Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
Our world-leading universities and the research that they do are crucial to economic growth. On average, every £1 of public research and development investment generates £8 in economic benefits for the UK over the longer term. That is why this Government are investing £86 billion over the spending review period—the largest ever investment in R&D made by any Government—to support our best and brightest researchers, boost jobs and growth, and back the long-term success of the UK.
Ian Sollom
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. The UK’s universities do indeed produce world-class research, but I would suggest that we are still missing too many opportunities in commercialisation. The Government’s proof of concept fund is really quite inadequate—from the figures, it is 30 times oversubscribed—and equity and intellectual property arrangements are laborious and deter both investors and entrepreneurs. Will the Secretary of State commit to expanding that proof of concept funding and reforming those barriers that hold back university spin-outs?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we do not lack in great ideas or great start-ups in this country. We need to support them better to scale up, and that is what the Government are doing across a range of sectors. The hon. Gentleman can look at the actions we are taking on UK pension schemes, to get them to invest more in UK companies, and in the Treasury and across the board. I am sure there is more we can do, but it is absolutely at the top of our agenda.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Business and Trade Committee recently visited the remarkable new Cavendish laboratory in Cambridge, and the key issue that came up was the balance between research funding going to post-doctorates and to PhD students. It is a complicated, niche issue, but would the Minister arrange for me, UK Research and Innovation and the appropriate people to meet, to try to resolve this long-running issue?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely will arrange for my hon. Friend to meet the relevant Minister and UKRI to make sure we get this right, because we have to do more to back our world-leading researchers and then turn that research into innovation and future growth. That is the first part of the journey, and we want to—and will—get it right.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)
According to independent analysis, more than 89% of UK premises can access a gigabit-capable connection. We have recently reconfirmed our commitment to achieving nationwide gigabit coverage and expect 99% of premises to have access to a gigabit-capable connection by 2032. In the period up to 31 March 2025, more than 1.2 million premises in hard-to-reach communities across the UK have been upgraded to gigabit-capable broadband through Government-funded programmes.
Mr Mohindra
I thank the Minister for that answer, but it was the Conservative Government who brought forward Project Gigabit in order to ensure that everyone had access to a decent level of internet access, and some of my constituents continue to write to me saying that they do not have access in their areas. The Minister referred to 2032, but I think the previous commitment was for 2030; can he confirm what the target date is, whether for 99% or higher?
Ian Murray
The date is 2032: the Government are committed to ensuring 99% gigabit coverage by 2032. We have just rolled out 30 new Project Gigabit contracts across England, connecting 850,000 homes. The Government are fully committed to delivering this, and 2032 is the target.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
My constituents regularly tell me how frustrating it is to try to take work video-calls from home: they get the circle of doom. I know they are not exaggerating, because it happens to me too, especially when my kids are at home. Can the Minister update my constituents and me on Project Gigabit’s progress and plans for better broadband in rural areas?
Ian Murray
We all fear that circle of doom when we are on the internet, whether we are watching videos or doing anything else. Indeed, that is why the Government are committed to ensuring that everyone has that connectivity by 2032. Project Gigabit has just signed 30 new contracts for the hardest-to-reach rural areas, to ensure that everyone is able to enjoy gigabit connectivity across the country, and the reliability and robustness of the system are key parts of that.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Increased gigabit coverage means more people accessing essential services online and an increasing need for cyber-security measures and a strong, open UK market for cloud services. Following recent outages, what assessment has the Minister made of the risk to Government digital services due to their refusal to diversify supply away from US big tech and instead support UK small and medium-sized enterprises?
Ian Murray
This Government are fully committed to digitising the whole of Government, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman should share in that particular project. Project Gigabit, of course, is about getting citizens connected right across the country. We are fully committed to meeting the 99% target by 2032, but it is not just about broadband connectivity. It is also about mobile network coverage, and we are committed to making sure that that happens as well. The resilience of the system, including Government systems, is a key part of that project.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)
This Government believe that all communities must have the reliable mobile coverage that they need, whether it is for staying in touch with loved ones or for accessing healthcare online. We continue to work closely with the mobile network operators to remove barriers and support investment, and that will ensure that people benefit from high-quality, resilient mobile connectivity right across the United Kingdom.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, but villages in my constituency—less than 50 miles from where we all are now—such as Cuddington and Bryants Bottom still have zero mobile coverage. I have raised this issue with the Minister’s predecessor and all the networks. When are we going to get to a point where warm words about rural connectivity turn into actual rural connectivity?
Ian Murray
The shared rural network has already delivered for 95% of the UK’s land mass a year early, and we are fully committed to making sure that 4G is available to all our populations. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me, I would be very happy to meet him about the specific notspots in his constituency.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
In Suffolk Coastal, about three quarters of households have indoor service for voice calls, compared with the national average of over 90%. Across Woodbridge, Bawdsey and the peninsula, so many households rely on network coverage, but they have zero service. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this important issue, which affects not just my constituency but rural constituencies as a whole?
Ian Murray
Many Members raise with me the particular issue of notspots in their constituencies, as well as where connectivity is not as good as we would like it to be. I would be very happy to offer a meeting to my hon. Friend.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
This Government are committed to keeping people safe online. For the first time, platforms now have a legal duty to ensure that they are protecting users from illegal content and, in particular, safeguarding children from harmful content, but we have gone further still. Within weeks this team have made self-harm and cyber-flashing, and now strangulation, extreme violence and pornography, priority offences. We will go further still by backing Ofcom to make sure that enforcement is robust too.
Bob Blackman
I thank the Minister for his answer, but the reality is that chatbots are prompting young people to commit suicide and to self-harm. What action can the Minister take to make sure that these chatbots are taken down and do not give this sort of advice?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for raising these cases, which are very much in our minds. Each one is a deep tragedy. We have looked very carefully at this issue. Some chatbots, including live search and user-to-user engagement, are in scope of the Online Safety Act 2023, and we want to ensure that enforcement against them, where relevant, is robust. The Secretary of State has commissioned work to make sure that, if there are any gaps in the legislation, they will be looked at fully and robust action will be taken too.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The Minister says that the Government are looking deeply into this issue, but as part of my Committee’s inquiry into misinformation and algorithms, we heard conflicting evidence from Ministers and Ofcom as to whether generative artificial intelligence is covered by the Online Safety Act. The Government have refused to implement our call for legislation to bring generative AI under the same categorisation as other high-risk services. Under what circumstances is chatbot advice covered by the Online Safety Act, and will there be enforcement?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank my hon. Friend, both for the point she makes and for her ongoing insight and expertise on these questions. Let me be very clear about the current scope: chatbots that involve live search and user-to-user engagement are in scope of the Online Safety Act, as I mentioned. We are continuing to review its scope, and the Secretary of State has commissioned work. We will report its findings to the House.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I would like to join hon. Members in really pushing on questions about AI chatbots. Their human-like, assertive nature is filling a gap and many people, including children, are entrusting chatbots with medical opinions, legal advice and emotional support, with fatal consequences and without clear accountability. I know that this has been touched on, but it is really important. Ofcom explicitly includes only user to user or search, so one to one, which is actually where there are some of the most acute harms, is not covered. Will the Minister commit to working with Ofcom on classification, so we can ensure the responsible use of this technology and protect children from the unregulated harms of the growing dependence on chatbots?
Kanishka Narayan
Let me be very clear: of course we will. We have already both engaged with Ofcom and commissioned further work on this question, and we will report on that at the earliest opportunity.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
The UK life sciences sector is one of our greatest national assets in not only saving lives, but driving jobs, growth and innovation. The sector has been projected to grow by £41 billion across the UK by 2030, employing an extra 100,000 people. Our life sciences sector plan will help us seize this potential and secure our ambition to be Europe’s leading life sciences economy by 2030 and the third most important globally by 2035.
Dame Nia Griffith
In Llanelli, we are eagerly watching the Swansea Bay city deal-funded Pentre Awel complex nearing completion, where it is planned that life sciences will be a central focus in partnership with universities such as Cardiff, Swansea and Trinity Saint David. What assurances can the Secretary of State give me that life sciences will be a top investment priority for this Government and help us to create the good, high-quality jobs that we want in the area?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend has my absolute assurance that backing our brilliant life sciences sector, universities and companies is a top priority for this Government. Alongside our support for the Swansea Bay city deal, which, as she says, includes life sciences and wellbeing, we have a £520 million life sciences innovative manufacturing fund, which is currently open for bids across all four nations. I know that she will be championing her brilliant businesses for part of that support.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The patent box and full capital expensing are Conservative policies introduced to back the life sciences sector, and they are absolutely vital to the country’s future long-term prosperity. Will the Secretary of State commit to protecting these policies at the Budget from a Chancellor desperate to fix the public finances with short-term cuts and fixes?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely support all measures that back innovation, and despite what the hon. Gentleman says, I know that the Chancellor wants to do that too. It is the innovators, entrepreneurs and businesses that create jobs and growth in this country, and we are determined to do even more, particularly in these crucial sectors for the future.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s new strategy on replacing animals in science, which was published yesterday. Will the Secretary of State commit to enshrining the targets in the strategy in law, so that industry, campaigners and the wider public have the certainty they need that this Government will move as fast as possible to end unnecessary animal testing?
Liz Kendall
I am very proud of the fact that we have published the strategy, delivering on one of our crucial manifesto commitments. My hon. Friend can rest assured that patience is not one of my greatest virtues, and I want to see it implemented and delivered as quickly as possible.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on life sciences, so I know only too well that the industry, which has hitherto been a jewel in our crown, has been struggling to justify further such investment in our economy. Could I press the Secretary of State further on her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), and ask her to reassure the House that she has put in a specific, ambitious and vigorous proposal to the Treasury in advance of the Budget to recognise that the life sciences industry is taking more risks than other kinds of investors?
Liz Kendall
Patience may not be my middle name, but I consider that—hopefully—specific, ambitious and vigorous are part of my character. There is no route to future growth in this country without science and technology, particularly with life sciences at the core, and I and the Minister for Science in the other place, Lord Vallance, are straining every sinew. There are challenges in our life sciences sector, but we are determined to back those world-leading companies, for British patients and for the British economy.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
Let me assure the hon. Member that we are taking tough action against drug dealing, both offline and online. There is now a strong new duty under the Online Safety Act to prevent illegal activity, including drug dealing. Ofcom has a duty to enforce that. We will continue to make sure it has the full backing to do so.
Wera Hobhouse
Drug dealing is absolutely rampant on social media. The Minister might be aware of the campaign I lead, together with the University of Bath, against spice-spiked vapes in school and the terrible harm they are causing. We are increasingly frustrated that Ofcom does not use its power under the Online Safety Act to hold social media companies to account. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the problem with Ofcom, so that it ensures that young people in particular are kept safe online?
Kanishka Narayan
The hon. Member’s campaign has been noticed and I would be very happy to meet her to discuss how we can work together to ensure that enforcement is robust on this question.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Sadly, the glamorisation on TV of drug taking is not a new phenomenon, but I particularly worry about the nature of the internet and social media, and about the short clips that people watch in which the true consequences of drug taking and drug culture are not really shown properly. What can the Minister do to use the internet and social media for good, and show young people in my constituency the dangers of drug taking and drug culture?
Kanishka Narayan
My hon. Friend is a master of short clips in the Chamber, so I will take both his skill and his sincerity on this question to heart and work with him to ensure we robustly enforce the duties already placed on Ofcom under the Online Safety Act.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
A British technological revolution is going to ensure that working people see good jobs and local prosperity wherever they live and wherever they call home, right across the country. A record £86 billion in research and development investment will spread that opportunity to every region, from Birmingham to Belfast. With UKRI’s £500 million local innovation partnerships fund, we will ensure that local leaders turn ideas into the industries of the future.
Maya Ellis
The £54 million UKRI global talent fund, which was designed to attract and retain international research talent, has excluded all northern universities from its funding. UKRI waived eligibility criteria to ensure that the devolved nations received some of the funding. Meanwhile, Lancaster University, a huge driver in the economic growth of Lancashire and the north-west which reached the highest eligibility criteria, received none. Will the Minister commit to the Northern Powerhouse Partnership’s recommendation for greater transparency in the data and methodology used in UKRI assessments, and for an institution’s size and its role within a region’s economy to be taken into account when making future decisions on UKRI funding?
Kanishka Narayan
Let me assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to ensuring that every region benefits from the UK’s world-leading research base. That is exactly why we are backing Lancaster University with £4.9 million for its cyber-focus project to ensure that the region’s cyber-sector grows. With my hon. Friend’s expertise in digital innovation and her strong advocacy for the north-west, we will continue to ensure that R&D funding for the north-west is on the up.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Minister will know that Harper Adams University is a world-leading research institution. He will also be aware of the university’s agritech research centre. May I invite him, on behalf of the vice-chancellor, to visit the university to look at the excellent work on robotics, AI and sustainable farming, in particular eco-farming and increasing productivity in a way that is sustainable?
Kanishka Narayan
That is a very easy yes, combining my interest in agriculture and technology. I will take the right hon. Member up on his offer.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
The Government are determined to seize the opportunities that new technology brings, but to do that we must protect our children online and protect our critical national infrastructure from technological threats, too. That is why, today, we are tabling an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, so that we can crack down on the use of AI to depict child abuse, and why we are introducing our new cyber-security and resilience Bill to modernise the law and keep vital services safe.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
On 20 October, a phone mast serving thousands of people in Hebden Bridge and Mytholmroyd was removed without warning, cutting O2, Vodafone and Three coverage. Residents were told that they would be disconnected until April. It was only through the intervention of Baroness Lloyd and I that a temporary fix was found—after three weeks. Given the essential role of mobile services in our communities, this removal impacted businesses, GPs, safeguarding and many more areas. Our mobile phones have become a utility and they are regulated—
Liz Kendall
Mobile services are essential to communities, and it is not good enough that the mast in my hon. Friend’s constituency was decommissioned without warning. Prompt action by my Department ensured that services were restored by 7 November, and Virgin Media O2 and VodafoneThree have assured us that customers will be compensated. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to champion his constituents’ needs.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
It is very tempting to ask the Secretary of State whether she is on Team Wes or Team Keir, but from the sounds of it today, she is on Team 4% Kendall. I will ask instead about one of the Prime Minister’s most cynical bloopers: mandatory digital ID. The Prime Minister says that mandatory digital ID will curb illegal migration. By how much will it do so by the end of this Parliament?
