affects the operation of section 1 of this Act, which applies to individuals born on or after 1 January 2009 regardless of the prohibition in subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment preserves the generational approach to phasing out tobacco while establishing a backstop date of 1 January 2040 for complete prohibition. The amendment also requires the Secretary of State to develop a comprehensive implementation strategy.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, my amendment is grouped with Amendment 199, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Walmsley, and Amendment 193, in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. I repeat my declaration of interest that my wife is a non-executive director of Tesco. I will speak to my own amendment and leave it to others to speak to theirs.
I remind noble Lords that the ambition of the Bill is nothing less than the wholesale eradication of smoking. I laid out the costs of smoking to our society in my Second Reading speech: the immense economic impact on our national finances, the relentless pressure on our health system, the toll on our human capital and the deep corporate injustice that sees tobacco companies profit while society, particularly the poorest, pays the price. I also laid out the benefits of getting rid of smoking, so I will not detain noble Lords by restating that.
The purpose of my amendment, and the opportunity presented by the growth of vaping, is a natural extension of the Bill’s intent: a logical, fair and legally robust endpoint, in 2040, to the regulatory ratchet that is already contained within the Bill. It would give clarity and confidence to consumers and industry alike, deal with the long tail of divided rights between generations and be fair to retailers, offering certainty, managed transition and guidance towards new business models.
We know that a hard stop with a long run-up can work because we have done it plenty of times before. Under John Prescott, the Asbestos (Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 1999 completed a phased ban that took nearly two decades and provided industries with time-limited exemptions and sunset clauses. Today, I am pleased to say that workplace asbestos exposure has fallen by 80%. Another example of a full-stop measure was the phase out of leaded petrol, initiated in 1987 and completed in 2000, which gave manufacturers and motorists 15 years to adapt. I am pleased to say that lead levels in urban air have fallen by 94%. Thirdly, the elimination of CFCs under the Montreal protocol, signed in 1987 and implemented through UK regulations in the 1990s, relied on structured deadlines and support for innovation. I am pleased to say that global CFC consumption has dropped by 98%.
Each of those measures that tackled toxins that poisoned our society followed the same formula: clear deadlines, fair transitions and decisive action. Each was thoroughly opposed by the industry. There were warnings of economic collapse on each occasion, but none of that came to pass. Instead, we emerged with a healthier, safer and more innovative society.
Let me explain how this amendment—the “extinction 2040” amendment—might operate in practice. Proposed new subsection (1) would provide for the prohibition of the sale of tobacco products to any person in the United Kingdom from 1 January 2040, thereby establishing a complete stop date for smoking. Proposed new subsection (2) specifies that all licences to sell tobacco and tobacco retail registrations would be invalid as of midnight on 1 January 2040. In other words, the licences currently administered by local authorities under powers anticipated in Clause 58, which establishes a national tobacco licensing regime, would be ended. Local councils in Scotland already operate such schemes under the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, and similar powers will be extended to England and Wales on Royal Assent.
Proposed new subsection (3) would impose a mandatory duty on the Secretary of State. It states that, within 12 months of the Act passing, the Secretary of State would
“lay before Parliament a strategy for … implementing the complete prohibition”.
This strategy must address four elements. Proposed new subsection (4) would require
“provision for a phased reduction in tobacco product availability beginning not later than 1 January 2030”.
This would be delivered through progressive amendments to licensing regulations issued under Clause 58, reducing the number of retail authorisations by geographic area, imposing proximity restrictions near schools and health facilities and ultimately restricting sales to larger retailers with compliance infrastructure. This task would fall jointly to the Department of Health and Social Care, His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and the National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training.
In practice, phased reduction means progressive tightening of retailer licensing, initially capping licensing numbers per local authority, then applying proximity restrictions and ultimately withdrawing licences from smaller retailers, while allowing supermarkets to transition shelf space to vaping devices and alternatives—products that the Government already support as harm-reduction tools. This plan aligns with changing consumer behaviour. Smoking prevalence is falling and retailers are diversifying, as we have discussed.
On enforcement, proposed new subsection (3)(c) would require
“strengthening enforcement mechanisms to prevent illicit trade”.
This responsibility falls to HMRC under the existing powers of the Tobacco Products (Traceability and Security Features) Regulations 2019 and Schedule 23 to the Finance Act 2020, which authorises civil penalties and empowers HMRC to deactivate economic operator identification numbers. Trading standards officers provide complementary enforcement. Critically, this system already exists and is cost neutral, as penalties, duty recovery fund operations and phased withdrawal of the legal market actually reduce illicit activity by cutting demand.
Finally, proposed new subsection (3)(d) would mandate
“enhancing smoking cessation services to support individuals ahead of the 2040 prohibition”.
The Government have already committed £70 million annually to local stop smoking services, distributed to upper-tier local authorities based on smoking prevalence. This funds the National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training and NHS community pharmacy services, which offer nicotine replacement therapy and behavioural counselling. Scaling this architecture over 15 years would ensure that, by 2040, the vast majority of current smokers would have been supported to quit, minimising enforcement costs and public backlash.
This amendment would work with the grain of existing systems, emerging technologies and declining smoking rates. It would assign clear responsibilities to established agencies: local authorities for licensing; HMRC and trading standards for enforcement; the DHSC and OHID for cessation. It would grant a 15-year transition period, ensuring fairness to industry and retailers. A complete prohibition by 2040, with phased reductions and cessation support, would generate measurable productivity gains for our economy, savings for the NHS and reduced economic inactivity, likely reducing the costs of our national debt within a decade. Crucially, this amendment could be scored by the Office for Budget Responsibility.
We stand at a crossroads. This Bill could be remembered in two ways: as a high point for incrementalism, a policy that is cautious and takes a century to work, that is not registered economically and is complex; or it could be the beginning of a more emphatic approach to regulation where Britain stops tinkering and starts deciding. I believe that we should choose the second path—the evidence supports it and so do the public. It is not my intention to push this amendment, but I urge the Minister to consider it seriously. If she cannot find a place for it in today’s Bill, could she comment on how the department might study such a measure for a future Bill?
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 193 in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Grey-Thompson, covers much of the same territory as Amendment 199. It would require the Secretary of State to publish a road map to a smoke-free country every five years. It lacks the ambition of my noble friend Lord Bethell, who provides not just a road map but a destination and a date. If we were to agree with my noble friend, that would be worthwhile progress.
This group of amendments is important because, although the Bill is a step forward in promoting public health and reducing the numbers who start to smoke, as it stands it does very little to help the 6 million smokers who are already endangering their health. The amendment reflects the latest APPG on Smoking and Health report, which calls on the Government to publish a road map to a smoke-free country. The Labour Party promised to publish such a strategy in its health mission document, Build an NHS Fit for the Future, saying it was important that no one should be left behind. It said:
“We will build on the success of the last Labour government with a roadmap to a smoke-free Britain”.
I hope this amendment will find favour with the Minister. Can the Government confirm that they have the same target as the last one, to achieve a virtually smoke-free England by 2030?
As I said, the rising age of sale will not affect current smokers but, as the legislation is progressed with, we should not forget them. Smoking is not evenly distributed across our society. There are higher rates of smoking in nearly all groups experiencing disadvantage and high rates among people with mental health conditions, those on low incomes and those living in social housing—the people most at risk of being left behind, whom the Government have rightly said they will look after. In turn, these differences fuel the gaps in healthy life expectancy between different groups in our society and undermine progress on addressing inequality.
To end this inequality, the Government need a clear plan or road map on how we can achieve a smoke-free future for all parts of society. That road map should include clear targets. For example, the APPG on Smoking and Health has called for a national target of 2 million fewer smokers by the end of this Parliament. Is that something that the Minister could sign up to? If such a reduction were achieved, the country would be on track to have less than 5% smoking two years later and could continue progress to make smoking obsolete within 20 years, within shooting range of my noble friend Lord Bethell’s target.
There should also be specific targets for vulnerable groups with high rates of smoking. Under the last Conservative Government, the target to reduce smoking among 15 year-olds was achieved. The previous Government also set a target to reduce the prevalence of smoking in pregnancy to 6% or less by the end of 2022. That target was not met, but it helped mobilise significant support for pregnant women, which has led to a reduction—it fell at the fastest ever rate last year.
The last Government also committed to other targets—for example, using the pioneering Swap to Stop scheme. It is welcome that the Government have maintained their commitment to some of these initiatives, but they should be part of an overall strategy so that we have a clear vision of where we want to go and how the various components help us reach that target. There is also a risk that, once this legislation has passed, the Government, both locally and nationally, are lulled into believing the job has been done, so we need a clear plan now and every five years until we have created a smoke-free country.
I understand the pressure on the NHS, but the astonishing decline in smoking among pregnant women was achieved by embedding support in hospitals alongside financial incentives. However, these services are now threatened with cost pressures in the NHS, seeing some ICBs reduce or decommission those vital services. Within a road map to a smoke-free country, the role of ICBs could be clearly laid out and the importance of these services in helping to reduce the incidence of smoking could be clarified.
So the Bill is ambitious. It is world leading when it comes to stopping the start, but we need the Government to have a similar ambition for supporting the current 6 million smokers in the UK to quit for good.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 199 in my name, which complements Amendment 193, which was so effectively introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Young, and which I have also signed.
Amendment 199 would require the Government to publish and fund a comprehensive communications plan for the smoke-free generation policy. We have referred to the wealth of experience among us when it comes to implementing tobacco control measures: a number of those who are taking part in today’s discussion were involved in the 2007 smoke-free legislation, the subsequent rise in the age of sale and the introduction of plain packaging in 2016. We worked across parties. There are valuable lessons to be learned from how those policies were implemented.
The 2007 campaign for smoke-free indoor public places was, in many ways, the gold standard for large-scale public health communication. Its clear and consistent message—needed, wanted and workable—underpinned every aspect of that campaign. Early identification of those at risk of non-compliance ensured smooth implementation and effective enforcement. Government-led TV adverts made it absolutely clear that it was the Government, not the hospitality sector, who were informing the public of the changes. Venues and public spaces were equipped with the resources, signage and materials that they needed well in advance of implementation. The result was 98% compliance from day one. Public support was strong and the legislation was practically self-enforcing. Even the noble Lords who put what I see as the weakening amendments at the beginning of this debate said how well that had gone.
Crucially, the debate surrounding that policy also raised awareness of the harms of smoking and led to an increase in people’s attempts to seek to quit smoking. That is precisely the outcome we should be aiming for with this legislation. Although the rising age of sale will apply only to those born in or after 2009, this policy presents a significant opportunity to raise the profile of smoking-cessation services and to invite everyone to be part of this smoke-free generation.
I have tabled this amendment to ensure that the Government publish a clear and ambitious communications plan to achieve that. At its heart must be strong public health messaging, which is inclusive, evidence based and backed by a dedicated budget. Next year’s October campaign, which seeks to encourage smokers to stop, should be led by the Department of Health, sending a clear message that every smoker can join a smoke-free future. Now, this annual campaign is led by stakeholders, with little input from the department. This should change.
The communications around the disposable vapes ban were clearly ineffective. That was a Defra policy, but it published guidance only for businesses; there was nothing at all for the healthcare settings that use these products in smoking cessation. The Government will need to do better. I am sure that the Chief Medical Officer is aware of that, not least through his experience of Covid. There are in this Committee various people, not all on the same side, who have a lot of public affairs experience. I would love them to put their minds and experience to this; that would be really worth while.
A well-structured plan would also ensure that retailers are engaged early on, provided with concise materials, signage and briefing materials and supported to play their crucial role in this policy’s success. Engagement should be broad, involving local authorities, trading standards, the NHS and higher and further education. Such proactive collaboration would, as in 2007, reduce the need for enforcement by fostering widespread understanding and voluntary compliance. Obviously, such a communications plan needs robust monitoring, evaluation and engagement. Some noble Lords have already expressed concern about the novel nature of this policy; I hope this proposal demonstrates how the Government can provide reassurance through clarity, transparency and careful planning. The UK has a vibrant creative sector. Let us harness that in an ambitious and effective public information campaign, as happened with the 2007 ban on smoking in public places.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, we are running out of time. If we want to finish the group, we will have to finish by 8 pm—otherwise, we will have to break midway through. It is up to noble Lords whether they want to keep their comments to a minimum so that we can finish this group.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to Amendment 193, to which my name is added. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for explaining its aim so well. I also support Amendment 4 from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and declare an interest as president of the LGA and chair of Sport Wales.
With my background in sport, I know that there has been a lot of nudge behaviour in stopping smoking. Some really good work has been done in Wales on smoke-free sport, and the Football Association of Wales has done work on banning smoking around youth games. However, this does not go far enough. I must apologise, as I am working on this and the Infrastructure and Planning Bill, and I have just come out of a debate on how to ensure that we have good physical activity and improve the health of the nation. The adverse impact of smoking on the health of the nation is partly why I am speaking on this Bill.
I am slightly surprised by some of the briefings that I have received, which seem to be more content with vaping than I expected. I am constantly told that it is much better than smoking, but it is hardly healthy. I have never smoked or vaped, so I probably do not come at it with the fervour of a reformed smoker, but I believe that a great deal of harm has been done by smoking and vaping. I shall discuss some of that in later groups. While smoking cessation services have gone some way, they do not go far enough. This amendment is part of a concerted effort to move forward. The way to do it is through a new clause that very clearly lays out the road map so that we can move towards a smoke-free United Kingdom.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, very briefly, I support the ambition of the amendments in this group, particularly my noble friend Lord Bethell’s amendment on tobacco extinction 2040, which is the level of ambition that we should be looking for. The Government are to be applauded for this measure, but we need not just a direction of travel but a destination, which this provides. I also very much agree that the end-point legislation that we have seen on asbestos and leaded petrol are examples of two very successful approaches that we could replicate here.
I also support the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Grey-Thompson, from whom we have just heard. It is very important that we seek to tackle those areas that have the highest deprivation and suffer most from smoking. These amendments seek to do just that. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on the need for a clear communications strategy. That is central and should be led by the department, as she so rightly said.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I want briefly to offer a slightly different perspective.
I understand the intent behind the Bill and my noble friend Lord Bethell’s Amendment 4 in this group. However, I believe that this amendment and the Bill as a whole lack some nuance in separating cigarettes from cigars and other tobacco products, which I will hereafter refer to as OTPs. If this were the cigarettes and vapes Bill, I would not have much issue with it, but there is a vast difference in mortality impact between cigar smokers and cigarette smokers. Cigars are not inhaled and are made from natural tobacco, while cigarettes are inhaled, are habitual, are used with high frequency and are often made with additives and chemicals.
I implore noble Lords and the Government to recognise this difference. The reason why is that we risk destroying a 500 year-old business with products that are made by artisans and are often, or almost exclusively, sold by independent family retailers who do not stock or sell cigarettes because cigars and OTPs are the only products that they sell. I draw attention to subsection (3)(b) of the new clause proposed by my noble friend’s Amendment 4, which refers to
“supporting tobacco retailers and businesses in transitioning away from tobacco product sales”.
If that said, “cigarette sales”, I would have no issue with it. If you are a large retailer such as Tesco, you can easily put something else in that shelf space; if you are a family business that sells only cigars, however, the impact of this measure is that you will go out of business.
By including cigars and OTPs in this amendment, we risk putting these family-owned, responsible traders out of business for a very negligible health gain; we also risk losing tourism and tax revenue at the same time. So can my noble friend and the Minister look again at separating cigarettes from cigars and OTPs, both in the Bill in general and in this amendment specifically?
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I am not going to say much about Amendment 4. I think that, if this Bill is effective, there will not be many people still left smoking by 2040—I certainly hope not—but I do worry a bit about the poor old chap of 95 who has somehow managed to avoid the bullet of lung cancer and all the other health problems but started smoking when he was in the Army and simply cannot give up.
Leaving all that aside, as your Lordships know, I welcome the Government’s plan for us to become a smoke-free country. I believe that that is achievable, but we must go further and faster than we have ever gone before; that is what we are doing. Such a plan will require a comprehensive, integrated, monitored and enforced strategy—hence the need for a road map, as proposed in Amendment 193 by the noble Lord, Lord Young, my noble friend Lady Northover and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.
It is true that smoking rates have declined by two-thirds over the last half century while smoking inequalities have grown, but, at the current rate of decline, we will miss the Government’s target and the poorest in society will suffer most. We will achieve a smoke-free Britain only by motivating more smokers to quit using the most effective quitting aids, while reducing the number of children and young adults who start smoking each year.
The evidence on which policy levers work is quite clear, but what is needed is for the Government both to pull them together to their fullest extent and to report on them. This will require targets, monitoring, enforcement and investment, but the investment required for education and smoking cessation services can be counted in millions of pounds as compared with the billions of pounds that it costs us to treat smoking-related diseases and in lost productivity caused by smoking-related disability. The benefits will far outweigh the costs.
As I say, there are big inequality issues in this smoking situation. Smoking drives more than 1 million people, including many children, into poverty by leeching money out of their pockets and out of the local economy. Indeed, only a tiny proportion of the spending on tobacco stays in local communities; most of it goes up in smoke, in taxes or in tobacco manufacturers’ profits. We will probably come on to that next time.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, the amendments in this group engage with some of the central questions in the Bill: how can we reach a smoke-free future? Also, how is that process to be monitored, communicated and, in some cases, accelerated?
I begin with the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Young and the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Grey-Thompson, which would require the Government to publish regular reports setting out a road map to a smoke-free United Kingdom, together with a communications plan, to support the implementation of a smoke-free generation policy. We on these Benches welcome the principle that underpins these amendments; they are thoughtful, constructive and rooted in the simple but vital idea that Parliament’s responsibility does not end when a Bill becomes law. Once legislation is enacted, our duty of oversight begins. A five-yearly report outlining the Government’s road map—including interim targets and data disaggregated by region, age and demographic group—would help provide a picture of how well the Act was working and enable Parliament to see whether progress was genuinely being made, particularly among communities where smoking rates remain stubbornly high.
Equally, the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, which would require a communications plan, is extremely sensible. The success of the Government’s policy will depend as much on public understanding as on the legal framework itself. People must know what is changing, why it is changing and what the benefits are. I made this point earlier but, if the policy is to succeed to the maximum extent, it must carry consent—and that consent depends on clarity and effective communication from the Government. If we are to measure the success of the policy honestly, we also need to assess not just how far smoking rates have fallen but whether the problem has simply been pushed underground, and we need to do so at regular intervals.
I shall cover briefly the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Bethell, which would establish a universal prohibition on the sale of tobacco products from 2040. My noble friend made a closely argued case. I recognise his sincere commitment to public health and his aim is admirable; notwithstanding that, I am afraid that I cannot support his amendment. The Government’s generational approach, for all its complexity, is precisely that: generational. It is designed to allow the harmful habit of smoking to decline naturally as fewer people take it up. The goal of a smoke-free future is the same but it is achieved through prevention and behavioural change, not a single act of prohibition.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. As they have acknowledged, the Government are taking bold action to create the first smoke-free generation. Our published modelling shows that smoking rates in England among 14 to 30 year-olds could be close to 0% as early as 2050. I make that point particularly in respect of Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell.
I sympathise with the intention of his amendment and with the other amendments we have debated in this group. Let me assure noble Lords that, as is consistent with best practice, we will evaluate this legislation as is appropriate and helpful, such as by monitoring smoking rates over time. We need to ensure that no one is left behind in this smoke-free UK that we seek to create.
However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, that we do not believe that an outright ban would be the most effective or proportionate way of encouraging current smokers to quit. As he knows, we are taking an evidence-based approach to supporting current smokers to quit and have invested an additional £70 million both last year and this year to support local authority-led stop-smoking services in England. We are continuing our national smoke-free pregnancy incentive scheme to support pregnant smokers to quit, which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, referred to.
I turn to Amendment 193, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. I aspire to be as mindful as I know he is of the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of the implementation of legislation. As I mentioned, we will assess the implementation of the Act, which is consistent. For measures implemented by secondary legislation, we will publish post-implementation reviews as appropriate. I can also commit to publishing a report on the Bill before Parliament, in line with our requirements, so we do not feel that it is necessary to outline this in the Bill. There are no plans to develop a report on specific targets or to publish a road map at this time, because we are focusing our attention and total ambition on making sure that we can deliver the Bill and work on the regulations that will follow.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked about a retained target to have a smoke-free England by 2030. We are going even further than the Smokefree 2030 target. As I have mentioned throughout, our ambition is for a smoke-free UK and creating the first smoke-free generation.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 199, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. The Government are committed to ensuring the successful implementation of all measures in the Bill, as I am sure she appreciates. We will ensure that the public, retailers, enforcement bodies and other relevant groups are aware of all measures and their associated commencement date. We will publish clear guidance in advance to aid a smooth transition. The noble Baroness’s amendment also seeks to include measures to raise public awareness. That is absolutely key, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also said.
I say to noble Lords that we run successful public health campaigns to support smokers to quit and to inform the public on the harms of tobacco. Indeed, this month is our annual Stoptober campaign. I therefore reassure the noble Baroness that my officials are working to ensure that everyone will be informed about the smoke-free generation policy and the benefits of quitting and continuing that route.
To the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about social media campaigns, earlier this year we launched the first ever campaign to inform young people about the health risks of vaping. The campaign featured on social media and paid media used by young people, and the noble Baroness will be delighted to know that that included working with trusted influencers to speak directly to—how might I put it?—a younger audience.
On the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, the matter of which tobacco products are in scope will be covered in detail in group 16, and I look forward to discussing that.
On the basis of those responses, I hope the noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her concluding remarks, which were thoughtful, detailed and thorough. I congratulate the Government on pursuing these measures with the energy and determination that Rishi Sunak brought to it when he was Prime Minister. They still enjoy widespread support in all corners of the House—not unanimous support, but widespread.
I am grateful for the Minister’s commitment to the £70 million cessation budget and to the smoke-free pregnancy programme that my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham mentioned. I am grateful for her commitment to evaluation and assessment and to a post-implementation review. These are standard. I hope very much that she has taken on board the comments about the need for a clear road map and for accountability, and I am grateful for everything that she said on that.
I also emphasise the importance of a public health campaign—whether it should use influencers and Kardashians, I am not quite sure—and I pay tribute to the DHSC and the NHS for their public health campaigns, which have proved to be effective: they are good curators of the nation’s health when it comes to campaigning. I emphasise to the Minister the critical importance of getting both the guidance and the communication right. We do not legislate in order to communicate, but the communication of good legislation is very important.
I also stand by the Minister’s comments on cigars and other tobacco products. I thought my noble friend Lord Harlech made extremely clear and persuasive points. I totally take on board everything he said on my 2040 extinction proposal and would very much like to talk to him about that in future, and how it might be shaped.
With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Western Sahara Conflict
Lord Godson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recent reports of increasing Iranian support for the Polisario Front; and what steps they are taking, in coordination with allies, to address the risks posed by Iranian influence in the Western Sahara conflict.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, regarding the allegation, the UK has not seen evidence of Iranian support for the Polisario Front. However, we continue to monitor Iranian activity in the region. The UK has long condemned Iran’s destabilising provision of political, military and financial support to its proxies and partners. We will continue to work with partners to tackle this destabilising activity.
Lord Godson (Con)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. However, there is much open-source evidence of a mutual admiration society between the present Iranian regime, the IRGC and the Polisario on the other side. First, and not least bearing in mind that we do not have as big a footprint in that region as we ought to, will the Minister commit to reassessing some of that open-source and other evidence? Secondly, in the light of the fact that the UK Government seem to be going in the opposite direction from many partners on Polisario—notably the United States, where bipartisan legislation is being introduced in both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate to designate Polisario as a foreign terrorist organisation—will the Minister say more to the House about the journey which the present Minister in the Commons, Mr Falconer, has gone on in open meetings with the Polisario, given that its contribution to peace in the region has been, to say the least, slender?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I assure the noble Lord that mutual admiration is not something that we are engaged in. Minister Falconer did meet the Polisario on 5 August in the context of the declaration that we signed to recognise Morocco’s intentions in Western Sahara. The UK has not done this in the past, but we feel that it was the right, pragmatic way forward, given the length of time that this conflict has gone on and the situation that we are now in. It was the right thing to do. We remain incredibly close to our friends in Morocco and we hope that this can proceed in a way that brings peace and stability to the entire region.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s Answer and explanation about the position on Morocco, a position which the Government have recently moved on. Is it not important, with a conflict that has been going on this long, that we do not just take sides but try to resolve the conflict before it degenerates into what could be a proxy war if malign parties choose to intervene? What can the UK do to try to ensure that the support Morocco is getting is turned into a practical result that the international community can support?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I could not agree more with what the noble Lord has just said—he is absolutely right. The way that the UK is conducting itself as we move on is with pragmatism and in accordance with the things we have signed up to and the commitments we have made, alongside Morocco. Importantly, we do this with full transparency.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Kurdish regions are the only areas that are committed to democracy, freedom and religious freedom? Does the Minister think we are doing enough to support the Kurds, given that they could have a major impact in setting the agenda in that region?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend and I could have quite a long discussion about our support for the KRI and for Kurds more generally. I would be very happy to do that, although perhaps not during a Question on our agreement with Morocco.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, could the Minister kindly comment on why the Minister met the Polisario Front, especially when we have been encouraging British businesses to move into the Western Sahara to work with one of our oldest allies, and that the Polisario Front has now withdrawn from the ceasefire that it agreed with the Moroccans?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend met Polisario and that was in no way in contradiction to the statements that we have signed up to, alongside Morocco. We feel that there is a resolution in sight here and everything we do will be with a view to reaching that resolution. This matters for the stability of not just Western Sahara but the entire region.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, recognising the important role the United Kingdom has played—and indeed the clarification provided by the Minister to my noble friend—is key. There is a UN resolution on the table which will be discussed at the Security Council. As a friend to both Algeria and Morocco, the autonomy plan provides a practical way forward. Let us be real. I know from my time as a Minister that the external influences over the Polisario of countries that do not hold the United Kingdom with great esteem, to quote my noble friend, is still a real danger. Now is the time to interject. The UK’s role, as we heard from my noble friend, is key to facilitate that dialogue and have a resolution which provides the pathway to peace.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think that is right, and that is what this Government are trying to do. This is a delicate and long-standing situation, and there is a need for absolute pragmatism at all times. That is what we have managed to do so far. As the noble Lord reminds us, there is an important decision to be made at the Security Council in the coming days. I will resist the temptation to get into a commentary about the politics of that. What matters is that we, alongside many others, take the opportunity—there is a window here—to see some progress and get the stability that people living in that part of the world so desperately need.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, the Moroccan Government have made massive investment into the Moroccan Sahara, as I will call it. I have visited Laayoune with colleagues and seen it. We know full well what the Iranians do: they destabilise wherever they can. To go back to the original Question from my noble friend, surely it is incumbent on the Government to support our allies against this destabilisation by the Iranians?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is exactly what we do. My response to the noble Lord was about his specific Question around evidence. We do not have that. What we understand, though, is the way that Iran seeks to operate in very many contexts around the world. We abhor what it does, and the way that it seeks to use its influence to destabilise and upend such processes is something that we are very well aware of.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Does the Minister know why we turned down the Moroccan offer of about 3.2 gigawatts of green electricity from a colossal solar development in Morocco, for which they were prepared to offer very attractive prices, since we are certainly going to need it in due course?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I absolutely do not. I will resist the temptation to speculate from the Dispatch Box, but I am sure that I can get the noble Lord the information that he needs.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, returning to the Question, the Polisario Front has not renounced terrorism and violence. Despite what the Minister has said, there is considerable evidence that it has received training and military support from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Does the Minister think that it was wise of her colleague in the other place to meet with it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is important to have dialogue with parties to these conflicts in a way that is transparent, pragmatic and helpful, which is what has been done. The noble Lord says that he has evidence. We have not seen evidence. If the Conservative Front Bench in the House of Lords is in possession of such evidence, it would be very responsible to share it.
Undersea Cables: National Security Threat
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the national security threat to undersea cables connected to the UK.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest: I was a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy earlier this year when we agreed to hold an inquiry into this subject.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government keep the threat to undersea cables connected to the UK under close review, working to deter and mitigate identified risks. My noble friend will appreciate the limits to what can be said publicly, but the MoD constantly monitors activity within UK waters. This includes patrols conducted by Royal Navy assets, maritime patrol aircraft and the multi-role ocean surveillance programme. Following the strategic defence review, the Royal Navy will play a new leading and co-ordinating role, alongside the private sector, in securing undersea pipelines, cables and maritime traffic.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. The House knows better than it did that undersea cables—not to mention the land cables under the City of London—are part of our critical national infrastructure because of the vital importance of the data they carry. The Joint Committee’s report said that “security vulnerabilities abound”. It recommended that we develop a UK-flagged sovereign repair ship, which the Royal Navy should practise escorting. Should we develop a seabed warfare strategy and, if so, what are the Government doing about it?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We certainly should develop one, and we are developing one. My noble friend is right to highlight that. We are undertaking a number of actions including surveillance aircraft from Lossiemouth, the ship “Proteus” looking at how it protects underwater assets, and the Royal Navy ship “Stirling Castle” looking at how it might operate drones from its deck to secure underwater pipelines, data cables and so on. We are doing a lot, but my noble friend is right to point out the importance of this.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, Ireland is a crucial hub for undersea infrastructure crossing the Atlantic, but it lacks the capabilities to defend against and be resilient to the destruction of that infrastructure. Moreover, its individual tailored partnership programme with NATO is coming increasingly under threat with recent political shifts in Irish leadership. What assessment have the Government made of the UK’s vulnerabilities to Ireland’s position, and what plans do they have for developing a resilience strategy in that regard in future?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord raises an important point. I wish to limit my answer, for obvious reasons, but suffice it to say that we talk with our Irish colleagues about some of these threats. Wherever a threat may come from, we take measures to defend our homeland from it. That includes surveillance aircraft, developing underwater technology and working with private industry to see what we can do. We are taking a range of measures. The noble and gallant Lord can rest assured that we take all threats seriously, wherever they come from.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
While most of the undersea cables are privately owned, much of the servicing and upkeep need to be carried out by Governments. What co-operation do we have with Norway, which is seriously involved in protection—not only regarding wear and tear but against sabotage?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We have huge co-operation with Norway, as we have with many other countries, to protect underwater cables. The noble Baroness will know of Baltic Sentry and Nordic Warden, specific things dealing with the Baltic and the North Sea and particular operations that we have undertaken to protect them. She is right to point out that Norway is a key ally for us in so many ways, not least in underwater provision. We work very closely with Norway.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, there is no doubt that our vital undersea infrastructure—including gas pipelines, internet connectivity and electricity interconnectors—faces an ever-increasing hostile landscape. I kindly ask the Minister to comment on the agreement signed last week with Germany that will see eight German P-8 Poseidon submarine hunters based in the UK, specifically for the purpose not just of hunting submarines but of adding greater protection for our industry infrastructure.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl for pointing that out. In answer to all these questions, the Government are doing a lot to tackle the threat that we face. He specifically references the meeting that took place between the Defence Secretary and Defence Minister Pistorius from Germany at Lossiemouth. He will know the crucial part that Lossiemouth plays in the support for our various aircraft and other surveillance that takes place. He will know that Germany offered to bring some of its aircraft to visit Lossiemouth to work with our aircraft with respect to underwater surveillance and other surveillance tasks. That is an important step forward for us all.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, given that the Minister has confirmed that he has had conversations with the Irish Government in relation to the undersea cables, can he confirm that, given all the threats that are out there, Northern Ireland is a strategic place for the United Kingdom, particularly the Port of Londonderry?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I confirm that the MoD has had discussions with Ireland, rather than me personally. Northern Ireland is an integral part of the UK while the people of Northern Ireland want that. The noble Baroness’s point with respect to the importance of protecting that, and the important part that it plays for the whole UK, is really important, and we will certainly take that on board and keep it on board.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. Disruption to cables would have potentially huge effects on communications, data and so on—so too, incidentally, would disruption to the satellite systems on which we all depend. The strategic defence review called for a national conversation about raising the country’s awareness of the threats we face. Is there any plan to have a national exercise, involving large businesses as well as government departments, local authorities and local voluntary organisations, to prepare for a major communications or data disruption?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
There are certainly plans to do exactly as my noble friend asks. There certainly needs to be work on those plans, and they need some more detail to them, but there certainly are plans to do that. I have said a number of times from this Dispatch Box that the threats we face from others are now different in many respects from the threats we faced in the past. The disruption to data, the disruption to energy supplies and the disruption to communication are all part of the threat that we now face. Clearly, we are going to have to do more as a homeland to stand up against that. Part of it will require a conversation with industry, the public and the defence sector in order to protect ourselves.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, following the line just observed by the Minister, in recent months the principal threat to United Kingdom infrastructure has been from cyberattacks, notably against Jaguar Land Rover, Marks & Spencer, Co-operative Group and Heathrow Airport. Can the Minister confirm that the National Cyber Security Centre, currently located within GCHQ, is adequately resourced to deal with what it recognises is an escalating challenge? How does the National Cyber Security Centre liaise with the CyberEM Command, now sitting within the Strategic Command in the MoD?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
There is a co-ordinating committee, whose name escapes me, that brings together all those various parts of government to which the noble Baroness has just referred to ensure that we have that co-ordinated defence and co-ordinated work that, as she rightly points out, we need. I would say, without going too far, that we see it as a major priority for the Government, which is why we have established that new command to defend ourselves against cyberattack, but we also need to work closely with private industry and private business to achieve that. Suffice it to say that it is a really important point and something we are working on very hard to ensure that we protect our country.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, following up on the question in relation to Ireland from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the Taoiseach set up a Ministerial Council on National Security earlier this year. What government-to-government conversations are going on to ensure either increased information sharing or that extra infrastructure investment for the security of those cables is more co-ordinated?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is a really important point. Clearly, we are in conversations with countries such as Ireland to ensure that we work as closely as we can with our friends to try to ensure that we have the protection we need. Suffice it to say that we need 360-degree protection.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure what the dozen or so cables that are under the Atlantic between the UK and the US carry, but if you are a UK business, what should you be preparing for in case these are cut? How long will these cables take to repair if there is an incident of that kind?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The repair record for this country is one of the best in the world. This sits with DESNZ and DSIT, as well as with the MoD, but I think the average repair is eight days. There is also a co-ordinated plan to ensure that were a cable, for whatever reason, not to continue to work in the way that it should, the companies responsible for that can reroute whatever is flowing through those cables. In that sense, we have a pretty good story to tell.