Liz Kendall
I am proudly on Team UK, as are the other Members on the Government Benches. That is why we are focused on creating jobs and growth in every part of the country, backing Britain’s best researchers and innovators, and modernising our public services using the power of tech, AI and digital ID. These are the British public’s priorities; it is a pity that Opposition Members are not focused on them.
Julia Lopez
Team UK, not Team Keir—I understand. The whole mandatory ID scheme hangs on the promise to curb illegal migration, but the Secretary of State can provide no numbers on that—not a percentage or even a range. Labour has already made employing Brits harder and more expensive, and now people will not be able to get a job if they resist a mandatory digital identity that will not stop the boats. Did the Prime Minister take this project away from the Secretary of State because he has no faith in her, or because she cannot bear to repeat his guff?
Liz Kendall
Digital ID will modernise the state and public services to better meet people’s needs, fit services around them and help to tackle illegal immigration, which is what the British public want and need to see. It is right that the Cabinet Office and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister are leading this vital cross-Government programme. When it is implemented and when services are fitted around people—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady is chuntering from a sedentary position, Mr Speaker, but it is precisely in order to modernise the state that we are doing this. Unless she is focused on the future, the hon. Lady’s party will remain stuck in the past.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Liz Kendall
I am happy to look into what my hon. Friend says in more detail. He knows that our post-16 education and skills White Paper sets out our vision and plan for universities, including record investment from my Department into research and development, and protecting the strategic priorities grant for science, technology, engineering and maths subjects. There is more that we can do, and I am happy to discuss it with him further.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)
The hon. Lady raises an important question about digital inclusion, which is right at the heart of the Government’s strategy. We just heard from the Opposition that they are against digital ID and digitalising this country—[Interruption.] I knew my answer would be popular, Mr Speaker. I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady to talk about that specific project in her constituency.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
Ian Murray
The ICO is operationally independent of Government and is accountable to this Parliament. The Information Commissioner can appear in front of Select Committees to discuss the ICO’s performance, and I would encourage my hon. Friend’s Select Committee to pursue that.
Mr Speaker
I welcome to the Gallery the Canadian Speaker and the Ministers who are with him today.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I, too, welcome the Canadian Speaker. I also welcome Mervyn Kersh to the Gallery today. He is a member of our greatest generation and a D-day veteran who entered Bergen-Belsen days after it was liberated. Mervyn is 100 years old. I am lucky to have met him twice, and I know that it took him many, many years before he felt that he could even begin to tell his story. We thank him for his service and the story he has told us in respect of it.
As we mark Armistice Day, we give our eternal thanks to Mervyn and all those who served, and we remember the extraordinary sacrifice of ordinary people who fought to defend our freedom. The House will also want to join me in remembering Holocaust survivor Manfred Goldberg. He showed the most extraordinary courage to share his testimony, and in his memory we must ensure that “never again” means never again.
I welcome the news that SSE has announced that it will spend £33 billion on clean energy projects in this country. That is a major vote of confidence in the UK economy, and it is happening because of our decision to embrace the opportunities of clean power. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Lincoln Jopp
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about remembrance. I particularly remember being in west Africa in 1997, where I somehow managed to survive a bloody and violent attempted coup—if the Prime Minister wants any ideas on how to do that, he only has to ask. [Laughter.] Prime Minister’s questions last week was an absolute bin fire. If the Prime Minister is indeed intent on promoting the United Kingdom on the world stage, please can he promise the House that he will never ever be away on a Wednesday again?
The Prime Minister
It is always great to hear from Kwasi Kwarteng’s successor in his constituency. I am very proud to represent our country on the world stage, as I did last week at COP and before that in NATO. It is because of the reputation we have rebuilt over the last 16 months that other countries now want to do trade deals with us and place their orders with us.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I know how committed my hon. Friend is to righting historic wrongs for our mining communities, and I assure her that I am too. She will know that we have already transferred £1.5 billion that was wrongly kept from over 100,000 former mineworkers. Ministers have met the BCSSS trustees on several occasions, and the industry Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald)—is meeting them later today. I will make sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) is updated in relation to that.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I associate my party with the Prime Minister’s comments about Remembrance Week and about Manfred Goldberg and Mervyn Kersh, who is in the Gallery today.
This morning on the BBC, the Health Secretary said that there is a “toxic culture” in Downing Street that needs to change. He is right, isn’t he?
The Prime Minister
My focus each and every day is on rebuilding and renewing our country. Let me be absolutely clear: any attack on any member of my Cabinet is completely unacceptable. In relation to the Health Secretary, he promised before the election that in the first year of a Labour Government we would deliver 2 million extra appointments. We did not deliver 2 million or 3 million or 4 million. We delivered 5 million extra appointments. Today the Health Secretary is in Manchester, where he is announcing that because of the action he has taken to abolish NHS England, he is putting more people on the frontline. He is doing a great job, as is the whole of my Cabinet.
Mrs Badenoch
What we heard the Health Secretary say this morning was that he wants to cut waiting lists, but we all know that there is only one waiting list he really wants to cut.
The Prime Minister is not going to do anything about the toxic culture, but this is his responsibility. Just last night, his allies accused not just the Health Secretary but the Home Secretary and even the Energy Secretary of launching leadership bids. These attacks came from No. 10—nowhere else: his toxic No. 10. The person responsible for the culture in No. 10 is his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney. Does the Prime Minister have full confidence in him?
The Prime Minister
Morgan McSweeney, my team and I are absolutely focused on delivering for the country. Let me be clear: of course I have never authorised attacks on Cabinet members. I appointed them to their posts because they are the best people to carry out their jobs.
The right hon. Lady asks about waiting lists—waiting lists are down under this Government. The number of GPs is up, and because we have scrapped NHS England we are investing on the frontline. That is what the Health Secretary is doing today: getting on with his job, and he is doing a very good job too.
Mrs Badenoch
I did not hear the Prime Minister give his full confidence in Morgan McSweeney. He says that these attacks are not authorised. The truth is that that means he has lost control of No. 10, because that is where they are coming from. But the real scandal is that, two weeks from a Budget, the Government have descended into civil war. Instead of fixing the mess they have made of the economy, they are all—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, they are all chuntering. These are the “feral MPs” that No.10 has been talking about. Those are not my words; they are No. 10’s words—his words.
Unbelievably, the Prime Minister’s advisers have been reduced to briefing that MPs cannot get rid of him—I am not making this up—because it would destabilise international markets. Why does the Prime Minister think that there would be a market meltdown if the Health Secretary took over?
The Prime Minister
This is a united team and we are delivering together. Look at what we are delivering: the fastest growth in the G7; five interest rate cuts; trade deals with the EU, the US and India—all of which the Conservatives opposed. We have delivered. I can update the House—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. If people want to audition for a pantomime, I suggest they go to the Old Vic.
The Prime Minister
I can update the House. The Bank of England has upgraded growth today. We have secured £230 billion of private investment. Just this morning—I thought the right hon. Lady might welcome this—SSE has announced £33 billion of investment in clean power. That is what this team are delivering for the country: fixing the mess that the Conservatives left.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is talking about growth and investment. While he desperately tries to cling on to his own job, perhaps he understands what it is like for all those people out there losing their jobs. How can he talk about growth? Yesterday, we learned that unemployment has risen to the same rate as it was in lockdown—180,000 jobs lost. Why does the Prime Minister think that unemployment has risen every single month since Labour took office?
The Prime Minister
Let me give the House the details: 329,000 more people are in work since the start of this year. Of course I accept that we need to do more in relation to unemployment. That is why we are transforming jobcentres, which the Conservatives opposed. That is why we are working with 60 major businesses to tackle ill health in the workplace and have invested £3.8 billion in tailored back-to-work support, which the Conservatives opposed. I also remind the Leader of the Opposition that average unemployment in the 14 years of her Government was 5.4%—higher than the rate today.
Mrs Badenoch
We left employment higher than it was after the last Labour Government. Let me tell the Prime Minister what is causing the increase in unemployment: his disastrous Budget last year. To be clear for all those Labour MPs shaking their heads, it is last year’s tax rises that have killed jobs, and that is what is going to trigger this year’s tax rises. This is the tax doom loop. There is only one way out of it, and that is to cut spending. Why is the Prime Minister instead offering welfare giveaways to save his own skin?
The Prime Minister
I will tell the Leader of the Opposition why we increased national insurance: it was because of the mess the Conservatives left the country in. The NHS was on its knees; now we have 5 million extra appointments, waiting lists are down and there are 2,500 more GPs as a result of our decisions. It is nearly the one-year anniversary, but on national insurance she still has not told us whether she agrees and admits that we should do it. If her position is that we should not, how would she find the money that we raised in the Budget? She has had a whole year to think about that question. Perhaps now she can give us an answer.
Mrs Badenoch
I would not have made the stupid mistake in the first place of putting up the jobs tax and killing jobs. Since Labour came in, it has been disaster after disaster. The Deputy Prime Minister—the new Deputy Prime Minister—is clueless about how many illegal migrant sex offenders he has let loose; the Culture Secretary is breaking the rules to give her donor a top job; taxes are set to rise even further; unemployment is at levels not seen since lockdown; and in the middle of it is a weak Prime Minister at war with his own Cabinet. It is not just him; it is all of them. There is no replacement; it is all of them. Two weeks before the Budget, is it not the case that this Prime Minister has lost control of his Government, lost the confidence of his party and lost the trust of the British people?
The Prime Minister
The stupid mistakes were made over 14 long years. The Conservatives broke the economy and now they think they can lecture us. Now they have this unserious idea that they can find £47 billion of cuts without saying where they will come from. No wonder that is called flimsy. Meanwhile, we are rebuilding the country: wages up, investment up, mortgages down. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Philp, you are meant to be a senior person on the Front Bench. You are meant to set an example—it is certainly a bad one today.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My sympathy is with the people of Kent whose lives are being disrupted by the staggering incompetence of Reform. Kent county council was supposed to be the blueprint for what Reform would deliver across the country. Now we can see what that means: cutting local services, raising council tax and failing to protect the public. That is all Reform has to offer: grievance, division and total incompetence.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I associate myself with the earlier remarks of the Prime Minister and say what a great honour it was to join the royal family at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday to pay our respects to all those heroes who gave their lives for our country? We must never forget the sacrifice they made for our freedoms.
A great British institution is under attack from a foreign Government. President Trump is trying to destroy our BBC, not because he cares about the truth but because he wants to get away with his lies. Trump has undermined press freedom in America. Now he is trying to do the same here, disgracefully egged on by the leader of Reform. Will the Prime Minister tell President Trump to drop his demand for a $1 billion settlement from the BBC? Will he guarantee that President Trump will not get a single penny from British licence fee payers?
The Prime Minister
Let me be clear: I believe in a strong and independent BBC. Some would rather the BBC did not exist—some of them are sitting on the Reform Bench—but I am not one of them. In an age of disinformation, the argument for an impartial British news service is stronger than ever. When mistakes are made, the BBC needs to get its house in order. It must uphold the highest standards, be accountable and correct errors quickly, but I will always stand up for a strong, independent BBC.
Ed Davey
The Prime Minister is right to say that the BBC’s independence and impartiality are absolutely crucial. That is why we must stop President Trump undermining them, but he is not the only one; the last Government spent years undermining the BBC’s independence and impartiality. They put two Conservative cronies on the BBC Board. One has had to resign. The other is still there, but he has been repeatedly accused of interfering in editorial decisions and staff appointments. Robbie Gibb should have no role in appointing the next director general. Given that the royal charter gives the Government the power to remove him, will the Prime Minister sack him now?
The Prime Minister
I certainly agree with the comment that the last Government undermined the work of the BBC—they undermined pretty well everything they did in 14 years. I am not going to go into the individual runnings of the BBC. I am a strong supporter of the BBC in the terms I have already set out.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
November marks the first ever Care Leavers Month, and this is a time to recognise that every child deserves support to achieve their potential. Through our landmark Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are requiring every local authority to help care leavers find secure accommodation. It saddens me that the Opposition parties voted against it. The comments about children in care being “evil” are utterly appalling, and now that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has heard them, I am sure that he will want to condemn them right now.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
The Prime Minister—[Interruption.] No, I have only got 30 seconds. The Prime Minister has stated very clearly that he wants to close the migrant hotels by the end of this Parliament. Reform-led West Northamptonshire Council—a brilliantly led council—will be issuing foreclosure notices on three migrant hotels within the next few days, in response to grave public concern about the safety of women and girls on the streets of West Northamptonshire. Would the Prime Minister approve of us speeding up the closure of the migrant hotels?
The Prime Minister
We will grip the mess we inherited and close every hotel. At their peak, under the previous Government, there were 400 hotels; now there are only 200 remaining. The hon. Gentleman says that he does not have time to condemn the comment that children in care are “evil”. He has also not had the time, it appears, to condemn the racist comments of his own MP—utterly spineless.