As far as the MoD is concerned, we work to ensure that people know that should they threaten us, we have deterrents. In answer to my noble friend who sits on the Joint Committee, it was one of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy that we also operate a policy of deterrence, and we certainly try to do that.
Non-crime Hate Incidents
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strasburger
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they are reviewing the measures related to non-crime hate incidents.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I remind the House that I chair Big Brother Watch.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council are currently undertaking a review of non-crime hate incidents, working closely with the Home Office. The Government look forward to receiving the final recommendations of this review shortly and to working with police forces to ensure they have the clarity they need to focus on keeping our communities safe while protecting the fundamental right to free speech.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply. The non-crime hate incident regime is being prolifically exploited by malicious individuals targeting people who merely disagree with them. The police are required to believe the complainant, contrary to the presumption of innocence. The target of the complaint may never know that a hate incident has been logged and that their future applications for sensitive jobs and visas may fail as a result. Now the police are saying that they will no longer investigate such incidents but that they will continue to be recorded. Does the Minister agree that we must stop secretly recording as fact what is often no more than scurrilous allegation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I say to the noble Lord that there is a review. My right honourable friend the former Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, commissioned that review in December 2024 because, self-evidently, the non-crime hate incidents regime was not working effectively. Noble Lords who were in the House for the Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill will have heard the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, who chairs the College of Policing, examining that issue and saying that he would bring that review forward. There are a range of things that we need to do in the review. We should not lose sight of the fact that valuable information is gained by people reporting non-crime hate incidents, but equally we should not use it to pursue events which are fruitless when police should be focusing on real crimes.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as director of the Free Speech Union. To follow up on the noble Lord’s question, as I understand it, the Metropolitan Police is no longer going to investigate non-prime hate incidents, although it will continue to record them. That appears to be the direction of travel, so other police forces, at least in England and Wales, will take a similar position. However, if NCHIs continue to be recorded, can the Minister assure the House that they will not be disclosable in enhanced DBS checks when people apply for jobs as, let us say, teachers or carers? Given that these uninvestigated reports of involvement in non-crimes are going to be recorded, it seems indefensible that they should stop people getting jobs.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I genuinely do not wish to pre-empt the review being undertaken now. The review by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing will come forward shortly and I expect the interim findings to be published in very short order, but the point that the noble Lord made is a valid one. The Metropolitan Police has said that it will not pursue non-crime hate incidents any more but will still record information because it gives valuable information about potential disability crime, racial crime and crimes against transgender people and others. It is important that we get the balance right, and one reason why my right honourable friend the then Home Secretary ordered that review was to make sure that we do not waste police resources or take the actions that the noble Lord mentioned.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, rather than waiting for the National Police Chiefs’ Council and College of Policing review, is it not time that Parliament made a decision on this issue? The danger is that we have got to this position because those two bodies have allowed it to develop. Surely the time has come, as the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, pointed out, for the police not to be investigating non-crimes, interviewing people who have not committed crimes and recording data on people who have not committed crime, with all the bureaucracy and timewasting that go with it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, who brings great experience to this area. Parliament has had a view on this matter—it passed the codification of non-crime hate incidents in legislation in 2023 under the Government that I was not party to, not a supporter of and not a member of. That is why the police have the responsibilities that they currently have. The important point for the noble Lord is that this Government came in in July 2024, realised there were some challenges in the system, had representations from across this House and the House of Commons, and ordered a review. That review is being undertaken by the National Police Chiefs’ Council. It commenced in January; it will be finished very shortly, and there will be an interim response. Then we can decide whether we wish to take any action on those recommendations as they affect individual police officers and in terms of whether there are any policy implications for the Government.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, the review is extremely welcome, and I welcome my noble friend’s remarks in relation to it. Would it also be helpful, on these kinds of issues, if politicians in both Houses of this place avoided making comments referring to people’s race, in particular the recent comments about advertisements on television?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is important that we condemn the comments that were made about adverts on television. We are a multicultural society. It is quite right and proper that individuals from all parts of our society appear on television, because they are both consumers and producers of goods and contributors to society, so I have no problem in supporting my noble friend on that point. The key question on non-crime hate incidents, and this is where we stand, is the extent to which we use that intelligence reporting mechanism to gather intelligence about potential trends in difficult areas—maybe down to the micro level of a ward—versus the extent to which we take further action on those issues in a criminal context. That is what the review that the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, a member of the Conservative Party and chair of the College of Policing, is undertaking with the National Police Chiefs’ Council is looking at. I am expecting a report in extremely short order.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is very welcome that the Metropolitan Police finally took the decision to stop investigating non-crime hate incidents. They have clearly wasted officers’ time and had a chilling effect on free speech. Will the Government now follow through and support the amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill from my noble friend Lord Young of Acton to abolish them in their entirety? Surely this is the way forward.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The short answer is no. The longer answer is we will wait for the review to see what action we will take. Again, I remind the noble Lord that the reason we are in this position in the first place is legislation that codified non-crime hate incidents passed by his Government.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
Does the Minister agree that care should be taken not to conflate crimes with non-crime hate incidents, and that this is particularly important in media reporting?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very sensible point. Ultimately, the bottom line is that the Government believe that we should focus on real crime as a priority. That is why we are putting in 13,000 new police officers, police community support officers and special constables over the next few years, and it is why we have asked for the review of non-crime hate incidents. But in reviewing those issues, we should not lose sight of the importance of intelligence-led information-gathering, as the Metropolitan Police has said.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Minister talks about—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I feel as though I am about to be issued with a non-crime hate incident.
The noble Lord the Minister talked about the importance of not speaking out ahead of the review yet stated that the police were collecting and recording valuable information. Can I challenge that? How does the Minister know that the information is valuable, as it is based on perceived, subjective versions of what is hateful, not illegal? That information could well be used to the detriment of people receiving references for jobs later on. Will the Minister clarify that, regardless, that information should not be used to stop anybody gaining employment, because it is based on subjective rather than objective criteria?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. Again, I fall back on the central point, which is that we have commissioned a review, the results of which we are expecting shortly. It will explore a range of issues, including how non-crime hate incidents impact on police resources, responsibilities, intelligence gathering and the issues she mentioned about individual responsibility or records. Having commissioned a review as a Minister, it is best that I wait for that review’s outcomes. We will report back to the House on what measures we need to take as a result.
Child Poverty Strategy: Migrant Families
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on child poverty of the application of the no recourse to public funds policy to migrant families with children and the implications of this for the forthcoming child poverty strategy.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government are committed to tackling child poverty, and the Child Poverty Taskforce will publish its 10-year strategy to drive sustainable change later this year. The Home Office has agreed that children whose families have no recourse to public funds will be included in the scope of the Government’s child poverty strategy.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend’s response is most welcome. Because of this rule, hundreds of thousands of children, including some British children, are at a disproportionate risk of poverty, especially deep poverty, to the detriment of their mental health and development. The former Work and Pensions Committee, under Sir Stephen Timms, stated that the deprivation they suffer
“should not be allowed to dominate any childhood”.
Does my noble friend therefore accept that an inclusive and effective child poverty strategy must embrace concrete measures to help this group, including through child benefit and childcare support and by limiting the number of children subject to the no-recourse rule?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I hope that I gave her a very strong answer in my first Answer, which I hope met the objectives that she has set. Tackling child poverty is at the heart of the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity. Poverty scars the lives and life chances of all our children, whatever background they are from. Currently, the no recourse to public funds referral that children can access allows access to free school meals, funding for school support and development, early years entitlement, support for children with special educational needs and local authority grants. It is quite right that, in all those circumstances, that drive is there to ensure that we tackle the challenge of poverty in the United Kingdom today as a whole. My noble friend will know that the review is due shortly. When that review is published, there will be further information on how to approach this issue.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the cohort of refugee children in this country who are in child poverty is large, and the Government propose to extend the time at which people can gain indefinite leave to remain in this country from five years to 10 years, so there is an implication for that cohort who will be held in that position for much longer than they were expecting. Can the Minister indicate whether the health and mental health of these children will be paramount in the strategy which is about to be produced and that it will ensure that there are responses to that?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I have one simple answer to the noble Lord: yes. It is vital that all children have the best start in life, and children should not be impacted by the position of their parents. They deserve the opportunity to thrive in life. The child poverty strategy will deal with how we meet those challenges over a 10-year period.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend’s responses to the various questions are very welcome. I understand that the Department of Health launched a consultation last year to explore whether the families we are speaking about would be eligible for the Healthy Start scheme. I presume that the results of that consultation will be included in the new child poverty strategy. Can my noble friend confirm that?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I find myself in the difficult position that I am not able to give details of the new child poverty strategy because it is not published as yet; it will be published very shortly. The points that my noble friend raised will undoubtedly be considered, but I cannot give her an answer from the Dispatch Box because that would pre-empt an announcement the Government intend to make in very short order.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the no recourse to public funds policy is a vital protection for the sustainability of the welfare system and ensures that those who come to Britain do so to contribute to society and not to become a burden. A migrant family should not come to this country if they cannot afford to support themselves, although there are existing exceptions for those granted asylum who would otherwise be destitute. What assurances can the Minister give that the Government will not loosen the rules or drop the policy?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There are arguments around how we control the number of individuals, families and migrant children who come to the United Kingdom. That is an argument that we are having now to look at how we can tighten the rules to stop the flow of people who are coming here through illegal channels. But we still have a responsibility to ensure that a child of five, six, seven, eight, nine or 10 years old does not suffer because of the trafficking—in many instances—poverty or war that has driven them to come to the United Kingdom in the first place, even sometimes by illegal means. The purpose of the strategy is to ensure we protect and develop those children so we do not create a whole set of different outcasts in the future. It is really important that, whatever our policy on migration and illegal migration, children do not suffer as a result.
Conduct Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That Alexandra Marks CBE and Sandra Paul be appointed as external members of the Committee with effect from 5 November 2025, in place of Cindy Butts and Andrea Coomber.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, as noble Lords know, the Conduct Committee is made up of five Peer members and four external members. Four new external members were selected following an open competition earlier this year, which was presided over by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. It was agreed to stagger their appointment, and in June your Lordships agreed to the appointment of the first two new external members. I now ask the House to approve the appointment of the final two external members, Alexandra Marks and Sandra Paul. Biographical details of both are available in the Printed Paper Office, outlining the experience and skills they will bring to the work of this important committee. I beg to move.
Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney-General’s Office
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the Attorney-General has a duty to superintend the prosecution agencies and to be consulted about sensitive and high-profile cases. The practice for cases that are likely to be dropped, but of which the Attorney-General was initially informed, is that the Attorney-General is advised in advance of the risk of them being dropped. The public were initially informed that the Attorney-General had been told in August that the China spy prosecution case was at risk, and the Government have now stated that the Attorney-General met with the Crown Prosecution Service on 1 September. As the statutory superintending Minister for the CPS and the DPP, what action did the Attorney-General then take to satisfy himself that all reasonable evidential avenues had been explored before the decision to discontinue the case was taken? Can the Attorney-General confirm that his office reviewed the witness statement submitted on behalf of the Government?
The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab)
I thank the noble and learned Lord for his question. May I just correct a few facts? I was not informed by the DPP on 1 September; I was informed on 3 September. Secondly, and this is an important constitutional point, in our constitutional framework politicians play no role whatever in prosecutions. I was not consulted by the Director of Public Prosecutions; I was informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions after he had reached his decision. That is an important distinction in our constitutional framework which is codified in the framework agreement between my office and the CPS, the current framework agreement being that signed by one of my predecessors, the right honourable Suella Braverman. That dictates that in cases such as this where the prosecution starts with the consent of a law officer, law officers must be consulted if the grounds for dropping a case are public interest grounds, but it draws a contrast where the grounds, as here, are evidential grounds. In those circumstances, the framework makes it plain, quite properly, that the Attorney-General is to be informed, not consulted, as soon as possible after the decision has been made. I hope that answers the noble and learned Lord’s question.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, some 50 years ago last month, I was junior in a trial that took place at Mold Crown Court, prosecuted by the then Attorney-General, Sam Silkin—they earned their spurs in those days by prosecuting in court. An ex-RAF pilot from Valley had knocked on the front door of the Russian consulate, trying to sell them secrets about the Vulcan bombers. The Russians picked up the phone and phoned the Metropolitan Police, and he got nine years. We were not at war with Russia at that time, but then, there was no war in 1911 when the word “enemy” was coined in the statute. By 1913, the courts had extended the word to include a potential enemy. Will the noble and learned Lord kindly tell us again who the Attorney-General was who consented to this prosecution? Was there evidence of the passing of any classified documents or information, as opposed to tittle-tattle, between these two idiots? Was there evidence of money changing hands? Without such evidence, Senior Treasury Counsel, who had the responsibility of presenting the case to the jury, would inevitably advise that the prosecution was weak and might very well fail. Nothing seems to have been discovered in the subsequent 13 months and the case was, very properly, dropped. I have no inside information, but is that analysis correct?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
Consent was given by a law officer under the previous Government to this prosecution. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not go into the evidential details in this case. The decision was made by the independent CPS. In this case, the Director of Public Prosecutions also received the assistance of First Senior Treasury Counsel, our most experienced criminal barrister, who advised in the run-up to the intended trial and who will be giving evidence, together with the DPP, in the next hour or so before the JCNSS, where they will no doubt be able to give further evidence of the materials they considered. My experience is of the grave disappointment felt by the hard-working teams in the Crown Prosecution Service—including the Director of Public Prosecutions—and in the National Security Secretariat, all of whom were disappointed that the prosecution could not proceed.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The noble and learned Lord will know that the Court of Appeal recently stated that an “enemy” includes a country which poses a threat to the national security of this country. Is it the Government’s view that the People’s Republic of China does pose a threat to the national security of this country?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I will deal first with the Roussev case and the difficulties the Crime Prosecution Service faced in bringing this prosecution. The noble Lord is quite right that in Roussev, which was a rare case for the courts to look at—the meaning of “enemy” under the 1911 Act—it was said that it can include a threat to national security. That, however, will be a matter of fact and degree, and as the noble Lord will know full well, the jury still has to be satisfied that the country in question is an enemy. The threat is a question of fact and degree, but it still has to be an enemy. At the time relevant to this prosecution, which was between 2021 and 2023, the official position of the Government was that China was not an enemy. Your Lordships’ House will immediately see some of the difficulties that a prosecution would have faced if this had proceeded to trial.
As to the threats China poses to national security, this Government, as indeed did the last Government, set out fully the nature of the threat that it perceived China posed—that is, Mr Collins in his witness statement—as well as the need for this country to engage with China. But this Government will always put national security first.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, following on from that answer, the Prime Minister has said repeatedly that the prosecution required evidence that the information was linked to an enemy, based on the policy of the previous Government. The Director of Public Prosecutions on Friday said the test was not what the previous Government were prepared to say about China, but whether it was an active threat as a matter of fact. Which of them is right?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
There can be no doubt that for the purposes of an offence said to have been committed between 2021 and 2023, where the test is whether that was provision to an enemy, the question is, were they deemed an enemy during that relevant period, between 2021 and 2023? I do not understand the DPP to be suggesting to the contrary.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, there seems to be a lot of confusion about this at the moment. I respectfully direct attention to what the Director of Public Prosecutions said in a letter to the joint committee last week. He pointed out that on 14 August there was a meeting between the counsel team, the CPS lawyer and the Deputy National Security Adviser in which questions were asked to see whether the prosecution could proceed. The Deputy National Security Adviser told them that he would not state in evidence, if asked, that China posed a risk to our national security at the material time. Of course, as has been said already, the material time was not today; it was the time of the alleged offences, which, as it happens, was under a previous Administration. So, the view of the previous Administration on that was critically important. That is very important to understand, because criticisms have been made of the Crown Prosecution Service which seem to me to be entirely unjustified.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I entirely agree with my noble and learned friend. The test remained the statutory test: was China, beyond reasonable doubt on the criminal standard, an enemy between 2021 and 2023? The immediate difficulties will be obvious if I tell the House what the official position of the Government was during that period. The then Foreign Secretary, Mr Cleverly, said the following in his Mansion House speech—which was delivered a year before the men in these cases were charged—and obviously set out the official position of His Majesty’s Government:
“I’m often asked to express”
the UK’s policy towards China
“in a single phrase, or to sum up China itself in one word, whether ‘threat’, or ‘partner’, or ‘adversary’. And I want to start by explaining why that is impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise.”
One can immediately see, even though there was a CPS team who obviously wanted to get this prosecution across the line, the real difficulties because of the 1911 Act, which the Law Commission in 2017 said was no longer fit for purpose. Those difficulties give an insight into the problems faced by the Crown Prosecution Service.
Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, this Government’s deal with the EU allows Europe to retain around 40% of the fishing rights in our exclusive economic zone and territorial waters for a further 12 years. This undermines the substantial expansion of the private tax-paying fishing sector that should have been possible. The fishing and coastal growth fund from taxpayers’ money’ is poor compensation and unfairly distributed, particularly as regards Scotland. Can the Minister explain how this can be in tune with the Government’s pro-growth agenda?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
The funding is being allocated using the Barnett formula, which is the normal mechanism used by HM Treasury to determine funding for the devolved Governments. That is the mechanism used and, while allocations are not directly linked to the size of each nation’s fishing industry—the noble Lord mentioned the Scottish fishing industry—devolved Governments have full flexibility to target this funding to best meet the needs of their coastal and fishing communities, so there is an opportunity. This is extra funding on top of other funding that has been granted, so it is providing a support to coastal and fishing communities.
Baroness Grender (LD)
Does the Minister agree that the botched Brexit deal that the Conservatives negotiated has done great damage to our coastal and fishing communities? Fish exporters have been wrapped up in red tape and penalised with extra costs for trading with our closest neighbours. To better support our communities, what steps are the Government taking to address the delays and implement the UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement as soon as possible?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness mentioned the Brexit deal agreed by the previous Government, which provides de facto guarantees for EU boats to UK waters beyond 2026. What we have done is to secure a deal with the EU that ensures returns for our fishing community, including scrapping red tape and restoring shellfish exports to the UK. This demonstrates that we are absolutely committed to the long-term prosperity and sustainability of our fishing industry. On the SPS agreement, I am sure the noble Baroness knows that negotiations are due to start shortly. I cannot give any further details until we move further down the line, but we absolutely want a really good deal for our country.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister would agree that there is no point investing in our fishing industry if there are no fish to catch. The sad truth is that, according to Oceana UK’s latest report, Deep Decline, over half of the UK fish stocks are being overfished, particularly the top 10 species. What plans do the Government have to ensure that fishing quotas are set on a sustainable basis, so that the stocks can recover and provide our fishermen with livelihoods not just today but in the future?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right: overfishing has been a real problem and we absolutely need to ensure that it does not happen in the future and that the fishing quotas that are agreed are sustainable. In fact, they are, in theory, sustainable at the moment, but we need to get the best data we can in order to make the best decisions in the future. Clearly, we hope that working with the EU more closely will enable this.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, before Britain left the European Union, the inshore fishermen, the under-10 fishermen, were promised an increased quota of cod and other fish—before the waters warmed up and they went elsewhere. Under the coastal fund, will there be anything for the inshore fishermen, who are now the largest number of fishermen in English waters?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to refer to inshore fishermen, who are a really important part of our industry. Regarding detail, we are negotiating with stakeholders. We are looking to work very closely with all the different groups that are interested or have an impact with this growth fund. Clearly, they will be an important group as part of our discussions.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it has occurred to me that the noble Baroness might not have seen the Oceana report, Deep Decline. It is absolutely excellent, if a bit depressing, but it gives some very good recommendations, so perhaps I could make sure that she gets a copy.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I would be absolutely delighted to receive a copy from the noble Baroness.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, for a number of years, when I was a Member of the European Parliament, there were considerable complaints about the illegal landing of black fish. Are the Government satisfied that material quantities of illegally caught black fish are not landed in this country?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The kinds of issues that the noble Lord refers to are ones that the Fishing Minister is obviously aware of and will monitor, because we absolutely do not want to see illegal fish landed. It is really important.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, given that 80% of fish caught in our waters are exported, I ask, as the chair of the International Chamber of Commerce in the UK, what priority are the Government giving to exports in general? We hear about the economy and growth, but what about exports, including our fishing exports?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Exports, whether that is of fish or in other parts of our food industry, are a really important part of how we can continue to grow the economy in this country and support both our farmers and our fishermen. Exports dropped fairly significantly after Brexit, so one of the things we want to achieve with the SPS agreement is better export conditions to increase opportunities for both our farmers and our fishers.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that this exchange of questions demonstrates a certain absence of knowledge about how much damage was done by the terms in which Brexit was embedded, which has resulted, as she says, in a sharp drop in our exports? Would the Government find it useful to put into the public domain a little bit more of the factual basis for the sort of questions we have had this afternoon in the House?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, one reason we want to do the EU reset and get an SPS agreement and a better working relationship with the EU is to ensure that we have the best economic growth we can possibly get in this country. However, it is also important that we can work efficiently and effectively with our closest trading partner. The noble Lord has made some very good points about the kind of information that should be available, and I hope that the EU reset will start to reset some of the difficulties that he is referring to.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I must say that I find this conversation surprising. The Government seem to have given 12 years of fishing away in a negotiation without getting any very clear benefits in exchange. Our fishing has been an enormous issue right across the country, so I am slightly surprised by the tone of this conversation. Can the noble Baroness, whose views I always respect, help me on this matter?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I do not see that this Government have “given away”. As I said earlier, we have secured additional funding, in addition to the spending settlement that the UK Government provide to each devolved Government, to provide more support for the fishing industry. I do not remember that the agreements made by the previous Government following Brexit were particularly welcomed by the fishing industry. As part of the reset, we are trying to improve our working relationship with the EU in order to continue to support our farmers, our fishers and our businesses more broadly.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Monday 27th October 2025
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-III(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (24 Oct 2025)
17:11 - Division on Amendment 86 - Ayes: 84 / Noes: 185 - Amendment 86 disagreed.
17:53 - Division on Amendment 87D - Ayes: 243 / Noes: 157 - Amendment 87D agreed.
18:43 - Division on Amendment 87FD - Ayes: 83 / Noes: 157 - Amendment 87FD disagreed.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, before we start the first group, I remind the House, as I did last week, of important guidance on Report, which will, I hope, help proceedings run smoothly.
First, I note paragraph 4.23 of the Companion, which states:
“Debate must be relevant to the Question before the House”.
While debates on the Bill have been important and no doubt interesting, a number of earlier contributions strayed into wider topics not directly relevant to the amendments in the group being debated. I urge all colleagues to follow this guidance so that we can maintain effective scrutiny, while allowing us to make good progress in good time.
Secondly, I remind noble Lords of the Companion guidance in paragraph 8.82:
“Members … pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and need not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving”
or pressing an amendment. Speeches appear to be getting longer, and if noble Lords were to follow this guidance closely, we would be able to get on in a more timely manner.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, can I clarify that 67 government amendments, I think, came in very late to the Bill? They have therefore not had a Committee stage. I hope he and the Minister will accept that some of those will need Committee, as well as Report, discussions.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
It is Report and all I would say is that, as long as the debate is relevant, we have no problem with that.
Amendment 84
Lord Inglewood
“Gardens Trust to be statutory consultee for planning proposals(1) The Gardens Trust must be considered for planning proposals as a statutory amenity society.(2) All procedures which apply to statutory amenity societies as planning proposal consultees shall apply to the Gardens Trust.(3) Powers conferred to the Secretary of State by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 may not be exercised to remove the Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee in regard to any planning application.”
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, in rising to move Amendment 84, I ought first to declare my interest. Most unusually, it has been my lot in life to have lived in a listed building, in the midst of a listed park, for all of it. I am also president of Historic Buildings & Places, which used to be known as the Ancient Monuments Society, and a member of the Gardens Trust. Just to give more context to my comments, I am a member of the Bar, a chartered surveyor, and a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. I point out to Members that, according to many authorities, landscape is probably England’s greatest contribution to 18th-century European culture.
Your Lordships will recall considerable discussion in Committee about the education of planners. This is important because, in addition to what might be described as the core disciplines, there is a huge range of what you could say are very important and perhaps slightly esoteric, more peripheral matters which cannot really be considered part of the core knowledge or syllabus. I am thinking, for example, about listed buildings—we all know there is a crisis in the number of conservation officers in this country—and about manmade planned landscapes, battlefields, theatres, and so on.
The required expertise to deal properly with these things is not widely, easily and quickly available, either necessarily in local authorities or in other public bodies. We know that it is for this reason that a process of consultation with outside expert, specialised and respected organisations is embedded in the system to give access to often specialist, but very relevant, skill and knowledge.
The detailed system for doing this is not identical in each case, but that is not relevant to my argument. For my part, I am especially interested in—among other things in the context of this debate—the work of the Gardens Trust, previously the Garden History Society. Its focus is on manmade planned landscape, which includes public parks, but also the British versions of Versailles and, in a different direction, outstanding domestic gardens. These things can be quite extensive and are a crucial aspect of place, which is now becoming recognised as an important contributor to our general well-being and economic prosperity—something I became very aware of when I was a member of the Northern Powerhouse 11 for six years.
This is a specialist, discrete academic discipline, and the Gardens Trust is at its centre in this country. Many of the places it is concerned with are very fragile. After all, plants die and are easily lost. For example, if any of your Lordships wanted to go to look at Eastbury Park in Dorset—which was one of the great architect Vanbrugh’s most important commissions—they will find that when they get there and look over a farm gate, they will see a green field. It is all gone but it is still the site of it, and all the foundations and everything are there. As Thomas Browne, the 17th-century writer, aptly commented,
“green grass grows where Troy-town stood”.
I should add to what I said about my interest that my home has always been the focus of a listed park for over 300 years. However, due to abandonment and the planting of an epidemic of rhododendrons, supplemented by almost no family records because of disputes and problems with treason, almost all knowledge of everything has been lost. Despite inspections by English Heritage over the years and many other experts visiting the place, the knowledge of the place has more or less completely vanished.
Now, however, its full extent is becoming uncovered again, and it appears to be a large-scale, more or less intact, significant, albeit battered, very rare survival of a complete pre-Capability Brown park from about 1700-10. They are very rare, and it was completely lost. I mention this not to pat myself on the back or to tell noble Lords how perspicacious I may have been, but to make the point that important things do get easily lost and require genuine expertise to be identified and revived.
We all know that the theme of this legislation is growth—goodness knows, we urgently need it—and I support that. As part of this wider process, the Government have issued a consultation on the role of statutory consultees. Unhappily, that consultation appears to have been stained by the triumphalism of a notion of growth at all costs, everywhere, for anything, regardless of everything else—conveniently overlooking that in places such as Cumbria, where I come from, the environment is one of the most important aspects of promoting long-term growth, as I discovered when I chaired the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership. If this is destroyed, the goose that lays the golden egg ends up as Christmas dinner. It has happened in many places all round the world, to nobody’s benefit.
The Minister has said on a number of occasions that the value placed on the “non-growth” aspects of the planning system is in no way diminished by the proposed procedural and process changes under way, which seem to be essential and of which, in very general terms, I am a strong supporter. On occasions, though, something else other than growth is more important than growth; otherwise, what is the point of the town and country planning system? The involvement of amenity societies harnesses a great deal of real expertise for more or less no money and takes pressure off some of our overworked and often underresourced public agencies that are having difficulty already in fulfilling their roles. Let us not argue about that point, because it is self-evidently the case now.
The purpose of the amendment is to focus on this general but very real problem in the context of the wider reforms being proposed, specifically in respect of the Gardens Trust, of which I said I am a member, and I know it and support it. I very much hope the Minister can confirm that the importance ascribed to what I might describe—I hope, without any disparagement—as some of the essential fringe disciplines in planning will not be eroded further.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I will speak specifically to Amendment 84, to which I have added my name, although I support many of the amendments in this group.
We know how important public green spaces are to communities, and for nature, and that there is widespread public support for their protection. That is why, as I understand it, registered parks and gardens, along with battlefields, were given protection in the town and country planning order 2015. I thank the Gardens Trust for its briefings on this, and the Minister and her office for a helpful meeting and correspondence about it.
At the moment, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood has said, registered parks and gardens are not considered statutory heritage assets, which would make them part of the same process as listed buildings. Instead, they have their own process of consultation, with Historic England as the statutory consultee for battlefields and grade 1 and grade 2* parks and gardens, and the Gardens Trust dealing with grade 2 parks and gardens, which is 65% of them. Importantly, three-quarters of registered public parks are grade 2, so the Gardens Trust is tasked with looking after most of our public parks.
The Gardens Trust appears to do this very efficiently. From its statistics, we see that it was consulted 1,842 times last year, and that 99% of the time it responded within the agreed deadline. It voiced an objection to planning in only 6.6% of its responses. Its government grant for fulfilling this consultee role—for giving bespoke responses to planning inquiries, on time and with expertise—was £43,963.
Clearly, there is no way that anyone else within the planning system could deliver this expertise for less money and with any greater time efficiency, and there is no evidence that it is causing a major blockage to housebuilding. Actually, not having heard of the Gardens Trust before this matter arose, I thank the charity for its service to this country and its public parks.
I understand that the Government are considering removing the Gardens Trust’s statutory consultee role—the slightly bespoke role that was created for registered parks, gardens and battlefields. We all, however, appreciate the work that it does, so this amendment aims to protect this service while making the administrative process simpler. It would put registered parks and gardens into the same planning process as other heritage assets, where there is an existing and well-understood statutory consent process, whereby the Gardens Trust would be the amenity society that would be notified if there were planning proposals that might affect registered parks and gardens, or, importantly, their settings.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has Amendment 109 coming up, which I believe would have a similar effect by commencing Section 102 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, in which this area of planning was already tidied up. That might be an alternative to this amendment. None the less, it would be very helpful if the Minister, in her response to this group, could indicate the Government’s intentions on making best use of the efficient role that the Gardens Trust plays in helping give advice on our much-loved grade 2 parks and gardens and their settings.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 107 in this group—I appreciate that I am jumping a little down the line.
I tabled the amendment because, at the moment, we are removing consultation from the planning process—or removing as much of it as possible—for the sake of efficiency. Sports fields are the most attractive things for a planner to see: a piece of reasonably flat and well-drained land. What better to put a house on? If we are to lose our sports fields, we will lose an asset that keeps on giving.
I thank both Ministers on the Front Bench for meeting me privately to try to convince me that I did not have much to worry about—but for all their courtesy and time, I have failed to be convinced. As I said, it is just so tempting for local authorities—or for anyone else involved—to say, “Let’s put a house on this sports field”. Some are, of course, owned by councils or schools, and schools can get rid of them as they have more independence now.
Can we protect sports fields? If we do not have somewhere to play a sport, that sport dies or becomes unavailable to a particular group. If some sports clubs own their own pitches, they may not own enough space to have a second or a third team. If you get rid of your second or third team, the first team is under threat and thus the existence of the entire club. It is that simple. There is that much pressure. If they do not get people involved every week, those people will do something else—they will leave—and we will lose this asset.
Community sport is one of the best community builders, because members are involved not just in exercise but in a community of its own that feeds into other communities. Let us remember that people who want to make sure that they can play the game will sit on committees and take on the legal responsibility of being a secretary or a treasurer for these groups. Everybody who has run a political party will know that people are just dying to do these roles all the time—are they not? Everybody really wants to have the legal responsibilities and the bank accounts—do they not? People do this willingly—well, they do it—to make sure they can get out there and play the game. These sports facilities allow that to happen. If we take away the defence of sports fields, which allow such a key activity, we will put that under threat.
Not every sports field will disappear overnight but some will—they will be moved and they will not be replaced. My amendment suggests that, if we go ahead with this, something must be put in its place. That is not too much to ask. I would like to vote on the amendment, unless the Government provide some great revelation, in which case I shall say, “Hallelujah!” and sit down.
In this country, these community activities are largely conducted without much government intervention. Private groups get involved and bring their own time and often money, but they need to be supported to allow these activities to take place. I suggest that my amendment—or at least something like it—would not be too much to ensure that something as important as community, grass-roots sports have their pitches defended, to give them a chance to continue to function as they currently do.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 88 in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for their support in adding their names to the amendment.
The amendment very much builds on the amendment just discussed. It simply aims to ensure that spatial development strategies include provision for publicly accessible green and blue spaces for local communities. This would empower planning authorities at the strategic level to make accessible green and blue spaces routine rather than coincidental. Communities currently face a postcode lottery in being able to benefit from access to nature and sports fields. The reasons for access to nature and blue and green spaces in cities are well rehearsed. We know that they provide myriad social, economic and health upsides for people, as well as strengthening urban climate resilience and creating opportunities for wildlife.
In Committee, the Government made it clear that they recognise the importance of blue and green spaces, the benefits they bring and their intent to maximise them in cities, all of which is extremely welcome. However, in all responses in Committee, the Minister concluded that provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework and the yet-to-be-published national development planning policies are sufficient to provide green and blue spaces, therefore making a statutory footing unnecessary. But Peers made the point that it is not just about any green space; it is its accessibility to people that is critical. This is the point that is made in the Government’s own, really quite excellent accessible green space standard, published by Natural England in 2025. In this standard, Natural England—and the Government through it—made the point that it committed to providing access to good-quality blue and green spaces for every citizen within walking distance of their home.
The reality is, however, that without these strong provisions, developers often see the delivery and placement—and it is the placement I really want to emphasise here—of blue and green space as optional, with the voluntary provisions of the green infrastructure framework not leading to consistent delivery of quality spaces in the right places. In fact, Natural England’s own data shows that 87% of the UK population have no accessible local green space within 300 metres of their home.
In many cities, the emerging evidence indicates that the location of new green space provision is occurring, but it is making the inequalities in access to green space worse. Looking at the mapped evidence from the most populated English cities outside London—Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester, for example—over the past four years, between 2020 and 2024, and using the most up-to-date land cover information, it is clear that significantly more areas of blue and green space have been created in rich parts of the cities. Up to 9% more have been created in categories 9 and 10 as measured by the index of multiple deprivation—the wealthiest parts—than in areas of high deprivation, categories 1 and 2. This is making already large inequalities in access to green space in these cities even greater. To put it bluntly, without a strategic steer in legislation, developers and local authorities are prioritising, intentionally or unintentionally, the delivery of green space in wealthier areas.
On such an important issue, we need to understand where the results from the Government’s own green infrastructure mapping database support the evidence and show us that the NPPF is actually working to protect and enhance access to green and blue spaces in the right places. I would therefore appreciate it if the Minister could write to me, having asked her team to query this database to examine the change in doorstep, local and neighbourhood standards for green space over the past five years for the most populated cities in the UK: London, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool. According to the answer, I will then decide whether to bring this back at Third Reading to test the opinion of the House.
I hope the Government agree that this amendment is pragmatically worded: it continues to allow flexibility for local authorities to do what is best for their area and their communities. This simple amendment would cost the Government nothing, but it would provide a clear mechanism to deliver a commitment for accessible green space, ensuring, not least, that the Government’s own priorities for access to green space can be met.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 107 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I declare that I am chair of Sport Wales and president of the Local Government Association. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, talked about those who volunteer for sports clubs. It is a tough job, but people do it because they know the impact that it has on people’s lives. It is a very sensible amendment.
We have to accept that we are living in an inactivity crisis. The World Health Organization has said that a third of adults worldwide do not reach the necessary levels of physical activity. Slightly closer to home, the Sport England active survey from last year shows, specifically around young people, that while the levels of participation are stable, without significant and sustained action we are going to hit a much bigger physical activity crisis.
Currently, between 5% and 6% of children have difficulty with movement skills, which impacts their ability to engage in physical activity. About 80% of women in this country are not fit enough to be healthy, which should raise a number of red flags. Playing fields are just part of the jigsaw of physical inactivity and how we should try to tackle it. We have to do everything we can to protect what we have. We also have to understand that we are in a cost of living crisis. Some sport participation has got much harder to be involved in. For a lot of people, this is a really cheap and easy solution for them to be active. If the noble Lord decides to take this to a Division, I will support him.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 118. I am slightly at a loss, because I expected the Conservative Front Bench to do a blinding speech on Amendment 96, to which my amendment is more or less similar. Obviously, I think mine is better because I mention biodiversity, reuse and such things, but I suspect that my amendment, which I had hoped to put to a vote, probably would not beat the Conservative Amendment 96. Both amendments are supported by the Better Planning Coalition as an obvious step forward on improving what we have already.
While I am on my feet, I will just say that I refute the concept of a grey belt. A grey belt is green belt that has been left to rot, and we should be recovering that grey belt and making it green belt again. The green belt is absolutely necessary for our health, as other noble Lords have said.
We need to protect the well-being of land, ecosystems, people, towns and villages, and we really have to remember that this is something—including farmland—that we rely on for ourselves. I am hearing from farmers all over the country that they are losing good farming land. Given climate change, we could potentially face some huge challenges in feeding ourselves, and the loss of farmland will be a disaster. I think my Amendment 118 is a great amendment, but I am prepared not to put it to a vote if Amendment 96 is moved.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendments 95 and 98. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her support for the protection of good agricultural land. Amendment 95 is a broader application of the principle that was debated and rejected by Government and Liberal Democrat Benches in this House last week. We on these Benches believe that food security is national security and, unlike for this Government, these are not empty words: we intend to put that into practice.
We remain concerned that the principle of protecting the best and most versatile land—grades 1, 2 and 3A—appears to be trampled at will, for not just solar farms under NSIP but other developments. We must do better. This land is responsible for supplying the lowest-cost, highest-quality food produced in our country and is far more productive than weaker grades of land. Building without due consideration on the land that we need to feed us is, frankly, short-sighted.
Amendment 98 asks the Government to report annually on how much of our land is being converted from agriculture to tarmac, steel, photovoltaic panels and concrete, and provides the basis for a more informed national debate on how we treat our productive land. I will not test the will of the House on these amendments. However, I would be most grateful to receive an assurance from the Minister that the Government take this issue as seriously as they should. This was not entirely clear from the response to the debate on solar farms and BMV last week.
I also support of the concept of Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. Well-planned development needs to take into consideration access to green and blue open space, but also how this space can contribute to nature connectivity.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 121 is a vital step towards bringing clarity and scrutiny to the Government’s grey-belt policy. This amendment asks the Secretary of State to publish a clear framework for grey-belt designation within six months of Royal Assent and to lay it before both Houses. Its purpose is straightforward: to ensure that this policy is defined, transparent and subject to oversight. This concept has received remarkably little scrutiny or discussion during the passage of the Bill.
The concept of the grey belt has shifted since it was introduced in the Labour Party’s manifesto. It was first presented as previously developed land and disused car parks—which is largely brownfield land already. Since then, it has expanded in ways that raise serious concerns. Our party is not opposed to using grey-belt land sensibly, but we share the concerns of the Lords Built Environment Committee, which described the rollout as “rushed and incoherent” and unlikely to have
“any significant or lasting impact”
on planning or housing delivery, suggesting that the concept might be “largely redundant”. The current definition includes land in the green belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that does not strongly contribute to green-belt purposes.
The Local Government Association and many councillors, including in my home town of Solihull and my former constituency, Redditch, warn that this vague language contributes little and could invite subjective judgments and threaten green-belt protection in places such as Solihull and Redditch, with no other surrounding towns. The entire green belt could be vulnerable. Small housebuilders have warned that it will not help them, especially given under-resourced planning departments.
The risks are clear. Inconsistent criteria and monitoring could lead to uneven treatment and uncertainty. There is no plan to measure progress or success. In short, this policy has shifted without sufficient clarity or scrutiny. My amendment offers Parliament the chance to correct that, and I commend it to the House.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 88, to which I have added my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for all her work on this, and the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for meeting us to talk about this amendment.
Without this amendment putting green and blue spaces on a statutory basis, this will be a planning Bill for the privileged. We have heard evidence from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, this afternoon as to why this might be. There is also further evidence discovered by Wildlife and Countryside Link, which conducted regression model analysis, using official ONS datasets, for first-time buyers by local authority area in 2023. It compared this with the ONS data on the number of adults in each authority who were first-time buyers. First-time buyers are the people who will need green and blue space the most; they will have young families. Wildlife and Countryside Link analysed and mapped the percentage rate for those first-time buyers with in-depth green-space data. It found a direct, statistically significant correlation between lack of green space and higher numbers of first-time buyers. In other words, the first-time buyers are going somewhere because it is cheap: it lacks green space, it lacks amenities, so of course, things are cheaper. That is exactly what this Bill should be resisting.
When we met, the Minister said that she did not like this amendment because it was too prescriptive. She is right that local development plans should decide what green and blue spaces there should be; I do not have a problem with that. However, if there is no statutory requirement for a network of easily accessible green spaces, there will be far fewer of those spaces. This amendment is absolutely in line with Defra’s stated aims, and it would contribute substantially to sustainable urban drainage delivery. It would not tie the hands of local or regional planning authorities; it just points them in the right direction and makes sure they head in that direction. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and his colleagues will bear in mind that swift bricks and other nature-friendly construction methods will not result in more swifts unless the network of green and blue spaces exists to provide food sources.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 88 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and various other Peers. I also very much support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson about sports fields. I just wanted to make a few points that somehow often do not come up about green spaces.
In 2008, when I worked for the then Mayor of London, Mr Johnson, we started a project called Capital Growth. It was a simple and madly ambitious idea to create 2,012 new community vegetable gardens in London by the time of the Olympic Games. It was a steal entirely from Vancouver, which had done something similar, but we counted each garden as one garden, whereas they counted each plot as a garden, so I think we won. In four years, we created 2,500 gardens, and all of them are still there. Supporting the notion that a lot of these spaces do end up in much more wealthy areas, once communities were given the chance and a tiny bit of money, in fact, 78% of our gardens ended up in the most deprived areas of London, because that is what people wanted. Very many things happened that we did not anticipate. One was that all the local police came and said that the gardens had transformed the area.
To give an example, you would be in a place where there was a high-rise block and an area designed back in the 50s where mums could walk with their babies in the midday sun; but it would be full of needles and beer cans, and people would not go there. They would stay in their tower blocks because they were frightened to come down. However, you took over the space and created a garden, and then, people got pride and came down. It altered things dramatically, and we saw that over and over again. The police were pleased, the doctors were pleased, the community was pleased, and people started to take ownership of their public space.
We set up a system whereby we challenged every borough in London to create 60 spaces. They all rose to the challenge, but my point in supporting the noble Baroness’s amendment is that, if we do not make this happen, nobody has a chance. It is not something that should be the privilege of people with money; this should be accessible to all, not just because it is healthy and makes you eat better. We had wonderful groups selling to local restaurants; we were having barbecues; they were feeding kids. The knock-ons are amazing, so please do not think of it simply in terms of one single thing. The point about plants and gardens and gardening is that it spreads dramatically.
I have one final point before I sit down. I was reading an extraordinary book the other day about heat in urban areas. During the heat dome over the west coast of America, the researcher had measured the heat in the middle-class areas in Portland, Oregon, where there were lots of trees, and in the poorer areas, where there was just concrete. The difference was 20 degrees. So we must have these spaces as the world’s climate changes, because they really work a lot better than practically anything else.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I too support Amendment 88 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to which I have put my name. This is a time of huge opportunity. We are going to be building an unprecedented number of houses and creating 10 new towns, and the value that can be added to that effort by open green spaces and blue spaces, delivering some of the benefits that have already been spoken of around the Chamber, is tremendous. It really is an opportunity we must not miss.
It is true to say that, at the moment, deprived communities do not get as good a deal on this as richer communities, and work that the Woodland Trust has done on tree equity has shown that the poorer communities have far less access to open spaces with trees. These are vital for health, mental health, well-being and air quality; we heard about heat, natural flood risk management and the huge range of things that, apart from allowing people to have room to enjoy open spaces, are also going to be delivered by these open spaces.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 107 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Before speaking to it, I have just two brief comments. First, in declaring my interest as chairman of the British Olympic Association from 2005 through to the London Olympic Games in 2012 and being a member of the London Organising Committee for those Olympic and Paralympic Games, I have to say that what the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has said today is absolutely right. The work that she did at the time was exemplary and really important for the success of those Games, and the emphasis on environmental protection and the environmental work that went on in green spaces and the gardens were commendable. I hope that that is taken very much into consideration by the Minister when she comes to reply to that amendment.
I also want to offer the apologies of my noble friend Lady Sater who was two minutes late in arriving for this set of amendments and came from another important meeting. She is passionate about this subject, and has just whispered in my ear that she was strongly supportive of what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said in her speech, as well as what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said in speaking to Amendment 107, and if he moves that to a vote I am sure she will be supporting him as strongly as I will.
In Committee—and here I take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson—we concentrated on a number of facts, which are not worthy of repetition because they were so well-made at the time. We looked at the importance of playing fields as crucial for children and young people, and we recognised that, once the playing field is lost to development, it is generally lost for ever. We also looked at the active communities that were supported by playing fields, which can reduce healthcare costs.
To my brief contributions there, I just want to add to the points that were made about Sport England a number of facts which were not before the Committee at that stage, which I hope are taken into consideration by the Minister in her response. The Bill before us threatens to weaken the statutory protection for playing fields by potentially removing Sport England’s role as a statutory consultee on planning applications affecting these spaces.
These changes would reduce independent oversight. Independent oversight is vitally important regarding these playing fields. The change would reduce independent oversight and advocacy for safeguarding playing fields, increasing the risk of their loss to development, especially in areas already underserved for sports provision. If removed, local authorities would not be required to consult Sport England when considering planning applications that affect playing fields, removing a critical safeguard that has protected over 1,000 playing fields in the past year alone. Statements from the chief executive of Sport England emphasise that removing this statutory role would leave a huge hole in the protection system, as Sport England’s involvement in planning has led to improved or safeguarded conditions in 90% of recent cases.
School playing fields are particularly vulnerable. Over half of UK playing fields are within school grounds. The Bill introduces more flexibility for local authorities to sell such land for capital generation. Concerns remain that weakening Sport England’s oversight could make these disposals more likely, and it is for that reason that I support Amendment 107.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 88 and congratulate noble Lords on all the excellent speeches we have heard so far in support of it. The provision of green space is terribly important when building homes. I am in despair to see so many developments of little houses packed tightly together with little or no garden space and no small green spaces in the public areas.
I urge the Minister to dig out the excellent 2020 report, commissioned by her department, Living With Beauty; Promoting Health, Well-being and Sustainable Growth, which inter alia made the point that communities were more likely to approve of new housing if it was of a beautiful design and harmonious with the local architecture. It was written by the urban design expert Nicholas Boys Smith, the founder and chairman of Create Streets. He was also chair of the advisory board of the Government’s Office for Place and is an academician of the Academy of Urbanism.
Chapter 10 is called “Neighbourhoods: create places not just houses” and says:
“the research is remarkably consistent. Most of us prefer places we can walk in, where there is greenery frequently present and where we find the streets and squares beautiful to look at and be in. We prefer places that do not cost the earth but can help us live in harmony with it”.
I urge the Minister to read and implement the report, especially Chapter 11, which is called “Nature: re-green our towns and cities”. I make no apologies for quoting the first few paragraphs of this chapter since it makes the point better and more succinctly than I can. It says:
“Sustainability and beauty are not in conflict. Rather they are in symbiosis. This is true at all three scales of building, place, and settlement and has been evident on our visits. It is also reflected in polling and well-being data. Much of the evidence we received … stressed this point.
‘There is a considerable body of evidence that shows green spaces in rural and urban areas are highly beneficial to health and well-being and also provide space for people to meet. The perception of beauty is an important factor for realising these benefits’.
Put simply, green is good for us, as Natural England argued in their evidence to us. The presence of greenery in the urban environment normally has a positive impact on our mental and our physical health. Street trees seem particularly important. They are associated with cleaner air, slower cars, fewer accidents. They provide shade in hot summers. And, perhaps astonishingly given the complexity of human life, street trees have a measurable effect on human health even taking into account income, age and education.
At all three scales, we therefore believe that it is necessary to ‘re-green’ our lives. It is important not to be naïve, however. Many essentially very poor development proposals attempt to cover up their shortcomings with some token tree planting. A strip of grass or a couple of trees cannot rescue a polluted, ugly and profoundly inhumane place”.
I agree entirely with those words. If we cannot rescue those places that are currently built, at least we should stop building new ones in the future. The London National Park City briefed me a few years ago that its research suggested that people would not walk more than about 250 metres to a park or a green space. Therefore, I say to the Minister, the answer is in these amendments—build the green space into the gardens in the streets and little parks or accessible green space in all housing developments. If people will not go to the parks and green spaces, bring the parks and green spaces to them.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, in speaking in support of Amendment 88 in the name of my noble friend Lady Willis of Summertown, I reiterate in particular the point she made in her introduction to the amendment that if, as we have heard on many occasions, the Government’s view is that this amendment is unnecessary because the matter is covered by the NPPF, please could they show us the workings? Can they demonstrate to us with firm data that the NPPF is indeed working to protect green space in our towns, cities and villages? If we do not have the data, how can we believe what the Government tell us?
We then tend to fall back on anecdotes. We have heard a number of anecdotes already this afternoon, and I will add my own. One of my penances in life is that I support Oxford United. I live in Oxford and, as one of my friends said, when you support Oxford United, you support them through thin and thin. Near the Kassam Stadium—which is in a more deprived part of Oxford, the Blackbird Leys estate—there used to be a very nice little green park. It was small, but it was a bit of greenery where children could run around and kick a ball. Just in the last year or so, that green space has been completely covered wall-to-wall with houses—they are packed in and there is no green space left. Anecdotes like that make us anxious. We do not see where green and blue space is being protected.
I hope that the Minister will respond to my noble friend Lady Willis’s request and, probably not at this moment but in writing, send us all the data that shows that the NPPF is delivering what the Government claim it delivers.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much support by noble friend’s Amendment 96, which we will likely hear about in due course. This is really important for the harmonious development of communities and them working well for people. But if we are going to have that then we absolutely need Amendment 88 too. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has just pointed out, if we do not make a clear requirement for green space then it gets swallowed up.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak chiefly to Amendment 121E in my name. It has not been addressed yet, but it is very much a package with two amendments that have already been widely addressed: Amendment 107 on playing fields, from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and Amendment 88 on blue and green spaces, from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. These three amendments fit together.
My amendment, which is the same as the one that I tabled in Committee, seeks to ensure that planning authorities take all practicable steps to ensure a sufficiency of play opportunities for children. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, just said, we desperately need playing fields for organised sport and we need green and blue spaces, but somewhere to just kick a ball around is not necessarily a playing field and yet it is a crucial space for children to develop their physical skills—as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, spoke about—and social skills, by getting together to play.
I spoke quite extensively in Committee and I do not intend to repeat everything I said. I will pick up and take forward a couple of points that were raised then. I begin by apologising to the Minister, who made great efforts to reach out and have a meeting with me before Report. I am afraid his emails arrived just beforehand. I was in Ukraine, with limited communications, and it is entirely my fault that that meeting did not happen; I apologise for that. Those were the circumstances.
This is not really my amendment at all. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked where it had come from and I said that it came from Play England. It is worth tracing through this a little. The 2024 manifesto from Play England was the first to call for play sufficiency legislation. In Committee, the Minister referred to the NPPF change that came in December 2024, but, as we have heard from multiple noble Lords, there is no evidence that it is working. Further, that is a policy, which could be changed, which is very different from having it written into law—which is much harder to change—that planning authorities must consider play sufficiency.
As I said in Committee, this was debated quite extensively by the standards of the other place, and there were broad expressions of support. I am afraid that nothing the Minister said in Committee convinced me that there was any argument against this. I note that the noble Lord asked in Committee if I was aware that there is an APPG on Play. I am—I am a member of the APPG on Play, together with eight other Members of your Lordships’ House, including several from the Government Benches, and 32 MPs. By the standards of these things, that makes it a significant all-party group, which is a recognition of the importance in which this issue is held.
A number of noble Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, among them, referred to the Wildlife and Countryside Link study which came out this morning about the lack of green spaces where first-time buyers make their first homes. Of course, many of those first-time buyers may well have or be going to have children, who desperately need these play spaces. I note that the paper edition of the Times this morning put beside that the report from the House of Lords environment committee, which I think is out this morning and which talks about how, if the Government are to build new towns, they need to be built as communities, with infrastructure in place. Part of that infrastructure must be play infrastructure.
I referred in Committee to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and to the fact that Wales and Scotland already have comparable legislation to this. It is worth noting that Wales has the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act, which almost demands that you have something like a play sufficiency duty.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and her Amendment 88, to which I added my name. I refer to my interests, including my involvement in Peers for the Planet, and flag to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that I chair the Built Environment Select Committee, whose report was in the Times. For those who are interested in it, watch this space. We will have that debate in due course and I look forward to it.
I do not wish to prolong the debate because I think we are coming to the end, but I will raise one point, building on everything that everyone has said so far, about vision and where we ultimately see nature in development. We have covered a lot already, today and in Committee. As was mentioned, the NPPF references aspects, but it is open to interpretation and vague. Again, as we have discussed before and today, there are real issues for some people in the country.
Some may query, and therefore object to, the amendment on the basis of the word “network”. Ultimately, it is for those on the ground to decide what “network” means, be it large or small. It would allow for pragmatism, in an effort to seek to do as much as possible, but, ultimately, it is about having more than one space. Therefore, it is about what more can be done with an entire site, rather than just looking through the lens of trying to do the minimum.
The amendment is not onerous. It is pragmatic. It does not stipulate the quantum of nature that is needed. Both my party and, I think, the Government still honour the concept of the 15-minute walk to nature, but this amendment does not go anywhere near that. Therefore, it is not as onerous and prescriptive.
I have just one final point. It is an anecdote, although I cannot compete with the fine words of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and her story about the fantastic work she did in London. There is a piece of land near where I live in Surrey. I was driving past it about a year ago and I saw some school kids planting bulbs, in miserable weather. I thought how absolutely amazing it was to see them putting bulbs in on this plot of land.
Last Wednesday, when we sat earlier to debate the Bill, I charged in valiantly to make my train, thinking we were going to have a vote. I walked past the same bit of land. For clarity, it is just a piece of grass, with a few trees and a path through the middle, surrounded by roads and residential properties, with some shops nearby. It is nothing special, but it is special in itself because it is unique and pleasant for those who live nearby—for the dog walkers and the shoppers, it is something to enjoy. I cannot imagine that the upkeep is too onerous but it is enjoyed by those nearby.
As I ran past, I saw those school kids yet again, one year on, planting more bulbs and I thought, “I’ve got to get in; I must get in”, and I sort of smiled as I charged past. Then I thought, “You know what? I’m going to forget the vote”. I backed up and went to speak to those kids. I spoke to someone called Doug from the council who has been involved in that project over the past few years, and I met my own councillor—a Lib Dem, I hasten to add, but we will forget that—called Kirsty, who has been driving this idea with the council and the school kids, getting them involved. A little later, some local businesses came along too.
The point is that this small endeavour showed exactly why, to me, nature is important. Not only is it important from a biodiversity point of view but it brings people together and improves that area, and it brings people of all ages together to do something. That is why I care about nature; that is why we support this amendment. I pay tribute to those behind it.
I was flicking through what was said the last time we debated this. There is no finer quote than from the Minister, who said:
“There is a growing body of evidence illustrating the crucial role that green space plays in supporting healthy and inclusive communities, and we recognise the importance of providing these alongside new homes”.—[Official Report, 9/9/25; col. 1298.]
Therefore, I hope that the Government can find a way through on this issue.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 96 in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, to which I have added my name and which requires the prioritisation of brownfield and other sites, and to speak to my noble friend’s Amendment 239, to which I have also added my name, about the protection of villages, which I raised in Committee.
On Amendment 96 and brownfield sites, your Lordships know that I spoke about this in Committee. It is a no-brainer, a double win that saves our countryside and green spaces that are rich in nature—we have heard much about the importance of green spaces this afternoon—while improving areas blighted by uncared for, dilapidated and sometimes poisonous brownfield sites in the heart of our communities. The Minister responded in Committee, saying:
“The Government are clear that the first port of call for development should be brownfield land”.—[Official Report, 9/9/25; col. 1457.]
She suggested that the NPPF already covered this point and that my noble friend Lord Jameson’s amendment and mine in Committee were not needed. If this is what the Government support, what is the harm of applying belt and braces and having it spelled out here too? Would it not demonstrate their true commitment to this principle? Either way, it still feels as if there is a long way to go.
I shall reiterate the stats that I shared from the CPRE—I hope your Lordships will forgive me; I have not been able to find more recent ones yet. It reported that in 2022 a record-breaking number of brownfields sites identified for redevelopment were lying dormant, enough for 1.2 million homes on 23,000 sites adding up to 27,000 hectares. The CPRE highlighted that the majority of brownfield sites are in town and city centres, where there is both the need and scope for new homes and regeneration. Indeed, it will also fit with the travel aspect of proposed new subsection (9B) in this amendment.
As many of us have said throughout the progress of this Bill, it is not simply a question of more homes; we need the right homes in the right places. Much current urban brownfield land is known to blight the communities where it exists, leading to poorer socio-economic indicators. It is much better to reuse already developed urban land and buildings, as the carbon emissions are lower per capita than for greenfield development. I understand that for developers there can be a problem that cleaning up land before building can increase costs, but perhaps there is a way that the Government can help with this. Hence, I hope Government will think again on this issue and accept what I consider to be a sensible amendment.
On Amendment 239, I feel passionately about the protection of our villages, their identity and the way of life, and I am delighted that my noble friends decided that they wanted to run this from the Front Bench. Villages and their communities, as I have said before, have been hewn over centuries of rural life and are a key part of the UK’s reputation as a green and pleasant land. This amendment would insert a much-needed protection to match that currently provided to towns under the National Planning Policy Framework and would level the playing field to help preserve the special character of individual and historic villages which would be lost if one village spread into another or if a town spread out into a village.
The practicalities and perhaps unintended consequences of implementing this Bill pose a significant risk that, by opening up development, we will lose those village gems or, in the worst-case scenario, that they become swallowed up in a styleless urban sprawl. In Committee, the Minister argued that villages were already protected by current guidance for local planning authorities on the restriction of village development and by green belt provisions, but surely it is clear from the debate we had that this is not necessarily the case in practice.
I am about to cite some green belt statistics, but it is not simply about that. The Government’s own statistics on the green belt state that around 12.5% of the land area of England is currently designated as green belt, focusing around 16 urban cores. With national parks included, this would take the percentage up to around 37% of land protected by one or more types of protection. Overall, however, there was a decrease in green belt of around 660 hectares between March 2024 and March 2025, the bulk of which was due to six local authorities adopting local plans with changes to the green belt. That is just it: the green belt can be changed. There are large, more rural areas of the country further away from urban centres that do not fall under any protections and could be impacted by newly planned development or new towns under this Government. Such villages should have the same protection currently afforded to towns across the country.
The Government said that an amendment along these lines would limit the ability of local planning authorities to develop sound strategies. I am afraid I disagree. This amendment is about creating guidance or updating current guidance. Local authorities make their decisions using guidance already. This should only aid that process.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments on green spaces, the green belt and playing fields is one of the largest groups of amendments that we will debate today, which reflects how important these issues are held to be in your Lordships’ House.
Wild places have always played an important part in my life. In the past, I have been very involved with promoting outdoor education, so these matters are also important to me personally.
Across this House, I think there is recognition that we need new homes and that the quality of those new homes, the communities they create and the places they become will be dependent on having access to really good green and blue spaces. The impacts of merely being near to good-quality green and blue spaces are still not properly understood, but this is an ever-growing area. Research shows that such access reduces stress, improves overall well-being, increases the level of physical activity, enhances social interaction, gives people a greater sense of community and has direct economic impacts and particular benefits for those in the most deprived sections of our communities.
The Minister has spoken throughout different parts of this debate about how important the new town that she grew up in is. I put it to her that new towns are held in such high regard because they had green and blue spaces designed into them from the start. These are not just nice to have; they are fundamental issues for the well-being of our communities, and they go on to save millions of pounds in unnecessary societal costs from inequality, depression and poor health that result from not having such facilities.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for making an extremely important point about climate change. As our climate heats up, the urban heat island effect causes misery and health impacts, particularly for the poorest, who suffer the most, so the need for green and blue spaces in our towns is growing ever more important.
One statistic that I want to give to the House is that the amount of time our children spend playing outside has declined by 50% in the space of one generation alone. We need to reverse that. We need a cross-sector, strategic approach to these things, and we need to ensure that big housebuilders do not squeeze out these essential requirements for human existence.
Amendment 88 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, my noble friend Lady Miller and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, would require strategic planning authorities to include a network of green and blue spaces in the statement of policies that will relate to the development and use of land in the area. This amendment is one that we very much support; it is also supported by the National Trust and the Better Planning Coalition. It is also vital for our new towns.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of the intent behind this important group of amendments, all of which seek to strengthen the Bill’s provisions around green infrastructure, heritage protection, sustainable land use and, importantly, play and sports areas, as in Amendments 170 and 121E.
Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, would recognise the Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee. Historic gardens and designed landscapes are a vital part of our cultural and national heritage, and their protection must not be left to chance. Giving the Gardens Trust formal status in the planning process is a logical and proportionate step, in our opinion.
On Amendment 88, we strongly support the call for a strategic approach to green and blue infrastructure—that is, parks, waterways and green spaces that are publicly accessible and which protect biodiversity and enhance well-being. These provisions would help to ensure that growth does not come at the expense of nature or public access to it. However, this amendment includes “network”, which carries a significant implication from a strategic planning perspective. Once we define these assets as a network, local authorities could be required not only to safeguard individual sites but to consider the functional and spatial connections between those sites. That raises questions of the maintenance, responsibilities and resources required to deliver a genuinely joined-up approach. We therefore could not support the amendment as drafted but there is another amendment, later on in our debates, about new towns. It is a different issue in new towns than it is strategically, which could be across three or even four counties or areas.
There is also clear cross-party consensus behind prioritising brownfield development and protecting our most valuable farmland and greenfield sites. Amendments such as Amendments 95, 96 and 118 rightly push for a sequential, sustainable approach to land use, beginning with sites already in use or disused, and protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land for food production and environmental benefit.
Amendment 96 in my name would require spatial development strategies to prioritise brownfield land and urban densification, and to promote sustainable mixed communities by reducing travel distances between homes, jobs and services. It underpins the widely supported “brownfield first” principle, which already commands public support and political consensus, but it goes further, linking that principle directly to community building, sustainability and the protection of the villages and open spaces that give our places their character. As Conservatives, we are passionate about protecting our green belt and safeguarding the countryside from inappropriate development. This Government have often relied on guidance rather than firm statutory safeguards, leaving too much to shifting policy documents and not enough to clear legal safeguards.
This is about a joined-up approach, encouraging regeneration where infrastructure already exists, reducing needless commuting and making sure that the new development creates mixed, vibrant communities rather than those isolated housing estates we see too often on the edges of our towns. It is about putting what is already in the NPPF—brownfield first, compact growth and protection of the countryside—into statute. I anticipate that the Minister may say, as the Minister said in Committee:
“I agree with the intent behind this amendment; however, it is already comprehensively covered in the National Planning Policy Framework”,—[Official Report, 9/9/25; cols. 1455-56.]
but if we all agree that brownfield first is the right principle, then why leave it only to guidance, which can be changed at will? If it truly is covered, then legislating to secure it should cause no difficulty. If it is not, then this amendment is precisely what is needed.
This is a proportionate and pragmatic step. It strengthens what the Government claim they already believe in, gives local communities greater confidence that brownfield will be prioritised and protects our green belts and villages from unnecessary pressure, and I will be pushing this to a vote when the time comes.
Finally, on Amendment 239, in my name but spoken to by my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, I do not want to say any more, because she said it all and I do not want to take time repeating it. But this is so important, and again we may divide on this one when the time comes, because this concerns the protection of our villages in this beautiful land.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this very interesting debate for the very valuable contributions we have heard this afternoon. I have engaged with many noble Lords on these matters in the preceding weeks and our debate has focused on something on which I think we all agree, which is the need to ensure that, as we deliver the housing we need, we recognise the importance of green and blue space, sustainability, heritage and the important uses that allow our communities and the people that constitute them to thrive and succeed.
First, I remind noble Lords of my letter regarding the strength and influence that planning policy bears on the protection of vital green and blue spaces across the country, the power it exerts in practice and the degree of flexibility it allows for sensible choices to be made at a local level. The benefits of green space are not in doubt as far as I can see, for all the reasons set out in our debate. That is why there are such strong protections within the NPPF and in the planning system.
I turn now to the amendments we have debated. Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, seeks to ensure that the Gardens Trust is retained as a statutory consultee for planning proposals and that it is considered as a statutory amenity society. The Government have set out their intention to reform the system of statutory consultation. We want a streamlined, effective system of consultation that avoids uncertainty and delay. We will shortly consult on these reforms, including on the impacts of removing the Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee. Historic England already holds statutory responsibilities for higher-graded parks and gardens, so this consultation will help us to deliver a streamlined system and address duplication.
As part of our consultation, we will be very keen to test mitigations to ensure they continue to play a valuable role in protecting our heritage. Planning policy remains key. Registered parks and gardens are defined as designated heritage assets, and they will remain subject to the strong heritage policies protecting these assets in the National Planning Policy Framework. These policies require local planning authorities to carefully consider the impact of a development proposal on a designated heritage asset, and, if the development proposal would cause substantial harm, to refuse such applications.
I note the noble Lord’s proposal about amenity society status with great interest. Amenity societies are not subject to the full requirements of statutory consultation but are notified of relevant development. The Government really value the work of amenity societies, and I will add my own anecdote here about the level of volunteering. I was at our local community awards on Saturday, and I was delighted to see our amazing green space volunteers—across our gardens, green spaces and parks—getting awards. These kinds of volunteers who look after our green spaces—whether in committee rooms or out in the parks themselves—are incredibly valued, as are those who enable and encourage sport and physical activity, which we will come to later. I pay tribute to those who won those local awards on Saturday.
The Government are keen to explore whether this model would be suitable for certain types of development through our consultation. We believe there is an important, ongoing role for the Gardens Trust, working with local authorities and developers. No decision will be made until we have fully considered the feedback on potential impacts from the consultation. My department will continue to engage with the Gardens Trust to understand the impacts of these proposals over the coming months.
The noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, has tabled Amendment 88, and I thank her for our meeting last week to discuss the importance of networks of green and blue spaces to communities all around the country. I was very grateful for the information and research that she provided both to me and to officials from my department.
The NPPF, which will guide the development of new spatial development strategies, already highlights the need for plans to support healthy communities. I agree with the noble Baroness about equality in the provision of green space. I am grateful to her for agreeing to share the research she talked about, and I am happy to respond in writing to her on that.
I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on the amazing work she did during the London Olympics. When I was on one of my visits, I went to see a fantastic project on balcony gardens in Walthamstow, which has also invigorated that community. In my own area, we started a community orchard project. I completely understand the benefits of these types of projects.
Strategic planning authorities already have the ability to set policies that reflect the value of these spaces. Under new Section 12D(4)(c), a spatial development strategy may specify infrastructure that promotes or improves the social or environmental well-being of an area; this could include networks of green and blue spaces.
We should also remember that strategic development strategies will not be site-specific; instead, they will relate to broad locations. Some of the noble Lords who have had meetings with me will be aware that my noble friend Lady Hayman, the Defra Minister, is currently working on a comprehensive access strategy, which will come forward from Defra, to indicate how that meshes in with the planning process. While an SDS may consider green and blue networks at the strategic level, detailed site-specific matters relating to them are likely to be best dealt with through local plans.
Amendment 95 seeks to protect best and most versatile land, and Amendments 96 and 118 seek to encourage a brownfield first principle. I absolutely agree that we need to protect our best agricultural land. To that end, strategic authorities will need to have regard to ensuring consistency with national policy when preparing their spatial development strategies. The NPPF is clear that authorities should make best use of brownfield land before considering development on other types of land, including agricultural. Planning policy recognises the economic and other benefits of best and most versatile agricultural land, and if development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land—not in the top three grades that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, mentioned—should be prioritised. Furthermore, the forthcoming land use framework will set out the evidence and tools needed to protect our most productive agricultural land and identify areas with the biggest potential for nature recovery.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased to think that my amendment has led to such a wide discussion that has shown more or less complete unanimity across the House about the importance of green space in place-making in this country. Where we can get unanimity like that, there is the potential to make progress.
I thank the Minister for her remarks on the Gardens Trust; as the saying goes, I shall think on them.