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I was very proud to attend COP last week, and the UK is leading on tackling climate change, delivering energy security, getting bills down and generating hundreds of jobs across the country. We are investing over £250 million to put rooftop solar on schools, hospitals and military sites across the country, and that will deliver £400 million of savings to renew our public services.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I absolutely recognise the need to address the imbalance between electricity and gas prices. We are exploring options to create a fairer system, and I am happy for Ministers to keep the hon. Member updated on what we are looking at. It is thanks to those levies and Labour’s expansion of the warm homes discount that 6 million families will be getting £150 off their energy bills this winter. I know that he will welcome the £33 billion in investment from SSE, helping to connect clean energy to areas across Scotland where it is most needed.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am appalled that we inherited such a situation where tooth decay is the most common reason that children between five and nine are admitted to hospital—in every children’s hospital on the Conservatives’ watch. I was very shocked when I first heard that, at Alder Hey hospital up in the north-west. More children between the ages of five and nine are being admitted to have their teeth taken out because they are rotting than for any other operation. That was the Conservatives’ record, and they should just be ashamed of it. That is why I am determined to rebuild NHS dentistry. I can confirm that discussions are under way with the sector, including the British Dental Association, on fundamental reform of the dental contract to get my hon. Friend’s constituents the care that they need and deserve.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising this very serious issue, which has been raised by others across these Benches on previous occasions. It is simply not right that customers and staff have been so badly let down. The Care Minister has convened representatives from across the industry to resolve the situation as quickly as possible. I want to reassure the hon. Member that we are working speedily to consider how to strengthen regulation of these pharmacies, and I will update the House as soon as I can.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that £100 million has now been passed to Hospice UK, so places like Garden House in his constituency can create the best environment to deliver care. That is backed by a £26 million investment for children and young people’s hospices. We are also investing over £3 million in researching palliative and end-of-life care through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. We are working on further proposals to improve the access, quality and sustainability of care, and I will ensure that Ministers keep him updated.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The Supreme Court ruling must be implemented in full and at all levels—the hon. Lady is absolutely right about that. I will ensure that the particular examples she has raised are looked into and that she gets a proper reply on them.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
That is a very appealing invitation just at the moment. I am proud to be putting power and resources directly back in the hands of local people in communities like Rhyl. That £20 million can be used for the issues that matter most to them, including revitalising their high street—a cause that I know is crucial to many residents, including my hon. Friend’s constituents. That is just one of 14 communities across Wales benefiting from the Pride in Place funding. This is the renewal that people get with a Labour Government here working with a Labour Government in Cardiff.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Prime Minister
Our starting point is that we must always ensure that every mother is heard and understood, and gets the quality of care that is needed. The independent national maternity investigation and local health needs assessment are due to report in spring of next year, as the hon. Gentleman says. It is right that the recommendations of both are closely considered in any decision for Cheltenham. I will ensure that he is kept updated as that rolls out.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend knows, my No. 1 priority is growth, so I am very glad to see his upper lip—he is obviously championing that himself. I send my best wishes to everyone growing a moustache this Movember. It is right to highlight that men are hit harder by a range of conditions, including cancer, cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. That is why our men’s health strategy will set out actions to improve the health of all men in England.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
The Prime Minister
Any attack is to be condemned. It is absolutely right, and we are determined to ensure, that there is a criminal justice response in relation to attacks, however they are carried out and whoever they are carried out by. But reintroducing the death penalty is not the answer to this. It did not work when it was in place. It led to the death of people who, it turned out, were in fact innocent. What we must do, as we are doing, is improve the criminal justice response in this country.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
One of the greatest honours in this role is meeting and thanking our armed forces for their service, which we have been able to do during the course of this weekend and week. Our ambition is to bring the armed forces covenant fully into law in the next armed forces Bill, and we will do so. We are also renewing the contract with those who served through our veterans strategy, including Homes for Heroes, and a new network of support centres connecting charities and services with veterans. Labour patriots stand with all those who serve and have served our country.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
On that point, with the upcoming vote on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, nine of the most respected and experienced generals of a generation have publicly attacked the Government’s approach on lawfare against our armed forces, which they have said will erode trust in the justice system, and is a threat to national security. As a veteran who served in Northern Ireland during the troubles, I ask this: does the Prime Minister think they are all wrong, and when will he start standing up for our veterans?
The Prime Minister
I begin by thanking the hon. Gentleman for his service to our country. When former service chiefs raise an issue, we will of course engage with them—of course I respect their service and their views, and will do so. We are having to get rid of unlawful legislation, and we are putting in place a system with clear rights and protections for veterans. We will continue to try to get that balance right.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Four years ago I introduced a private Member’s Bill to ban the sale of wet wipes with plastic in them. The previous Government dragged their feet, but these wet wipes cause fatbergs in our sewers, put millions of pounds on our water bills for all our constituents and pollute rivers and seas. This Government promised to bring in the ban, and they are doing so now. Will the Prime Minister join me in celebrating a Labour promise delivered, and share the message that we should always bin wet wipes and other wipes, not flush them?
The Prime Minister
I commend my hon. Friend who has been a long-standing campaigner on this important issue. The public are right to be furious about how the last Government allowed sewage to pour into our lakes, rivers and seas. Alongside tough new powers to combat pollution, this ban will put an end to plastic wet wipes that litter our beaches, clog up our sewers and harm wildlife.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Lloyds bank has more than 31,000 customers in my constituency, yet many of them, particularly the elderly and the vulnerable, are struggling to get out their own cash. That is because Lloyds has closed its branches in Brecon, Presteigne, Ystradgynlais, and before the end of this month in Pontardawe, despite making billions in profits and paying its CEO £5 million. Will the Prime Minister write to Lloyds bank and ask it to keep that last branch in Pontardawe open?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that, and I will look at the particular example he has raised. As he will know, we are rolling out hubs. Some of those are already in place and there are more to come, and I will happily update him on where they are likely to be.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
Following the work of the eating disorders all-party group, I was horrified to hear that 19-year-old Lilly Cliff, who suffers from anorexia, has been placed on an end-of-life care pathway, after Rotherham, Doncaster and South Humber NHS foundation trust obtained a Court of Protection ruling to withdraw her treatment. The decision directly contradicts guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the statement from the Minister for Care in September that eating disorders are not a terminal illness. Will the Prime Minister urgently review that case to ensure that Lilly and her family receive the support they need, and that Lilly is given every possible chance to recover and live, and remind all integrated care boards, the NHS and hospitals, that suffering from an eating disorder is not a terminal illness?
The Prime Minister
My thoughts are with Lilly and her family. The details that my hon. Friend raises are deeply concerning. I know that he has raised this with Health Ministers and I will ensure that he gets a swift response. He is a powerful advocate for change, and I share his determination that everyone with an eating disorder gets the care and support that they need.
Independent Football Regulator
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her involvement in the appointments process for the chair of the Independent Football Regulator.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
In 2021, the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, set up the fan-led review of football, and selected Dame Tracey Crouch to chair it. This led to a clear recommendation for an independent football regulator, which was strongly endorsed by Members from all sides of the House. The previous Government promised that they would deliver this regulator, but they did not, leaving fans in the lurch as a result. This Government made it a priority and passed that legislation within our first year, because we are fully committed to protecting football clubs across the country.
To make that a reality, the Minister for Sport confirmed David Kogan as the chair of the Independent Football Regulator on 6 October. David Kogan was the exceptional candidate, warmly endorsed across the world of football and by the cross-party Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport.
As the House will be aware, the Commissioner for Public Appointments conducted an investigation into the appointment itself, which was released last week. I am pleased that the report does not question the suitability of Mr Kogan as chair of the IFR. The report also makes it clear that I did not personally know about the donations to my leadership campaign at the time that I selected him as the preferred candidate. It also recognises that, as soon as I became aware of the donations, I chose to declare them and chose to recuse myself from the remainder of the process.
However, as I have made clear, I acknowledge the findings of the report. The Commissioner was clear that the breach around donations to my campaign was unknowing, but I recognise that the highest standards were not met. As the Secretary of State for the Department that ran this appointment, I take full responsibility for that, and it is for that reason that I wrote to the Prime Minister and apologised for the error. I will, of course, ensure that lessons are learned from this process with my Department.
Our focus now is to make sure that no fan ever has to go through what my constituents and I lived through in Wigan. Implementing this regime to help protect clubs in financial peril, and putting the interests of fans up and down the country first, is a priority for this Government and, led by David Kogan, the Independent Football Regulator will get on with the job.
We are here today to debate process, but this is also about real-world impact. Fans up and down the country need us to get on with delivering on our promise and making a difference. This is for Derby County and Scunthorpe United, for Morecambe and Sheffield Wednesday, for Wigan, Reading, Macclesfield Town and Bury. We are putting fans back at the heart of the game, where they belong.
Mr French
Last Thursday, the Commissioner for Public Appointments published his report into the appointment of the chair of the Independent Football Regulator. That report found that the Secretary of State breached the governance code for public appointments, updated by her Government, not once or twice, but three times. The Secretary of State has claimed that she did not know about Mr Kogan’s donations, but the commissioner’s report clearly shows that she was briefed twice by her Department regarding this conflict before she decided to appoint him to a role that must be independent. The report also makes it clear that Mr Kogan was not shortlisted by the previous Government and that it was this Government who put him in the running.
Not until the Secretary of State had already recommended Mr Kogan’s appointment—and the night before his appearance before the Select Committee on 7 May—did she conveniently consider checking whether she had also taken thousands of pounds off him. I find that highly unlikely, and the commissioner makes it clear that the Secretary of State was in a position readily to ascertain the details of donations made by Mr Kogan before she made her choice, but that she failed to do so. It was after the political fallout and six days later that she finally recused herself from the end of the process. To show how brazen this crony appointment was, her Department confirmed it while the independent investigation was still taking place—really shameful stuff. This was not a fair and open recruitment process. The report confirms that Mr Kogan was her preferred candidate, subject to No. 10 giving the green light, and that Department for Culture, Media and Sport officials were asked to make the necessary arrangements for an appointment without competition.
The Prime Minister’s fingerprints are also clear from the commissioner’s report. We understand that Mr Kogan donated to the Prime Minister’s constituency Labour party as well as to his leadership campaign. I almost feel sorry for the Secretary of State; she has apologised to the Prime Minister for three breaches of the rules for choosing his candidate. How is it proper for the Prime Minister personally to have given the green light to a donor? Surely, if the Secretary of State was meant to have been recused for the 2020 donation of Mr Kogan, that must apply to the Prime Minister too—or does the Prime Minister believe that the offside rule does not apply to him?
Who is to blame for this sorry mess? How much did Mr Kogan give to the Prime Minister, and did he declare it? Does the Secretary of State agree that Mr Kogan’s deeply flawed appointment must be rescinded, given the risks to football? Finally, will she stick by her words and say that rule breakers cannot be rule makers?
Lisa Nandy
I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions in turn. First, this process was subject to a thorough investigation by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments, and when he questions the findings of that report, he should reflect on whether that is the proper role of this House. The report was absolutely crystal clear on that point. It was also clear—in contrast to what the hon. Gentleman just asserted—that I personally fell short of what was expected on one occasion. There were two other technical breaches from the Department, but as the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, I take full responsibility.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the Prime Minister. As he will know, if he has read the report, I personally took the decision to ask Mr Kogan to put that information in front of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee at his hearing to ensure that it had full information as soon as I had it, within hours of finding out about the donation. Mr Kogan was open and transparent about the fact that he had donated to both my campaign and the Prime Minister’s campaign, but I am the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport; my Department ran this process, and it is for me to take full responsibility for it.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asserts that Mr Kogan was not part of the process. I find that astonishing, and I presume that at some point he will come back to correct the record. When he speaks to his colleagues, he will know that one of them—the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench—oversaw the process before the general election, at a time when they were proudly extolling the virtues of having a football regulator and governance Act, which they later opposed.
The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) will know that Mr Kogan was approached for this job under the last Conservative Government and put on the list, which I inherited from the last Government. I want to be crystal clear on this point. Mr Kogan was not added to the list after the general election; he was on the list from the last Conservative Government.
The hon. Gentleman talks about cronies. [Interruption.] The Opposition can chunter all they like, but the hon. Gentleman is talking about a man who has extensive media experience and represented the Premier League, the English Football League, the National Football League and others throughout his long and distinguished career. He was put on the list by the last Government in the full knowledge that he was a Labour donor. If he is such a crony and unfit to hold this sort of office, why on earth did the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), appoint him to the board of Channel 4? It just does not stack up. Mr Kogan was so good that the last Government approached him themselves.
Finally, I am happy to answer extensive questions about this issue. That is why I have chosen to come to the House and answer these questions, despite the fact that the Minister for Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), made the final decision. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup is a Charlton Athletic fan, and I am a bit surprised that, given its experience of bad owners, he is setting himself and his party against football fans in his constituency and the length and breadth of the country by trying to attack a man whose credentials are unquestionable.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
May I say to my right hon. Friend that in the terrible time that Sheffield Wednesday fans have been through in the last few months, not one of them has ever asked me what is happening with this report and review? They say to me, “How quickly can we get a regulator in place who will deal with owners like Chansiri who are ruining our club?” Does the Secretary of State agree that in the appointment of David Kogan, we have someone who is knowledgeable, tough, determined and independent of bad football owners and who will act on behalf of football fans? Is not the fundamental difference here between those of us on the Government Benches who support independent regulation, and those on the Opposition Benches who have given up on it and will simply kowtow to bad owners of football clubs?
Lisa Nandy
As always, my hon. Friend has taken this debate back to focusing on the people who matter most: the fans. They have been through hell over recent years as the last Government committed to act, then dragged their feet, and then refused to fulfil that promise to those fans. It was shameful to see Conservative Members go through the Lobby to vote against their own Bill, but I put on record my thanks to Dame Tracey Crouch for all the work she did and continues to do to uphold that promise. I also sincerely thank my hon. Friend; he and I have had numerous conversations over the course of the saga that has developed at Sheffield Wednesday, and I know how active he has been. That is the approach that this Government will always take. We will not stand by and let football fans pay the price when bad owners take over their clubs; we are putting those fans back at the heart of the game, where they belong.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The Lib Dems have welcomed the introduction of the new Independent Football Regulator. Our football clubs are huge, historic institutions that unite generations, bring local economies to life and inspire millions, both at home and abroad. As such, the Secretary of State carries a significant responsibility to earn the confidence of our world-leading football clubs and guide them through the introduction of these vital regulatory reforms.
The news that the Secretary of State broke the governance code by failing to declare in a timely manner donations received from the newly appointed head of the regulator, David Kogan, has undermined trust at a crucial moment. This regulator is about securing the future of our national game, ensuring that clubs remain sustainable, rooted in their communities and capable of thriving for generations to come. She cannot shy away from the potential conflict of interest involved in the breaches of the code that have emerged in recent days. This oversight requires genuine accountability from the Government in order to restore confidence in the new regulator. Will the Secretary of State therefore commit to order an independent investigation into the appointment of David Kogan and, if necessary, rerun the selection process for the IFR chair?
Lisa Nandy
All the way through this process, I have complied fully with the independent commissioner, because I believe that that is important. That stands in contrast to the last Government, multiple members of which broke not just the public appointments code but the ministerial code. The Conservatives still have a member of their Front-Bench team who broke the ministerial code—she now sits on their Front Bench as the shadow Foreign Secretary. Unlike them, we comply with these processes and accept the consequences. However, there has been an independent investigation—it has been going on for six months. I do not know how the hon. Lady has missed it; that is what we are discussing today.
She has also said to me that we need to earn the trust of the footballing world. Throughout the passage of the Football Governance Act 2025, as Conservative Members well know from when they were supporting it, numerous people were concerned about the appointment of anybody to take on the role of chair. One of those was Karren Brady, a very distinguished Member of the House of Lords, with extensive experience in football. Recently, she said that David Kogan has
“dealt with the EFL, Uefa, the women’s game and international bodies. That matters, because football isn’t just about the elite—it’s a pyramid, and if the top crumbles, the base cracks with it…And, more importantly, he’s worked in governance roles that demand accountability.”
If Members want any further evidence of the confidence that the appointment of David Kogan commands across the footballing world, it is that the staunchest critics of the Government’s approach to implementing a football regulator in the first place have come out strongly in support of the man who is already cracking on with putting football fans back at the heart of the game.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
When Tracey Crouch was appointed to lead the review of football governance, there was no opposition from Labour Members or the fans to the idea that a Conservative was going to lead that review; there was co-operation right across this House. When it was expedient for them, the Conservatives supported the fan-led review, but when the Bill went before Parliament and push came to shove, they opposed it. They are using it as a political football, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the football fans do not give a damn about this Westminster bubble argument? What they want is a regulator that is going to be on their side.
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for the years of work that he put into ensuring that we reached this point. I thank him personally as well, because when my club, Wigan Athletic, was in trouble, not once but twice, he and other members of the Select Committee could not have been more supportive in making sure that we got the right outcome and saved our club.
I also thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, because even though he has latterly decided that this is a terrible appointment and that the Football Governance Act is a terrible thing, a couple of years ago he said this to the then Sports Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew):
“Following years of misery and uncertainty for fans at local clubs such as Charlton Athletic, I welcome the news on an independent football regulator. Will the Minister assure my constituents that the regulator will have sufficient powers to deal with regulatory breaches and strengthen those ownership tests?”—[Official Report, 23 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 343.]
I am not sure whether the then Minister could give an answer at that time, but I am happy to say that we certainly will.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I want the independent regulator to succeed—not least because of clubs like mine, Portsmouth football club, whose fans had to step in and buy it after it had gone into administration twice—but we need transparency and trust in public appointments. The Secretary of State has said repeatedly that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee found Mr Kogan appointable, and that is correct; we did so under the remit with which we were asked to work. However, we did so taking the unprecedented step of including a recommendation for him to take
“concrete steps to reassure the football community”
of his neutrality, because it was Mr Kogan—not the Department, and not the Secretary of State—who told the Committee about the donations, at the very meeting that was held to decide whether or not he was appointable.
The commissioner’s report points to a wider issue relating to the Department’s public appointments process. All but one of the last 10 public appointments involving parliamentary scrutiny have featured problems with the candidate or the process at some point, which are undermining the organisations concerned and the people who are picked to lead them. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Department must do better when it comes to public appointments, and may I ask her what concrete steps it is taking to achieve that?
Lisa Nandy
I agree with the hon. Lady that it is essential for the public to be able to have confidence in the public appointments that we make, not least because of the many debacles that we saw under the last Government. That is why I personally requested that Mr Kogan make that information available to the Select Committee within hours of being notified of it myself. The hon. Lady is also right to say that the Committee made a recommendation to Mr Kogan that he must take steps to ensure that he was independent of Government. Although that was not a recommendation aimed at me as the Secretary of State, I heard it loud and clear, and it was one of the reasons why I was so quick to recuse myself from the process and take no further decisions in it.
The hon. Lady has indeed raised with me, and with the permanent secretary, the occasions on which the Department has fallen short. We take that very seriously, and we have committed to come back to her with a full list of concrete actions that we are taking. This is not to make excuses, because it is my responsibility to ensure that we get it right, but I might add that the DCMS is responsible for the vast majority of public appointments—I think that we make nearly 50% of all such appointments across Government—and that is even more reason for us to ensure that the proper processes are in place. We are looking at that at the moment, and will come back to the hon. Lady very quickly.
May I also take this opportunity to thank the hon. Lady’s constituents? I remember that when we were in trouble at Wigan Athletic, Portsmouth fans jumped on to a Zoom call with us at very short notice, and could not have been more supportive in giving us advice and guidance to help us to pull through a difficult time. I remember that time as if it were yesterday. I remember how much pain and anxiety we were going through. The footballing world was there for us, and my commitment to the hon. Lady’s constituents, and all our constituents, is that this Government will be there for them too.
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
We now have an excellent, highly qualified individual who has been appointed to chair the football regulator, and we have an excellent Secretary of State who made a mistake for which she has apologised. Even the commissioner said that the breach of the code
“was not a knowing breach.”
What football fans want is not this debate in Parliament today; what they want is for the Secretary of State to get on with the job, to protect clubs and to protect supporters. Can I encourage her to ignore the Opposition, who are playing politics with our national game, and just get on with the job?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said, and I am pleased that he has joined the Select Committee. He has extensive knowledge of football and has been a consistent champion of football fans, and I very much support what he has said. This Government are absolutely determined to appoint the right people to the right positions, so that when fans go through the difficulties caused by poor owners, as they did at Charlton, they do not feel that they have nowhere to turn.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is not my style to attack the integrity of any Member of Parliament, so may I just ask a general question about the whole process of securing public confidence? Can we now consider tightening the ministerial code, and indeed the whole process, so that at the beginning of the process civil servants check on whether a Minister has received any donations, and if that is the case, the Minister recuses himself or herself at the very start?
Lisa Nandy
The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, entirely right to say that we need the tightest possible processes. That is why the Prime Minister took steps, when he was first elected as Prime Minister, to strengthen the ministerial code and also to strengthen the oversight powers of the independent adviser on ministerial standards, Sir Laurie Magnus, in relation to the code. However, as the report makes clear, in this particular case I did ask for information about all donations to my leadership campaign. I was given the information but it turned out to be incomplete, and as soon as I was notified that that was the case, I took the decision to declare it, to ensure that the Select Committee was aware of it, and to recuse myself from the process.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that rather than obstructing and delaying the work of the Independent Football Regulator, the Opposition need to do right by the fans and let David Kogan get on with the job? May I also request—slightly selfishly, as a Carlisle United fan—that one of the first things he does is press the English Football League to lift the limit on the number of places for promotion from the national league?
Lisa Nandy
I know that my hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for her constituents, and that this is something they care about. Both the Minister for Sport and I have heard the strength of feeling from the national league. This matter is not within the scope of the Independent Football Regulator—we deliberately kept its remit tight so it could focus on the many issues that have been raised, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts)—but I know that what has been said has been heard by the EFL, and the Government will continue to follow this closely.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I like and respect the right hon. Lady and I do not doubt her sincerity, but I do wonder whether she would have been quite so forgiving had I chosen to appoint a Tory donor to lead this regulatory body. Moreover, although I supported the establishment of the regulator and, indeed, initiated it at the time of the risk of a European Super League, I fear that since then the regulator has become excessively bureaucratic. It risks deterring international investment and the broader investment in the game that has been so beneficial for it. Does the right hon. Lady think that it might be time to look again at this regulator, and to put more emphasis on self-governance in football? I think that in recent years, it has shown itself to be capable of stepping up to the challenge.
Lisa Nandy
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tone that he has taken, but I must say to him that if he does not think that David Kogan was fit to be considered because he was a Labour donor, his party should not have put him on the list while knowing full well that he was a Labour donor, or, indeed, appointed him to the board of Channel 4. I appreciate that it is inconvenient for the Opposition, but I am afraid that that is the fact of the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it is time to reconsider the Independent Football Regulator. Football fans were promised in 2021 that the last Government would act to deal with the many problems that we had seen in football clubs throughout the country, but they had to wait for a Labour Government to make good on that promise. In October this year, the Minister for Sport was able to confirm that Mr Kogan had been appointed and that we would start that work immediately. He has had a few weeks in which to get on with the job, and he has already achieved more in that time than the last Conservative Government achieved in 14 years.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Football Governance Act is an excellent Act which was driven through this place by the Tory Government, but at the very last minute, on Third Reading, they decided to oppose it. That was horrendous behaviour. It is worth wondering why that happened. On the appointment of Mr Kogan, it has been said in many places that he was on a list, had been approached by the Conservative Government about taking up the position, and was then offered it by the Labour Government. What evidence do the Labour Government have to prove that was the case?
Lisa Nandy
Well, I can confirm that Mr Kogan was on the list that was held by the Department; there are obviously records of that. I was also presented with that list when I took up this post in the summer of 2024. Not only was Mr Kogan on that list, having been approached by a Conservative Government about the job, but he was appointed to the board of Channel 4 by the last Conservative Government, so the Conservatives are obviously well aware of his credentials for the job.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) mentioned Dame Tracey Crouch, I take this opportunity to thank her for the work that she has done. I was reflecting recently on how far the Opposition have fallen from the days when they had Members of Parliament like Dame Tracey Crouch, who could command the respect of the whole House.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
During the Select Committee pre-appointment hearing with David Kogan, I raised the issue of whether his appointment would be construed as being politically biased. Does the Secretary of State accept that appointing a known Labour donor to lead an independent regulator has created exactly the perception of political bias that I warned about during that hearing?
Lisa Nandy
As I have made clear, David Kogan was approached under the last Government and is eminently qualified for the job. Of course, as soon as I knew about the donations, I chose to declare them and recuse myself, and I then played no further part in the process, but I have a responsibility to football fans the length and breadth of this country to appoint the right person to this job, and there is no question but that David Kogan was the outstanding candidate—as he is already proving, having wasted no time in getting on with the job.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
The shadow Minister spoke of risks to football. We need to be clear that the only risk to brilliant, grassroots, local community football clubs, such as Altrincham FC, is the Conservative party’s constant attempts to oppose and obstruct an Independent Football Regulator. The Secretary of State has taken on board the findings of the investigation and has taken responsibility. Does she agree that it is unedifying to watch the Opposition Front Benchers use this as another opportunity to obstruct an Independent Football Regulator, and stand against the best interests of the game?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and for being such a fantastic champion for his constituents; it was a pleasure to meet some of them when I came to his constituency not that long ago. I agree with him that the Conservatives appear to have no respect for football fans, for independent processes, or even for their own manifesto, which made it crystal clear that they supported the Football Governance Act 2025.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the Prime Minister, or anyone acting on his authority, declared his conflict of interest before Mr Kogan was asked to reinstate his withdrawn application? If a conflict of interest was declared, who declared it, and when?
Lisa Nandy
I think I have answered that question. I have been absolutely crystal clear: it is my Department that appoints the chair of the Independent Football Regulator. I was responsible for this process, and I take full responsibility for it. Just to be absolutely crystal clear, because hon. Members do not seem to be listening and seem to be all asking the same thing, I recused myself from the process, so it was the Minister for Sport who ultimately made the appointment decision, but I am the Secretary of State responsible for the process as a whole.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. While this Government are focused on finally delivering for fans and securing the future of our national game, the record of the party opposite tells a very different story. We have for years seen Conservative donors and insiders appointed to organisations across the board—to the NHS, to the UK Health Security Agency, and to the British Museum. We have also seen major donors becoming peers, and the Conservatives opening covid VIP lanes for their pals. It is the same old question—the one that Margaret Thatcher famously asked—“Is he one of ours?” Football fans do not care who is one of “theirs”; they care about saving their clubs and having a regulator who will do that. Does the Secretary of State agree that David Kogan, as chair of the Independent Football Regulator—chosen for his experience and merit, not for party loyalty—is finally putting fans first and protecting our beautiful game?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and for all the work she has done to support football fans for many years, even before being elected to this place. I completely accept that appointments will be made, under any Government, involving people who have made political donations—by definition, those people want to be involved in public life—and I have never criticised the Conservatives for making appointments on that basis. When I have criticised them, it has been when there was a strong dispute about whether the candidate had any qualifications for the job. There is no such dispute in the case of David Kogan.
When I have particularly criticised the Conservatives, it has been for not being prepared to comply with and respect independent processes. That is the difference between us and them. The independent Commissioner for Public Appointments decided to open an inquiry on what happened during this process. I complied with it fully throughout, and I have accepted the consequences.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I and like-minded football fans welcome the much-needed creation of an independent regulator. Indeed, I am not even questioning the merit of the individual appointed as its chair. The issue is this: the Secretary of State, by her own admission, forgot that she was given money by the new chair before he was appointed. That comes alongside the £33,410 that he has given to the Labour party over the past five years. Despite what the Secretary of State has just said, she has previously called out the Tories for double standards, said that Boris Johnson trashed the UK’s global reputation, and has, over many years, called for the Tories to “come clean”. Should she not consider her own reputation, rather than joining those sleazy ranks?