As I was sitting in my place, I thought that what we are all trying to do is to change policies and law. However, are we not perhaps creating a hydra that will make it, in general terms, more difficult for the planning process to work well? At the end of the day, planning is about physical specifics, not abstract generalities. The key to establishing whether this debate has been worth while will be seeing whether the country is a better place because of it. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Promotion of distributed water supply(1) When exercising functions under this Act in relation to planning applications, local planning authorities must have regard to how a proposed development could implement distributed water infrastructures and technologies for development-scale water reuse.(2) When discharging the duty in subsection (1), planning authorities must seek to secure, where viable and appropriate, the incorporation of —(a) distributed water storage solutions for individual buildings, and (b) shared water storage infrastructure at community and development scale,into developments seeking planning permission.(3) The water storage technology in section (2) includes but is not limited to—(a) distributed schemes for local storage and supply of rainwater and surface water,(b) rainwater harvesting of the largest sizes possible relative to building size, occupancy, and current and projected future water consumption,(c) greywater and blackwater recycling, and(d) water storage systems operated, co-managed or co-owned by local communities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, requires planning authorities to support the inclusion of distributed and alternative water storage infrastructure projects in developments. This is to ensure the sustainable harvesting, use, or distribution of fit-for-purpose water by residents, communities, government services, and private businesses to reduce additional demand on catchment water resources and mitigate flood risk and water pollution.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this amendment was debated last week, but I would like to remind the House what it was about. Basically, it is about not losing—[Interruption.] Am I not allowed to say that? The Whip is shaking his head at me. I will rattle on until he stands up and shouts. In essence, this is about the recovery of storm-water, surface water and flood-water that otherwise rushes into our systems and is then totally gone. What we could do is catch that water and use it—instead of using extremely expensive tap-water—to wash cars, fill up paddling pools and so on.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I say to the noble Baroness that we debated this amendment last week. The Front Bench does not have the right of reply at this stage. We ask her whether she is pushing the amendment to a vote or withdrawing.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the noble Lord the Whip. I would like to test the opinion of the House on this incredibly important issue.
Baroness Coffey
“Planning decisions: consideration of an EDPIn section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (determination of applications: general considerations), after paragraph (2)(aa) insert—“(ab) any Environmental Delivery Plan made under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, so far as material to the application,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that when making a planning decision, the local planning authority must take into account any EDP applying to the land in question.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this amendment is about consideration of an EDP by a local council. As I referred to on a previous group of amendments including an amendment in my name, because we have not gone to the full consideration of an EDP, it is not my intention to press this amendment later. This is effectively giving substance to what the chief executive of Natural England said to the Commons Committee considering this Bill, which was that if a council was not content with how an EDP was delivering, it would not have to give planning permission, but that is not expressed anywhere else in the Bill. That said, as we are yet to get properly to Part 3, I will reserve my judgment about whether to return to this another time. I beg to move.
Lord Banner (Con)
I shall speak to Amendments 163A and 163B, tabled in my name. These seek to ensure that the nature restoration fund is properly aligned with the planning process and, in particular, that it is capable of supporting the larger and more complex developments. It is my view that the current drafting of Clause 66 risks preventing some of the larger, more complicated schemes from using an environmental delivery plan. These kinds of larger, more complicated developments often evolve after the development has started. We will hear more about this on Hillside, at whatever ungodly hour we get to it. For example, outline permission may be granted, but a developer may subsequently seek to change the planning conditions attached to the permission. There may be amendments to other aspects of the development under Section 96A or otherwise. It may also be the case that larger developments need to apply for retrospective planning permission after development has commenced to regularise the development when it has been built differently to the permission.
In its current form, Clause 66 allows developers to request to use an EDP only before development has commenced—a single snapshot in time. While I can understand why it was drafted in that way, inadvertently, it seems to me, it risks limiting the NRF by failing to accommodate the possibility of ever-evolving development schemes. If the Government are going to deliver their growth and housing targets, I assume that they would want to ensure that the NRF could support the full range of development projects, particularly given that the larger ones tend to have the greatest tendency to evolve during their often decades-long and certainly years-long lifetimes.
Amendment 163A would not require Natural England to accept such a development but would allow the design of EDPs to accommodate these scenarios where appropriate. Amendment 163B similarly does not require Natural England to accept a request from a promoter of such development to pay the levy, but it makes clear that deciding whether to accept it is guided by the Secretary of State’s policy on the matter. I encourage the Government to consider this amendment in the spirit in which it is tabled, to ensure the proper functioning of legislation and help the nature restoration fund to navigate the complexities of the planning system.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, in this group of amendments on the EDP consultation process, we are broadly in support of Amendment 87, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. We appreciate Amendments 163 and 163B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, but we have rather more care in relation to these and will ask some questions about them.
Amendment 87 strikes us as a sensible and necessary clarification, seeking to require local planning authorities to have regard to an EDP relevant to the land in question. It closes an important procedural loop between the Bill’s new environmental mechanisms and the Town and Country Planning Act. I will move on to the other amendments, as I do not think that Amendment 87 will be pushed to a vote.
With Amendment 163A, we are entering more complex territory. Having listened to the noble Lord’s speech, I know that his amendment is intended in relation only to large developments. However, this amendment seeks to allow developers to use an EDP after development has commenced. This is a fundamental change to how the Bill was originally drafted. Although this amendment and the next one are short, they would have profound impacts on the nature of the Bill and the reasoning behind it. Given the late stage that we find ourselves in, it is worth treating these amendments with a degree of cautious scepticism. I have a number of questions on these amendments, particularly as I understand that the Minister might be intending to support them to some extent.
I understand the reasoning behind them. Projects evolve, impacts manifest late in the process and developers may wish to regularise matters through this pathway. Indeed, in principle, a degree of flexibility can be helpful for all concerned in the planning process. This could also help to speed things up, which is one of the core intentions of the Bill. However, flexibility, if poorly secured and accounted for, risks turning things instead into loopholes and could give the Government much more direct power and say over matters of importance. EDPs were created precisely to ensure that environmental protection is front-loaded, assessed, integrated and approved before the first spade hits the ground. If we are now to permit post-commencement plans, we are blurring that critical line. The Government clearly set that out in the original drafting of the Bill, so this is a very fundamental change.
Might this invite retrospective justification of impacts that should have been avoided or evaluated in advance, and what is the mechanism that will stop deliberate misuse of this new clause should a developer be so minded to do that? How will post-commencement EDPs preserve the same environmental rigour as those agreed at the outset of the drafting of this Bill? What safeguards will ensure that the flexibility serves better compliance, not convenient regularisation after the fact? How will this affect the deterrent from starting work without proper authorisation? The credibility of EDPs and public trust depend on certainty that environmental obligations cannot be adjusted once the bulldozers roll in. This could increase uncertainty for developers themselves. For all the talk of streamlining, shifting assessments mid-project can introduce delay, legal risk and even greater reputational exposure.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will not make extensive comments on my noble friend Lady Coffey’s Amendment 87, as we will return to EDPs in future groups on Report. However, this amendment does have merit in that EDPs should be a relevant matter for making planning decisions.
My noble friend Lord Banner has expertly introduced Amendments 163A and 163B, and I have nothing to add except my support. I very much look forward to the response from the Minister.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for Amendment 87, which would require decision-makers to take account of the environmental delivery plans when making a planning decision under the Town and Country Planning Act. I agree, of course, that it is crucial that EDPs are integrated into the planning system. I hope I can provide the noble Baroness with the necessary assurance that her amendment is not necessary.
At its heart, an EDP enables a developer to discharge a relevant environmental obligation by making a commitment to pay the appropriate nature restoration levy. Once this commitment is made, the legislation removes the requirement to consider that specific environmental impact as part of any wider assessment, as the impact will be materially outweighed by the actions taken under the EDP. Therefore, while the planning decision-maker will need to consider a wide variety of matters when making individual planning decisions, it is not necessary for the decision-maker to consider the EDP itself. I therefore hope that, with this explanation, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
I turn now to Amendments 163A and 163B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, which would help ensure that the nature restoration fund works effectively for large-scale development. It has always been our intention that Part 3 of the Bill should support development as much as possible. As we have repeatedly said, the nature restoration fund will benefit both development and nature. Therefore, we want to maximise its scope and consequently the benefits it will deliver. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for tabling his amendments and I have looked at them very closely. As has been pointed out, the restriction in Clause 66 may in fact preclude a proportion of development from being able to come within scope of an EDP at all. Where, as is often the case, a large development needs to vary planning permission, for example, or apply for retrospective planning permission following changes outside of the developer’s control, we need to ensure the NRF can support such development, as failing to do so could significantly reduce the ability of the NRF to deliver the win-win that we all want to see for nature and for development.
While, of course, there will be complexities in how to manage large and complex development, this can be addressed through the design of EDPs and supported with government guidance. As with any development, it will be for Natural England to consider requests, having regard to that guidance. I hope I can reassure the noble Earl that this is not a way of skirting around the planning procedures in any way whatsoever; this is about access to the nature restoration fund, so all of the normal things that apply to planning permission would still apply—this is just about providing that access to the NRF once the development has started. With that explanation, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for tabling the amendments, for all the work he has done on this and for the meetings I had with him on it. I hope the House will join the Government in supporting his amendments.
Lord Lucas
“Planning permission: biodiversity information(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, require all biodiversity information generated in the course of a planning application to be submitted, free of charges and restrictions on use, to the local environmental record centre for the area in which planning permission is requested, in the format required by that organisation.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is to ensure that biodiversity information generated in the course of planning activities is contributed to the national store of such knowledge.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, in the course of the planning system, we gather a great deal of high-quality biodiversity data. By and large, we then throw it away. We should not be doing this. We should be keeping it, making sure it is accessible, so that we can really plot what we are doing in 30 by 30 and in our campaign to restore nature to this country. It is ridiculous that we throw it away.
The Minister very kindly wrote me a letter after Committee saying, among other things, that when discharging the biodiversity gain condition, applicants can choose to share their data with local environmental records centres, and many are already choosing to do so. I organised a ring-round; it is not happening—it is not true—so we must have some very clear regulation that this data should not be lost. If this cannot be done in this Bill, then please may I sit down with the Minister in preparation for the next planning Bill? This cannot go on. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 87BA. The most important vehicle for nature recovery in this country is via the local nature recovery strategies being developed by the 48 local authorities in charge. One can design a recovery strategy only if one knows what is there in the first place, or rather what is not there, what is lacking and needs to be recovered. My noble friend’s amendment is wise and right, but I would urge the Government to go further, since many organisations collect species information, often working collaboratively to pool data and make it available for research and conservation purposes.
The primary network for this collaboration is the National Biodiversity Network, the NBN, which brings together government bodies, charities, volunteer-led recording schemes, data aggregators and networks. The NBN is a charity that oversees the UK-wide partnership for gathering and sharing biodiversity data.
Then we have the Biological Records Centre, the BRC, which was established in 1964. The BRC co-ordinates and supports wildlife recording schemes and societies across the UK, working with volunteer recorders. It manages the online recording tools called iRecord and iNaturalistUK, and its data is published on the NBN Atlas.
Then we come to the local environmental records centres, the LERCs, the organisation mentioned in my noble friend’s amendment. Natural England has divided England into 159 distinct national character areas, or NCAs. Each NCA is defined by a unique combination of natural and human factors, including landscape, biodiversity, geodiversity—that is geology and land forms—history, and cultural and economic activity.
That information is invaluable in helping authorities develop their LNRS but so is all available data, government and private. My noble friend’s amendment asks that the biodiversity information collected in the course of a planning application should be given to the LERCS—I would add that it should be given to the NBN and the BRC also. We cannot have enough data available for decision-making.
Where I depart from my noble friend’s amendment is that he wants to make it compulsory and legal; I would hope that is not necessary and that exhortation from the Government to the local authorities would ensure that this information is sent to the three organisations we have mentioned in our amendments.
I hope that they will not use the excuse that this is all confidential in the planning application and they cannot send it. That is nonsense; it should not be deemed confidential, and it should be passed on to those organisations. If the Secretary of State wants another new slogan in addition to “Build, baby, build”, I would suggest “Data, baby, data, data, data”.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in my name in this group, starting with Amendment 87FB. These are about bats, which I will come on to in a minute.
In the meantime, I would like to say that His Majesty’s Government have made a number of statements complaining about the obstructive planning laws which impede building. The Government are to be applauded in taking this sensible viewpoint, and I am very happy to help them by putting down these amendments, which will, I hope, alleviate one of the expensive and absurd difficulties that come in the way of those seeking to build. As I said at Second Reading, bats are an example of good intention being taken over by those concerned with the implementation of the legislation extending their remit to an absurd degree.
I quoted at Second Reading the £100 million bat tunnel—as my noble friend Lord Lucas pointed out at the time, that is 10 doors to this House. There was also my own case of having a house demolished, which the bat people had confirmed was bat-free. Nevertheless, they insisted on each tile being removed one by one, which meant I had to employ six people for four weeks, removing tiles one by one for inspection by a bat person. This cost £30,000, as opposed to one man and a machine taking half a day, which would have cost £500.
The legislation initiated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 goes through Natural England to the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management which sets the competency standards and that inspectors are registered with them. It has become an industry of its own. Local authorities, in order to avoid criticism for not complying with the Wildlife and Countryside Act, go for the easy life and automatically demand an inspection for bats even where it may not be a sensible or reasonable request. This is then carried out by the registered bat inspectors, which would be fine, but it is abused, as in my case, where, with no evidence of bats, an extra £30,000 had to be paid to confirm their inspection.
I recently came across the case of a young couple wishing to alter their attic to add needed extra accommodation. They were required by the local authority to have a preliminary bat inspection at a cost of £1,000. Without this inspection, the local authority would not permit them to even apply for planning consent, which might not have been granted. Why could they not put in for planning and, if it was approved, carry out a survey where at least they would be putting some money towards something positive?
Amendments 203B, 203C and 87FC seek to ensure that there is some comeback to unreasonable requests so that the system is not allowed to run wild, as it does at the present time. My Amendment 87FB would enable some form of discipline to be imposed on local authorities in respect of the demands for bat inspections. This is in line with government policy. It would assist in the development of housing, which the Government are keen on.
It gives me great pleasure to assist His Majesty’s Government by introducing what I hope will be a first step in implementing their expressed wish to bring some kind of sense to the planning process.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 87B in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. My noble friend is calling for better recording and storage of biodiversity information, which is a noble aim. We agree with him that increasing our understanding of biodiversity in the UK is a good thing. We would support measures from government to support this, so can the Minister please outline some of the steps Ministers are taking to record biodiversity?
Amendments 87FB, 87FC, 203B and 203C in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising combine to form a constructive proposal for ensuring that bats are appropriately and pragmatically protected, while removing the time and cost burden on everyone in society from the unnecessarily prescriptive and arduous regulations that we currently suffer. Bat protections are a significant hindrance to everything, from loft conversions and roof repairs through to the largest developments.
My noble friend is not suggesting that protection for those species of bats that are endangered or rare in the UK should be weakened, simply that protections should focus on those. We need to accept that our activities are going to have some impact on nature and ensure that our response to that is proportionate. Bats in buildings are an unusual issue in that they do little or no harm to the buildings or inhabitants and are creating their own dependence on our activities. The fact that we provide this habitat should not be a cause for inappropriate encumbrance on the property owner for doing so. We are creating a perverse incentive to remove that habitat for bats wherever possible in order to ensure that we have reasonable freedom to enjoy our property. Surely that is not the outcome we want or desire for bats themselves. I hope the Minister is grateful for my noble friend’s constructive amendments, and I look forward to her reply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for moving Amendment 87B, which would require all biodiversity information generated during a planning application to be submitted free of charge to local environmental record centres. I was very pleased to be able to provide the noble Lord with further information on this matter during Recess.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for Amendment 87BA, which clarifies this amendment to require all biodiversity information generated during a planning application to be submitted to the National Biodiversity Network and the Biological Records Centre, in addition to local environmental record centres. The Government fully recognise the importance of robust biodiversity data in planning applications, although the idea of having a new slogan, “Data, baby, data”, would mean I might have to get a new hat with that on it, which may not be such a good idea.
Although we share the intention of improving access to biodiversity data, we do not believe the amendment is necessary. The statutory framework under the Environment Act 2021 already requires developers to provide a baseline assessment of biodiversity value using the statutory metric published by the Secretary of State. This ensures consistency and transparency without prescribing how data should be shared or stored. When discharging the biodiversity gain condition, applicants can choose to share their data with local environmental record centres, and many are already choosing to do so—I will come to the noble Lord’s point about how many in a moment.
Introducing a legal requirement to submit data would add administrative burdens and technical requirements without improving biodiversity outcomes. However, I will take back to officials the noble Lord’s point that this is not happening as intended to consider what further encouragement we might give to help speed that data on its way. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lords will not press their amendments.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard, for Amendments 87FB and 87FC, and for his concern in supporting the Government in what we are trying to do; I am grateful for that. Those amendments concern bat inspections during planning applications and the quality of those inspections. I also thank him for Amendments 203B and 203C, which concern legal protections for bats in planning decisions. The Government are committed to protecting our most precious species and upholding our international obligations towards the environment, including bats. However, we recognise that people can experience the kinds of costs and delays that the noble Lord has outlined associated with the existing system of bat protections, such as survey requirements.
The Government recognise that measures to protect bats should be efficient and proportionate. That is why we have already begun work to improve the bat surveying processes. Natural England’s earned recognition scheme for bat licences provides a streamlined route to securing a licence. Under this scheme, appropriately qualified bat ecologists with membership of an approved professional body can act more independently of Natural England. Through earned recognition, permissions are secured on average three to four times more quickly, and it also aims to improve survey quality to deliver better outcomes for bats. We are expanding this scheme.
In line with recommendations from the Corry review, Natural England has already updated its standing advice for local planning authorities on bats to remove complexity and duplication. In November, Natural England will publish a bat regulation reform road map, which will set out further plans to work more closely with planning authorities and to streamline licensing—for instance, expanding its pre-application advice offer, which can expedite planning applications and avoid unexpected surveys, as well as developing pilots to test quicker and cheaper survey options.
The Government are already acting on this issue. The additional reviews and regulations that the noble Lord’s Amendments 87FB and 87FC would require are therefore unnecessary and would create significant new bureaucracy. Furthermore, Amendments 203B and 203C would result in likely non-compliance with international law, including the Bern convention. Given the explanations I have set out, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I shall not drop this issue but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Permitted development and demolition: assets of community value(1) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/596) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph B.1 of Part 11 of Schedule 2 (permitted development rights: heritage and demolition), after sub-paragraph (e) insert—“(f) the building is designated as an asset of community value under the Localism Act 2011.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that buildings which have been designated as assets of community value cannot be demolished through permitted development rights.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that currently, an owner of a building has permitted development rights to demolish it unless it is a pub, live music venue, theatre or concert hall. I wish to add assets of community value to that list of exemptions, so I beg to move this amendment and wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Applications for development consent: consultation for water and sewerage undertakers(1) The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1) of section 42 (duty to consult), after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) water and sewerage undertakers,””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that water and sewerage undertakings are consulted by applicants for a development consent order in the same way as the Environment Agency currently is.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak briefly to this short but perfectly formed amendment. I hope to extract a commitment from the Minister and the Government on the question of making water and sewerage undertakings statutory consultees on a development consent order, as the Environment Agency currently is.
Things have changed since Committee, and there is a reason why I have tabled this amendment on Report. We have already had the report from the Cunliffe review, commissioned by Defra, which now has a new Secretary of State. Recommendation 72 of the Cunliffe report states:
“The role of water companies in the planning process in England should be strengthened to ensure they have sufficient sight and influence over upcoming developments”.
The report goes on to say that the Cunliffe review believes that water companies should have a clear ability
“to comment on planning applications above a certain threshold in England”.
The review is asking the Government to consider making water companies statutory consultees or to introduce a requirement to notify, and I am hoping that the Government will confirm this. This would ensure that water companies can deploy site-specific technical advice and avoid delays. It would also save the Government time. For example, if it was inappropriate to build a major development of, say, 300 new houses in an area of water stress, making water companies statutory consultees would expedite the planning application.
On 13 October, the Environmental Audit Committee published its report on flood resilience in England, which made a similar recommendation. Recommendation 25 of the report states:
“The Government should initiate consultation on statutory requirements for assessing the cumulative impact of development on flood risk within local and regional plans by the end of 2025”.
It goes on to say that
“water companies should be made statutory consultees on major planning applications”.
The Cunliffe review was set up at the behest of the Government, so I presume that they will follow the recommendations in its report. The Environmental Audit Committee’s report looks at how the current system is failing to prepare residents in this country for future flooding.
With those few remarks, I hope this evening to extract a commitment from the Minister that the Government will proceed on this as a matter of urgency and that we will see it as part of the Bill. If they wish to bring forward an amendment of their own, that would be ideal. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches support this amendment, which seeks to ensure that water and sewerage undertakers are formally consulted by applicants for a development consent order. The amendment is similar to the Environment Agency system and would help to avoid significant problems downstream.
Far too often, we have seen developments progress without any consideration of water supply, drainage or wastewater infrastructure, leading to unnecessary strain, additional cost and, of course, the human consequence of flood risk, which is worst of all. By ensuring that the relevant utilities are engaged early in the process, the amendment would promote better planning and ultimately save time, money and, above all, anguish for so many people.
The amendment aligns with some of the longstanding commitments we have worked on together in some of the APPGs. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on this amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, although I appreciate the spirit in which this amendment is brought forward and the specific issues it raises, it would introduce a level of prescription that may not be necessary. The planning system already provides mechanisms for consultation with relevant bodies, and it is important that we maintain a balance between thorough engagement and procedural efficiencies. We must be cautious not to overextend statutory requirements in ways that could complicate or even delay the development consent process. Flexibility and proportionality are key. As ever, my noble friend Lady McIntosh raises important issues. We look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 87FA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, seeks to ensure that water and sewerage undertakers are consulted by applicants for development consent orders. I begin by acknowledging her long-standing interest in ensuring that infrastructure development is undertaken responsibly, with due regard to environmental and public health concerns.
The importance of early engagement with key stakeholders in the planning process is definitely not in dispute. Indeed, the Government remain firmly committed to ensuring that meaningful engagement takes place at the formative stages of project development and where stakeholders are able to meaningfully influence, where appropriate.
As has been made clear in the other place by my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, the Government have already taken steps to streamline the statutory consultation process under the Planning Act. Section 42, which this amendment seeks to modify, will be repealed via Clause 4. This reflects a broader concern that the statutory requirements for pre-application consultation were not functioning as intended, leading to delays, excessive rounds of engagement and an ever-growing volume of documentation.
That said, I want to reassure noble Lords that this does not mean that issues relevant to stakeholders will be ignored—quite the contrary. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will issue guidance to assist applicants with the steps they might take in relation to submitting an application. The Government acknowledge that stakeholders play a vital role in safeguarding public health and environmental standards, and the importance of their input and engagement will be made clear in guidance. The guidance will include expectations of who the applicant should consider engaging with and would positively contribute to a scheme focused on delivering the best outcomes for projects, and its impact on the environment and communities. This may include engaging with relevant statutory undertakers, such as water and sewerage undertakers, where it is beneficial to do so.
To be clear, the removal of statutory consultation at the pre-application stage does not remove various organisations’ ability to actively participate and influence an application through registering as an interested party. Statutory bodies will still be notified if an application is accepted and will be provided with the opportunity to make representations under Section 56 of the Planning Act 2008.
This amendment risks re-adding statutory complexity after the Government have responded to calls to simplify the system through Clause 4, which repeals statutory pre-application consultation. This has already been agreed and is not under debate.
In this context, although I appreciate the noble Baroness’s intention to strengthen the role of water and sewerage undertakers in the planning process, I must respectfully resist the amendment in the light of the planned changes to pre-application consultation associated with applications for development consent. I hope that, with these assurances and noting the inconsistency with Clause 4, the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken and in particular for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. I omitted to declare my interests: I am co-chair of the Water APPG and an officer of the Flooding and Flooded Communities APPG.
I am a little disheartened by the Minister’s response because it sounds like a retrograde step, and one that is not in keeping either with the conclusions set out in the cross-party Environmental Audit Committee’s report or with the Cunliffe report. The Water APPG met Sir Jon Cunliffe last week, and he is under the clear understanding that a water Bill—not a water bill as in water rates but another piece of legislation—will be coming down the track to implement many of his recommendations. I will watch this very carefully and consider how to proceed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Pinnock
“Planning permission: Responsible Actors Scheme members(1) No member of the Responsible Actors Scheme may be granted planning permission or carry out major development of land in England through any agent or contractor or any other person acting for or on their behalf until the Secretary of State has revised the Scheme to ensure that—(a) all buildings developed by Responsible Actors Scheme members with relevant defects are remediated at no cost to leaseholders or commonhold unit owners, and(b) where a relevant defect arises from a failure to comply with building regulations or relevant approved documents in force at the time of the construction of a building by a Responsible Actors Scheme member, that defect must be corrected by remediating the building to current building regulations.(2) In this section—“building” means a self-contained building, or self-contained part of a building, in England that contains at least two dwellings;“major development” has the meaning given by article 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/595);“member of the Responsible Actors Scheme” means a member of the Scheme established under The Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023 (S.I. 2023/753);“relevant defect” has the same means as in section 120 of the Building Safety Act 2022.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause prevents members of the Responsible Actors Scheme (the UK’s large developers) from applying for or undertaking major development until the Secretary of State has revised the Scheme to ensure that all unsafe blocks of flats are remediated.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the purpose of tabling this amendment is twofold. First, it is to shine a beacon of light on a building scandal that has recently fallen out of the national spotlight. Secondly, it is to urge the Government to use this Bill to exert further pressure on those who caused the Grenfell Tower tragedy, where, I remind the House, 72 people lost their lives.
This amendment is not about pointing the finger of blame at this or past Governments. It is about seeking to put more pressure on those who created the conditions in which people died and which many leaseholders now have to endure, consequent on building safety failure.
What are the facts? The MHCLG estimates—I note that there is no current definitive figure—that between 5,900 and 9,000 buildings over 11 metres have unsafe cladding. This means that over a quarter of a million individual flats and perhaps nearly half a million people are affected, and that is just for those blocks over 11 metres, which are the subject of the Building Safety Act.
According to government figures for August this year, 1,927 blocks have had their remediation completed and a further 750 have started, but that leaves many thousands of leaseholders in limbo. I accept that the Government have attempted to improve this position with the remediation acceleration plan, alongside a promise for a remediation Bill. Can the Minister tell the House when that Bill is likely to be introduced?
The action plan commits to completing all remediation of blocks over 11 metres by 2029. That is a full 12 years after the Grenfell Tower fire. Meanwhile, leaseholders are paying the price for a situation that in no part is of their making. They are paying for it in extortionate insurance bills, in ever-rising service charges, and in knowing that they have no way out as their flats do not sell. For some, this has had very tragic consequences. The mother of one of those who ended their life as a direct result of this enormously stressful situation is sitting in the Gallery today and listening to this debate.
This Bill is an opportunity further to address the building safety scandal by putting more pressure on those who created these dangerous living conditions. Amendment 87FD in my name and co-signed by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, seeks to require that construction companies that have signed up to the responsible actors scheme agree to the full remediation of all buildings—that includes those under 11 metres—before they are able to proceed with further major developments. This must be achieved at no cost to leaseholders. For those living in blocks of under 11 metres, currently the costs fall on them, despite their not having created the building scandal in any way. The major housebuilders are well able to afford to pay for the crisis they created, with annual operating profits being in the high hundreds of millions of pounds.
The noble Lord Young of Cookham wished to speak in support of this amendment, but, unfortunately, he is currently speaking in Grand Committee. He has asked me to say that he is in complete support of the amendment and will vote in the Lobby in support of it if a vote is called. I look forward to the Minister’s response, but if I am not satisfied that more can be extracted from those who created the crisis that is putting lives at risk, I will test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to which I have added my name. We have both spent many years trying to persuade the Government that a clearer and more comprehensive solution is needed to protect everyone affected by the building safety crisis. Noble Lords will know of my professional insights into this matter as a chartered surveyor and of my previous attempts to get fair treatment for innocent homeowners. .
I continue to receive mail from home owners, small investors, property managers and conveyancers who are utterly dismayed at the complexity, uncertainty and capricious nature of the funding under government schemes, which involve matters of building height, cladding combustibility and unseen and previously unknowable compartmentation issues, with funding applying differentially to various classes of ownership or being dependent on the freeholder’s assets, plus identification of the person responsible and whether that person has effective agency in relation to remediation. In addition, there are two parallel standards of remediation at work.
Some noble Lords will recall that during the deliberations on the Building Safety Bill, I convened a briefing for Peers. We were addressed by the late Amanda Walker, to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was, I think, making reference. She told us how her life and world had been turned upside down. Her experience fits entirely with what others have told me of a living hell of unsellable property, unaffordable interim safety costs, insurance hikes and unknowable liabilities going forward—in short, what they thought was a safe and secure home being turned into a financial prison—and of the stress, ruined lives and total inequality of the exclusions from protection.
I joined Amanda’s mother and brother earlier today in a meeting with Minister Samantha Dixon. She gave the impression of listening very carefully to what we said. Mrs Walker’s recent email, which I paraphrase, says this: “My precious daughter was a very ardent campaigner on behalf of thousands of leaseholders who suffered because of loopholes in the Building Safety Act. This amendment”—she is referring to the amendment before us now—“will not help her but may help many others. The anxiety levels in so many people were painful to watch, and in my view ruined many lives”.
As the Minister knows, around 1.7 million leaseholders do not have full or even, in some cases, partial protection from the costs of remediating unsafe buildings. Those living in buildings below 11 metres have no protection at all, as the noble Baroness pointed out. Enfranchised leaseholders and those owning more than three properties are liable for any non-cladding remediation costs. Other leaseholders may have to contribute up to £15,000 to cover non-cladding costs—depending on the wealth of their freeholder, if you please. All these people are completely innocent of the causes that led to defects in their building, not just cladding but basic disregard of the building regulations in force at the time of construction.
The assumption is that lower rise buildings are safe because it is easier to mitigate risks, to escape from them and for fire and rescue services to attend to emergencies, but we do not actually know that they are safe. The proportionate standard under PAS 9980, which is the remediation standard frequently used, admits that spread of fire may be more rapid given the greater prevalence of combustible materials in the construction, and the capacity of many construction products to generate impenetrable choking smoke when burning, impeding escape. And who pays for any mitigation? Ultimately, it is the leaseholders.
According to the National Fire Chiefs Council, the current Building Safety Act’s three-tier approach—fully protected, partial or capped protection, and totally unprotected— is delaying remediation and leaving leaseholders in limbo. That funding is fragmented, and occupiers are left in unsafe buildings or are among the growing number, currently totalling more than 14,000, of those mandatorily evacuated, sometimes having to leave very modern buildings. The National Audit Office has found that the PAS 9980 risk-based approach to remediation is a cause of delays as different stakeholders argue over what constitutes “proportionate” remediation and “tolerable” risk, both of which terms appear in that document. Some 52 flat developers have signed up to the responsible actors scheme. Their remediation responsibility is to this proportionate standard only—never mind failure to build to the relevant building standards applicable at the time of construction.
Markets need transparency, and the Government need to be upfront about the general quality of buildings and building regulation compliance over past 30 years. It has long been an offence not to comply with building regulations. Market sentiment depends on clarity, but beyond the scope of the Government’s remediation portfolio, it is unclear what the reality actually is. So long as this doubt sloshes around the market, the insurance and lending sectors and, indeed, purchaser keenness, will remain febrile. All these may predispose a wider malaise the longer this persists, particularly in the lending markets, where the impact of new solvency regulations means that such uncertainties will have to be factored into securitisation risks, loan book management and consumer costs.
For evidence of the effects today, I point to flagging new flat construction, rising costs, schemes being mothballed and softening sales markets. Wagging fingers at insurers will not get rid of risk awareness and sentiment. Once you understand that something is a risk, it is there for ever. While I understand why the Government might not want to garner a lot of non-compliance data, if, despite consumers’ and the markets’ need to know, they choose not to do so, what I set out is the inevitable outcome, with implications for urban redevelopment and densification, homebuilding targets and, ultimately, stable communities.
This amendment would sweep up all building types, all tenures, and both cladding and non-cladding defects. It would tighten standards and encompass product manufacturers. Any planning delays under the amendment would be no more than the minimum necessary to process regulations immediately on Royal Assent, and I believe very few projects would be held up in practice. If the Government agree the principle that innocent people should not foot the bill for bad building practices or even for preserving the Government’s own policy objectives, they need at least to indicate to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that they propose to take this forward with serious intent. This amendment would give the Secretary of State the tools to do this and to end the two-tier remediation standard, the basic inequity and uncertainty of the current protections, and the market disruption that has accompanied them.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 87FD, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to prevent larger developers applying for or undertaking major developments until the Secretary of State has revised the responsible actors scheme to ensure that all unsafe blocks of flats are remediated. We urgently need the remediation of unsafe blocks of flats. We recently debated this in Grand Committee, and we sought and received assurances from the Minister that remediation work will be completed as per the Government’s deadlines of 2029 and 2031. We on this side of the House are committed to holding the Government to account on delivering this remediation, but with a housing crisis and over 350,000 people living in temporary accommodation, we also need to build the safe homes we desperately need.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for raising these important issues with their Amendment 87FD on the remediation of buildings by developers and I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their tireless support for residents since the Grenfell Tower tragedy. I understand that the amendment is intended to protect residents and leaseholders. Unfortunately, its effect would be to slow remediation and risk stopping essential housebuilding.
I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that there has been no relaxing of the Government’s determination to deal with the significant remediation actions outstanding from Grenfell. I spoke to my honourable friend Minister Dixon just last week. She has now picked up the urgent action needed to accelerate remediation. She has already visited the Grenfell site, and I am pleased to hear that she has met Mrs Walker and other members of the Grenfell community. I know she takes her responsibility extremely seriously and she will continue the work of Minister Norris in dealing with this as quickly as possible. There will be a further opportunity in the very near future for this House to debate the issues of building safety and remediation, including their interaction with this Government’s bold ambitions on housing supply.
Amendment 87FD is intended to prevent members of the responsible actors scheme receiving new planning permissions or building new housing developments until the Government make fundamental changes to the scheme to require developers to remediate additional types of defect and apply a different approach to the remediation of external walls. In practice, this would mean that over 40 of the largest housebuilders in England would have to stop building new homes until the Government made changes to an essential remediation scheme that we assess would delay and undermine progress.