Lisa Nandy
It is difficult to know where to start, given the number of inaccuracies in that statement, but I will have a go. First of all, I did not “forget” to declare the donations; if the hon. Gentleman had read the report—he obviously has not—he would know that the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments was convinced that I did not know about those donations, and that as soon as I did know about them, I chose to declare them and recused myself from the process. He might want to reflect on that. Secondly, I think that his quote about Boris Johnson related to the abolition of the Department for International Development; he might want to go and check that as well. I have heard quite a few comments from him recently, on social media and elsewhere, about the accuracy of things said at this Dispatch Box. I absolutely stand by what I have said, and the next time he comes to this House, he might want to do a bit of homework first.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I have to say, I am quite surprised at the lack of contrition from the Secretary of State, given a very damning report. In November 2024, Mr Kogan withdrew from the application process because, he said, there was
“a lot of noise going around about Labour donors”,
but in March, in a move that the commissioner said was “highly unusual”, Mr Kogan’s candidacy was reinstated, and he was rapidly sifted, interviewed and appointed. Are the public really expected to believe that this was an open and fair process, when the decision-makers took donations from the candidate?
Lisa Nandy
Again, I think the hon. Gentleman should have more respect for the independence of these processes. The independent Commissioner for Public Appointments investigated this thoroughly and found that the breach of the code was unknowing. Nevertheless, I have taken full responsibility for it.
I have to say that the Conservatives have some brass neck; when their shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), was in government, she broke the ministerial code and was told to resign, but refused to do so, and she is now one of their most senior Ministers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First of all, I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments. She is a right honourable Lady; I know that, and I hope that everybody in this Chamber does, as well. I very much welcome the Independent Football Regulator, but my constituents have asked me to ask a question, so I will; that is my job. Yesterday it was the BBC, and today it is the football regulator appointment. The general public are sceptical of appointments that, it seems to them, may breach the code on public appointments. Public confidence is truly at an all-time low, so how can the Secretary of State ensure that positions are fit for purpose, and that political affiliation or support will never be a material consideration in appointments?
Lisa Nandy
The Prime Minister has made it clear, and the Cabinet strongly believes, that although mistakes will always be made, we have to comply fully and openly with independent processes when those mistakes are made. We have to respect those processes, and we have to accept the consequences. The hon. Gentleman will note that in the report that was written and published by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments, not a single recommendation was made to me. There were recommendations for the Department, but there was not a recommendation for me. Nevertheless, I have chosen to apologise to the Prime Minister, because I believe that the right thing to do is to take responsibility for the things that we are responsible for.
The hon. Gentleman mentions the BBC. I imagine that he is alluding to an issue that was raised yesterday by many Members of this House: the political appointments that were made to the board, and the appointment of one board member in particular, which has been highlighted by many Members as being of concern. He will know that those appointments were made under the last Conservative Government. The last Conservative Government also chose to extend the term of the board member in question, just a few weeks before they called the general election, so that board member has been in post for several years. However, there is an opportunity to look at the issue in the upcoming charter review, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for explaining, and I am sure that people are glad to hear about the involvement of a sponsoring Department and a sponsoring Minister in a public appointment. In answering my question, she need not revisit the points made about her role—we all understand them, and she has explained them clearly. She will know that when a Secretary of State has made a provisional appointment, it is not unusual for it to go to No. 10 for further review. Putting aside her role, can she confirm whether anybody in No. 10 was involved in any way, shape or form in this appointment?
Lisa Nandy
I am happy to clarify that this was not a prime ministerial appointment; it was an appointment made by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. As the hon. Gentleman knows, as soon as I discovered the donation and that the information given at the start of the process was incomplete, I chose to declare that. I recused myself from the process, and the final decision was made not by the Prime Minister, but by the Minister for Sport.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Along with many others, I fully supported the Football Governance Act and the introduction of the Independent Football Regulator. I accept the Secretary of State’s comment that she sincerely was not aware of the donation, but does she understand the public’s perception that an “independent” appointee was chosen because of their donations to the party in government? What steps will she and the Government take to review the process and make improvement, so that it commands the public’s trust and is completely unimpeachable? I understand her comment about donors wanting to participate in public life, but the Government should consider putting down a really clear marker about the kind of roles donors can and cannot perform in support of the Government.
Lisa Nandy
Oversight of the whole process and the way that public appointments are made is the responsibility of the Prime Minister, but I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions and comments about the need to uphold the highest standards. In relation to this appointment, we did not meet the highest standards. It was a complicated process, and the post required a specialist skillset, and the appointment took place under two different Governments. That is not to make excuses; it is just to explain that this process was highly unusual. We have learned lessons from it, and we are implementing the commissioner’s recommendations in full.
In the end, the test of whether the public can have confidence in this appointment is whether Mr Kogan and the Independent Football Regulator are able to deliver on the promise that we will deal with bad owners and put fans back at the heart of the game. I am confident that we have made the right appointment, as evidenced by the fact that since he was appointed on 6 October, he has wasted no time at all in getting on with the job.
Points of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr French
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. During today’s urgent question, the Secretary of State provided a number of answers that seem to contradict parts of the commissioner’s report, particularly around the role of the Prime Minister. In particular, she made reference to a conversation between herself and the new chairman of the Independent Football Regulator before his appearance at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I have read the report very carefully, and I cannot find any reference to that conversation in the commissioner’s report. I seek guidance from you on how hon. Members can find out why that is not in the report.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Does the Secretary of State wish to respond?
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very happy to clarify that point for the hon. Gentleman. The request that I made to officials in my Department was relayed to Mr Kogan. It was, of course, his choice whether to take that advice, but he did. I have to be clear with the hon. Gentleman: from the moment I discovered that donations had been made to my campaign, I did not have any discussions with Mr Kogan about this or any other matter, and I recused myself from the process. I took that seriously. It was for the Minister for Sport to make the final decision, which she did, but from that point, I did not have direct conversations with Mr Kogan until the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments had been able to do his work. I hope that clarifies the matter.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition recently visited my constituency for her tool theft campaign, but I do not think that she has been informed that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) has already secured changes through the Sentencing Bill. The right hon. Lady did not notify me of her visit, and given that she is a long-standing Member of this House, I seek your advice on how she can be reminded of the courtesies to be afforded to Members.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for notice of his point of order. Has he given notice to the Leader of the Opposition that he was going to raise this matter?
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the urgent question, the Secretary of State mentioned that she was aware of my social media posts attacking and targeting her. I have never made a post about the Secretary of State. Perhaps she would like to clarify that point. My colleagues may have posted about her; we may all look the same, but we are not.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order or a matter for the Chair.
Bills Presented
Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Orders Nos. 50 and 57)
Secretary Peter Kyle, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary David Lammy, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Darren Jones, Secretary Ed Miliband, Anna Turley and Josh Simons, presented a Bill to amend section 8(5) of the Industrial Development Act 1982 and section 6 of the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 321) with explanatory notes (Bill 321-EN).
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Liz Kendall, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Darren Jones, Secretary Yvette Cooper, Secretary Shabana Mahmood, Secretary Wes Streeting, Secretary Heidi Alexander, Secretary Peter Kyle, Secretary Ed Miliband, Secretary Emma Reynolds and Kanishka Narayan, presented a Bill to make provision, including provision amending the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018, about the security and resilience of network and information systems used or relied on in connection with the carrying on of essential activities.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 329) with explanatory notes (Bill 329-EN).
Road Safety (Schools)
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about road safety measures near schools; and for connected purposes.
Every parent knows that heart-stopping moment when they watch their child cross the road and just pray that drivers are paying attention. For too many families in my constituency, that silent prayer takes place daily, as they drop off their children at school and pick them up at the end of the day. Road traffic accidents are, tragically, the leading cause of death for children in the UK, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents estimates that every single month 1,200 children are injured in traffic accidents that happen within 500 metres of the school gates. Those two statistics hit me hard when I first heard them, and I can imagine that they hit Members from across the House just as hard.
I was first told by the parents about their worries over their children’s safety when dropping them off and collecting them after school, then by the schools, and finally by the children themselves. When I looked at the data, it was telling me the same story: 14% of child fatalities occur during the morning school run between 7 and 9 o’clock, and 23% happen after school between 3 and 5 o’clock.
In February this year, 10-year-old Roman Osborne was hit by a van when leaving his primary school at pick-up, in Trimley St Martin. The driver was not speeding or driving recklessly; in fact, witnesses told me that he was travelling at about 20 mph. Luckily, Roman recovered, but the impact was so severe that he spent three days in hospital with a broken hip and many more months recovering. His parents told me that if he had not landed on his rucksack, which shielded him from a far more serious injury and potential head trauma, the outcome would have been tragic.
Roman’s story reminds us that improving road safety around our schools is not simply about reducing speeds to 20 mph, though I dread to imagine how much worse it could have been if the driver had been going at 30 mph, 40 mph or faster. In truth, road safety is about making the environment around schools far safer, and by any means necessary. That means proper crossings, clear road markings, enforcing parking restrictions, visible signage and, yes, the presence of school-crossing patrols—our much-loved lollipop men and women.
What frustrates me most is that many of those options are available to councils, but only if they choose to implement them. Following Roman’s accident, Suffolk county council told me that the road had been assessed, but that it did not meet the criteria for additional safety measures. Madam Deputy Speaker, you do not need me to tell you that that is not good enough. When a child is injured outside their own school, how can any system say that the criteria to make that road safer have not been met? It should not be at the discretion of any council to turn a blind eye.
Bucklesham primary school in my constituency—those from the school are watching in the Gallery—knows this challenge all too well. The school sits on the junction of a 60 mph and a 30 mph road. It is an isolated rural school, with no footpaths or homes around it, and parents have no choice but to drive to school each and every day, while navigating awful conditions in the process. Parents and staff have been pleading for improvements for two decades. They have gathered petitions, met councillors, written letters and still, after 20 years, no permanent safety measures have been put in place. I presented a petition to the House in September with over 300 signatures, to highlight the road safety issues outside Bucklesham primary school.
These stories and the many others I have heard since being elected are exactly why I have been campaigning relentlessly to improve road safety around our schools. I have taken that campaign to No. 10 Downing Street, and today I bring it formally to Parliament through this ten-minute rule Bill. The purpose of this Bill is simple: to make it a requirement, not an option, for local authorities to take proactive steps to improve safety around schools where there is evidence of potential risk. This Bill would place a duty on councils to work directly with schools and communities to assess road conditions, listen to local concerns and identify practical solutions. Those measures will of course differ from place to place, because a rural lane in Suffolk looks very different from an urban street in Manchester, but the principle must remain the same that every child, no matter where they live in this country, deserves to travel safely to school.
As my Bill sets out, a package of local solutions might include more double yellow lines and enforced parking restrictions; improved signage and road markings; dedicated school crossings; more lollipop men and women; and reduced-speed zones during drop-off and pick-up hours. In short, schools should not have to campaign for safer roads, and neither should their pleas fall on deaf ears. They should be able to expect safer roads. Our children should be able to travel to and from school each day without fearing the roads outside their schools.
Suffolk has one of the poorest road safety records of any rural county in England. Over the past 20 years, across Suffolk there have been 597 fatalities and 7,000 people have been seriously injured—7,500 lives lost or changed forever. In Suffolk Coastal alone, more than 1,000 people have been either killed or seriously injured on our roads. Tragically, 17 of them were children. These are our children on our roads, and this is our responsibility.
The evidence shows that we can prevent many of these tragedies. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology has found strong evidence that 20 mph speed limits and zones reduce casualties and fatalities. After Wales introduced a default 20 mph national speed limit on restricted roads, casualties fell by 24% between April and June last year compared with the same period the year before. Parents know this instinctively. Surveys show that 36% of parents feel that roads are too busy for their children to walk to school, and 43% say traffic is too fast even when there is a 20 mph limit. According to Brake, the road safety charity that I have worked with on my campaign and on this Bill, 78% of parents want a 20 mph limit near homes and schools and 85% want the Government to do more to make local roads safer.
Yet the frameworks guiding local road safety decisions mean that too many councils are able to ignore local concerns, even when tragedy strikes. My Bill would end that absurdity and end the crisis at our school gates. It would also make transparency a duty: councils would be required to publish annual statements outlining what safety reviews have been conducted, what measures have been implemented and how they are working with schools and our communities to improve standards. The Government are due to publish a new road safety strategy early next year, the first in a decade. I welcome that, and many of the families and schools I speak to welcome it too, but that strategy must put road safety around our schools at the very top of the list. This Bill would make that possible by setting clear expectations for local authorities and giving schools a voice in shaping the solutions they need.
The answer is painfully simple: we know what makes our roads safer—the measures are well understood and so often inexpensive—but we lack urgency and accountability. We should not accept that parents and schools have been campaigning for 20 years to make drop-off and pick-up safer, yet still have their school hugging a 60 mph road. We should not accept that a child is hit by a van and the road is assessed, yet it still fails to meet self-determined thresholds for intervention. We should never forget that it is in our gift to reduce the leading cause of death among children in this country, simply by improving road safety around our schools.
This is not about politics. I am sure that every Member of this House has stood at a school gate and seen cars speeding too fast and too close, and I am sure every Member has heard the same plea from parents. Roman told me that all he wants is a pedestrian crossing at his school gate. This Bill would seek to give Roman that and to give every school the power to bring forward safety enhancements for their own school. This is a modest Bill, but it is practical, and most importantly it would save lives and help to tackle the biggest cause of death among children. With this Bill, we have the chance to make sure that campaigning is no longer necessary, because safety should be guaranteed by design, duty and law.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Jenny Riddell-Carpenter, Sarah Coombes, Terry Jermy, Ben Goldsborough, Sarah Dyke, Maya Ellis, Amanda Hack, Mr Richard Quigley, Samantha Niblett, Alison Hume, Steve Witherden and Jodie Gosling present the Bill.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 November, and to be printed (Bill 327).
Taxes
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 101 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected either of the amendments tabled. I call the shadow Chancellor.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to control public expenditure in order to keep the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Confederation of British Industry conference on 25 November 2024 that, after the last Budget, the Government would not raise taxes; and further calls on the Government not to break its manifesto commitment that it would not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher or additional rates of Income Tax or VAT.
Right at the centre of this motion is the single word “trust”—the trust that Labour Members lost with the British electorate. They lost it when they promised not to put taxes on farms, and did so; when they said they would not be means-testing the winter fuel payment, yet did; and when they said they would not be putting up taxes left, right and centre, but did exactly that when they came into office. Indeed, in their own manifesto there were around £7 billion of tax increases, which by the time of the first Budget translated into some £40 billion of additional taxes. Of course, much of that related to employer national insurance—a clear breach of the Labour party manifesto. Do not take my word for it. Take the word of Paul Johnson, the former head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said that that particular tax increase was a “straightforward breach” of the Labour party manifesto.
The Chancellor also said that she would not take decisions that would affect working people, yet we know from the figures released just yesterday that unemployment is at a five-year high. There are 180,000 fewer jobs on payrolls on her watch. Some sectors are particularly badly impacted. Some 90,000 jobs in hospitality have been destroyed, which particularly affects the youngest people in our country, who are desperate to get on the first rung of the career ladder but are deprived of that opportunity by Ministers.
After that calamitous Budget, there were further pledges and further promises from the Chancellor. She said to the Treasury Committee:
“we are not going to be coming back with more tax increases”.
She said on Sky News that she had “wiped the slate clean”. On 25 November, at the CBI’s annual conference, she said:
“I’m not coming back with more borrowing or taxes.”
There has been little of that language of late, and I think we all know why.
At the October Budget, the Chancellor said something else that was telling and extremely important. It is worth my repeating it in full. It relates to her clear pledge not to extend the freeze in the personal allowance under the income tax regime. She said:
“I have come to the conclusion that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips. I am keeping every single promise on tax that I made in our manifesto, so there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax and national insurance thresholds”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]
When the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, will he reconfirm that solemn pledge the Chancellor made in the last Budget? [Interruption.] He could intervene now—that is true.
We know that the Chancellor has messed up the economy, yet now, only about a year into the Government, we are already into the blame game. The Chancellor made an extraordinary and rather confusing address to the nation recently in No. 10 Downing Street, in which she sought to blame everybody for this fiasco except herself. She blamed Brexit. She blamed Donald Trump. And when it came to future downgrades of productivity by the Office for Budget Responsibility, she even had the temerity to blame those of us on the Conservative Benches—blaming the past for the future. I was half expecting her to blame world war two or the great war, or the Boer war, or perhaps the battle of Hastings, which surely, with the harrying of the north, must have scarred our economy and must still be being felt 1,000 years later.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
No, it was definitely the Korean war!
Sir Mel Stride
It was the Korean war—my right hon. Friend is absolutely right.
It is the Chancellor’s choices that have led to this situation. She was the person who chose to put up taxes on jobs, which has led to growth being anaemic. We know that taxes such as national insurance feed through to lower investment, higher inflation, higher unemployment and lower real wages. We know that the Government talked down the economy with the absurd and fictitious £22 billion black hole. In a sweet irony, when they asked the OBR to come in and opine on that number, it said that it would not legitimise it.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real downfall of the Government dates from when they did not face down their own Back Benchers and deal with the rocketing benefits bill? Frankly, the country is going broke and the Government must have the courage to deal with millions of people who are not contributing to society.
Sir Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. I shall come to those matters shortly, because there are alternatives to what the Government have decided to do.
It was this Government who went on a reckless borrowing spree. This year, we have borrowed £100 billion—the highest borrowing in our history, excluding the pandemic. Why has that happened? Because the Chancellor has fiddled the fiscal rules. She changed the debt definition from public sector net debt, as it was under us, to public sector net financial liabilities, which allows far more borrowing. In fact, under the original definition that we had—which she, incidentally, said she would not change—she would have been underwater in just about every year of the forecast on the debt target. That recklessness has led to the Labour party having plans to borrow half a trillion pounds more over the period of this Parliament than we had in our plans that it inherited.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
To put it in simple terms for those listening at home, the Chancellor raised taxes by £40 billion, she spent £30 billion and she borrowed £70 billion. Cumulatively, that will make people think, “How am I going to get the return on that investment if we are not growing the economy? How do I ensure that the interest will be paid?” That is why interest payments go up and we as a country end up paying more debt—because of the decisions the Chancellor has made.
Sir Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we borrow more money, we pay more for that borrowing. Of course, that has fed through to inflation. We know that inflation this year, according to the International Monetary Fund, will be the highest in the G7. The IMF also says it will be the highest in the G7 next year. The consequence of that in monetary policy is interest rates being higher for longer. Of course, if we have a mountain of debt and add to it ruinously, the cost of servicing that debt goes through the roof. It now stands at about £100 billion a year, rising to £130 billion at the end of the scorecard. That is more than twice what we spend on defence every year.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The shadow Chancellor is laying out compellingly the calamitous choices that were made at the last Budget. Does he agree that fundamentally underlying them is the most calamitous choice of all, which was the strategic decision that the public sector would be expanded and the private sector contracted? The crowding out of the private sector is resulting in this doom loop that we are trapped in. We have fewer and fewer wealth creators and businesses paying for this bloated public sector, and their ability to shoulder that burden gets weaker by the day.
Sir Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely incisive and correct point. If a Government spend huge amounts of money, there is an opportunity cost to that and it comes through in various forms, including, as he rightly says, raising the cost of capital and crowding out labour, skills and so on. It is a fine and important balance to get right and this Government, palpably, have got it wrong.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) makes a fair point. When raising public revenue, one should at least expect a decent return on that spend, whether it be a social return or otherwise. Does the right hon. Member not consider investing in our NHS to be such a decent return?
Sir Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman’s question identifies the core of the fallacy of his Government’s approach, which is to assume that getting better outputs is all about spending ever more money. It is not. It is about what you do with that money; it is about productivity. One of the Government’s many mistakes when they came to office was to splash out on pay rises for their trade union paymasters—14% for the railways drivers and 22% for the junior doctors—with not one string attached in terms of improved productivity. Therein lies the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Sir Mel Stride
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman would follow up what was not the strongest first question with that.
The Government are naive enough to think that by simply buying people off with no strings attached, the problem would go away. It is like feeding meat to the wolf: when the wolf is fed meat, it will come back to the door the next day, and that is precisely what has happened here. Industrial relations are not improving at the moment. We have various unions in the public sector threatening to strike, including in the NHS, where the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) started in his first question.
Where has all this led? It has led to lower growth. No matter how much those on the Front Bench may trumpet increased growth, the reality is that growth per capita—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) says it is the highest in the G7, but our growth per capita is the second lowest in the G7. What matters is growth per capita, because that is what drives an improvement in living standards. [Interruption.] I have more bad news for the hon. Gentleman, who continues to chunter from a sedentary position: the IMF says that growth per capita will deteriorate even further next year and be the lowest in the G7.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the shadow Chancellor and the Conservative party for bringing forward this debate. Is he aware of the stat that the average British family is as much as £15,000 poorer than they were five years ago? The biggest increases have been in energy and food, of course, and while there have been wage increases, all that has been swallowed up by the cost of living. Does the shadow Chancellor share my concern for middle and working-class families, who are worse off now than ever before, including those in my constituency, that any tax increases from the Labour party will push them towards the poverty line? It could mean that some of them will be unable to pay the bills that they are just about paying at the moment.
Sir Mel Stride
I agree. Of course, higher taxes are bearing down on living standards, but so is inflation. We have the highest level of inflation in the G7 and are forecast to have the highest in the G7 next year, too. Within that sits food inflation, which is running way above the headline rate of inflation. Who does that impact the most? It impacts the very people that Labour professes to stand up for the strongest: the poorest in our society. It is a direct consequence of the policies pursued by this Chancellor.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
Does the shadow Chancellor recognise that the previous Government were the only Government in living memory to oversee a reduction in real living standards over the course of five years? Does he accept that the difficult situation with the cost of living is in large part due to his Government’s decisions over those five years?
Sir Mel Stride
There were many great things that the previous Government did, not least creating employment as a job-making machine and, despite the Russia-Ukraine war, bringing inflation down at the back end of 2022 from 11% to 2%—bang on target—on the day of the general election. Where is inflation now? It is almost twice that level. We also improved education in our country beyond all measure; Labour is now undoing those reforms, and we will see the consequences of that for generations to come. We did many things of which we should be proud, not least getting us through covid and through the inflationary times. On the day of the general election, we had the highest growth in the G7, we had near record levels of employment and a near record low level of unemployment, and we had seen 13 consecutive months of improving real living standards. That is not a bad record.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
So far, Labour Members do not appear to have mentioned covid. We reduced the deficit by 80%, which enabled us to spend £373 billion to support households and businesses during those years. I have businesses in my constituency that would no longer be in business had it not been for that support. What does the shadow Chancellor think would happen if, God forbid, we had a similar event right now? The answer is, as I suspect he is about to tell me, that the Government simply would not be able to sustain households and the economy in the way that we did.
Sir Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend is entirely right. The conclusion that one must draw on the mess that this Government have made of our economy is that it has become brittle, fragile and vulnerable to the kind of external shocks that it was able to withstand when the Conservatives were stewards of it.
While per capita growth is almost on the floor, unemployment is at a five-year high; as we know, every Labour Government in history have left unemployment higher on leaving office than it was on entering office. Inflation is high and business confidence is at rock bottom. In a recent survey, the Institute of Directors found that business confidence among its members was the lowest in history. My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) refers to covid—according to the IoD, business confidence is even lower now than it was during covid, when the economy contracted by more than 10% overnight. That is how bad business sentiment is out there.
Sir Mel Stride
To be fair, I think the Prime Minister was referring to facial hair growth, rather than growth in the economy. They are distinctly different things.
Sir Mel Stride
Well, he may or may not be—it remains to be seen.
What all this ends up with, of course, is lost fiscal headroom. That is the story so far. We had a Budget last October with about £10 billion against the debt target; that vanishes, with 50% on top as well. It is rebuilt in the spring, and now it has all disappeared, and we are waiting to find out how deep that black hole is. We have entered something of a doom loop, with higher taxes destroying growth, leading to a loss of fiscal headroom, requiring—in the Chancellor’s terms at least—further tax increases, leading to further destruction of growth, and around and around we go.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
The shadow Chancellor has spent a lot of time in his speech talking about what people have said and done. I wonder if I could remind him that just a month ago he said that if he were in the Chancellor’s position, he would raise income tax. How does he square that with the speech he is currently giving?
Sir Mel Stride
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity to correct the record, because I know this has been spun by the Labour party. At a fringe meeting at the Conservative party conference, there was a long, extended debate about just how bad things are, with speculations about all the “what ifs” and “maybes” of different scenarios. If the hon. Gentleman reads the full transcript of those exchanges, he will see that the point I was very clearly making was that there is an alternative to putting up taxes, which is controlling spending. That is the point I was making.
What is happening to the wealth creators in our country? About 16,000 of them have fled—they are going by the day. These are the people who generate the wealth, jobs and growth that we are all striving to achieve. Look at the cumulative tax take that has just walked out of the door with the 16,000 who have gone—it would probably require a third of a million to half a million people on average earnings to fill that gap. It is not sustainable.
There is an alternative. The Conservatives set out this alternative at our party conference: a way forward through control of Government spending. Government spending could be controlled to the tune of at least £47 billion, which were the savings we identified. Of the £47 billion, £23 billion can be found from the welfare budget by getting people off benefits and into work. It is better for the economy, but equally, for those who have mild mental health conditions such as mild anxiety, mild depression and ADHD, it is a better outcome than parking them on benefits, which the Government are doing through time. By focusing on actual need rather than simply transfer payments and on medical diagnosis rather than self-assessments and by not paying benefits to non-UK citizens, we can make real savings. In some cases they are tough choices, absolutely. However, these are decisions that the Government have made.
Alex Ballinger
I thank the shadow Chancellor for giving way. He will of course remember his time as the Work and Pensions Minister, when he oversaw a £33 billion increase in the welfare budget. Of course he is talking about cuts now, but not about welfare cuts, because he had the opportunity to make those cuts and failed to do so. He is talking about cuts to teachers, nurses and our armed forces. Which of those three areas is he talking about cutting right now?
Sir Mel Stride
I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised my tenure at the Department for Work and Pensions, when I was the Secretary of State. I was very clear that we needed to arrest the rising welfare bill, and—
Sir Mel Stride
We did, actually. We did arrest it. We made changes to the work capability assessment, which the OBR scored at £5 billion-worth of savings. The OBR also scored the fact that there would be 450,000—almost half a million—fewer people going on to those benefits as a consequence. We had already started a consultation on personal independence payment, which I will come back to in a moment, but it was interrupted by the general election. The first thing the Labour Government did when they came into office was scrap all of that and then come forward with some ill-thought-through proposals that did not survive contact with their own Back Benchers.
There are other areas where we can make savings. The size of the civil service is one. The civil service has grown by 37% since 2016. We could cut it back by 25% and make about £8 billion—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) should listen carefully to this, because he is about to sit on those benches on the 26th of this month and listen to his Chancellor come up with some pretty unpalatable things. These are good alternatives that should be taken seriously.
Raising taxes is simply a choice. The Labour Government are too weak to make the choice to control spending, so they fall back on taxes. They had to U-turn on the welfare reforms they brought through, and £5 billion was added to Labour’s black hole in an instant. We have seen the terms of reference for the Timms review of personal independence payment. They show quite clearly that there is no intention of saving any money from the PIP budget. That is grossly irresponsible. It is spiralling ever skyward.
From what we hear, it is highly likely that the two-child limit will be scrapped and abolished. Why? Probably because the Prime Minister, shackled to his Chancellor, is feeling that he is being squeezed halfway out the door of No. 10 and thinks he had better do something to settle the troops on the Back Benches. But that comes with a price tag of £3.5 billion. The only choice that this Chancellor is taking is to fail to get on top of spending and to put up taxes in order to fund ever more welfare.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Chancellor often talks about taking difficult decisions and tough choices. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not a tough choice to raise taxes on other people; the tough choice is cutting spending?