This landmark Bill is intended to get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. It is critical in helping the Government to achieve the ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England during the current Parliament. It is simply not compatible with the aims of the Bill to include a measure which would stop the largest housebuilders in this country building new homes. It would lead to major market uncertainty and disruption. Nor would the proposed changes to the responsible actors scheme serve the interests of residents and leaseholders, as they would delay remediation of their buildings for years.
Over 50 major developers have signed developer remediation contracts with the Government and committed to fix life-critical fire safety defects in over 2,370 buildings, at a cost of approximately £4.7 billion. This is supported by the statutory responsible actors scheme, which enables the Secretary of State to impose severe commercial consequences on any eligible developer who fails to follow through on their remediation obligations. Since signing the contracts, developers have assessed over 90% of relevant buildings and have started or completed works on 44% of buildings known to require works. This amendment would require fundamental changes in the responsible actors scheme by requiring developers to identify a different set of defects and require remediation to a different standard. Attempting to make those changes to the statutory scheme would undermine the remediation contracts that developers have signed with government. The result would be disastrous for residents and leaseholders, leading to long delays, operational and legal confusion, and uncertainty. Essential works to protect people could be set back by years.
The current approach to remediation under the developer remediation contract is proportionate and appropriate and uses PAS 9980, the same standard for external wall remediation as the Government’s wider remediation programme. The PAS 9980 standard is used for external wall system remediation because we are focused on mitigating risks to life safety, taking an evidence-based and proportionate approach. External wall remediation is assessed based on a fire risk appraisal of external walls which suggests remedial work or mitigation to improve a building’s risk rating through a holistic and fact-based assessment of its construction. Removal of combustible materials is often recommended but is not always necessary, including when other mitigating measures are taken. This proportionate approach to cladding remediation aims to manage fire risks and make sure that residents are safe, while preventing the kind of unnecessary works that can also be incredibly disruptive for residents.
To pick up the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about insurance, we are clear that more needs to be done to protect leaseholders from very high insurance premiums. The fire safety reinsurance facility led by the Association of British Insurers and reinsurance broker McGill and Partners launched in April 2024. The facility aims to increase capacity in the market and may reduce high premiums for some of the most affected multi-occupancy buildings with fire safety issues. The facility has been renewed for a second year and is a viable option for building owners trying to find the best deal for their residents. In the first 12 months, over 760 buildings have been supported by the facility and now more buildings may benefit from the cover available, as the claims limit has increased to £75 million. In the remediation acceleration plan announced, we would work with the insurance industry to consider options for possible government support. We are currently engaging with industry and will provide an update on all this in due course.
This amendment has raised important technical issues about the remediation process. We cannot do full justice to them tonight, but there will be further opportunities for this House to debate the remediation of buildings at much greater length during the passage of the upcoming remediation Bill. I look forward to that opportunity. What is already clear, however, is that the amendment we are looking at tonight would undermine the core purpose of the Bill by greatly delaying work to remediate buildings, as well as putting at serious risk critical work to build new homes. Given these very serious concerns, I urge noble Lords to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the Conservative Front Bench for taking part in this debate, but I am thoroughly disappointed by the remarks of the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. It is not an either/or. How can it be an either/or? According to the Minister’s response, either we enable housebuilders to build more homes or we accelerate even further the remediation of flats that are in a dangerous condition. It should not be either/or; it should be both/and. There is capacity within the housebuilding industry to do that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think I made it clear that the danger in the amendment is in doing just what the noble Baroness has spoken against. We want to move the remediation acceleration forward as quickly as possible, at the same time as building new homes. The danger with this amendment is that it slows the whole thing down and means that neither the remediation nor the building of new homes gets done quickly.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Unfortunately, I do not accept the Minister’s argument because, under the Government’s own remediation acceleration scheme, it will take another six or seven years for people to have their homes made safe. How is that right? We heard the compelling arguments from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about the 1.7 million leaseholders who will be required to pay many thousands of pounds to make their own homes safe when it is not their fault. It is not acceptable that we are still here, all these years after that awful fire at Grenfell Tower, trying to debate yet again what is going on.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I am hugely in sympathy with the noble Baroness in her aim but, as the author when I was in ministerial office of the responsible actors scheme, which was stoutly resisted by housing developers, I had to strike a balance between putting the squeeze on them—by making it clear that unless they acted to remediate, they would receive no planning permission whatever—and making sure that they could continue to build the houses we need. Have the noble Baroness and the supporters of this amendment looked at what the impact on the balance sheets of individual housebuilders might be, and what impact that would have on our current rate of buildout? Also, is it not the case that many of those who do not qualify at the moment for support for remediation—the so-called non-qualifying leaseholders—are people with extensive property portfolios? A line has to be drawn somewhere to ensure that those with significant wealth do not benefit, while those who do need support receive it.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gove, for his intervention. He is right that when the scheme was established, it was on the basis of squeezing the housebuilders as far as they could go. However, if I remember the figure correctly, one of the major housebuilders has made an operating profit in the last year of £870 million. Call me a curmudgeon if you like, but if some of that could be used to fund making the dangerous flats they built safe for people to live in, I think that is not a bad call.
We have had the argument but I am not content with the answers I have got, so I wish to test the opinion of the House. I hope that those on the Conservative Benches will support those who have spoken strong and hard in favour of remediation schemes, and in favour of leaseholders, through the Lobby.
Lord Lucas
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure coherent planning through extending the Secretary of State’s powers to establish a joint committee of authorities where a national park is present in the spatial development strategy area.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for writing to me on my amendment in Committee. I apologise for revisiting this question, but I really think we need to be clear about this. The idea that national park authorities should be in some way a subsidiary and junior part of this process is something that I really feel will not work.
National park authorities are sole local planning authorities for almost 10% of England. They are statutory local planning authorities, charged with balancing development and economic growth. They operate across local authority boundaries and routinely co-ordinate with multiple councils, agencies and communities. In short, they already do strategic planning. The idea that the new spatial development strategies should in some way be senior, should start to completely alter the planning process within the national park so that it becomes subsidiary, is something that really goes against the purpose of national parks, as I understand it. Yet, as things stand, the Bill gives national park authorities a limited role in shaping spatial development strategies: they will be informed after the event rather than engaged from the outset, and I cannot see how that leads to good planning.
Under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, national park authorities were recognised as key partners in preparing regional spatial strategies. That statutory status worked well. It gave clarity and accountability without burdening national parks with inappropriate new powers or undue weight. It is precisely that kind of formal consultative and advisory role that I would like to see the Government restoring in the Bill. Spatial development strategies created in partnership with national parks are far more likely to be better balanced and more coherent, to engage with growth in all its guises and to be more deliverable. I therefore urge the Minister to rethink government policy on this matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for this amendment. I apologise for not being able to take part in Committee, due to hip surgery. I welcome the inclusion of spatial development strategies as a particularly useful tool for ensuring that larger areas participate in planning for the future. They remind me of the regional development strategies previously in place during my days on the South West of England RDA. Sometimes they worked, sometimes they left much to be desired, but they were a step in the right direction.
When looking at spatial planning on a more holistic basis, it is important to ensure that all those organisations with an interest are consulted. This includes the national parks, which are guardians of environmentally sensitive land across the country. I lived in Somerset for over 50 years and regularly visited Exmoor and Dartmoor National Parks. Without proper environmental planning, both these parks would be the poorer, and species often depleted. I now live on the edge of the South Downs National Park and, again, I am extremely concerned that those who manage and look after their beautiful area should have a say in the spatial planning that affects them.
I know from my frequent visits to the Peak District—my husband comes from Derbyshire—that millions of visitors come to the national parks; many of them are overseas visitors. The parks are a vital part of the recreational activities for those who visit, especially for residents of nearby cities and urban constrained areas. The balance between ensuring free access and enjoyment for all visitors who contribute to the green economy and ensuring the survival of the environment and the species that depend on the parks for their survival is vital. Each park will have its own ecosystem, whether that be based on open moorland, peatland, ancient woodland or marshland. Each will have animal and insect species that are indigenous to their area, and the plant life that sustains them. It is therefore vital that the national parks should, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, indicated, have a seat at the spatial planning table. At a time when species that the countryside supports are in devastating decline, it is unthinkable for the voice of local national parks not to be heard. I fully support Amendment 87G.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 87G. In doing so, I draw the House’s attention to my declaration of interests, in particular as a landowner in the Dartmoor National Park.
My noble friend is right to say that national park authorities should be considered fully in the planning process to underpin the importance of protecting national parks. I would be most grateful if the Minister could be very clear on the current role of national parks in the planning process, and I hope she can reassure my noble friends that will continue to be the case in spatial development strategies. I look forward to hearing her reply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 87G tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State can establish strategic planning boards in areas that include a national park. As I explained in Committee, an SDS area is defined in new Section 12A which the Bill will insert into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as the area of the strategic planning authority preparing the spatial development strategy. The strategy area encompasses all local authorities, including local planning authorities, such as national park authorities. Therefore, the Secretary of State could already use the power in new Section 12B to establish a strategic planning board covering an area with a national park or part of a national park.
In response to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, about the role of the national park authorities, I say that while national park authorities will not sit on boards, they will have a very important role to play in the preparation of spatial development strategies. We will expect boards and other authorities with national parks in their areas to engage closely with national park authorities to ensure these valued areas remain protected. National park authorities will continue to prepare local plans for their areas which will set out policies on the use and development of land. There is no change to the role of the national park authorities in preparing those local plans for their areas.
The strategic planning boards will be established through statutory instruments after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The constituent authorities will be formally consulted on the draft statutory instruments ahead of them coming into force, as is required by new Section 12B(4).
With these explanations, I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I see I have not won the argument, so I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(4A) A spatial development strategy must meet the needs of older and disabled people, through a requirement for new homes to meet the Building Regulations Part M4(2) accessible and adaptable standard or the Part M4(3) wheelchair user dwelling standard, as set out in Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/2214).”Member's explanatory statement
The amendment introduces a requirement for all new homes to comply with the Part M4(2) accessible and adaptable standard, as defined in the Building Regulations 2010, or the higher M4(3) wheelchair user dwelling standard. The amendment aims to ensure that all new housing is inclusive, age-friendly, and suitable for people with varying mobility needs.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 89 and to speak to Amendment 97, which both cover the content of the new spatial development strategies introduced by this Bill.
I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who moved these amendments in my absence after 2 am during the Committee stage of the Bill. At that time of the night, I do not think full justice could be done to the two amendments which I brought back in this group, again with the support from the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Young of Cookham.
Amendment 89 would lead to spatial development strategies requiring all new homes to meet Part M4(2) or M4(3) of the building regulations. These building regulations cover accessibility for all new homes—for example, wider doorways and better planned bathrooms—with some of the homes provided at the highest standard necessary for wheelchair users. The campaign for improved accessibility has been led by Habinteg and by the Centre for Ageing Better, supported by the HoME coalition—Housing Made for Everyone. They have championed the need for the 1.5 million new homes planned for this Parliament to be accessible and adaptable, both to meet the very real current needs of 11.6 million people with disabilities of all ages and to create more satisfactory homes—lifetime homes—for all occupiers.
The good news is that the battle for adoption of these building regulations standards was won three years ago when the then Government committed to mandating M4(2) for all new homes, but the bad news is that this commitment has not yet been delivered. There was talk of further technical consultation, but this seems unnecessary now that several authorities have voluntarily adopted M4(2) without encountering problems. If Ministers worry that the higher standard could impede the achievement of the Government’s housing target, it is worth noting that the campaign for all new homes to meet M4(2) and M4(3) simply means more careful design rather than any noticeable increase in cost. This has been demonstrated over many years in London, where the higher standards were introduced a decade ago, but every month that passes, more new homes are built elsewhere that fail to meet accessibility standards, and many of them will require expensive retrofitting later.
In February last year, the Minister asked the then Minister what the likely cost to the public purse would be from the necessity for future adaptations of homes because these improved standards were not built in. She drew attention to increased care costs that will result from
“a lack of the decent, accessible homes”—[Official Report, 5/2/24; col. 1446.]
that, she said, the then Government knew to be needed.
I feel sure the leadership on both the Government and the Opposition Benches will not have changed their minds; no U-turns have been announced. Rather, all concerned have been waiting for the right moment to mandate the long-awaited M4(2) and M4(3). This amendment takes advantage of the opportunity to achieve this by including these standards in all the new spatial development strategies.
The housebuilding industry is already well prepared for this improved accessibility standard, having expected it for some time. Housebuilders have their revised house plans ready to go. From the Dispatch Box, the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, told the Bill Committee that
“we will soon outline our approach to accessible new-build housing”.—[Official Report, 9/9/25; col. 1436.]
I note the word “soon”.
Successive Governments have pledged to change the building regulations and make M4(2) standard, but we have waited in vain so far. The prize remains: if new homes met this standard, there would be payback in reducing numbers of people who cannot be discharged from hospital, in helping those using wheelchairs to have a place of their own, and in making it easier for many older people with mobility problems to get around in their own homes. Can we now take the opportunity before us to make hundreds of thousands of new homes properly accessible at last?
I turn to Amendment 97, with the same cross-party support as for Amendment 89. This amendment would place a requirement on a strategic planning authority when it prepared its spatial development strategy to have regard to the housing needs of our ageing population. This amendment was also moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in Committee, and I am most grateful to her.
The ministerial response in Committee suggested that national guidance should enable spatial development strategies to incorporate this element, but the reality is that for many years, despite general guidance from government, the housing needs of our ageing population have frequently been ignored in planning policies. Precious few local authorities have undertaken full assessments of the housing needs of older people, followed by provision in their local plans, where these plans exist.
I fear this blindness to the importance of planning for older people’s needs may now be replicated at the level of the strategic planning authority. Conversely, since local plans will have to be in conformity with the new spatial development strategies, if the strategies require recognition of the housing needs of older people, this will translate into local plans too.
With no change, supply of accommodation specifically for older people will struggle to reach even the 7,000 to 8,000 new homes per annum of recent years, despite the governmental older people’s housing taskforce estimating that over 30,000 new homes per annum are needed. The APPG on Housing and Care for Older People—I declare my interest as co-chair of that APPG—has recommended that local planning authorities should plan for 10% of new homes supply to be specifically for older people. This amendment would encourage this approach when spatial development strategies were being prepared.
Building homes for older age groups may look like a distraction from meeting the acute needs of young families, but by providing for the older generation, they can right-size to somewhere better for their own health and well-being and release a much-needed home for the next generation. In the social sector, with its ageing tenant population, the building of fully accessible, affordable developments for older people is very likely to mean that precious social rented council and housing association homes immediately become available. This housing for families directly addresses problems of homelessness, saving both families and councils the outrageous costs of temporary accommodation and rescuing families living in grossly overcrowded conditions. Meanwhile, in the owner-occupied sector, one elderly home owner moving to a new retirement apartment can stimulate a chain effect that provides a more suitable home for a long line of movers, leading to a first-time buyer starting on the home ownership ladder. Housing for older people has a multiplier effect that hugely increases its value.
Moreover, the Government have a target of building 1.5 million homes this Parliament; if planners demanded a stream of housing specifically for older people, the buildout of major new developments would be accelerated by enabling parallel construction on the site for the two separate markets. Adding the building of new homes for older people in simultaneous construction means the Government will hit their ambitious housebuilding target sooner.
I am optimistic that there is understanding within government of the need to assess and cater for our ageing population. Hopefully, the forthcoming national housing strategy has something positive to say on this issue. The Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook, recently replied encouragingly to a Question on this matter. I hope that the Minister can provide some reassuring news on the guidance that is due on this very important theme. I beg to move Amendment 89.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 91 in my name, which would insert a new subsection in Clause 52, “Spatial development strategies”, which amends the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
According to the House of Commons Library paper on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, LURB was meant to introduce
“a statutory requirement for LPAs to prepare design codes, in which they set out design requirements for developments in their area”,
but this has not been commenced. At the moment, there is no requirement for a spatial development strategy that specifies an amount or distribution of housing or affordable housing to include a design code for the specified housing development. This seemed an opportune moment to kick-start this part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 into process.
In Committee, I shared Churchill’s quote:
“We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/1943; col. 403.]
Design is so important. Buildings can be beautiful or ugly; they can enhance communities or destroy them. We need quality homes that are sustainable and that, in 200 or 300 years, people will still think are beautiful. Thus, upholding architectural standards and considering aesthetic standards is essential. Our environment has a dramatic impact on our lives, affecting our outlook, our well-being and, most importantly, our mental and general health.
This amendment seeks to rectify these issues by including a design vision into the spatial development strategy. It is vital for high-quality design to be prioritised in the strategic planning process to ensure that new developments meet the practical and visual needs of residents and enhance communities. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, stated in Committee that,
“National planning policy already makes it clear that poor-quality design should not be allowed. Yet the general quality and design standard of much volume housebuilding in this country continues to be poor”.—[Official Report, 9/9/25; col. 1328.]
While there was lots of discussion about the variety of initiatives and more reviews to come, the Government failed to give an adequate response in Committee on why this section of the LURB has not yet been commenced.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 112. I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Pinnock for pitching in on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, in the wee small hours as I attempted to get my last train. I was very pleased to support both of the noble Lord’s amendments. I know from experience that housing for older people is still the Cinderella of the sector. I also publicly thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his persistence on the issue to improve homes as we age. Never before has the need for building standard M4(2) been more necessary. It is very short-sighted of successive Governments not to grasp this nettle, because retrofitting, as has been said, is difficult and expensive. I would therefore quote the chant “Why are we waiting?”, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Amendment 91, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, recognises the need for design in spatial development strategies, so I hope that she will support my amendment in the next group.
On Amendment 112, which I also submitted in Committee, I am very pleased to say that we have had some productive meetings with the Minister, who has been generous, as ever, with her time. I truly believe that she understands the key issues, and I hope that she will be able to give us some assurance that the requirements within this amendment can be taken forward somehow. I look forward to her response.
Amendment 112 is a fairly simple amendment, brought to us from Centrepoint, the amazing charity for young homeless people. It is basically saying that, where a particular housing type is being set up for homeless youngsters, it should be permissible to deviate from the nationally described space standards so that the finances stack up and the total model works. Put simply, this new model, which is being called stepping-stone accommodation, provides for smaller accommodation than what would be prescribed, but it is very much more than okay for youngsters leaving care, those who have been sofa surfing or those who are trying to get off the streets. It is their own home, with their own front door. I waxed lyrical about the quality of this accommodation from my visit, and I will not repeat myself. However, it is important to say that it was designed with young people and that they love living there.
The Minister said, in her response to me, that councils, in their plans, can already do this; it is permissible. She is right, and while it is acknowledged that nationally described space standards are not in themselves mandatory, the practical reality has proved to be rather different. Local planning authorities, as a matter of course, look to these standards as the primary point of reference when formulating policy. Consequently, where discretion is left to local interpretation, planning determinations become protracted, frequently extending over a number of years. In Committee, I described cases that involved anything between two and four years of additional time and costs for these charities, which can ill afford to have to pay that extra money.
These are not isolated occurrences. Rather, they reveal a systemic problem in which essential provision for vulnerable young people is stalled by prolonged and often unnecessary debate over standards.
This amendment would allow planning officers and committees to move these applications forward, at speed and with confidence. Estimates indicate that as many as 30,000 of these homes will be required in England alone. It is for this reason that the amendment remains indispensable. By establishing a clear and immediate exemption, it would provide certainty to local authorities, prevent unnecessary obstruction and expedite the delivery of much-needed accommodation.
We hope that the Minister can give Centrepoint and other homelessness charities—which are watching this—some real incentive to continue their excellent work and feel confident when approaching council officers for the exemption from the prescribed national space standards, and to be listened to and supported for this very specific and narrow course. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I want to make a quick point. If you are trying to build a lot of houses, you have to sell them. The rate of sale determines the rate of building: if you do not sell the houses, the builder goes bankrupt because houses are very expensive to build. As a result, it would open up the market much wider if we incorporated these standards for access, because more people would be in the market who could buy them. It must help the rate of sales, because there is a bigger market. Why not do it? I cannot see why not. We are assured that it does not cost any more to do it, so it seems silly not to.
On smaller houses, people who travel live in caravans and motor homes and are very happy doing that. Why are we trying to be so prescriptive about the size of houses? If you build a house of a size that is going to sell, why not?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, not for the first time in this House, I will strike a slightly contrary note. I believe Amendment 89 is well intentioned but goes a bit too far in calling for all housing to meet the standards set out in M4(2) and M4(3).
M4(2) sets a standard for new homes to be accessible and adaptable, meaning they are designed to be easily adapted for future needs, such as those of an elderly person or those with a temporary disability. It is not a standard for full wheelchair accessibility, which is covered in the much more stringent M4(3) standard. M4(2) requires the dwelling to have features such as the provision for a future stairlift or lift, and may require certain features such as low-level windows.
The regulations were naive in believing that one could build homes that could be easily adapted for wheelchair users. All of us on all sides happily voted these through. It is like motherhood and apple pie: we thought we were doing something helpful for the disabled, and I do not think we took into account the practicalities and the cost. I simply do not believe that you can build these homes to be easily converted for the disabled at the same cost as current homes.
It is not just a matter of level access; it is a whole host of different features. You need wider doors everywhere. Kitchens may have to be ripped out and built at a much lower level for wheelchair users. You cannot have any wall cabinets; there will never be enough space in a kitchen designed for wheelchair users.
As for bathrooms, it is not just a matter of extra grab handles; the whole bathroom needs to be twice to three times the size to fit a wheelchair user. If a wheelchair user is not ambulatory at all and has to be stuck in the wheelchair, you need an absolutely level access shower. That means ripping out the standard shower and putting in a flat one when you might not have the drainage to do it. These are just some of the practical problems I see day to day if one tries to design that in at the beginning. As for space to install a lift—forget it. That would require a massive redesign at potentially enormous cost.
The point is that there are an estimated 1.2 million wheelchair users in the UK. This number includes permanent users and the 400,000 ambulatory users, which includes people like me who can walk a bit, provided we have our chariot wheelchair to help us. Wheelchair users make up roughly 11% of the disabled population. That is why I think it is over the top to call for all housing to be suitable or adapted for wheelchair users when only 11% of the population needs it. Perhaps local authorities should be under an obligation to deliver 15% of wheelchair-accessible or adaptable housing in all new buildings.
Turning briefly to the housing needs of an older generation, I have a simple, one-word solution: bungalows, either detached, semi-detached or even a single-storey terrace. It is believed that about 2 million bungalows were built in the last century, before builders stopped building them, since they take up more space and they can now cram a dozen rabbit hutches of about three storeys high into the same space taken up by one bungalow. In 1987, there were 26,000 new bungalows registered. In 2017, there were only 2,210.
I do not have a solution to that. If builders will not build them, I am loathe to demand that there should be a compulsory quota. Perhaps another slogan for the Secretary of State, in addition to “Build, baby, build”, should be “Bring back bungalows”.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 89 and 97, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, would mean that the homes we build must reflect the needs of our population. In an ageing society and one where the nature of disability is changing, this becomes ever more urgent. Accessibility and adaptability are not luxuries; they are the foundations of a fair and future-proof housing system. We are therefore grateful to the noble Lord for bringing back this important debate on Report and thank him for his tireless work on these issues.
On Amendment 91, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, more homes are important—of course they are—but homes that respect local character, reflect vernacular and are, quite frankly, pleasant to look at are important too. Having scrapped the Office for Place and having not implemented the LURA requirements for design statements alongside local plans in local planning authorities, the Government appear to be riding roughshod over the very principles of good design and placemaking that Parliament sought to embed in legislation.
What are the Government going to do to uphold and protect the principles of design quality, to ensure that places we build are not only affordable and efficient but beautiful, sustainable and built to last? I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, shares this sentiment. She will speak to her Amendment 92 in the next group, which seeks to strengthen the same call.
On Amendment 112, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, as we said in Committee, stepping-stone accommodation is an idea with real potential and one that speaks to a compassionate and practical approach to housing need. But, as ever in this House, we must balance principle with practice. I support wholeheartedly the spirit of this amendment, but I sound a note of caution. Our existing space standards were developed for good reason. They exist to prevent a return to poor-quality housing—the rabbit hutch flats of the past—homes that compromise health, dignity and long-term liveability.
If we are to disapply or adapt such standards in specific cases, we need to do so with clear safeguards in place. The noble Baroness has helpfully proposed a specific minimum size and has begun to flesh out the practicalities of this proposal—that is a constructive way forward. But before we enshrine such figures in legislation, there should be a proper consultation both with the sector and, crucially, with those we seek to serve.
Stepping-stone accommodation could play a valuable role in tackling housing need, but it must be done right. It must offer dignity, not just a stopgap. Above all, it must serve the people it is designed to help, not simply the pressures we have in the system at this time.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for tabling these amendments relating to housing design, accessibility and homelessness solutions.
Amendment 89 would require spatial development strategies to ensure that new housing meets the needs of older and disabled people. While I cannot pre-empt the forthcoming national housing strategy, I am sure the Minister in the other place has listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others, on the growing importance of ensuring we provide sufficient suitable housing for older people and those with disabilities. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that I do not know about bungalows, but at this rate I am going to be given a whole wardrobe of hats to wear, which I look forward to.
The Government firmly believe that providing suitable housing for older adults and people with disabilities is essential to supporting their safety and independence. However, I do not agree that the noble Lord’s amendment is needed to achieve that outcome. Local planning authorities already have the tools to support the delivery of homes that are accessible and adaptable. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that authorities should assess the size, type and tenure of housing required by different groups—including older and disabled people—and set clear policies to address these needs. That is why I spoke earlier about having a sufficient quantity of housing, and local authorities are best placed to assess that need.
Authorities can also apply enhanced technical standards from the building regulations through planning conditions. Where there is clear evidence of local demand, authorities are expected to use these standards to help ensure a sufficient supply of accessible homes. That may include specifying the proportion of new housing built to M4(2) and M4(3) standards. The Bill also already enables strategic planning authorities to address this issue, where it is considered to be of strategic importance to the area. I therefore ask that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I absolutely understand those points; as a localism person, obviously I agree with that. However, the key issue is that planning officers are playing “safety first”. Their immediate response is, “No”, for the reasons that the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, set out earlier. Is there any way we can strengthen the guidance to refer to “stepping stone” accommodation as something that the Government might look favourably on or permit? The current experience is that planning officers are hitting a brick wall each time. I totally understand why it cannot be in the Bill, but I do not see why we cannot put something into guidance that strengthens their arm when they sit down at the first meeting to discuss the matter.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for making those points. The best thing might be to have another meeting outside the Chamber to discuss what we might do. I understand the point she is making; perhaps planning officers are being overly cautious because they do not recognise that they already have such a power. I am happy to meet her outside the Chamber to discuss how we might move forward on that issue. I am very keen that this does not go into the Bill, because if it did, it would risk undermining the work that has been done over many years to improve the space standards that we already have for our homes. They were hard fought for and hard won, so I do not want this proposed provision to undermine them.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the support, including from the Minister, both for the extension of M4(2) standards to all homes and for a handful of them to be for full-wheelchair use, such as the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, spoke of.
I say to the noble Lord, however, that we are not talking about ripping out kitchens or showers but about putting in showers or other amenities that work for everybody. This is about having accessible standards for new builds only; this is not about retrofitting existing properties. Just a minority will comply with the M4(3)—full wheelchair—standards, but all homes would be built at least to M4(2). I have been responsible for building a large number of these homes and the use of these standards has not broken the bank, so I know that it is possible. I am grateful for the support for this happening.
The Minister said that the national housing strategy may say something about both accessible housing and housing for older people. I look forward to seeing that and hope that it is entirely positive. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Heathrow: National Airports Review
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the Statement does two things: it announces a review of the Airports National Policy Statement, but gives us little idea in detail as to how it is to be revised, and it tells us that the only two credible proposals for Heathrow’s expansion are still being considered and that the more fanciful proposals have been dismissed. The two are linked because the core purpose of the current ANPS is to facilitate the expansion of Heathrow. In my view, the timing of the Statement is nakedly intended to persuade the OBR that the project is real and deliverable. I wish to test that.
First, there is the question of delivery of a revised ANPS, which I must say I think Ministers are rather reckless to embark on. The current Airports National Policy Statement was produced under the premiership of my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead and expressly favoured the expansion of Heathrow. It survived scrutiny in the High Court and was appealed to the Court of Appeal by environmental groups on no fewer than 17 grounds of challenge and fell on a single one—the legal meaning of the word “policy”. On that arcane question the whole statement fell. By then, the Government were in the hands of Mr Johnson, who was perfectly content with that outcome. But Heathrow took up the cudgels, and the case went to the Supreme Court, which restored the ANPS.
The timeline tells its own story. In 2015, the Airports Commission recommended a third runway. In 2018, Parliament approved it by 415 votes to 119, yet only by December 2020 did the Supreme Court clear the legal path for Heathrow to proceed—five years ago. Now, in October 2025, Ministers tell us rather recklessly that the policy is going to be revised and accelerated and we are going to go through the whole process again, with all the potential challenges involved. It is a brave or reckless Government who set out on this course.
The Government have an answer to this. In the Statement, the Secretary of State says:
“On judicial reviews, we have announced that we will work with the judiciary to cut the amount of time it takes for a review to move through the court system for national policy statements and nationally significant infrastructure projects”.
At present, the average time for such reviews stands at roughly 1.4 years. What is the Government’s target? How long do the Government expect it to take for the new airports national policy statement to be approved? Remember, it is the Chancellor’s ambition that this runway should open in 2035, with spades in the ground many years before that, given how much muck has to be moved in order to embrace Heathrow’s plans. I am indeed making the simplifying assumption—it may not be true—that the Heathrow proposal is the one eventually chosen by the Government in November and not the alternative scheme. I may be wrong about that, but I think my assumption is reasonable and, for the moment, simplifying. That gives us five years.
Meanwhile, public debate on the whole thing has been minimal, because we have very little information about the proposals. The projected cost of Heathrow expansion stands at £49 billion. The market value of Heathrow Airport, which we know from the last time its shares traded last year, is around £9.5 billion, even though its regulated asset base is closer to £20 billion. People are willing to pay £9.5 billion for something which has a regulated asset base of £20 billion, and they are then proposing that, despite the fact that it is heavily leveraged, much more so than it was 10 years ago when it was discussing this project, we have to reckon with the fact that it wants to spend at least £49 billion—that is the publicly quoted figure; it may be more by now—on a third runway to increase capacity by 50%. My second question is whether this is credibly financeable and whether the Government believe that it is.
However, the airlines do not trust Heathrow, because they are expected to pay in advance off the regulated asset base. In fact, they are paying already, because the CAA has approved that some of the costs that Heathrow incurs can already be charged to the airlines and thus to the flying passengers. They think that because Heathrow is incentivised by the current regime to make its expenditure as high as possible, it is untrustworthy. They point to various things, such as a new baggage system completed in 2016, which was priced at £234 million but ended up costing £435 million, and a cargo tunnel with a budget of £44.9 million that ended up with an estimated cost of £197 million. They point, in contrast to Heathrow’s plan to spend £49 billion on a single runway, to terminals at Barcelona, Frankfurt, Madrid and Munich, that all cost half or less when taking the size of the terminals into account; the fact that Changi is expected to create a new terminal for £8 billion; and that New York’s JFK will open its new Terminal 1 in 2026, the centrepiece of a £15 billion transformation that will be completed by 2030.
What are the Government going to do about Heathrow and its regulatory structures? They say that they are going to change them. The Statement says:
“The Government will therefore work with the Civil Aviation Authority to review the framework for economic regulation for capacity expansion at Heathrow, ensuring the model provides strong incentives for cost-effective delivery”.
What has the Civil Aviation Authority, the regulator, been doing for the last 20 years in that case, if it has not been ensuring firm delivery? So my third question is: what are the Government going to do about that?
I plan to speak for eight minutes.
There is also the matter of noise, which I would like to pursue at some stage, but not at the moment. With that, I will sit down, but I believe that the Government have a lot to do to show that this project is credible, and that they are not contributing to its fast delivery by revising the airports national policy statement at this stage.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I welcome this debate on the review of the airports national policy statement and the Government’s announcement regarding Heathrow. But let me be very clear that the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that expansion of Heathrow would be a mistake from the Government and deliver a blow to our net-zero commitments.
A reliable and safe transport system is vital for economic prosperity in all parts of the country, and improving transport is essential to combat climate change and air pollution, but we must ensure that new infrastructure supports the UK’s climate targets. Analysis from the New Economics Foundation suggests that approving the expansion of Heathrow Airport would cancel out the climate benefit of the Government’s clean power plan within five years, and expansion of Gatwick and Luton Airports would cancel out the climate benefit of the CPP by 2050, so the Government’s sudden support for airport expansion just does not stack up.
Ed Miliband, speaking at the Environmental Audit Committee on 27 January this year, said:
“Any aviation expansion must be justified within carbon budgets … If it cannot be justified it will not go ahead”.
Will the Minister confirm that the four new tests—the evidence-led approach set out by the Secretary of State—will have to be met in their entirety before this Government will give the green light to Heathrow expansion? Will the Government publish the metrics for each of these four new tests so that there is transparency in the assessment? Will the Minister confirm that they will not proceed with Heathrow expansion if the Climate Change Committee advises that the plans do not meet legal obligations on climate change, including net-zero or air-quality obligations?
Let us look at noise pollution. It is a really big issue. Around 700,000 people are impacted currently by noise from Heathrow. It is not just those who are living in places such as Richmond, Kingston, Hounslow and Surrey—around the airport site. In places such as Lambeth and Southwark, residents have the clash of Heathrow flights and City Airport flights throughout the day, causing serious nuisance. The CAA workbook has highlighted that the number of those who are overflown could double to 1.5 million under some Heathrow expansion plans. Noise is an issue which many people feel has escaped any meaningful legal control for too long, leaving overflown communities exposed to excessive noise, impacting their health and quality of life. As part of this work, will the Government adopt the World Health Organization’s recommended noise levels to address noise pollution from the operations of Heathrow Airport?
I come to the point about surface access. While we do not want to see expansion and we do not believe it stacks up economically or environmentally, the last thing the area needs is an airport expansion plan that does not address and fund fully surface transport to the airport. It is a problem now and, therefore, higher modal share for public transport must be a foundation block for the Government’s assessment. Can the Minister confirm the Government’s commitment to fully funded surface transport access as part of this work? As part of the assessment of the two options, will the Government ensure that surface rail access, including the southern and western rail links, are an integral part? Will the Government consider the future of the premium Heathrow Express line as part of its surface access assessment, and when will this be published?