Sir Mel Stride
My hon. Friend absolutely gets to the core of it. This is an extraordinary point to have arrived at, but this Government, despite their majority, do not have the plan, political will or, seemingly, even the ability now to command enough support on their own Benches to push through vital spending controls that would allow us to get the taxman off the back of businesses and people up and down our country.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Child poverty increased enormously on the Conservatives’ watch. [Interruption.] Yes, it did. Where was their political will to deal with it?
Sir Mel Stride
If the hon. Gentleman looks at absolute poverty after housing costs, he will find very significant reductions for children, pensioners and across the piece during the vast majority of our time in office.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Will the shadow Chancellor give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I do expect Members to be here for slightly longer before intervening.
Sir Mel Stride
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is a great shame. The hon. Gentleman has not been here for any of the debate, but that does not mean that he might not have given the best possible intervention from the Labour Benches so far. Perhaps he may like to come in a little later.
We have a Government who are engaged in serial breaches, who have no backbone to take the right decisions, and who will always fold to pressure, including from their own Back Benchers—and all at the expense of businesses and hard-working people up and down our country.
Dr Evans
The Chancellor set out in a speech only last year an absolute commitment not to raise taxes. She said, “We’ve set the spending envelope for this Parliament, we don’t need to increase taxes”. Yet here we are on the cusp of taxes going up. Is not the crux of this the fact that she cannot even stick to what she promised?
Sir Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will have heard the various quotations at the beginning of my contribution exactly to that effect.
The motion on the Order Paper asks a simple question. It is essentially this: even at this late stage, will the Government stand by their word, or will they dragoon those on the Benches behind them through the wrong Lobby tonight? If they vote with us, millions will heave a huge sigh of relief. If they vote against, the people will have their answer, and they will never forget.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I thank the shadow Chancellor for opening today’s debate. It is two weeks until Budget day, and it is just over two weeks since the last motion tabled by the official Opposition that sought to debate the content of the Budget before it is announced. We know that Conservative shadow Ministers want the British people to forget the mess they left from their time in office, but surely shadow Ministers cannot have forgotten how the Budget process works. If indeed that is the case, I am sure shadow Treasury Ministers will recall that we would not reveal any details of the Budget two weeks before the Budget, and that any decisions on the Budget will be revealed by the Chancellor on Budget day.
Jerome Mayhew
I have a simple question for the Minister: does he think that manifesto promises are important?
James Murray
As a Treasury Minister, what I am very used to in the run-up to a Budget is members of the media and Opposition Members finding more and more convoluted ways of trying to work out what is going to happen in the Budget. My answer would be the same at every turn: they simply have to wait until 26 November to see what the Chancellor announces in her Budget. The official Opposition are entirely entitled to put forward what they say they would do differently.
Kit Malthouse
I hear what the Minister is saying about us waiting for the Budget. Could he reassure the House that he has not discussed anything that might be in the Budget with any journalist, and certainly that he has not authorised any members of his office or anybody within the Treasury press team to brief out some of the kites that have been flown about the Budget in the media over the past few weeks?
James Murray
Despite the right hon. Gentleman’s invitation, I am not going to engage in speculation ahead of the Budget. I am not going to feed the speculation that he is trying to wind up. I understand that the Budget is an important day in the parliamentary calendar, and it is an important day for the Government. Rightly, Conservative Members and Members of all parties want to know what is in the Budget, but they simply must wait until 26 November to find out.
Kit Malthouse
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. The Minister has said that he is unwilling to discuss what might be in the Budget with the House. He did not, however, deny that he may have done so with journalists, or that he may have authorised others to brief to the media what may or may not be in the Budget. In the absence of that denial, are we within our rights to demand that the House be privy to what those conversations contained, in the same way that the business pages of The Times may have been?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
That is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate. I can calm Members’ nerves by saying that it is not many more sleeps until Budget day.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As somebody who has been around a long time and remembers when Chancellors used to have to resign for leaking things about the Budget in advance, may I ask the Minister to explain how it has been possible for the present Chancellor to make speeches about what may or may not be in her Budget in advance with no consequences forthcoming whatsoever?
James Murray
I am very happy to remind the right hon. Gentleman and all Members that what the Chancellor set out in her speech last Tuesday were the values and principles that will guide her in taking the right decisions going into the Budget at the end of the month. The importance of protecting the NHS, bringing down the cost of living and getting debt down—those will be the guiding principles for the Chancellor going into the Budget. That is important, because it sets out to the British people the challenges we face—some of them deep scars in the economy caused by the Conservatives—as well as the values that will guide us and the Chancellor in taking those decisions on 26 November.
The official Opposition is entirely entitled to ask questions and indeed put forward what it would do differently, but the problem with this Opposition is that when it does so, it simply exposes its total lack of any credibility. Remember last year, when we took the difficult decision, referred to earlier, to raise employer national insurance to support the NHS? The Opposition claimed to oppose that tax change but have refused to say whether they would reverse it—or, indeed, whether they would cut the NHS. As the shadow Chancellor pointed out earlier, more recently, at the Conservative party conference, they said that they thought they could find some £47 billion of cuts to public spending.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Minister just said at the Dispatch Box that national insurance contributions for employers were raised “to support the NHS”. Was that hypothecated or not?
James Murray
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the way the system works is that national insurance generally supports the NHS and pensions, but, more broadly—
James Murray
Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish? More broadly, the revenue that goes into the Treasury is not formally hypothecated. But the point is that if we are going to support public services, get the NHS back on its feet and get waiting lists down, we need to take the difficult decisions to raise the tax revenue to put into that. That was an important principle that we had to take last year in the Budget.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Minister talked about difficult decisions, but what about an obvious one? Two thirds of the British population are now backing wealth taxes. Is it not time for the Treasury to abandon its self-imposed fiscal straitjacket and commit to lifting children out of poverty, to investing in our public services and to future-proofing our communities by transforming the tax system so that it better serves ordinary people and so that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share?
James Murray
I point the hon. Lady to last year’s Budget, at which we decided to get rid of the non-dom tax status, to remove the VAT tax rate on private school fees, to increase the air passenger duty on private jets and to change the rate of capital gains tax and inheritance tax—all measures that will raise £8 billion by the end of this Parliament from taxes on assets and the wealthy. That is what a fair tax system looks like.
While our plans are a credible way to settle the public finances, get public services back on their feet and support the economic stability so vital for investment and growth, the Conservatives come up with numbers out of thin air. At least half the £47 billion of fantasy savings they mentioned come from a welfare plan that amounts to a menu with no prices: they say that the list of measures would raise £23 billion in total, but no breakdown is apparent.
We remember how, in June last year, just as the Conservatives were on their way out of Downing Street, they said that they could cut £12 billion from the welfare bill. Now they have doubled that, without any explanation whatever. Frankly, however he protests, the shadow Chancellor is not the person to be making that argument about welfare. When he was the Work and Pensions Secretary, he personally oversaw the biggest increase in benefits spending in decades.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. He wonders why the ability to cut more money from the welfare bill has been identified by the Opposition. Does he not recognise that more than 5,000 people a day are joining long-term disability and incapacity benefits? That is how he can save more money from welfare. Why does he not do it?
James Murray
I agree with one of the sentiments in the points that the hon. Gentleman made: we need to ensure that people get into work wherever they can and that the safety net is there for people who can never work or are unable to work. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is leading that work to ensure that we get young people into work rather than being on a life of benefits and written off as they were by the Conservative party in office.
As I was saying, it was frankly quite some cheek for the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) to lecture about welfare spending, given the enormous increase in welfare spending on his watch when he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. If the £47 billion came from cuts in public services instead of from some of these fantasy welfare cuts, what would that mean? It would mean 85,700 fewer nurses; cutting every police officer in the country twice; or cutting the entire armed forces. Funnily enough, none of that detail was mentioned in the shadow Chancellor’s speech.
When we took office, the Chancellor introduced tough new fiscal rules. Those required day-to-day spending to be paid for through tax receipts rather than borrowing, while protecting the long-term investment in our country. Now, I realise that fiscal discipline is an alien concept for some Members on the Conservative Benches.
Dr Spencer
The Minister has just talked about the Chancellor’s fiscal rules. Who was it who changed the fiscal rules?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman said “the Chancellor’s fiscal rules”, so I suspect that it was the Chancellor who introduced those fiscal rules. He gave it away in how he phrased the question.
The point is that when the Chancellor was setting out her economic strategy at the Budget last year, it was on the basis of the fiscal rules: day-to-day spending to be paid for through tax receipts rather than borrowing and debt to be falling as a proportion of GDP, to enable investment in the long-term future of the country. I see that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) is struggling to get his head around why that sense of fiscal reality and credibility is important, but we on the Government side believe that having those fiscal rules is crucial to that fiscal stability, to ensuring that we have that responsible attitude in government and to providing the stability for businesses to invest and grow the economy.
Alex Ballinger
My constituents, of course, remember Liz Truss’s devastating mini-Budget, when those rules were not followed. That had a massive impact on not just our public services but the mortgages and cost of living that my constituents are still feeling today. Does my right hon. Friend agree that going back to that irresponsible financial management would be a disaster for this country?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the damage that recklessness in public office can cause families right across the country—not just for one day, but for months and years beyond that. The Conservative party is desperate for us to forget what happened when Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng were in Downing Street. But the British people will not forget, and they have been feeling the impacts for many years.
The Conservative party talks about public spending but its record on public spending is abysmal. It spent years in office with money lining the pockets of dodgy PPE providers as the bill for asylum seekers’ hotels soared. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) just said, no debate on the Conservative record on tax and spend can be complete without mentioning the mini-Budget. Conservative Members are desperate for the British people to forget what happened three years ago and what the Conservative party foisted on the country. They are desperate to forget that their reckless unfunded tax cuts crashed our economy, damaged our international reputation and added hundreds of pounds to families’ mortgage costs. While British homeowners have been living with the consequences of the Conservatives every day, Conservative Members are all too conspicuous in their efforts to sweep their record under the rug.
True leadership is about not ducking the difficult decisions but confronting them head-on with a clear focus on priorities and values. That is what the Chancellor has promised to do in this Budget. As she set out last week, we will secure this country’s future with a Budget for growth led by this Government’s values of fairness and opportunity. We will do not what is politically expedient but what is necessary to protect families from high inflation and high interest rates; to protect and strengthen our public services, rejecting the austerity that Conservative Members seem keen to impose on our country once again; and to ensure that the economy that we leave to future generations is secure, with debt under control.
Our focus on cutting debt is crucial. We inherited a national debt of about 100% of GDP and since the spring the cost of borrowing has risen for Governments around the world. Today one in every £10 of taxpayers’ money in the UK is used to pay the interest on our national debt. That money should be going to our NHS, our schools, our police and our armed forces. Instead, it is going to our creditors. That is not what people pay taxes for.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
The Minister talks about the building up of debt. Does he understand that when Labour was last in power, debt went up from 36% of GDP to about 76% of GDP? That massive increase built the foundation of the debt that we have today.
James Murray
I am very aware of the foundation of debt that we inherited at the election last year—of around 100% of GDP. That, combined with global borrowing prices, leaves us in this position. We are determined to change that because we know that the less we have to spend on debt interest, the more we can spend on the priorities of working people, the more we can invest in our infrastructure and industry, and the more resilient we can make our public finances, building the headroom to withstand global turbulence while giving businesses the confidence to invest.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Minister seems to be telling us that we can expect debt cutting measures in the Budget. Will he also confirm from the Dispatch Box that there will not be measures to increase national insurance, taxes on hard working people, or VAT?
James Murray
We are back to questions about what will be in the Budget. The answer, again, is very straightforward. The Chancellor set out the values that will guide her in taking the decisions at the Budget on 26 November. She set out the challenges that we face, being straight with the British people about that. The details will all be announced by the Chancellor on Budget day in the normal way.
We know that there is much more for us to do as a Government, but we can see the tough choices we made last year showing early signs of progress. We are set to deliver the largest primary deficit reduction in both the G7 and the G20 over the next five years. Our stewardship of the economy has helped the Bank of England cut interest rates five times, meaning lower mortgage payments and cheaper borrowing for families and businesses; real wages rose more in the first 10 months since the election than in the first 10 years of the previous Government; and the average person’s disposable income is now £800 higher in real terms than just before the election, meaning living standards have begun to rise. We have increased public capital investment by £120 billion over the Parliament and supported the NHS to achieve a reduction in the total elective waiting list of more than 206,000 since July 2024.
Dr Luke Evans
We on the Conservative Benches have been struggling to get an answer on the question of the 50% reduction in integrated care boards, for which the expected redundancy bill is about £1 billion. Today, the Government have issued a press release that says that they have dealt with that. Yet in response to my written question on the subject, the Health Department said that it could not provide an answer because it does not know the numbers, so I have received a holding answer. How much will the redundancy payments cost, and will it come from the Health budget or the Treasury budget?
James Murray
It is for the Health Department to set out the details in response to any questions that the hon. Gentleman has tabled. The point about the merger between NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care is that it is a way of cutting costs and ensuring that that money is reinvested in frontline services. Rather than having duplicative structures within our system, we want to ensure that we are merging NHS England and the Department of Health to make those savings, which we can reinvest in patient care.
As I said, there are still many challenges ahead and we are impatient to see things improve. Globally, inflation remains high and confidence is low, deterring investment and hindering growth. As geopolitical uncertainty grows, we are also faced with a critical need to invest in our defence spending. Domestically, we must continue to cut NHS waiting lists, lower the cost of living and improve our country’s productivity. We must invest in our roads, transport, housing, infrastructure, public services, towns and cities and the businesses for which the last Government failed so completely to provide.