I pick up particularly these points around rail surface access because the letter from the Secretary of State in June stressed
“surface access mode share targets, including elements of a surface access strategy”
and went on to talk about it covering
“public transport, and active travel”.
Yet in the letter that was published last week, on 22 October, under the heading “Surface access”, it states:
“To minimise unnecessary disruption, please provide additional information regarding the construction of road schemes”.
Rail seems to have been downgraded. I really want some assurance from the Minister today.
In an attempt to demonstrate growth, the Government are misguided in thinking that an expanded Heathrow can deliver for the whole country. There are many other schemes that would deliver a lot more for communities across the country. We do not support Heathrow expansion and will closely monitor every stage of this process to ensure that local communities are heard loudly and clearly.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I think the place to start here is to say that it is quite clear that having more capacity for an airport that has been at capacity for two decades is a really important step for economic growth and the future of our country. Heathrow is the only international airport hub in Britain: it deserves to function properly and for the economy of the nation.
I shall refer first to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, many of which seemed to me to be, on the whole, a criticism of his party’s previous actions in government rather than a critique of what this Government are doing. The fact that the last review took an awfully long time to get to not much of a conclusion is not necessarily a criticism of how this Government intend to proceed. Indeed, we believe that we have a realistic timetable to do so.
The noble Lord assumes that one of the two schemes being taken forward at present, the scheme from Heathrow Airport Ltd, is the one that will be pursued, but that is not an assumption that this Government are making, because we will consider more fully the two remaining schemes to be considered, which differ and clearly have different implications and prices. It is important that they are considered in comparison with each other. Part of that consideration, as the noble Lord notes, is whether they are financeable: what they cost and how they are going to be funded.
It is right that the Civil Aviation Authority looks at the framework for economic regulation. That is, as the noble Lord says, what it does, but it needs to look again in the circumstances in which we are contemplating such a large-scale expansion of the principal—the only—hub airport in Britain.
The noble Lord says that the Government have a lot to do to show that this process is credible. The Government are starting on that process with every intention of showing that it is credible, to do something that previous Governments have not done, with a timescale that is tight but very realistic.
In respect of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that expansion is a mistake, the first thing to say is that is hard to see what else you can do, as this is the only hub airport in Britain. There is no other scheme that will create such a hub airport. Therefore, contemplating a third runway is, we believe, the right thing to do. She asks whether the four new tests will have to be met in their entirety, and the answer is yes, they will. That is quite clear; it has been said from the beginning. We know what the tests are and the aspirants to build the third runway will have to meet them. We will also take the advice of the Climate Change Committee, to which the Secretary of State in the other place is about to write.
The noble Baroness makes the point about noise. One point that was also part of the Secretary of State’s Statement last week was establishing the UK Airspace Design Service in order to look at airspace design for the London region, supporting both Heathrow and the wider network, and also seeking to make flight paths more efficient so that planes spend less time over London, together with slot reform that maximises benefits at Heathrow and the other airports in the south-east of England.
On the noble Baroness’s comments about surface access, I was reading the letters sent to the two successful applicants, and she is right that they refer to construction of roads, but that is not to the exclusion of the rail access points that she refers to. Indeed, it is quite clear that aspirants to build the third runway will have to look at public transport connectivity to the airport. I think that is really important. She mentioned both the southern and western links and the future of the Heathrow Express, and it is quite clear to us that aspirants will have to reference those links and any others that they propose to put forward in order to have an acceptable policy for surface access to the airport.
The Government do not believe that they are misguided. They believe that they are setting out a coherent, speedy but sensible programme to establish the third runway.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of InterTrade UK. I welcome the intent behind this Statement eventually to proceed with the third runway for Heathrow. Connectivity is so important, particularly for those of us who cannot take the train to London and need that connectivity through our hub airport. One of the work programmes for InterTrade UK is to look at UK connectivity to enable trade to work better across the United Kingdom. Can the Minister confirm that when this process proceeds, regional connectivity and the benefits that come with that, particularly for trade, will be at the forefront of His Majesty’s Government’s mind?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution. In a very modest way, I have some background on the connectivity of the United Kingdom. It is of course the Government’s intention that a third runway would enable better connectivity to Heathrow from a variety of places within the United Kingdom. One of the difficulties with running an airport that is at 95% capacity and has been for a very long time is that this rather stifles internal connectivity for external international flights. The Government expect a third runway to facilitate more of that, so that there is more connectivity from various places within the United Kingdom to a lot of places outside it that can be accessed only from a hub airport.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive comments. I have a special interest, as I worked out of Heathrow for 25 years. So I was at the sharp end of delays, and we definitely needed further runway capacity.
It is ironic that Heathrow was built over six runways. Over the decades they built on four with various terminals, and ended up with two. My criticism is for all sides and all Governments, because none were bold enough to look 25 years ago at building a third runway, notwithstanding that Heathrow is the major airport in the United Kingdom. It is not just about London.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, made a point about sustainability and the environment. This is a red herring, because so much has been stopped by these environmental arguments. Notwithstanding the aerospace sector, we build the cleanest, greenest aircraft on the planet. Aviation is responsible for 3% of CO2 worldwide and approximately 4% across Europe, which does not mean to say that we always aim to improve these sorts of things, so that is rather a negative argument.
At present, the two runways are running at 98% capacity, and just a little fog or a delay sends things into a turmoil. So I support the Government’s decision to back the building of a third runway, and what we did before we lost power. It is tragic that these infrastructure projects are delayed. Notwithstanding that, I question the projected amount of money: £40 billion is ludicrous, and I am sure that businesses can come up with a far better figure.
The reason why we do not have a third runway is nothing to do with the Government Benches or the Conservative Party: the reason, and why we have the problems with Heathrow expansion, is because of the Liberal Democrats. The noble Baroness explained perfectly all the reasons why we should not have one; it really is not good enough in 2025.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness could answer.
I am not entirely sure that there was a question in there, but I am old enough to remember flying from the ex-RAF huts on the north side of the airport, so I am sure that Heathrow did have six runways at that stage. If nobody was bold enough to advocate this 25 years ago, it is about time some Government got on with it, and this is the Government who are going to.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, I understand the economic arguments for the expansion of Heathrow, and the connectivity arguments we just heard about. However, I want to address the issue of overflying, which was mentioned earlier.
I was a Member of the other place for a long time, always for an east London constituency. Throughout that time, I dealt with issues of overflying, largely to and from London City Airport but, to a surprising extent, to and from Heathrow. One of the problems was that the technology advanced in such a way that the flight patterns were narrowed. That meant that fewer homes were being overflown, but those that were had a much more intense time of it, and the misery of the noise was compounded.
My noble friend may not be able to answer this question now and may want to write to me, but can he say something about mitigating the noise factors? That might include using advanced aircraft, which we are always assured are going to be cleaner, greener and quieter. Whether or not that happens—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seems to be having an uncontrollable fit of the giggles—perhaps he could talk about that and how the technology might develop to mitigate the problem of overflying.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend; I will have to write to him because I am not a technology expert. All I will say—not in passing because it is a relevant factor—is that aircraft were far noisier 20 years ago than they are now. I realise that that does not mitigate against more of them, but part of this work is undoubtedly figuring out the best way of managing the airspace—for the benefit of landing and taking off, and of the communities underneath the planes. If I have anything useful to say about technology and noise, I will write to my noble friend.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am aware that the Minister is not responsible for the detail of this Statement. None the less, in the first substantive paragraph there is a statement that I suggest requires correction:
“Britain wants to fly”.
A report published in June from the New Economics Foundation states that in the last 20 years, the number of passengers flying in and out of Britain has grown dramatically, from 220 million to 300 million. Of that increase, 63% is the result of UK frequent flyers and 24% the result of foreign residents, many of whom will also be frequent flyers. In the last 20 years, the number of UK residents not flying at all each year has increased. In terms of total flight numbers, ultra-frequent flyers—those taking six or more return flights each year—is less than 3% of the population, yet they make 30% of all the journeys taken by UK residents. Therefore, it is not the case that Britain wants to fly. A very small number of people want to fly very often, and they inflict the air pollution we have heard so much about, the noise pollution, the climate impacts and the associated traffic congestion, on all the people who are not flying.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have no doubt that the noble Baroness has the right figures in front of her, but her conclusion is not necessarily correct. The purpose of this is economic growth. Supporting growth in the economy is the number one objective of this Government. In terms of who flies, her statistics suggest to me that there is real business traffic at an international hub airport and that constraining that will be a constraint on the economy of Britain, which is a wholly bad thing. Whether everybody else wants to fly for recreation and leisure purposes is very important, but even more important is that the economy is stimulated by those who need to travel, and that we have a hub airport big enough and flexible enough to cope with their demands.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive chair of an aviation company, albeit one that does not operate from Heathrow. I have a couple of points to make. I strongly support what the Government are trying to do in expanding Heathrow. I was very surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, did not mention any of the technology improvements, including to aircraft, sustainable aviation fuel, hydrogen fuel cells and all the technology that will enable us to fly in a way compatible with our climate obligations. She did not mention any of those things, nor did she mention the Elizabeth line, a fantastic, environmentally friendly solution to get enormous numbers of people to Heathrow. Lots of that progress is going in the right direction.
As we have heard, there are lots of people who absolutely do not want this to succeed and will use every tool so that it does not. My concern, notwithstanding what I have said about the compatibility of expanding Heathrow with our climate change obligations, is that I am convinced that when—as I hope—the Government make the right decision to expand Heathrow, there will be a judicial challenge on climate grounds. I want to know what the Government are doing, first to speed up the process of that challenge, but also to make sure that, ultimately, that challenge will fail and we can make sure that this very important hub airport—not just important for passengers but also incredibly important for the amount of freight that it moves in and out of the United Kingdom—is able to expand and benefit the people of the United Kingdom.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
There have been occasions on which I did not necessarily agree with the noble Lord in all his sentiments, but this time I do. He is right to raise things such as the development of aircraft technology, particularly sustainable aviation fuel, on which I hope he will support us when that Bill is considered in this House. He is right also to raise the Elizabeth line, because it makes a huge difference to connectivity to the airport, and he is right to refer to air freight. Heathrow is a principal hub for air freight, which is part of the economic benefit of having a hub airport.
In respect of the noble Lord’s question about a possible challenge, the Secretary of State in the other place said that we have announced that we are working with the judiciary to cut the amount of time it takes for a review to move through the court system, including for national policy statements and nationally significant infrastructure projects. Indeed, it is the Government’s intention to consider very carefully whether this should be designated a nationally significant infrastructure project, alongside others. We are considering that; the Secretary of State is seeking the views of the Climate Change Committee and we intend to do all that expeditiously, to proceed with this.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, on the freight issue, the noble Lord, Lord Harper, as a former Transport Secretary, will know that the primary freight exported out of Heathrow is fish. That is overwhelmingly the majority of the freight. Number two is books. The notion that there is high-value product going through the system is absolutely untrue. There is no need for additional capacity to provide that delivery. The numbers are official and can be looked up at any time.
The Minister supports the principle that a hub airport should forever expand to support economic prosperity and growth. That is not the history of aviation. There is a place for hub airports, but also for direct flights and the development of regional airports. There are many arguments that mean capacity can be delivered in many other ways, without necessarily continuously expanding a hub. Indeed, the numbers that the Government are using at the moment—I think consultants such as Frontier Economics have also been involved—to justify expansion at Heathrow are laying out not future demand but a highly speculative relationship between increased capacity and increased growth.
I am very concerned that the projections the Government are using are not even adjusted to deal with increased capacity at other London airports, never mind potential capacity at other regional airports around the country, and that we are getting into this vicious cycle of creating unneeded capacity which then leads to much more aggressive marketing to persuade more people to fly. It is almost equivalent to the utilities going out and trying to encourage people to use more energy or water. Capacity in the air is a scarce resource and we should be thinking from a far more environmental perspective. I suggest that the policy the Minister is looking at runs dangerously counter to tackling climate change. As for local environmental impact, especially noise, the policy continues to run counter. Although the industry tells us its planes are quieter, I—living under the flight path—can tell noble Lords that that is not the real lived experience under that flight path.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I hesitate to disagree with the noble Baroness because I have huge respect for her. To begin with, fish and books may or may not be valuable in themselves, though I suggest that they are probably more valuable if people air-freight them. The fact is that 72% of UK air freight by value goes through Heathrow, so if fish and books are the two principal exports through Heathrow, they must be valuable fish and valuable books. I cannot reconcile her claim that they are not valuable simply because they are the two highest categories, but the 72% figure is assured.
Moreover, nobody is suggesting that a hub airport should continuously expand for ever. We are looking here at an airport that has been at more than 95% capacity for the last 40 years. Successive Governments have sought a way of doing it, but it has not been done. It is clearly restraining the economy, and it is clearly right that a Government who seek to expand the economy look at a third runway with a view to doing something that has long been mooted. This is clearly restraining both air capacity and economic growth.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement, and I believe that there is a consensus across the House for a position where Heathrow can achieve its full potential as not only a national and European hub but an international hub. I actually find myself agreeing with the Liberal Democrats to a certain extent that there has to be proper and due regard taken of infrastructure, rail and road, and that the economic footprint of Heathrow is not just Hillingdon, Hounslow, Ealing and Brent but reaches out to the wider south-east in terms of jobs, prosperity and enterprise.
I know the Minister has a lot on his plate, not least with HS2 and finding how to plug the gap between Euston and Old Oak Common, which we have discussed on a number of occasions, but I want to press him on judicial reviews. Cosy chats with the judiciary will not cut the mustard on this massive infrastructure project. The Climate Change Act is pretty draconian in respect of the potential for judicial reviews, and I have to press him on whether he envisages primary legislation in order to assist the prospect of this huge project not being clogged up by endless judicial reviews. He will know that even the Labour Mayor of London has said he is more than willing to use the current legislation to block the expansion of Heathrow Airport.
I will make one final, parochial point. This is a holistic airport policy. I come from the perspective of someone who often uses Stansted. To me, it is a national embarrassment that people from, say, California with lots of money to invest have to fly into Heathrow Airport on the way to Cambridge and are then stuck for two or three hours on the M25 until they can reach their corporate or European headquarters in Cambridge. We need more transcontinental flights to the United States and Canada into Stansted, not just Heathrow. That is a more parochial point, but the substantive point is that the Minister cannot wish for legal certainty—he has to do something about it.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord refers to rail connections, which we have already touched on in this debate, and it is quite clear that the two promoters of the schemes will have to address railway connections to Heathrow and not just from the London direction, good though the Elizabeth line is. He mentioned HS2 in passing; we have cracked Euston to Old Oak Common, at least, because the Government are going to fund the tunnelling machines and they will start fairly soon.
In respect of judicial challenges, but for this dinner break business we are considering the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and my noble friend is sitting next to me ready to resume those discussions. As she points out to me, sotto voce, a great deal of the Bill is, in fact, designed to smooth the process of major infrastructure, and that is the reason that this Government are moving forward with it.
Finally, the ANPS is about Heathrow; it has always been about Heathrow. That is not to say that there are not policies that should be applied to other London airports—Gatwick, Luton, Stansted and so forth—but Heathrow is such a big issue in itself and is, as I keep saying, the only hub airport in Britain. It is right that the ANPS should deal only with Heathrow, because it is a very important matter in itself.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Monday 27th October 2025
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-III(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (24 Oct 2025)
21:08 - Division on Amendment 94 - Ayes: 196 / Noes: 137 - Amendment 94 agreed.
21:20 - Division on Amendment 96 - Ayes: 166 / Noes: 139 - Amendment 96 agreed.
22:37 - Division on Amendment 103 - Ayes: 46 / Noes: 133 - Amendment 103 disagreed.
23:16 - Division on Amendment 105 - Ayes: 49 / Noes: 110 - Amendment 105 disagreed.
23:41 - Division on Amendment 107 - Ayes: 24 / Noes: 93 - Amendment 107 disagreed.
Lord Lansley
“(za) an amount or distribution of development for employment, industrial, logistic or commercial purposes, the provision of which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance to the strategy area;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would secure that a spatial development strategy must include a description of the amount or distribution of development for employment, industrial, logistics or commercial purposes, which are instrumental in determining the land use and requirements for housing in the strategy area.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 90 relates to the content of the spatial development strategy and seeks to insert into the Bill the requirement that the strategy should include
“an amount or distribution of development for employment, industrial, logistic or commercial purposes, the provision of which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance”.
This is alongside the amount or distribution of housing and the amount or distribution of affordable housing. We had this debate in Committee, so I will not dwell at length on the reasons why I think it is necessary. The Committee debate demonstrated that there was widespread support among Members of the Committee for the inclusion of this in a spatial development strategy.
I want to just focus on one issue and one question to the Minister. We have agreed substantially on these issues, not least on the question of joint spatial development strategies back in the debate on the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. The issue, which I do not think was really raised properly in Committee, is that the spatial development strategy must be, by definition, about a broader area than local plans, and it gives us an opportunity to look in a strategic way at the relationship of travel to work areas, the sites for employment, the transport infrastructure that supports travel to work and the consequences from that of where people will be living, as well as working, which will lead into exactly the questions of the housing need and housing requirements that local plans must allow for in the future.
The Government have completely recognised the case for travel to work areas and the economic geography to be a basis for strategic planning. The English Devolution White Paper talks about strategic authorities being based on that kind of reasonable and functional economic geography, so I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that that is exactly how strategic development strategies should be compiled.
Anybody who has put together this kind of document in the past—I had something to do with these things when we were working on the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities 20 years ago—knows that that is exactly how one goes about thinking. Even at local plan level, understanding the broader questions of what the prospects look like for employment, industry and logistics is a sound basis for determining the amount and distribution of housing.
The consequential from that is a question to the Minister. Can she tell the House that we do not need to add this to the Bill because the guidance on the spatial development strategy will be explicit and make it very clear that that is the process and that is the way in which spatial development strategies must be constructed? I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, as we did in Committee, and in particular to talk about this broader area. My Amendment 92 is similar to that from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, but takes it up to a greater level.
Having grappled with an attempt to do the whole of Hertfordshire, which the Minister will remember—where each district was asking, “What are we for, and what do you want us to do and to be?”—I remember that Stevenage was very much the place for incubator businesses, and an exemplar of that, and we were very much grade-A office. We recognised the need to have that across an area or we would be competing with one another, which was ridiculous.
The key point of my amendment mirrors that and complements it, because we are trying to create sustainable communities, and we all know that that means jobs. There is no point in building shedloads of houses stretching for miles when people have to get in their car even to buy a newspaper and certainly go miles in their car to commute to a job. So, we are on board with that.
I too brought my amendment before this House previously and it is supported by the Royal Institute of British Architects. The basic principle that the amendment embodies is to require development strategies to include a design vision for the whole area and, as such, it would have to include the things that were mentioned in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. A design vision, as laid out in the amendment, is a clear articulation of what a place should be like in the future, developed with and to meet the needs of the local community. I will not repeat the reasons why this is vital, because I am sure that we all know.
The Minister knows that I have been very clear and vocal in my support for the Government’s move towards strategic planning. It has been missing from planning in any meaningful way for many years. However, I want to address their response when I first brought the amendment before the House—namely, and this will sound like a broken record, that there was no need for the amendment because the guidance already exists through the National Planning Policy Framework, the National Design Guide, and the National Model Design Code. The reason I want to press my case again is that guidance is incredibly valuable, but it is just that—guidance. I am sure that many noble Lords here today can give countless examples of where poor-quality development has come forward contrary to a development plan. To be absolutely blunt, the pressure on planning officers to grant housing schemes is great. We should not underestimate that. I am sure that we will have all seen, despite officers’ best efforts, some pretty mediocre schemes getting approval or, worse still, agreed on appeal.
The Government have quite rightly been very vocal in their support for good design. The amendment would mean that a vision for good design must be considered throughout the development process. Setting such a precedent can only be a good thing if we want to actively create and shape the places that work for people and contribute positively to their quality of life. For me and these Benches, this is non-negotiable.
Meeting housing need is an urgent task and one that we completely agree with, but doing so in a way that serves people both now and in the future—with design quality at the heart and the forefront of placemaking—is no less than we all deserve. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says, because we cannot see good design as a “nice to have”; it has to be something that we accept. It is a “must have”.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, very briefly and without the eloquence of the last two speakers, I want to support Amendment 90 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I live near Magna Park and the junction of the M1 and M6 motorways. I believe that Magna Park is the largest distribution centre in Europe. It seems obvious that a spatial strategy must include infrastructure and distribution. I therefore look forward to the Minister giving the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, the assurances that he seeks.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 90, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, speaks to the theme that has run through many of our recent discussions in your Lordships’ House: the importance of how we plan and distribute development for employment, industrial, logistics and commercial purposes, along with housing.
We agree that this is instrumental in determining the appropriate land use and, in turn, the housing requirements across an area. It is vital that the Government set out clearly how they intend to ensure proper alignment between infrastructure provision, job creation, housing developments and the facilities that those residents will need. Without that alignment, we risk producing plans that are unbalanced: areas with homes but no employment, and economic zones with no housing or supporting transport that would make them viable.
I am therefore thankful that this sentiment was shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, when she spoke to her own Amendment 92. She said that a spatial development strategy should have a clear vision for an area and rightly highlighted the importance of design, both at the more strategic level and—as my noble friend Lady Hodgson said earlier—of the individual properties and the area within which they occur. It sounds like we are very much in agreement.
We talk about housing and infrastructure on the face of the Bill. The Minister may say, “Oh, don’t worry, this is all in planning guidance”, but if the Bill is good enough to mention housing and infrastructure then why not also that key component of distribution, industry and commercial space that goes hand in hand with the need for housing?
As I have made clear, we cannot look at housing and infrastructure in isolation. It would be absurd not to look at the distribution of industrial, logistics, commercial, leisure and retail facilities. I ask the Minister for an assurance that these will be included in the spatial development strategies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, before I address the amendments, I should say that I circulated a diagram of the respective responsibilities of, and links between, spatial development strategies, local plans and neighbourhood plans that I hope was helpful to noble Lords in our consideration of the Bill.
Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, proposes to expressly allow a spatial development strategy to set out an amount or distribution of development for employment, industrial, logistics or commercial purposes. I fully recognise the intention behind the amendment, but it is not necessary. That is because new Section 12D(1) already requires spatial development strategies to include a statement of the strategic planning authority’s policies, however expressed, on land use and development that are of strategic importance to the strategy area. In fulfilling this requirement, I would expect strategic planning authorities to address employment, industrial, logistics and commercial development needs. That has been demonstrated in, for example, the London Plan, which operates under comparable legislative provisions.
To respond to the noble Lord, I add that our intention is for the National Planning Policy Framework, which we will consult on this year, to set out explicit policies for how employment, industrial, logistics, commercial and other issues are intended to be addressed, including through spatial development strategies. I hope that is helpful.
Amendment 92, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, proposes that spatial development strategies include a design vision for the strategy area developed in collaboration with both the local community and other stakeholders. I have outlined previously in our debates the importance that the Government place on good design of new homes. We would expect any detailed design requirements to be set by local planning authorities and neighbourhood planning groups through their local and neighbourhood plans, as these will allocate specific sites. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I apologise: I should when I first rose, as it was the first time I spoke on Report today, have drawn attention to my registered interests relating to the chairmanship of development forums in both Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. I thank noble Lords for their support for the amendment. I am very grateful for the additional points that were made.
I am grateful for what the Minister said. I do not doubt that it is possible to put the necessary guidance into the National Planning Policy Framework. Indeed, I hope that when we see the revision of the NPPF before the end of the year we will see something akin to the guidance relating to plan-making but related to the making of spatial development strategies. I humbly say to the Minister what I said previously, along with my noble friend Lord Jamieson, about the importance of relating the question of the amount and distribution of housing to the spatial strategy in relation to employment, industry, logistics and the opportunities for inward investment, frankly. I cannot see any reason why that should not be quite explicit in the NPPF and therefore carried forward into requirements on SDS authorities. It is absolutely in the Government’s interest to do that. If growth is their number one priority, and planning reform is essential to that, then getting spatial development strategies up and running in ways that focus on this would be absolutely at the heart of it.
With those further requests to the Minister for future action, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grender
“(6A) Where a strategy area includes a chalk stream, the spatial development strategy must include policies on permissible activities within the area of the stream for the purposes of preventing harm or damage to the stream or its surrounding area.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure spatial development strategies include policies to protect chalk streams.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 93, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, aims to secure the future of England’s chalk streams by enshrining specific protections and standards into our planning regime. As we made clear in Committee, these globally rare ecosystems—there are only 200 in the world—are often referred to as our country’s rainforests in terms of biodiversity and they face genuine risk from piecemeal development and inadequate water management. These are risks that will only intensify without a robust and specific legislative lever.
Relatively recently, I went for a customary walk in a beautiful green space in south-west London, only to discover that the beautiful River Wandle, home to brown trout and kingfishers, had been destroyed by a devastating diesel leak. The Government intend to streamline housebuilding and environmental measures in tandem, but the practical reality is stark.
Chalk streams are uniquely vulnerable. Abstraction of water, chronic pollution and unchecked development have led to tangible declines in many local areas. In 2023, the Liberal Democrats collected data through freedom of information requests, which revealed that one in 10 chalk stream sewage monitors were faulty, with some water companies having much higher rates of broken or uninstalled equipment.
Amendment 93 delivers a targeted solution: a statutory driver for sustainable drainage standards before any development interfaces with public sewers, closing a loophole that currently exists and has allowed cumulative harm to chalk streams. This amendment would ensure that developers are compelled to apply national standards for drainage and water treatment ahead of any permissions, rather than leaving mitigation as an afterthought.
Amendment 94 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich complements this approach, and I thank him for the work he has done on this issue and his environmental expertise, which he has brought to this debate. Amendment 94 tightens oversight and demands full transparency in environmental impact reviews on watercourses at risk, an essential safeguard for communities whose local rivers are too often treated as collateral damage by the planning system’s inertia.
None of us should accept that cleaner, safer waterways are an optional extra and a nice to have. By adopting an amendment on chalk streams and supporting, out of these two amendments, Amendment 94, this House will signal that nature restoration, water quality and sustainable infrastructure are not in competition but can be advanced through co-ordinated and legally binding steps. I urge noble Lords to support these amendments for the sake of our streams and the communities they sustain.
If the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich moves to a vote, these Benches will support him. It is right that, with something as crucial as our unique chalk streams, we ask our colleagues in the House of Commons to think again and strengthen and protect in law this ecosystem that is almost unique to England. I hope that this House will unite in voting for Amendment 94 and protecting this rare heritage for future generations.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 94, and I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for their support. I am most grateful to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, who has just spoken so powerfully about her amendment, as well as offering her support for this amendment. Amendment 94 would require a spatial development strategy to list chalk streams in the strategy area, outline measures to protect them from environmental harm and impose responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments.
Chalk streams, as we have heard, are a very special type of river. Some 85% of the world’s chalk streams are in England. They are fed primarily by spring water from the chalk aquifer, not rain, which means that they have clear, cold water and very stable flows. These globally rare habitats are found in a broad sweep from Yorkshire and the Lincolnshire Wolds through Norfolk, the Chilterns, Hampshire and Dorset. The Bure, Glaven, Wensum, Test, Itchen and Meon are river names that come to mind flowing, as they do, through the tapestry of English history and in our literature, such as the River Pang-based Wind in the Willows. They are rich in minerals, especially calcium, and this “base rich” environment supports a distinctive and rich ecology.
It is no wonder that this amendment and a similar one in the other place have received such positive support, including in your Lordships’ Committee. What it seeks to do is such an obvious thing, for what we love, we should desire to protect; what we value, we should safeguard; what is of global significance, we should be deeply proud of.
I am grateful that the Minister responded to my letter to her about my amendment. However, her response was far from reassuring in two ways. First, the Government have pointed to local nature recovery strategies as a way of protecting chalk streams. These could, of course, in future be capable of considering, avoiding and otherwise mitigating for direct damage to these habitats, such as occurs from the footprint of a development near a chalk stream. However, to do so, LNRSs will need more bite in the planning system than they currently have. We are still waiting for the regulations designed to do precisely that, placing a duty on local planning authorities to take account of the nature strategy when making planning decisions. We are still waiting for that to be commenced, and it is now a full two years after these regulations were promised in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.
Even once the regulations are passed, LNRSs will not be well placed to map, quantify and avoid or mitigate for the offsite impacts of development such as downstream pollution or the additional water that will be abstracted from chalk streams or their aquifers to serve new homes. These very real threats to our chalk streams, over areas much larger than are covered by strategies, cannot be addressed by LNRSs.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
I am pleased to add my name to the important amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, and to Amendment 92 in this group, because, let us be honest, we are not starting from a good place with chalk streams. As mentioned by my noble friend, the current status of these unique and extremely rare habitats in the UK is poor, with more than three-quarters failing to meet good ecological health standards. This is precisely why the chalk streams became such an important issue for debate in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I remember only too well the same Front Bench colleagues debating long and hard for their protection.
The chalk stream recovery plan, announced by the previous Government, was seen by many, including me, as a good step in the right direction. But here we are again, with chalk streams back in the firing line and, despite the reassurance from the Minister on Report that local nature recovery strategies could propose priorities for their protection,
the problem with our planning system is that it requires local authorities only to have regard to our LNRSs, which is not strong enough to protect these vulnerable habitats. We came across this a number of times in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Those words are etched in my memory.
Also, although the NPPF recognises the importance of irreplaceable habitats, chalk streams, much to my alarm—and, I am sure, to that of many in this House—are not specifically listed as protected habitats. Therefore, they do not have the overarching level of protection in the Bill, through the spatial development strategies, in the same way other protected habitats do. The only hope left, therefore, is the chalk stream nature recovery plan, launched by the previous Government. However, in reply to the question on this asked in Committee by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, who sadly cannot be here today, the Minister stated that even this is now on hold because it is out of step with the ambitious programme of water reforms proposed by the Government. Perhaps the Minister can say for how long it will be on hold, as a result permitting further damage to occur in these unique freshwater habitats.
I say this because time is of the essence here. As an ecologist, I went back to look at the literature. Research on chalk streams has demonstrated that while removing pollution can result in the improvement of water quality within a month to a few years, ecological recovery can take between 10 and 20 years. The more damage we do, the longer it will take for them to recover.
Lastly, surely there must be some no-go habitats in some of our river catchments, and these chalk streams should be one of them. I therefore urge the Minister to agree to this amendment, within which the spatial development strategy would mandate the sort of responsibilities that lead to the protection and enhancement of these unique and rare chalk stream habitats.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I support both amendments. I made a speech in Committee in which I laid out very similar arguments to those put by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. I will not repeat them now, except to say that the right reverend Prelate referred to a number of chalk streams in my old constituency of North West Norfolk. These incredible assets—these unique and precious assets—are at risk as we speak. I say to the Minister that neither amendment is particularly demanding. They are quite modest in their overall fabric and intent. If the Government are serious about their environmental credentials, and about trying to do something for the countryside, I urge them, please, to accept these amendments.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to the right reverend Prelate’s amendment. I am delighted to see him back in the Chamber; we missed him in Committee.
My noble friend Lord Roborough was absolutely right when he said in Committee that all rivers are important. Yes, that is true, but chalk streams are that bit more important. The reason for that is that we have 85% of the world’s chalk streams. We are custodians for that majority, but 83% of those chalk streams do not meet good ecological standards. We have handled the whole situation very badly. I think we have taken a retrograde step with this Government, who have dispensed with the chalk stream recovery pack, which the noble Baroness just referred to.
I have written to the Minister and told her that I will ask her a number of questions. I have given her forewarning, so I expect replies. In what respect did that chalk stream recovery pack fall short? It was nearly ready to go when the Labour Government took over after winning the election. They could have pressed the button; that chalk stream pack focused on some difficult questions that nobody had fully addressed before, so why have they torpedoed it? What do they propose to do that will be better than that pack had proposed?
Let us go down to some specifics of the pack. It had time-bound commitments to reduce groundwater abstraction on numerous chalk streams which, according to the Environment Agency’s own data, are unsustainably extracted: for example, the Darent in Kent, where over half the rainfall that feeds the river is taken away for public water supply. There was a timescale for getting that right. Will the Government stick with that timescale or will there be something longer? Do the Government have plans to move water abstraction further downstream, rather than at the headwaters of these rivers?
The chalk stream pack also had a timebound commitment to address the hundreds of small sewage works in chalk streams that do not remove phosphorus in the treatment process and where there is currently no policy or incentive to drive investment. What are the Government going to do better to give a good timescale to get all those water treatment plants in good order? The pack also addressed run-off from highways and local roads, which I have spoken about before in your Lordships’ House, and how damaging it can be to chalk streams in particular because of the added silt. The CaBA chalk stream strategy recommends revised best practice guidelines for local councils that give more protection to chalk streams. Do the Government have better plans than that? The pack also put forward solutions to reform the farming rules for water, which are currently ineffective. What are the Government going to do to replace that recommendation?
I did not mention this question when I wrote to the Minister, but I will add it now: how do the Government intend to address the physical dysfunctionality of many chalk streams moved, straightened, dredged or dammed over the centuries and put them back to their natural state? In destroying the hard work of some very good, able and committed people who produced the chalk stream pack, the Government have alienated some potential friends in their effort to improve the environment. How are they going to get friends back onside when, after all that work, they have just dismissed it as though it did not matter? What plans do they have to include such people in the future to try to improve the whole river system for chalk streams? It is no good taking just one little area in one district or county council, because chalk streams do not understand those borders; they flow through lot of different councils. The whole thing has to be tackled on a holistic basis, and the only way to do that is by supporting the right reverend Prelate’s amendment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I am grateful for their excellent, informative introductions. We on these Benches tabled similar amendments in Committee. The amendments share a vital purpose: to ensure that our planning system gives proper recognition and protection to chalk streams, one of our most distinct and rarest natural habitats. These streams help define our landscapes, support unique biodiversity and supply water to many communities. The amendments would require spatial development strategies to identify and protect chalk streams, setting out the responsibilities for planning authorities in their stewardship.
These are sensible, constructive proposals and I am grateful to those who have tabled and supported them. We will support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich if he divides on his amendment this evening. Will the Minister say whether she considers chalk streams to be irreplaceable habitats, like ancient woodlands, and therefore deserving of similar policy protection? The case for stronger recognition of chalk streams within our planning system is compelling. They are an irreplaceable part of our natural heritage and a globally important asset, and the way we plan for growth must reflect that.
I hope the Minister has heard the House and will be able to accept these amendments, and explain, as the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and my noble friend Lord Caithness have asked, why our chalk stream restoration strategy is on hold.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for Amendments 93 and 94, which propose additional statutory obligations for strategic planning authorities in relation to the identification and safeguarding of chalk streams. With 85% of the world’s chalk streams found in England, these unique water bodies are not just vital ecosystems but are indeed a symbol of our national heritage. The Government are committed to restoring them, which is why we are taking a strategic approach to restoring chalk streams. Working in partnership with water companies, investors and communities, the Government will introduce a new water reform Bill to modernise the entire system so that it is fit for purpose for decades to come. This is essential to restoring chalk streams to better ecological health and addressing the multiple pressures facing these habitats.
Alongside the programme of ambitious reforms, the Government are continuing to deliver vital improvements and investment for chalk streams, including £1.8 million through the water restoration fund and water environment improvement fund for locally led chalk stream projects. Over the next five years, water companies will spend over £2 billion on chalk stream restoration.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. It is very clear there is a strong feeling within this House that there is a need for something to shift and be enshrined in law. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment in order to hand over and support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich if he decides to press his.
“(6A) A spatial development strategy must—(a) list any chalk streams identified in the strategy area;(b) identify the measures to be taken to protect any identified chalk streams from pollution, abstraction, encroachment and other forms of environmental damage; and(c) impose responsibilities on strategic planning authorities in relation to the protection and enhancement of chalk stream habitats.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a spatial development strategy to list chalk streams in the strategy area, outline measures to protect them from environmental harm, and impose responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I thank all who have contributed to this important debate and the Minister for her response. However, I am not convinced by her arguments; we cannot wait for a water reform Bill and have these arguments again at that stage. Amendment 94 seeks to protect chalk streams, this precious habitat which we are the custodians of. It aims to restore biodiversity and create a planning system that works with nature, not against it. At present, I am afraid, the Bill before us fails to do this for chalk streams. Thus, I seek to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(9A) A spatial development strategy must prioritise development on brownfield land and urban densification.(9B) A spatial development strategy must seek to increase sustainability and community building by minimising travel distances between places of employment, residence and commercial or leisure activities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require spatial development strategies to prioritise brownfield and urban densification, and to promote sustainable, mixed communities by reducing travel distances between homes, jobs, and services.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we have tried every way possible over a number of years to ensure that brownfield sites are used for development, over and above our precious agricultural land. This is not working, so something addressing it needs to be put in statute. Therefore, I seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 96.
Lord Lansley
“12OA Effect of local government organisational changes affecting principal authorities(1) This section applies in the event of any changes to the local government organisational structure made under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 that amend— (a) the composition of a strategic planning authority under 12A(2) by means of changes in the structure of a principal authority (as defined in 12A (7)), or(b) the constituent authorities (as defined in 12B (2)) to a strategic planning board.(2) Any spatial development strategy that had been prepared by a strategic planning authority" (under 12A(1)), remains in operation for the strategy area as defined in 12A (4) before the organisational change took effect under subsection (1).(3) Any spatial development strategy that remains in operation under subsection (2) may not be replaced or substantially altered before the expiry of five years after the date of its adoption, subject to subsection (4).(4) Subsection (3) does not apply if the Secretary of State issues a direction authorising the alteration or replacement of the existing spatial development strategy.”
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 97A relates to the situation where local government reorganisation leads to changes in the authorities which constitute the strategic planning authority that is making spatial development strategies in the upcoming months or perhaps years. We did not discuss this in Committee, and in my view time does not permit us to have the substantial discussion that is necessary this evening, as we want to make progress towards other important issues. But I just want to say that there is an issue here that I hope the Government will consider, not least between now and Third Reading, although time is short.
We want spatial development strategies to be strategic. They cannot be strategic if they are made one day and replaced the next. We want the strategic planning authorities to be able to establish a spatial development strategy that subsists for a considerable period. Otherwise, people will have no confidence that they will be able to proceed in local plan making that is, necessarily, statutorily consistent with the spatial development strategy, if the spatial development strategy could be changed at a moment’s notice.
This problem emerges essentially from the prospect of the upper-tier authorities which may well be combined to make strategic authorities or, perhaps more often, divided into unitaries. When they become unitaries, the question of who the strategic planning authority is might be taken to a completely different level. For example, Norfolk and Suffolk, close to me, will be a combined authority next year, so they may be able to make a spatial development strategy. However, in Oxfordshire, which I know well, Oxford County Council may proceed with a spatial development strategy next year, but the county council might be divided into two or even three unitaries in the course of local government reorganisation. What the spatial development strategy is, what the strategic planning authority area is, we do not know.
I am presenting to the Government a problem which has emerged. I am grateful to the County Councils Network for highlighting the nature of the potential problem and the necessity of a solution. The solution is to make it very clear that spatial development strategies, having been adopted, should subsist for five years, as we would normally expect local plans to, unless the Secretary of State makes a direction. The Secretary of State could make a direction where there is an expectation of, for example, a change of political control or something of that kind that necessitates a review of the spatial development strategy.
Having presented the nature of the problem, I hope that the Minister will say that the Government recognise the problem and will find means by which the spatial development strategies, once adopted, can remain in place for a period of time, unless there is a compelling reason for them to be altered or replaced. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has raised a very important issue that the Government need to think about, but, as the noble Lord explained, the issue relates not only to the new combined county authorities with a mayor that will be created following reorganisation; it will also affect the metropolitan mayoral authorities, where the mayors will be given the new power for a spatial development strategy but where the constituent local authorities will inevitably have their own local plan, which will not necessarily have any coterminosity in terms of their duration. There is a dual issue for the Government to consider, which is: which has primacy—a constituent authority’s local plan until its term ends, or the spatial development strategy, which might override the local plan, which would then require, presumably, an amended local plan and all the effort that would have to go into that? An important issue has been raised, and I suspect that the Government need to come up with a solution.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, on these Benches, we are actually engaging with the industry about this to understand its concerns. I do not want to say anything further on it this evening, apart from expressing my full support for my noble friend Lord Lansley. We will return to this issue for a much fuller discussion in a later group of amendments that we have tabled.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 97A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to ensure that any spatial development strategy that had been prepared by an authority remains in place for the strategy area following the restructure of the strategic planning authority; the strategy could not be replaced or substantially altered within five years of its adoption unless the Secretary of State authorised a strategic planning authority to do so. Given that the Government are currently undertaking an ambitious programme of local government reorganisation in England, I understand why the noble Lord seeks to make provision to account for this and ensure a degree of continuity for an operative spatial development strategy.
However, new Section 12T empowers the Secretary of State to include transitional provisions in strategic planning board regulations. This power complements existing powers to make transitional provision in regulations to reflect changes to local government organisation. If a local government reorganisation leads to uncertainty over the boundaries of a spatial development strategy or its applicability to an area, it is more suitable to address this through tailored transitional provision in regulations rather than through primary legislation. This means that the effects of local government reorganisation can be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Preventing a strategic planning authority from replacing or significantly revising its spatial development strategy until five years after its adoption following local government reorganisation would restrict its ability to respond to major national policy changes or new major investment in its area. Strategic planning authorities are well placed to determine when updates to their strategies are necessary and should retain the discretion to do so. Given this, I would respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords—particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—for their support, and to the Minister for her response. I completely understand that the Minister does not want to close down the possibility of alterations to spatial development strategies, which this might do. I hope that we might look at the transitional provisions, and I hold in my head the thought that if we can see those—in relation to the making of spatial development strategies and the impact of local government reorganisation—and if we have a problem, even if we do not deal with it in this Bill, it would be within the scope of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill to be able to deal with it at a later stage. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 97A.
Lord Lansley
“Neighbourhood priorities statements
12Y Neighbourhood priorities statements(1) Any qualifying body may make a statement, to be known as a “neighbourhood priorities statement”, which summarises what the body considers to be the principal needs and prevailing views, of the community in the neighbourhood area in relation to which the body is authorised, in respect of local development and infrastructure.(2) “Local matters” are such matters as the Secretary of State may prescribe, relating to—(a) development, or the management or use of land, in or affecting the neighbourhood area,(b) the development of housing in the neighbourhood area,(c) the natural environment in the neighbourhood area,(d) development of public spaces in the neighbourhood area, or(e) the infrastructure or facilities available in the neighbourhood area.(3) A qualifying body may modify or revoke a neighbourhood priorities statement that has effect, for the time being, for the neighbourhood area in relation to which the body is authorised.(4) A neighbourhood priorities statement has effect from the time it is published by a relevant local planning authority and ceases to have effect upon such an authority publishing a notice stating that it has been revoked by a qualifying body. (5) A modification of a neighbourhood priorities statement has effect from the time the modification, or modified statement, is published by a relevant local planning authority.(6) Regulations made by the Secretary of State may impose requirements which must be met for a neighbourhood priorities statement, or any modification or revocation of such a statement, to be made or published.(7) Regulations under subsection (6) or section 15LE(2)(k) may provide that a requirement may be met, or (as the case may be) procedure may be complied with, by virtue of things done by a parish council, or other organisation or body, before it becomes a qualifying body.(8) Regulations under subsection (6) and section 15LE must (between them)—(a) require a qualifying body to publish any proposed neighbourhood priorities statement, so that people who live, work or carry on business in the neighbourhood area to which the statement relates can comment on the proposed statement before the body makes the statement,(b) require a qualifying body to publish any proposed material modification of a neighbourhood priorities statement, so that people who live, work or carry on business in the neighbourhood area to which the statement relates can comment on the proposed modification before the body makes the modification,(c) require a relevant local planning authority to publish a neighbourhood priorities statement, if the statement is made in accordance with this section and any regulations made under this Part,(d) require a relevant local planning authority to publish a notice of the revocation of a neighbourhood priorities statement, if the statement has been revoked in accordance with this section and any regulations made under this Part, and(e) require a relevant local planning authority, if a modification of a neighbourhood priorities statement is made in accordance with this section and any regulations made under this Part, to publish the modification or a modified statement.(9) Subsection (10) applies if, as a result of a modification of a neighbourhood area under section 61G(6) of the principal Act, a neighbourhood priorities statement relates to more than one neighbourhood area.(10) Any modification, or revocation, of the neighbourhood priorities statement as it has effect for one of those areas does not affect the statement as it has effect in relation to the other area or areas.(11) Regulations under section 61G(11) of the principal Act (designation of areas as neighbourhood areas) may include provision about the consequences of the modification of designations—(a) on proposals for neighbourhood priorities statements, or on neighbourhood priorities statements, that have already been made, or(b) on proposals for the modification of neighbourhood priorities statements, or on modifications of neighbourhood priorities statements, that have already been made.(12) A authority mentioned in subsection (13) is a “relevant local planning authority”, in relation to a neighbourhood priorities statement, if some or all of the neighbourhood area to which the statement relates falls within the area of the authority.(13) The authorities are—(a) a district council,(b) a London borough council, (c) a metropolitan district council,(d) a county council in relation to an area in England for which there is no district council, or(e) the Broads Authority.(14) In this section—“material modification” , in relation to a neighbourhood priorities statement, means a modification which a relevant local planning authority considers—(a) materially affects a summary, in the statement, of any needs or views, of the community in the neighbourhood area, in relation to a local matter, and(b) does not only correct an obvious error or omission;“neighbourhood area” has the meaning given by sections 61G and 61I(1) of the principal Act;“qualifying body” means a parish council or an organisation or body designated as a neighbourhood forum, which is authorised to act in relation to a neighbourhood area as a result of section 61F of the principal Act (whether or not as applied by section 38C of this Act).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment reproduces some of the provision in Schedule 7 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 , not currently in force, creating a power for local councils to produce a neighbourhood priorities statement to inform plan-making and infrastructure provision affecting their neighbourhood.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I hope we can be equally quick about Amendment 99. It is grouped with Amendment 127, on which I am looking forward to hearing, I hope, complementary thoughts about the importance of neighbourhood planning. I do not think we need to debate the importance of neighbourhood planning; we did that in Committee. What we need to do is to find out what the Government are going to do.
Since the Government in relation to their White Paper on English devolution made it clear that they want “effective neighbourhood governance” and since we are going to see unitaries creating what might otherwise be regarded as distance between local communities and the plan-making process, it seems to me that that heightens the importance of neighbourhood development planning and what are called neighbourhood priorities statements, which were included in Schedule 7 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act inserting new Section 15K into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
As things stand, the neighbourhood priorities statements have not been brought into force. My first request to the Minister is: will the Government do that? Secondly, can she confirm that the valuable Section 98 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, which clarified what should form part of the contents of a neighbourhood development plan, should also be brought into force? I hope that that is not something that Ministers are neglecting to do but are simply trying to bring into force alongside other planning reform changes before we get to the next iteration of the National Planning Policy Framework.
There is a reference in Amendment 108 to Section 100 of the levelling-up Act, which is about the power to require assistance with plan-making, but it is quite clear from paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Bill that it is the Government’s intention to bring Section 100 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act into force, otherwise that part of this Bill would be redundant. So, I have two questions: will the neighbourhood priorities statement be brought into force and when will the neighbourhood development plan be brought into force from the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act? I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 127 in this group of amendments about neighbourhood planning. It makes, in a much simpler way, the same detailed and principled point about neighbourhood plans as do the detailed amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. My amendment seeks that the Secretary of State
“may only … grant a development consent order where the Secretary of State believes that the application for consent gives due consideration to any relevant neighbourhood plan”.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has just pointed to the importance given to neighbourhood governance in the English devolution Bill that has started at the other end of Parliament. He referred also to the debates we had in consideration of the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill about the importance of listening to neighbourhood priorities and setting them out, as well as of accepting neighbourhood plans within local plans. I hope that will apply, in a wider way, with development consent orders and strategic plans.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we have just heard from my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, of the value and importance of neighbourhood plans. They are not blockers to development; they allow local communities to determine their priorities. In many cases, as we have seen since their introduction under the Localism Act 2011, we have seen more rather than less housing, which suggests that, when working with communities, we can deliver better outcomes.
My noble friend Lord Lansley is, once again, right to highlight the value of local councils’ provisions within the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. They were designed not only to deliver more homes but to empower local people. I am still none the wiser as to which parts of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act the Government are in favour of and which they are not. I would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten this House.
On Amendment 127, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, we have already spoken of the value of local and neighbourhood plans. The sentiment she raised is, once again, of real value to this debate. We on these Benches consider this an important topic. I am conscious of the limited time available on Report to scrutinise these matters further, but I hope that the Minister will set out the Government’s broader views on them.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 99 and 108 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, return to measures in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. As your Lordships will recall, in Committee, I advised the House that the Government consider that the best time to commence the provisions of Sections 98 and 100 of that Act is alongside our wider reforms to the local plan-making system, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned.
Amendment 108 would advance the date of commencement ahead of those connected reforms, bringing them into force on the day on which the Bill is finally enacted. However, we continue to believe that a co-ordinated approach to commencement will be most helpful to planning authorities and we do not consider there is a case for advancing these provisions ahead of our wider timetable.
Amendment 99 deals with neighbourhood priorities statements. This is another measure provided for in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, so this amendment is not required if we want to bring them into force. However, at this stage, we want to ensure our new local plan-making system is working as it should before considering adding the introduction of neighbourhood priorities statements.
Neighbourhood planning groups are welcome and are encouraged to contribute their views during the preparation of local plans. The expertise developed through the preparation of neighbourhood plans already allows them to make thoughtful and constructive contributions that local authorities should consider carefully. In common with the noble Lord, the Government continue to believe that neighbourhood planning groups can make a valuable contribution across the planning system. However, we are not yet convinced that a statutory approach is required to enable that contribution. As such, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for Amendment 127, which seeks to introduce a requirement into the development consent order process for the Secretary of State to consider neighbourhood plans when determining nationally significant infrastructure projects, and to empower her to limit variations to those plans. Neighbourhood plans are indeed a vital part of the planning system, giving communities a voice in shaping development in their areas. I fully recognise that the spirit of this amendment is rooted in a desire to strengthen that voice, particularly in the context of large-scale infrastructure projects that, as we all know, can have significant local consequences. It reflects a genuine concern that local priorities should not be overlooked in the pursuit of national objectives. However, as I sought to set out during earlier debates, the Government maintain their position that this amendment is unnecessary. The DCO process has been carefully designed to ensure that decisions on NSIPs can balance national priorities with local impacts and be made in a timely manner.
Neighbourhood plans form part of the development plan, which is the starting point in making decisions on planning applications in the Town and Country Planning Act regime. This is well established and, although there are occasions where departures from neighbourhood plans are warranted, it is part of the planning balance with which local planning authorities and planning inspectors are familiar. We recognise that, where a departure from a neighbourhood plan occurs, it can be frustrating for the community. I understand that, but this is part of the planning system working as it should.
For NSIPs, the primary policy framework remains the national policy statements, which set out the need for such projects and provide guidance for both promoters and decision-makers. As noble Lords know, national policy statements are subject to public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. I am very confident that the Planning Act 2008 already embeds a sufficient number of safeguards to ensure that local views are considered.
Local communities and authorities can participate in the examination process, submit representations as part of this and provide local impact reports. These processes ensure that information about local concerns, including impacts of the proposed NSIP, is available to the examining authority and the Secretary of State. Local impact reports, along with any other matters deemed important and relevant, including neighbourhood plans, must be taken into account by the Secretary of State as part of decision-making.
Where a relevant NPS is in effect, the Secretary of State is legally required to determine applications in accordance with it, unless specific statutory exceptions apply. Introducing an additional requirement, as proposed in this amendment, risks undermining the clear operation of the decision-making obligation on the Secretary of State and could prevent the Government’s objective of building more infrastructure that the country desperately needs.
This amendment also proposes that the Secretary of State be able to make variations to neighbourhood plans. Under the existing process, the Secretary of State does not play any role in approving neighbourhood plans; they are a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of local authorities. This fundamentally underpins local democracy in the planning system. It would therefore not be appropriate to confer powers on the Secretary of State to vary them, as this rightly remains a matter for local communities.
The Government’s position on this matter remains unchanged from Committee. The existing statutory framework already provides the necessary mechanisms to ensure that neighbourhood plans are considered where appropriate. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to this short debate. The effect of Amendment 108 on neighbourhood development plans would be to commence them when this Act is passed. I suspect that means it would be commenced in November. I hope the Minister is saying that the Government intend that these provisions commence alongside the new revision of the National Planning Policy Framework that we normally receive as a Christmas present, just before Christmas. There might only be a matter of weeks between those two dates, so I will not stress about that at this stage.
As far as Amendment 99 is concerned, there is still a role for neighbourhood priority statements, but this is absolutely something we can come back to under the English devolution Bill. When we see what effective neighbourhood governance is, that will include an ability to make these statements in relation to development and planning in the area of a given neighbourhood. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Local plans and planning applications: flooding(1) Local plans prepared by local authorities must apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development, taking into account all sources of flood risk and the current and future impacts of climate change, so as to avoid, where possible, flood risk to people and property.(2) Local authorities must fulfil their obligations under subsection (1) by—(a) applying the sequential test and then, if necessary, the exception test under subsection (7);(b) safeguarding land from development that is required, or likely to be required, for current or future flood management;(c) using opportunities provided by new development and improvements in green and other infrastructure to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding, (making as much use as possible of natural flood management techniques as part of an integrated approach to flood risk management);(d) where climate change is expected to increase flood risk so that some existing development may not be sustainable in the long-term, seeking opportunities to relocate development, including housing, to more sustainable locations.(3) A sequential risk-based approach should also be taken to individual planning applications in areas known to be at risk now or in future from any form of flooding.(4) The sequential test must be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding, except in situations where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that no built development within the site boundary, including access or escape routes, land raising or other potentially vulnerable elements, would be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding from any source, now and in the future (having regard to potential changes in flood risk).(5) Applications for some minor development and changes of use should not be subject to the sequential test, nor the exception test, but should still meet the requirements for site-specific flood risk assessments.(6) Having applied the sequential test, if it is not possible for development to be located in areas with a lower risk of flooding (taking into account wider sustainable development objectives), the exception test may have to be applied.(7) To pass the exception test it should be demonstrated that—(a) the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk, and(b) the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.(8) Where planning applications come forward on sites allocated in the development plan through the sequential test, applicants need not apply the sequential test again, but the exception test may need to be reapplied if relevant aspects of the proposal had not been considered when the test was applied at the plan-making stage, or if more recent information about existing or potential flood risk should be taken into account.(9) When determining any planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere.(10) Development should only be allowed in areas at risk of flooding where, in the light of this assessment (and the sequential and exception tests, as applicable) it can be demonstrated that—(a) within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk, unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location;(b) the development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient such that, in the event of a flood, it could be quickly brought back into use without significant refurbishment;(c) it incorporates sustainable drainage systems, unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate;(d) any residual risk can be safely managed;(e) safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate, as part of an agreed emergency plan.”Member’s explanatory statement
The Sequential and Exception Tests are planning tools that help (a) ensure new development is directed away from areas at the highest risk of flooding and (b) make development that is necessary in areas of flood risk safe throughout its lifetime, without increasing flood risk elsewhere. However, these tests are currently only guidance. A statutory basis would help ensure that Local Planning Authorities place due regard on them when preparing Local Plans and considering individual planning applications.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to Amendments 100 and 101. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for lending her support to Amendment 101.
Amendment 100 sets out a very simple request that the sequential and exception tests be recognised as planning tools that help to
“ensure new development is directed away from areas at the highest risk of flooding and … make development that is necessary in areas of flood risk safe throughout its lifetime, without increasing flood risk elsewhere”.
Currently, however, these tests are only guidance and are not always being carried out. A statutory basis would help to ensure that local planning authorities placed due regard on them when preparing local plans and considering individual planning applications.
In Amendment 100, I ask the Government to provide clearer statutory guidance on how and when to undertake the sequential and exception tests so that they can be applied by developers and local planning authorities more robustly. In particular, proposed new subsection (7) says:
“To pass the exception test it should be demonstrated that … the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk, and … the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall”.
The reason for bringing this back on Report is very genially to prod the Minister a little bit further. We produced a number of bricks and mortar reports through the auspices of Westminster Sustainable Business Forum. The evidence we took in our third report was, very specifically, repeated accounts of developers providing unsatisfactory site-specific flood risk assessments, and sometimes not performing the sequential or exception tests at all. Therefore, I urge the Minister to ensure that the sequential and exception tests be placed on a statutory footing to make sure that they are carried out.
To give an anecdotal example, a planning application in Yatton, north Somerset, was recently refused by North Somerset Council on the basis that it had failed the sequential test. However, the application was later granted on appeal as the planning inspector concluded that the failure of the test was not a strong enough reason for refusing the application, citing local housing need. I argue to the Minister that there is a very clear and pressing need to place the guidance on a statutory footing.
Amendment 101 states specifically that local planning authorities should
“ensure that the maps included in their Strategic Flood Risk Assessments are based on the most up-to-date flood risk assessments provided by the Environment Agency”.
In 2007, when surface water flooding became an issue for the first time, it was generally considered and concluded by Sir Michael Pitt’s review in 2008 that there was insufficient mapping. There have been developments since then. In particular, I applaud the opening of the joint forecasting centre in Exeter—a joint venture, as I understand it, between the Met Office and the Environment Agency—but much more could be done and drilled down to local street level to assess and give a strategic flood risk as to where the flooding is likely to appear.
The Environmental Audit Committee’s report, Flood Resilience in England, of 13 October states in paragraph 14 that the Floods Resilience Taskforce should begin to implement, no later than 2026, a mechanism to provide
“strategic oversight across all sources of flood risk, fluvial, surface water, coastal, and groundwater, and set national priorities for risk management authorities”.
That is even more important now than before.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
I want to say a few words in support of another very sensible flooding-related amendment, Amendment 101 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to which I was pleased to add my name. I find it alarming that we seem currently to have a situation where some local authorities are using out-of-date maps that do not reflect the current risk of flooding. For example, in a recent report on flood resilience, the Environmental Audit Committee found that:
“Surface water flooding … remains … often underestimated in development decisions”,
and recognised that in spite of surface water flooding being the most common source of flooding in England, it remains “poorly quantified” and “inconsistently planned for”.
We have an opportunity in this Bill to try to address this gap by strengthening requirements on local authorities to ensure that flood risk assessment maps are updated as soon as reasonably practical after the publication of updated Environment Agency flood risk assessments. In Committee, the Minister said that keeping flood risk assessments up up-to-date is “already expected practice”, but with so many properties still being built in areas of high flood risk, perhaps the Minister can assure us about what more can and will be done to ensure that local authorities are updating their flood risk assessments more regularly to reflect the current risks.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for yet again raising the flag on flooding—all strength to her— and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for adding her name. These amendments are clearly designed to address the escalating risks of flooding by embedding precise statutory safeguards into local planning.
Amendment 100 would convert the existing sequential test and the exception test from mere guidance into a legal requirement for local plans. The effect would be direct. Local authorities would be obliged to locate development according to robust risk-based criteria. Our colleague in the House of Commons, Gideon Amos MP, talked in Committee there at some length on this issue and highlighted the dangers where planning permission is still granted for homes on functional flood plains and high-risk areas, often with households left uninsured and exposed to the heartbreak and terrible experience that we discussed a great deal in Committee. Amendment 100 would also mandate the incorporation of sustainable drainage systems, SUDS, except where demonstrably unsuitable. A lack of statutory backing for SUDS, as the APPG on flooded communities has made clear, continues to compromise local flood resilience.
Amendment 101 speaks to the need for reliable current evidence in planning and stipulates that strategic flood risk assessments, SFRAs, must be based on the latest available data from the Environment Agency. On these Benches, the one question we have about it is the level of burden and expectation on local authorities, which already have so many burdens and expectations, but the further burden on households and families of flood risks and living in homes that are built on flood plains without due care is obviously so significant that we cannot ignore it. These amendments establish enforceable statutory standards and require some practical action, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 100 and 101, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, are sensible and pragmatic proposals. As the Minister acknowledged in Committee, the risk of flooding is increasing rapidly, and it is happening now. It is therefore entirely right that our planning framework should embed flood risk prevention and resilience more firmly at every stage, from local plans to individual applications, and I hope the Minister will give these amendments serious consideration and can reassure the House that stronger statutory safeguards against flood risk could still be part of this Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 100 proposes placing the sequential and exception tests on a statutory footing. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her amendment. We share the view that these policies play a fundamental role in directing development away from areas at the highest risk of flooding, but it is equally fundamental that we retain our ability to adapt the position in response to emerging evidence and changing circumstances. National planning policy already plays a critical role in the planning system, being a framework which both plan-makers and decision-makers must have regard to. Enshrining these tests in statute would not only unnecessarily duplicate the policy but also make it harder to adapt and refine our approach over time. Our policy and guidance do not stand still. Guidance on the flood risk sequential test was updated only last month, and we have committed to publishing an even clearer set of national decision-making policies for consultation by the end of this year. This will include updated policies on flood risk.
Amendment 101, on strategic flood-risk assessment maps, would require local authorities to base their assessments on the most current data from the Environment Agency. As previously outlined to the House, this is already established practice. The Environment Agency updated the national flood risk assessment in 2024 and the flood map for planning in 2025, based on the latest national flood risk assessment data. For the first time, the flood map displays surface-water risk and information on how climate change may affect future flood risk from rivers and seas.
The new national flood risk assessment also allows for continuous improvement of data quality. The Environment Agency intends to update flood risk data quarterly and coastal erosion data annually, as well as refining its modelling to increase data and mapping coverage from 90% to 100%. The Environment Agency also has a long-term strategic partnership with the Met Office, called the Flood Forecasting Centre, which forecasts all natural forms of flooding, including from rivers, surface water, groundwater and the sea, to support national flood resilience in a changing climate. Local authorities must use the latest available data when preparing their assessments, and the Environment Agency routinely updates its flood-mapping tools.
Nevertheless, I wish to reassure the noble Baroness that these concerns are being listened to. The Government are committed to reviewing whether further changes are needed to better manage flood risk and coastal change through the planning system as part of the forthcoming consultation on wider planning reform later this year. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am most grateful to all those who have spoken, especially the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Grender. I thank my noble friend Lady Scott for her support. I have some reassurance from what the Minister said, but I think she will accept my concern that a sequential test is not carried out in every case. That is why I would prefer a statutory footing, but I heard what she said.
The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, put her finger on it when she said that surface water is the most common source of flooding, yet it is underestimated. There is one question still on the table that I shall keep under review. If there is another water Bill coming down the road, we can return to this to make sure that local authorities have access to the best possible data— I think the Minister in her reply said they do—right down to street level. I welcomed the Flood Forecasting Centre; that has made a huge difference, and I hope that that the quarterly and annual reporting will make a difference. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Earl of Clancarty
“Amendments to the Localism Act 2011: assets of cultural value(1) The Localism Act 2011 is amended as follows.(2) In section 87 (list of assets of community value)—(a) in subsection (1), after “community” insert “and cultural”,(b) in subsection (2), after “community” insert “and cultural”,(c) in subsection (3), after “community” insert “and cultural”,(d) in subsection (5), after “community” insert “and cultural”, and(e) in subsection (6), after “community” insert “and cultural”.(3) After section 88 (land of community value), insert—“88A Land of cultural value(1) For the purposes of this Chapter but subject to regulations under subsection (2), a building or other land in a local authority's area is land of cultural value if in the opinion of the authority the primary use of that building or land—(a) substantially furthers the cultural well-being or cultural interests of a local community or the nation, or(b) provides a necessary venue for the furthering of specialist cultural skills, including (but not limited to) music venues, recording studios, rehearsal spaces, visual artists’ studios and other creative spaces.(2) The appropriate authority may by regulations—(a) provide that a building or other land is not land of cultural value if the building or other land is specified in the regulations or is of a description specified in the regulations;(b) provide that a building or other land in a local authority's area is not land of cultural value if the local authority or some other person specified in the regulations considers that the building or other land is of a description specified in the regulations.(3) A description specified under subsection (2) may be framed by reference to such matters as the appropriate authority considers appropriate.(4) In relation to any land, those matters include (in particular)—(a) the owner of any estate or interest in any of the land or in other land;(b) any occupier of any of the land or of other land;(c) the nature of any estate or interest in any of the land or in other land;(d) any use to which any of the land or other land has been, is being or could be put;(e) statutory provisions, or things done under statutory provisions, that have effect (or do not have effect) in relation to—(i) any of the land or other land, or(ii) any of the matters within paragraphs (a) to (d);(f) any price, or value for any purpose, of any of the land or other land.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the existing assets of community value scheme to also include assets of cultural value.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 102 would add cultural assets to the existing scheme of assets of community value. We addressed that scheme earlier in Amendment 87D from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Freyberg. I am grateful too for the supportive correspondence on this from UK Music and the Music Venue Trust. I declare an interest as an officer for the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Visual Arts and Artists.
I have made a significant change to this amendment since Committee. Instead of running a separate and parallel scheme, as I previously proposed, cultural assets are more simply added to the community asset scheme, so that it becomes a scheme of assets of community and cultural value. This is then a more modest amendment in terms of cost and administration, but would nevertheless still achieve the intended outcome: to help protect the spaces or buildings where our arts take place and which are so important to local people and the locality, as much as to the country as a whole.
These are also spaces which are presently so much under threat for a variety of reasons. Such spaces include grassroots music venues, 125 of which—16% of England’s total—closed in 2023. We are also talking about rehearsal spaces, recording studios suffering under the pressures of energy costs and business rates, theatres, arts centres and visual artists’ studios, which are becoming increasingly unaffordable to artists at the beginning of their careers.
It can be argued, of course, that “community assets” might include cultural assets. But while there is clearly overlap, cultural spaces are not what the community asset scheme was primarily set up for. There is then a strong argument that the addition of cultural assets to the scheme would considerably strengthen the protection of these spaces, if such spaces are in reality considered to be as much part of the local community fabric as community spaces in the narrower sense.
Of course, needs change for both community and cultural spaces. It therefore needs to be borne in mind that the existing community asset scheme is not a forever scheme. A timescale and flexibility is built into it. The importance of the scheme lies in two things: first, the power to local people that the scheme enables and, secondly, the chance to say, “Hold on, we continue to need this space”. It is the chance to protect something that is in danger of being lost without being replaced, and that chance ought to be demonstrably afforded to cultural spaces as much as to a pub or community hall. Also, the specific addition of cultural assets to the scheme would inevitably draw on other parts of the local community, who would otherwise not be engaged with the powers that the scheme enables. That, surely, is what localism is all about.
Many of your Lordships will have heard the Prime Minister talk yesterday on “Private Passions” on Radio 3 about his love of music and support for the arts, although the action required to protect and develop the arts does not yet match the rhetoric we have now been hearing for some while. In some cases—for instance, with the cuts to DCMS funding—we seem to be going in the opposite direction. The creative industries themselves are identified by this Government as a growth area, and growth is what the Bill is all about. What I propose in this amendment is not a silver bullet but another test of the Government’s commitment— specifically here, to the arts at the local level. It would therefore be a significant step in the right direction. I beg to move.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for introducing his Amendment 102 in the way he did. I was pleased that Amendment 87D, which he signed with my noble friend Lady Coffey, was passed earlier, giving further protections to assets of community value. As the noble Earl says, spelling out the cultural value of assets in our communities is important, not just to protect them for the future but to galvanise enthusiasm while they are there in the community at the moment and to encourage people to use them. I very much support everything that he said in his introduction.
I have the other amendments in this group. Amendments 109 and 110 seek to commence provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that were passed but which have not yet been commenced. At this late hour in our deliberations, it may be rather dispiriting to remind your Lordships that often we spend many hours debating things that we put on the statute book to give the Government powers which they do not yet use. These would be very valuable in the context of the Bill that we are debating today.
One of those powers relates to historic environment records. The Bill, as Ministers keep rightly telling us, intends to usher in a faster, more informed process of granting planning permission and other consents, but that aim will be hard to deliver if the Government do not take advantage of some of the things that were put on the statute book in the last Parliament, including Section 230 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. Those provisions set out the requirement on local authorities to provide the historic environment record which underpins a heritage service, including the necessary supplementary regulations by the Secretary of State, so I would welcome an acknowledgement from the Government of the value to what they are trying to achieve in this Bill of supporting the provisions relating to historic environment records found in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. It would be good to hear when they might start to take advantage of those powers.
The other amendment in my name, Amendment 111, is about national listed building consent orders. The resourcing for most local planning authorities is notoriously inadequate; it has been for many years under successive Governments, and that is particularly true when it comes to heritage services. Part of the reason for this is that listed building consent has no equivalent of the permitted development, which sets out clear guidelines and expectations and greatly reduces workloads in the rest of the planning system. Every change, major or minor, to any listed building which affects it positively or negatively requires a full listed building consent application. That contributes to a national workload of up to 30,000 applications every year.
A solution to this was proposed by heritage organisations and adopted in primary legislation under the coalition Government in 2013, building on the Penfold review, which was commissioned by the last Labour Government, through the introduction of national listed building consent orders. Those are designed to grant consent for specific, carefully scoped and conditional categories of routine and low-impact interventions, such as repainting, repointing and draught-proofing, which nobody wants to see languishing in the current and cumbersome processes. The concept has been tested, the idea has cross-party support, and one important potential national consent order has been oven-ready for some time now, having been drafted and consulted on by Historic England and the Minister’s own department. That is the one drawn up by the Canal & River Trust, which manages one of the largest collections of listed buildings in the country, essential to the safe operation of our waterways.
For many years, the Canal & River Trust has worked with Historic England and the Government to work on what could be the first national listed building consent operation. But, rather like a canal boat waiting for the lock-keeper to level the waters, it cannot proceed without some assistance, namely from the Government, to provide time for Parliament to consider it. The only barrier here has been procedure. The current requirement in law for measures such as this to receive affirmative resolution has prevented progress, as securing parliamentary time has proved impossible. My Amendment 111 would replace that affirmative procedure with the negative one, ensuring that there is still parliamentary scrutiny while allowing long-prepared consent orders such as this one to move forward.
It is worth noting that listed building consent orders could technically be signed off by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government under Section 60 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act without any parliamentary oversight. My amendment would therefore provide more, not less, scrutiny while unlocking the practical benefits of the system. That is why many across the heritage sector besides the Canal & River Trust consider this amendment essential, not just to deliver the order that has been waiting in the wings for so long but to enable others in future, reducing burdens on local authorities and ensuring efficient management of our heritage.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister can give clear assurance and a clear date by which we might see that long-prepared consent order from the Canal & River Trust. If she was able to give us assurance that it is going to come before us, I would not need to test the House’s opinion on this and seek to change the law. I will listen carefully to what the Minister says.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to follow two of your Lordships’ House’s leaders in the culture and heritage space and I find myself in a position I am quite often—modestly backing up the excellent work of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has already set out Amendment 102 very clearly. In essence, it fills a gap in terribly important legislation, the Localism Act, in respect of assets of community value. I have gone up and down England and visited many communities where they have saved pubs, they have saved shops, and they have saved places that are terribly important to them, but there is not that explicit recognition of cultural assets, which clearly needs to be there.
Many of the places where this is going to be most important are rural areas, small towns, market towns and coastal towns—places that are really struggling. Those community cultural assets are, as the noble Earl said, of crucial economic value and crucial to quality of life, mental health and the sense of community.
There is a lot of crossover. This is a logical grouping, particularly alongside Amendment 110 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. Often, heritage and cultural assets will be one and the same thing in these kinds of communities—the old theatre, the old cinema and places such as that which will now be used in all kinds of different ways. I want to put on the record a really interesting report from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, published on 25 September this year, on the impacts of changes to local authority funding on small to medium heritage organisations. As I said, heritage and culture very often will be the same place.
I should declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association at this point. Local authorities, still the main providers of heritage services, have seen a 49% cut in central government grants and we are seeing a massive overall cut in the form of closures, reduced opening hours and scaling down of public programmes. This is where the community can step in when all else fails—when the local authority simply no longer has any money, which is increasingly the case. The amendment would allow the community to step in very clearly in that cultural space. I know the hour is late, but if the noble Earl wishes to test the opinion of House, we will certainly be behind him.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches wholeheartedly support Amendment 102 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. It is quite sad, if we reflect, that local government formerly would be in a position to support those assets of community value, including those of cultural value, in the days before, say, 2010. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has reminded us, there were very large cuts in funding for local government, so it is no longer able to be what it used to be.
Local government used to be the governance of a community which enabled and encouraged all aspects of community life, as far as it could, to flourish—economically, socially and in community values. That helped communities to come together and stay together. We would not have some of the problems that are raising their ugly head currently if that had not happened. Therefore, we on these Benches support adding buildings of cultural value in the same section as those of community value.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is always the torch-bearer for heritage, and I am right behind him in what he proposes. As we have said on other occasions, heritage makes us as a nation and as a community. Currently, I am helping to fight a local battle about a 325 year-old monument to a woman that has been disregarded, taken down and stored in a highways depot—I might speak to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, about it. It is important to me, and it matters to that community because it stands for their heritage and history. These things are very important and we support all of them.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, again, we appear to have quite a lot of consensus across the House on these issues of culture and heritage. There is a theme running through these proposals: how our planning system recognises and safeguards that which makes our places special and gives them their identity—our cultural life, our heritage and our historic environment. These are not peripheral concerns; they are central to the quality and distinctiveness of the communities we build.
On Amendment 102 from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, we understand and share the impulse to protect cultural venues and creative spaces, which so often lie at the heart of local cultural economies. These places are cherished by local people, local families and local businesses. Can the Minister advise whether the Government have considered reviewing the existing scheme under the Localism Act to examine how cultural uses can be better supported within it?
The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, on the commencement of heritage provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and on the role of historic environment records, are sensible and timely. The heritage clauses of the Act were hard won, and it is only right that they should now be brought into effect without delay. Will the Minister assure the House that this will be the case?
We also agree that there must be proper parliamentary scrutiny of listed building consent orders. We again support the view that existing legislation should be progressed, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.
Our planning system must enable growth, investment and the delivery of infrastructure, but it must also safeguard that which makes places worth living in.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am not going to mention any international superstar bands this evening for fear of getting myself into any more hot water with the Guardian. However, though it is probably a bit late at night to score political points, I gently remind the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that her party was in government after 2010 when those funding cuts were made. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, of the same issue. Our Government are committed—
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I remind the Minister of the state that her party left the economy in.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
Does my noble friend recollect that we left an economy growing by 2%; they crashed it with their ludicrous austerity drive in 2010?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It was the austerity programme that kicked the stuffing out of local government’s ability to support the cultural life of our country. I was there, so I remember that happening.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
I thank the Minister for that actually very interesting reply. I would be very grateful if she could write to me about the scheme she mentioned. I re-emphasise that this is about community assets; it is not about cultural assets as such. The whole intention of my amendment was to put them on an equal footing.
I thank everyone who participated in the debate, and for the support for my amendment. I also support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, which seem eminently sensible.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her support, too. I say to her that I do not consider my amendment to be a substitute for the proper funding of our local authorities; I think of them as occupying two completely different parts of the brain, if you like. It is important to re-fund our local authorities, and I hope that this Government will do that in earnest, including funding our regional arts. Our local authorities are our most important funder of the arts in this country, but their funding has been diminished hugely—and not just in recent times.
The hour is late, so I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Banner
“Principle of proportionality in planning(1) The principle of proportionality in planning shall apply to—(a) applications for any permission, consent, or other approval within the scope of the Planning Acts, including the supporting evidence base,(b) environmental impact assessment and habitats assessment,(c) the exercise of any functions within the scope of the Planning Acts, including but not limited to procedural and substantive decision-making (by local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State), and the preparation and provision of consultation responses (by statutory and non-statutory consultees), and(d) the determination by the Courts of claims for judicial and statutory review.(2) Applications for any permission, consent or other approval within the scope of the Planning Acts, and appeals against the refusal or non-determination of such applications, must be determined in accordance with the principle of proportionality in planning.(3) So far as it is possible to do so, the Planning Acts and any secondary legislation enacted pursuant to them must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the principle of proportionality in planning.(4) The principle of proportionality in planning means that the nature and extent of information and evidence required to inform the determination of any permission, consent, or other approval within the scope of the Planning Acts shall be proportionate to the issues requiring determination, having regard to decisions already made (whether in the plan-making or development control context) and the extent to which those issues will or can be made subject to future regulation (whether by way of planning conditions and obligations, or other regulation whether or not pursuant to the Planning Acts).(5) The Secretary of State may publish guidance on how the principle of proportionality in planning is to be applied.(6) The principle of proportionality in planning must not be interpreted as affecting existing requirements for local planning authorities to justify the refusal or withholding of planning permission.(7) In this section the term “Planning Acts” includes—(a) all primary legislation relating to planning prevailing at the time of the relevant application, decision or exercise of functions; and(b) any secondary legislation relating to planning, environmental impact assessment or habitats assessment.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a principle of proportionality in planning to give decision-makers, applicants, consultees and the Courts confidence that less can be more, so as to facilitate more focused decision-making and more effective public participation.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 103 concerns the principle of proportionality in planning. It was debated last week, and I have considered carefully the Minister’s comments. Notwithstanding those, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Banner
“Relationship between overlapping permissionsAfter section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning permission for development already carried out), insert—“73AA Relationship between overlapping permissions(1) Where there is more than one planning permission which relates to some or all of the same land, the lawfulness of both past and future development carried out pursuant to one of those planning permissions shall be unaffected by the carrying out of development pursuant to another of those planning permissions, except to the extent expressly stated in any of those permissions or in any obligation under section 106 of this Act (planning obligations) related to any of those permissions.(2) Subsection (1) applies only where one of the relevant planning permissions was granted after the day on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 is passed.(3) In this section “planning permission” means—(a) a planning permission under Part 3 of this Act, and(b) a planning permission granted by article 3 (permitted development) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/596).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment addresses the potentially deleterious implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Hillside Parks case.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, as I said in Committee, there is a compelling and universally acknowledged need for a legislative solution to address the difficulties that large, multi-phase development projects face in the light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Hillside Parks case. This is a technical issue of such fundamental importance that—dare I say it?—it should not be being debated at this time of the evening. The Supreme Court held in Hillside that where there were one or more overlapping permissions relating to the same site, the implementation of the later permission could jeopardise the ability to rely on the earlier permission, even when the later permission was designed and granted on the basis that it would operate in conjunction with the earlier permission. I make no criticism of the Supreme Court’s analysis of the existing legal position, but it is a deeply unsatisfactory position that is recognised as such by everybody in the development sector.
Large multi-stage developments almost always evolve during their build-out, which typically takes several years and sometimes decades. For example, in a large urban regeneration scheme the site-wide permission might envisage offices coming forward on one of the later phases, only for there to be no demand for new offices by the time we get to that phase because of a change in working patterns due, say, to Covid. Reapplying for planning permission for the whole development is impractical for a variety of reasons, such as the need to re-appraise the whole scheme—even the bits that are already built and the bits that are not proposed to be changed—new ecological surveys, new environmental assessment, reassessment of Section 106 contributions, et cetera. This is all incredibly cumbersome and can take years.
It has therefore long been industry practice for developers in this situation to make a localised application, typically called a standalone or drop-in planning permission, seeking the local planning authority’s consent to change one aspect of development—for example, in the illustration that I gave, swapping out the offices for a hotel. The hotel would then come forward under the drop-in permission and the rest of the development would continue to be built out under the original site-wide permission.
The effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment is to introduce very considerable risk and uncertainty in such circumstances because it can mean that implementing the drop-in on the focused area where it is intended to take effect can invalidate the site-wide permission, even though the drop-in has been granted on the basis that it would operate as an amendment to the original scheme. As I explained in Committee, this issue affects huge numbers of developments across the country. While there are sometimes workarounds, they are incomplete, risky, costly, time-consuming and cumbersome.
I know from what was said in Committee and from discussions that the Government accept the principle of a legislative solution to Hillside. It is a no-brainer. They have indicated that officials have expressed some concern with the wording of my original Amendment 105, although they have not articulated what that concern is. This is despite the amendment being drafted largely by Catherine Howard, a partner at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer who is now the Chancellor’s planning adviser. As a result, I tabled a new amendment, Amendment 113, which seeks to confer an enabling power on the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to deal with this issue. The regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure to avoid any concerns about lack of parliamentary scrutiny over the final form of words. It would enshrine the principle, which everybody accepts, and leave the wording to be worked out later with parliamentary scrutiny. What is not to like about that? The two have been packaged together, so one vote will resolve the two.
There has been ongoing engagement with the Minister and her colleagues on this issue, but the Government’s stance has been to say that they will work towards a future legislative solution and in the meantime bring into effect Section 73B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 under the last Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. That is simply not good enough. Addressing Hillside is the single most pressing unresolved issue that the development sector would like to see resolved by this Bill. Speaking as somebody who works day to day in the planning and development sector, this is the amendment everybody is watching. There are people here in this Chamber tonight watching, and people watching online. This is the one that matters.
Section 73B is no panacea; it is far from that. It would allow only quite limited amendments to planning permissions. Its scope is narrow, and it would assist in no more than a third of cases currently affected by Hillside. More is needed. In saying that it will be looked at in a future legislative solution—whenever that would be—beyond Section 73B, the Government clearly accept that further legislation beyond Section 73B is required; otherwise, they would stop at that. No, we are told that it will be looked at in the future—but just not now. An enabling provision would allow for the detailed drafting to be worked up. Therefore, any concerns about the drafting of Amendment 105 do not affect the principle of these amendments.
This is the second piece of planning legislation since the Supreme Court’s judgment in 2022. There was LURA in 2023, and my noble friend Lord Lansley, whose name is also on this amendment, sought to persuade the House on that occasion that a fuller amendment to deal with Hillside should be brought forward. The industry expects Parliament to step up on this second time of asking and not kick the can down the road again. The industry also expects proper consideration of this amendment. It is a late hour, and about 15% of the House is here right now. I respectfully invite the Minister to provide an assurance that we can bring this back at Third Reading as an alternative to a Division at this late hour, when many people who have a legitimate interest in this matter are not able to be here. Mañana is not an option: we need to do much better than that. Unless I have the assurance that I request, I am inclined to test the opinion of the House, despite this late hour.
I beg to move.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly on this, because the Hillside case arose in Merioneth in 1967, where I happened to be the parliamentary candidate in the 1970 election. I remember the considerable controversy there was about the application for 400 houses to be built in the vicinity of Aberdyfi, a scheme that was totally out of proportion to the nature of the community and the village there. It is not surprising that the thing did not go ahead, and it should not have gone ahead.
I assume that what the noble Lord who moved this amendment is seeking is clarity for the sake of the development industry for the future, not any revisiting of the Hillside case itself. In fact, what happened there was that some 41 houses were built, but the rest of the 400 houses were not pursued. The 41 houses that were built were built to planning specifications different to those that had been in the original case. In other words, there were all sorts of complications arising in the Hillside case.
There is also the fact that the Welsh Senedd has powers over planning and has its own rules in the 2015 legislation that it brought through, which brings another dimension in. Therefore, all I seek tonight is to know that, in moving this amendment, the intention is not to be revisiting the Aberdyfi case, which would cause an outrage, but rather to get clarity in the light of the court case, which, of course, I perfectly well understand.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, in the early 1970s when I was a very young barrister practising from chambers in Chester, I had the good fortune to do a lot of planning cases around north Wales and Cheshire. I have not done anything like the number of planning cases done by the very distinguished noble Lord, Lord Banner, but I remember them well and I would have been with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, personally, in being totally opposed to the Hillside development. However, these amendments are not about the Hillside development; they are about a legal principle that emerged in connection with the Hillside development.
In his speech in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, enjoyed a moment of self-sacrifice characteristic of his profession and mine when he revealed that, if these amendments were passed, they would actually remove a very large amount of work from him. He is very distinguished, but he is not the only planning Silk in the country by any means, and he told your Lordships that, between 2022 and 2025, he had written between 200 and 300 opinions on this principle. Many barristers do not write such a number of opinions in the whole of their careers on a whole range of subjects. So it illustrates, because there are many other planning Silks, that this has become an enormously difficult and challenging issue. The noble Lord gave the example of what could have been extremely disruptive to the Liverpool Waters development, which is where the new Everton football stadium is.
I must say that I am very surprised that the Government have not come forward at this stage with an amendment of their own to deal with this situation, because if they do not deal with this now, then they are looking a gift horse in the mouth in the form of, particularly, the second of these amendments, which was drafted to meet whatever objections there were—not very well explained—in relation to Amendment 105.
Hillside has to be dealt with as soon as possible because it is reducing the pace of growth, it is resulting in fewer homes, it is reducing urban quality and it is diminishing neighbourhoods. To refuse to accept these amendments or give an undertaking before the end of Report to produce their own amendment to deal with this issue seems to me to fly in the face of government policy for growth, and I do not begin to understand why. For reasons that were given just now by the noble Lord, using other and existing legislation just will not do the trick.
The Government having accepted the principle of a legislative solution to Hillside, and having been given one that is an improvement even upon Amendment 105, the original version, that the noble Lord said was drafted by the Chancellor’s own planning adviser, it seems to me that this is a total no-brainer. We should not have to vote on this. We should not be here at 11 o’clock discussing this; it should be resolved, and it could be resolved with the assent of the whole House.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I have signed my noble friend’s Amendments 105 and 113, and he very kindly referred to the previous debates, before he joined your Lordships’ House, on the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill when we looked at the issue and the consequences of Hillside and did so, I think, on the basis of amendments that I tabled at that time. The Government responded to my amendments then by bringing forward their own amendment, which is now Section 73B—Section 73 was inserted by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004—as inserted by Section 110 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which is about material variations in planning permission.
My original amendment that I tabled—back in 2022, I think—tried to resolve Hillside and say, effectively, that subsequent applications for planning permission would not invalidate an existing planning permission, even though they related to the same area of land, so long as the subsequent planning permission, if permitted, would not make the original permission physically incapable. This is done by reference to what is known as the Pilkington judgment.
My noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook may well recall these debates, and the advice that she received was to try to tackle what I would describe as the least of the problems emerging from Hillside, which is that you arrive at a position where you have got an existing planning permission for a site of the kind my noble friend was describing and you want to vary it but not in a way which is significantly different from the existing permission. That is what Section 73B in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act says: the local planning authority can do this so long as it is not significantly different.
As it happens, that has not been brought into force. On the basis of the helpful discussions I have had with the Minister, it is my expectation that the Government will bring Section 73B into force. If I am incorrect in that, I am sure the Minister would tell me, but I am hoping I am not incorrect about that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said, Amendment 105 sets out to deal with all the problems that emerged and, if I may say so, it is ambitious; I have signed it and agree with it, but it is ambitious. It is ambitious to be able to say that, if a local planning authority accepts this new permission in relation to the same area of land as an existing permission, subject to Section 106 obligations et cetera, that is all well and good; they can make that decision, and it does not invalidate the existing permission. If there are difficulties with the wording of Amendment 105, Amendment 113 is a basis for the Government to make further regulations to deal with any of the remaining issues that might emerge from it.
I have to say it is ambitious because it goes beyond Pilkington. Technically, there is an issue, in my view, about a new permission which would make the existing permission no longer physically able to be implemented. However, Amendment 105 seems to me none the less to be right, and we should proceed with it because it deals with a later problem than the Hillside judgment, which is about whether existing planning permissions are severable in relation to a new application for planning permission.
Amendment 105 would put beyond doubt that planning permissions would be severable for this purpose, because the existing planning permission would not be invalidated by the new planning permission, which, clearly, even if it made the original one physically impossible, would do so in relation only to part of the existing permission.
When I first discussed this with Ministers some weeks back, I was told, “It’s not so urgent because they are many workarounds”. I am afraid that the workarounds are deeply costly and difficult. They are such things as breaking down a master plan into a whole series of phases, each phase having to secure planning permission in its own right, without any certainty as to later planning permissions. One needs a master plan with outline planning permission that gives one assurance and certainty about the nature of the overall development. Even if one has to make what are, in effect, material changes to that, at least one has the existing permission. My noble friend’s Amendment 105 would enable developers under those circumstances to have that degree of assurance about the sustainability of the planning permission that they have received, so I strongly support it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will respond to this interesting amendment by saying that there are some technical issues that the Government need to reflect upon, and that there will be a future vehicle. I just ask her to be sympathetic to having a look at this, perhaps between now and Third Reading. I do not think there is any doubt that the Hillside judgment will inevitably have an impact on the objectives of the Bill, which, despite the many amendments we have been debating, is about planning and infrastructure and getting the process through much more quickly than we have in the past.
Clearly, there has been a lot of discussion about a second planning Bill, and no doubt the Hillside judgment could be dealt with in it. I would have thought that, if the Government could deal with it now and in the next few weeks, and between Report and Third Reading, it would benefit the ultimate objectives of what we are seeking to do here.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I have now sat through four discussions about the Hillside judgment. I am not sure that I am any the wiser for having done so, except to acknowledge that there is an issue of significant proportions, that it needs to be resolved and that those who have put forward solutions, who know the planning law considerably better than I do, suggest that it needs to be resolved.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, talked about a master plan for a big site—I thought that everybody did master plans for big sites, but maybe not—and that that would be part of a solution to this discussion. My plea to the Minister is that we have a final resolution for the Hillside issue, so that those of us who have sat through it four times already do not have to sit through it again.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Hear, hear to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I had a lot to say but I do not think I need to say it. My noble friends Lord Banner and Lord Lansley, and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Hunt, have said everything that can be said about this.
The amendments just seek to restore clarity and flexibility, ensuring that large schemes are not paralysed by legal technicalities. They would allow practical adjustments to be made, while fully preserving the principle of proper planning control. Surely that is what we want to deliver. We are not wedded to a precise drafting at this time—the Government are free to bring forward their own version—but I urge the Minister to please get on with it.
Without a clear mechanism to adapt site-wide permissions, investment is stalling and will continue to stall, projects will be abandoned, as they are being abandoned now, and the planning system itself will be discredited by outcomes that make very little sense on the ground. Down on the ground is where they are building houses—there will be fewer houses built, and more houses are needed. We need to get on with it. I urge the Government to commit to a good solution in this Bill and not to push it down the road.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I hesitate to step into this very knotty lawyer’s wrangle, but it is necessary to do so because our common aim across the House is to sort out Hillside. We all know why we need to do that. As the noble Lord, Lord Banner, said, it is symbolic of all the issues that we are trying to get out of the way so that we can get on with the development that this country needs.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for tabling Amendment 105—a repeat of his amendment from Committee that seeks to overturn the Hillside judgment—and for his new Amendment 113, which responds to some very constructive discussions we have had since Committee.
As I said in Committee, we recognise that the Hillside judgment, which confirmed long-established planning case law, has caused real issues with the development industry. In particular, it has cast doubt on the informal practice of using “drop in” permissions to deal with change to large-scale developments that could build out over quite long periods—10 to 20 years.
We have listened carefully to views across the House on this matter, and I appreciate the thoughts of all noble Lords who have spoken in this useful debate. One seasoned planning law commentator—I do not think it was the noble Lord, Lord Banner, or the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—called Hillside a “gnarly issue”, and it has attracted a lot of legal attention. It is very important that we tread carefully but also that we move as quickly as we can on this.
Therefore, in response to the concerns, the Government propose a two-step approach to dealing with Hillside. First, we will implement the provisions from the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act for a new, more comprehensive route to vary planning permissions—Section 73B. In practice, we want this new route to replace Section 73 as the key means for varying permissions, given that Section 73 has its own limitations, which case law has also highlighted. The use of Section 73B will provide an alternative mechanism to drop-in permissions for many large-scale developments—although we recognise not all.
Secondly, we will explore with the sector the merits of putting drop-in permissions on a statutory footing to provide a further alternative. This approach will enable provision to be made to make lawful the continued carrying out of development under the original permission for the large development, addressing the Hillside issue. It will also enable some of the other legal issues with drop-in permissions to be resolved.
In implementing Section 73B and exploring a statutory role for drop-in permissions to deal with change to large-scale developments, I emphasise that we do not want these routes to be used to water down important public benefits from large-scale development, such as the level of affordable housing agreed at the time of the original planning permission. They are about dealing with legitimate variations in a pragmatic way in response to changing circumstances over time.
Amendment 113 seeks to provide an enabling power to address Hillside through affirmative secondary legislation. I recognise that this provision is intended to enable the Government to have continued discussions with the sector and then work up a feasible legislative solution through the regulations. As with all enabling powers, the key issue is whether the provisions are broad enough to deal with the issues likely to emerge from these discussions, as hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
Based on the current drafting, this enabling power would not do that. For instance, there have been calls to deal with Hillside in relation to NSIP projects. That would require a wider scope, so we cannot accept the amendment without significant modifications. That is why we think it is best to explore putting drop-in permissions on a statutory footing first and then drawing up the legislation. This will give Parliament time to scrutinise.
To conclude, I hope that the approach I have set out addresses many of the concerns expressed in this debate. I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, in response to the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Carlile, I will start by clarifying that this is not about the facts of Hillside. That case is dead; fought and lost. This is about the principle.
I am pleased to hear the Minister reiterate the point that it is the common aim of the Government and those of us on this side of the House to resolve Hillside. However, in light of that common aim, I find it baffling that the Government do not take what, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile indicated, is on the silver tray: the enabling power to deal with this.
Dealing with the two-step approach, Section 73B is extremely limited. It is not going to resolve anything like the lion’s share of cases that have Hillside issues. In relation to the suggestion that future statutory provision may be brought forward to deal with Hillside, well, by which Bill? There are all sorts of briefings and counter-rumours and rumours about the planning Act. One even suggested that I was going to write it. If I were, Hillside would be in it, but I have not been commissioned to write it. Clearly, in the absence of any certainty on the timescale, once again we are kicking the can down the road. The kinds of detailed legal points, such as whether NSIPs should apply, are precisely the kind of things that could be resolved between now and Third Reading. The Prime Minister said that the Government’s aim was to back the builders and not the blockers. I would like to see which Members of this House back the builders and which back the blockers, so I would like to test the opinion of this House.
Lord Lansley
“Chief planner(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.(2) After section 1, insert—“1A Local planning authorities: chief planner(1) Each local planning authority must appoint an officer, to be known as chief planner, for the purposes of their functions as a local planning authority.(2) Two or more local planning authorities may, if they consider that the same person can efficiently discharge, for both or all of the planning authorities, the functions of chief planner, concur in the same appointment of a person as chief planner for both or all of these authorities. (3) A local planning authority may not appoint a person as chief planner unless satisfied that the person has appropriate qualifications and experience for the role.”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for local planning authorities to appoint a Chief Planner, who could be appointed jointly by one or more authorities, to secure that decisions, including those delegated to officers, are made with professional leadership.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 106 relates to the role of the chief planner. Noble Lords may recall the debate in Committee when we looked at whether there should be a chief planner, statutorily appointed to local planning authorities. The structure of the amendment is that every
“local planning authority must appoint an officer”
as a chief planner, and that:
“Two or more local planning authorities”
can choose to appoint the same person as the chief planner, so it is not necessarily one chief planner per local authority. The only requirement in the legislation would be that it be a person who
“has appropriate qualifications and experience for the role”.
We are not specifying any qualifications for this purpose, given that we know from experience that there can be chief planners who derive their qualifications from work on economic development and planning experience over a number of years.
The reason why we keep bringing this back is that we are committed, I think on all sides of the House, to trying to enhance the planning profession. The Government said in their manifesto that they wanted to recruit an additional 300 planners; we want to go further. The resources for planning have been deficient and, in due course, we need them to be increased. But in addition to resources for planning, we want to ensure that the planning activity itself, and the importance of planning, is thoroughly supported by the statutory role of the chief planner.
Noble Lords will recall that this has been made especially important by the Government’s publication of a plan for a national scheme of delegation. Their own document—I think this was back in July—said that decisions about the allocation of decisions to planning officers or to the planning committee should be made by the chief planner, with a capital C and capital P, together with the chair of the planning committee. The Government effectively said that there will be a chief planner in every local planning authority for this purpose. That makes a great deal of sense because these decisions mean that the chief planner, together with the chair of the planning committee, needs to understand planning law and practice, and the interpretation of the guidance. This will be further reinforced by the publication of national development management policies.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to those of the noble Lords, Lord Lansley, Lord Shipley and Lord Banner, in support of Amendment 106, which would require local planning authorities to appoint one qualified and experienced person as chief planner. This would recognise the status of the officer responsible for planning matters in each local authority, as promoted by the Royal Town Planning Institute. In Committee, I noted the importance of according proper authority and recognition to the individual at the head of this vital part of the planning system. After many years of cuts in the resources for planning and a general tendency to blame planners for the inevitably slow planning processes that have resulted, there is now a renewed recognition of the value of planning and therefore of those responsible for it.
In Scotland, legislation accords a statutory status to the Chief Planning Officer, with guidance from the Scottish Government on the duties, responsibilities, qualifications, skills and experience required. I spoke last week to the chief planner for Glasgow City Council, who noted the importance of having one fully qualified person holding the position of chief planner, not least in enabling everyone to identify who is the key person responsible for planning matters. This is a devolved matter for the Welsh Government; I spoke to an experienced planner in Wales last week and heard of the keenness in Wales for a similar measure to that addressed by this amendment.
Raising the significance of the individual with overarching responsibility for planning, regulation and policy within local planning authorities becomes all the more important now that the Bill accords greater delegation of planning decisions to officers, as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I was encouraged by the Minister, who responded in Committee by expressing a willingness to reflect on the issue and consider it further. I hope she now feels able to accept this amendment, cost-free for the Government, which would represent an important public recognition of the significance of planning once again. I am delighted to support the amendment.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Best, I hope the Minister will be in a frame of mind to accept the amendment that I too have signed. The case has been very amply made by the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Best, and I will seek to be brief as I possibly can. I believe that the Government will not deliver the objectives of the Bill unless they raise the status of planning within local authorities, and I believe it should be a statutory requirement, as it has been in Scotland since April 2024, for there to be chief planning officers in each local planning authority reporting directly to chief executives.
The reasons have been clearly stated both now and in Committee: good decision-making in planning requires well-qualified and professional planning officers at a very senior level who can integrate development management and development planning.
As we have heard, given that more decisions are going to be delegated to officers, the public interest, I think, requires that the quality of decision-making be sound and must generate great confidence within the general public. I think that this amendment would actually deliver that objective. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said a moment ago, a chief planning officer would be an authoritative source of advice. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, has just said, there is a new recognition of the value of planning in local government, which will deliver this Bill—it can deliver this Bill—but only if the status of planning has been enhanced. The key way to do it is to have a statutory chief planning officer in each local planning authority.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I support this very sensible amendment. We need to ensure that every local authority has the support of a professional, well-qualified head of planning—a chief planner. If we are going to have sensible planning, we need this. I recall a comment earlier—but I do not remember who said it—about the hydra of planning; it becomes more and more complex, and this Bill, frankly, is not helping particularly. Having a qualified head of planning, a chief planner, is critical if we are going to maintain and develop planning, as other noble Lords have said. I do not think I need to say any more—I am just puzzled why the Government are not accepting this.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 106, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks—as we have heard—to make it a statutory requirement for local planning authorities, either separately or jointly, to appoint a suitably qualified chief planning officer. I have also discussed this issue further with the noble Lord, and while I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, and I agree it is important for planners to be represented in the leadership of local authorities, I do not consider it to be a matter which we should legislate for at this time.
There are currently more than 300 local planning authorities in England, which vary considerably in the scale and scope of their planning functions. We think it is important for local authorities to be able to determine how best to organise their planning functions, and in practice the role of a chief planner or equivalent already exists. The role of a chief planner is very different within a large unitary authority, such as Cornwall —a county authority which focuses principally on mineral and waste planning matters—and a small district authority.
However, as I said in Committee, I will keep this issue under review as we progress with further reforms to the planning system, and it is something I can discuss with local authorities. With this reassurance, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister, not least for her time in discussing these matters. I do not think we have moved forward, but we continue to be in a position where she has very kindly offered to continue to reflect on this and, indeed, to consult. Maybe, the route forward is for there to be, if not formal, certainly some informal discussion with local authorities about this.
It seems to me—it is getting to be a bit of a theme of mine this evening—that as we enter into the planning reforms, and indeed the local government reorganisation, it will change the nature of the responsibilities of local planning authorities. Increasingly, given the position where the planning function occupies a leading role in relation to a range of issues, including infrastructure strategies and economic development activities, it would continue to be a desirable step forward for there to be, as part of the suite of chief officers of any local planning authority, a planner at the heart of their functions.
That said, if the Minister is willing to continue to reflect, and we have the standby option that we can revisit this in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill—it seems to me that we can, because it will be within the scope of the reorganisation of local government to think about who the statutory officers of those authorities should be—I will take the opportunity this evening, it being a late hour, not to press this at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 106.
Lord Addington
“Preservation of playing fields and pitches(1) A local planning authority must, when exercising any of its functions, ensure the preservation of playing fields and playing pitches.(2) The duty in subsection (1) may, when granting permission for development, be met through the imposition of conditions or requirements relating to—(a) the protection of playing fields or playing pitches affected by the development, or(b) the provision of alternative, additional or expanded playing fields or playing pitches.(3) For the purposes of this section, “playing field” and “playing pitch” have the same definitions as in Schedule 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/2184).”
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I discussed this at the beginning of the day and ruminated long on what the Minister said. I am afraid it does not meet my objections. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House on my amendment.
“Parliamentary procedure for listed building consent orders(1) In section 93 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (regulations and orders), in subsection (5), after “section” insert “26C,”.(2) In Schedule 17 to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (heritage planning regulation), in paragraph 18, omit sub-paragraph (3).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for national Listed Building Consent Orders made under Section 26C of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her written response to my amendment. In it, she pointed out that Parliament had decided to use the affirmative procedure in the scrutiny of national listed building consent orders. I hope that she will accept that, in the grey area in which we find ourselves while these are not yet being used and parliamentary time has not been given to bring them forward, the Secretary of State can, without any parliamentary scrutiny, approve these consent orders under Section 60 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. Therefore, the argument she makes is that we find ourselves in a worse position.
If it were not such a late hour, and if I did not know the opinion of the House, I would seek to test it—I think I know what the answer would be if I were to put it to a vote. I will not move the amendment, but I hope that, as she has on two areas of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, the Minister will encourage colleagues to proceed with some speed here. This is a measure that I genuinely believe aligns with the aims of the Bill to help slash bureaucracy, speed up planning decisions and protect our heritage at the same time. With that, I will not move Amendment 111.