Conservative Members will see the Budget two weeks from today. They will have plenty of opportunity to scrutinise it and participate in a serious debate about it later this month. We will, of course, oppose today’s motion, which speculates on what the Budget might contain. The effort of rebuilding a country requires the contributions of everyone in that country. Together, we can renew the UK and build an economy that is fair and thriving. That is what this Government were elected to do and that is what the Budget in two weeks’ time will play its crucial part in achieving.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
There is a real irony in the fact that the Conservative party has tabled a motion calling for the control of public expenditure and for trust to be returned just three years after a notorious mini-Budget that saw the biggest set of unfunded spending commitments in recent memory and that continues to damage the markets’ confidence in UK fiscal credibility. We still pay the so-called moron premium, driving up interest expenses on Government borrowing, which are now running at £131 billion a year. That is money out of the pockets of everyone across this country and we are still living with the real-world impact of that, because debt in the UK has gone from £0.5 trillion in 2005 to £2.9 trillion today. That is up six times in 20 years—and who has been running the country for the majority of those years?
Stuart Anderson
It is interesting that the hon. Member raises the moron increase. I point out that we are no longer in government. The hon. Member’s party was also in government from 2010 to 2015.
Charlie Maynard
I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the moron premium relates to Liz Truss. People are feeling pressures and that has a huge impact on everybody individually. Pay cheques go less far, tax bills are higher and small luxuries such as having a slice of cake or a pint, or taking the family to the pub, are increasingly out of reach for many people. That hurts, and it is all on the back of stagnant economic growth. Those facts are all the enduring legacy of the disastrous decisions that the Conservative party made. [Hon. Members: “The coalition!”] It is fun to keep saying “coalition” but, sorry, this is more recent than that. We want to back—
Charlie Maynard
If hon. or right hon. Members would like to intervene, will they please do so?
Sir Julian Lewis
May I try to find some common ground with the hon. Gentleman? As has been pointed out, his party was in coalition with the Conservatives for five years. Can we at least agree that Nick Clegg’s decision to vote for trebling tuition fees, thus breaking a manifesto commitment, was a disaster for his party’s ratings? Can we also agree that if the Government do the same in respect of what they have pledged to do, it will be a disaster for their ratings as well?
Charlie Maynard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. We want to back—[Interruption.] It was unquestionably a disaster for our ratings—I will happily give the right hon. Gentleman that—and I do not want the Government to break their promises. That is absolutely right and correct.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that he does not want the Government to break their promises. If he looks at the Liberal Democrat amendment, that is exactly what it does: it takes away the injunction to control public expenditure in order to keep the promises made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does he now accept that it is right that the Government should keep their promises and not follow his amendment?
Charlie Maynard
I have already said that the Government should keep their promises, so there we are. May I continue, please?
We want to back hard-pressed households and small businesses and push for practical steps that will help ease the burden on families and get our high streets thriving again. We have called on the Government to respond to the crisis in our hospitality sector through an emergency VAT cut. That would boost footfall on our high streets, thus protecting jobs in a sector that employs people from all walks of life: young, old, those returning to work, those vulnerable part-time workers and everyone in between.
We also propose bringing down household energy costs as winter is coming by removing the biggest levy baked into people’s electricity bills and, in effect, putting more than £90 a year into the pockets of the average family. Indeed, that will be closer to £250 for some of the least well-off, who rely more on electricity for their heating. This is about supporting local businesses at the heart of our communities, which we all represent, and making a real difference to people’s lives by making it cheaper for them to heat their homes. For too long, our high streets and the small business owners on them have been crippled by the policies of successive Governments.
All that needs to be paid for and needs to be done in a way that is pro-growth and pro-business and which shields households from even greater bills each month. That is not an easy circle to square—I will not pretend that it is. We, as Liberal Democrats, seek to bring deliverable and progressive ideas to the table. If the Chancellor chose such ideas, she could deliver them in her Budget, which is just days away, and the impact would be felt by households across the country with almost immediate effect.
First, we call for a time-limited tax on big commercial banks levied on the massive windfall profits that they receive due to unintended consequences of our financial system. Because of high interest rates and the way the quantitative tightening programme works, the Treasury hands over billions of pounds to the big banks every year via the Bank of England, effectively subsidising banking profits at the expense of the taxpayer. Figures from the OBR confirm that, as things stand, we are on course to hand the big banks £50 billion over the course of this Parliament. Banks never expected to receive that windfall, they never relied on it and never took any risk to reap it. They have only received the payments because inflation and interest rates shot up. That needs to be corrected. It is fair and reasonable to return a portion of that unexpected windfall to the taxpayer and it will do nothing to undermine the health of our financial sector to claim it back.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that interest rates shot up in the way he has just described as a direct result of that mini-Budget three years ago, and that that is precisely why the taxpayer is now paying such large interest rate payments to the banks? Is it not therefore right that the Conservative party should get behind our plan to tax the banks, to reclaim some of that money for the taxpayer?
Charlie Maynard
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] People might be joking about it, but our reputation as a country matters. That is why people invest in our country, and that is why traditionally our debt prices have been low. When we self-sabotage, we pay for it not just for a few weeks or months but for years, and we are paying for it now.
Joe Robertson
When we are just two weeks away from a Budget where the Chancellor is preparing all sorts of unpleasantness for families and businesses, is the hon. Member not just a little concerned that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) is quizzing him about a Budget from three years ago? Does he not think the British people are more interested in what is about to happen in two weeks’ time?
Charlie Maynard
They are interested in what costs them money, and their mortgages are more expensive because of the decisions the Conservatives took three years ago—[Interruption.] Well, read the Financial Times.
Moving on, I suggest that the digital services tax is another way we should be looking at to raise revenues. We would increase it from 2% to 10%, which would raise roughly £4 billion a year and get some of the biggest and wealthiest corporations in the world to finally contribute their fair share of tax here in the UK. We would also increase gambling taxes, because gambling really beggars some of the most vulnerable in society. Of course, the biggest one of all is that we should rejoin the customs union with the EU. Nobody voted to leave the customs union, but we are now in a market that is more than seven times smaller than the one we used to be in. As somebody who founded and ran a business for 24 years, I know that that hurts. It has done huge damage to small, medium-sized and big businesses and we are living with that loss. The quickest thing we could do is to negotiate a new, bespoke customs union with the EU. This would unleash the potential of British business.
With every month and year that goes by, it becomes clearer just how economically damaging the previous Government’s Brexit deal has been. The OBR has forecast that it will harm economic growth, reducing long-term GDP by 4%. However, according to Frontier Economics, a much closer trading relationship with Europe—not even a customs union—could boost UK GDP by 2.2%. These are enormous numbers, so when we are looking around for solutions, there is one right in front of us. It stands to reason that a new customs union would probably raise more than £25 billion a year for the Exchequer. There it is. Grab it, please. With the autumn Budget just two weeks away, the Liberal Democrats’ message to the Chancellor is clear. Instead of asking hard-working households and struggling small businesses to pay even more tax, she must take growth seriously and repair our broken trading relationship with Europe.
Dr Luke Evans
The hon. Gentleman talks about the trading union, but if we were to go back into the EU, one of the things we would have to take is freedom of movement. How does that tally with the Lib Dems’ position on dealing with immigration?
Charlie Maynard
I think we should have all the economic benefits of Europe while controlling our borders and controlling movement—[Interruption.] Well, look at Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. There are lots of options out there. Let’s go and negotiate something that makes sense for us.
My final point is that we need an office for value for money—an effective regulator with proper scrutiny and proper teeth that really looks into our Budget. I ask the Government to take inspiration from the Swedish model of tax scrutiny. I understand that after introducing these changes 30 years ago, and aided by strong economic growth, Sweden has reduced its national debt from nearly 80% of debt to GDP to 32%. Meanwhile, our public debt is around 95%, which means that billions that we could be spending on our public services are instead going towards servicing our debt.
A key component is significantly strengthening the scrutiny powers of this Chamber when it comes to the Government’s financial management. The Chancellor’s practice of keeping the Budget secret until the day, at which point everyone else has to scramble to assess the detail and has no time to provide a proper, meaningful critique, is far from the best way to scrutinise the Government’s economic policy. This is not how many of our international peers go about their economic policy. Proper, detailed scrutiny of the Budget, as opposed to the wave-through regime we currently have, with no proper transparency before approval, needs to be addressed—
Charlie Maynard
Okay, can I just respond to my colleague chuntering in the background? He keeps saying “the OBR”. We are Parliament. We have a responsibility to scrutinise the Budget, and I believe that we, as a Parliament, should be doing that properly, line by line and taking out what is wasted—[Interruption.] I would do it tomorrow if we had the chance, yes. I will finish in a moment, then I will be off—
Mark Garnier
Even the Lib Dems agreed with the OBR. Danny Alexander agreed with the OBR. I will stop chuntering now.
Charlie Maynard
Just because we have always done things a certain way does not mean that there is not room for fresh thinking, a more collaborative approach and greater ambition. Realistically, if we are going to repair the economic damage of the last few years, we need fresh thinking and new ideas.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I would also like to thank the Opposition for giving us this opportunity to set out two competing visions for Britain: growth, modernisation, new infrastructure and stronger public services under Labour; or a return to austerity, Government waste and decline under the Tories—of both their shades of blue. The Tories’ 14 years of power is a tale of two halves. First came—[Interruption.] They do not like to hear it. First came austerity, which broke our public services, leading to the social problems that have increased cost pressures on Government today, but in their final years they did away with austerity, and we saw astonishing levels of profligate waste, dodgy covid contracts, vanity projects and promises that were made to our constituents but never funded.
The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) described Liz Truss’s Kwamikaze Budget as
“the best Conservative budget since 1986”,
but I think most people in this place would agree that we have to live within our means. The Chancellor has inherited a difficult challenge because, on the one hand, she inherited an economy with a debt to GDP ratio of over 99%—the highest debt since the 1960s. On the other hand, she inherited a broken state.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Can the hon. Gentleman clarify the bundle of contradictions that we have heard over the last year from Labour Members? I recall that, in July 2024, we heard from the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), that Labour had to abolish winter fuel payments for older people because there would be a run on the pound, and then they were reinstated because the economy had allegedly stabilised. We are hearing from the Chancellor and from Ministers that the economy is in a state that requires additional taxation and additional spending. We are hearing all these noises from the Labour party around the need to—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be making a speech in due course. That was a very long intervention.
Sam Rushworth
I am not sure that I fully understood the hon. Gentleman’s question or what contradiction he sees, but I will go on to talk about why I feel that we need to see major investment in our public services and our infrastructure.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The hon. Member says that he does not really understand the contradictions. Would he like to state how much growth there has been in the UK economy since the last Budget?
Sam Rushworth
Obviously, we are in a global economy. We have the fastest growth in the G7; I think that is well known—[Interruption.] I am going to make some progress, because it is important to set out why we need to be making investment in our public services and infrastructure.
We have only to look at what austerity did to the NHS. The Conservatives inherited an NHS with the highest satisfaction levels and the lowest waiting times ever, and they reversed both of those two things. Look at the state of our town centres. In fact, look at the state of my own constituency of Bishop Auckland compared with 15 years ago. Look at the state of dentistry. In the year before the general election we lost two NHS dental surgeries but, worse than that, children in the existing practices were sent letters telling them they could no longer be provided with an NHS dentistry service. Look at the rising crime in many of our communities, which exactly mirrors the cuts to frontline police. Look at what the Conservatives did to our defence capabilities, which left us the smallest Army since the Napoleonic era.
Jerome Mayhew
I quite understand the hon. Member’s philosophical approach: he wants to spend more money on public services. He knew of all those issues before the last general election, yet when he stood for election, he said to his constituents, “Vote for me because we will not raise income tax, national insurance and VAT.” Will he stick by his own promise?
Sam Rushworth
I have confidence in the Chancellor to produce a Budget that will do the things that my constituents need it to. What my constituents are asking for, and what they voted for at the general election, is change.
Look what the Conservatives did to our justice system: prisons are 99.9% full, and we have a court backlog that makes victims wait years for justice. We all know that our surgeries are crammed with these cases. Look at what they did to the asylum system, which has an enormous backlog. Whoever negotiated the contract on asylum hotels must have been the person who did the dodgy covid contracts, given the amount that they wasted. Millions a day were spent on hotels.
Look at what the Conservatives did to childhood. Contrary to what was said earlier, child poverty in our country has increased. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that both relative and absolute poverty have increased. The pattern between 1997-98 and 2022-23 can be described as a U-curve; poverty fell under the 13 years of the last Labour Government, and then relative and absolute child poverty increased. Look at what that means for the communities I represent: 16 Sure Start centres closed; primary school budgets are below their 2010 levels; transport for college students is expensive, and their education maintenance allowance was cut; youth services, boxing gyms and swimming pools have closed; and social infrastructure has disappeared from our communities over the last 15 years.
These are real challenges, but the problem is not just with our public services. Because the Conservatives robbed the capital budget to pay for day-to-day spending, they left Britain in the slow lane. Cancelling Labour’s Building Schools for the Future project left our schools and public buildings infested with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Cancelling nuclear projects left us reliant on expensive fossil fuels, which led to 11% inflation at one point under the Conservatives. Cancelling High Speed 2 to secure a media headline on the eve of a conference has left us without the critical transport infrastructure we need.
All these problems come with a higher social cost. When His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs staff are sacked, we get more tax avoidance and fraud. When people have to wait two years for a routine operation, businesses have a bigger sick bill. When prisons are not built and the police are cut, there is more crime. When civil servants were cut, the previous Government had to spend £3 billion on agency staff.
Dr Luke Evans
The hon. Gentleman has missed something from his list: the Government’s own assessment shows that when winter fuel payments are cut, it puts 50,000 people into absolute poverty and 100,000 people into relative poverty. A 2017 report by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), now the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, said that cuts to the payment would kill 4,000 people. Was that factored into the hon. Gentleman’s assessment when he went through the Lobby to vote on the measure?
Sam Rushworth
The only vote we ever had on the issue was a vote for or against an Opposition day motion. I was always clear that the original threshold that the Government set was far too low. I do not think that millionaires and asset-rich, wealthy pensioners should receive the payment. The policy, as it now stands, and as it will be for pensioners in my community this winter, is as it should be.
Sam Rushworth
I voted against a motion saying that the payment should be a universal benefit, because I do not think that it should be universal, and I argued for where I thought it should be.
The Conservatives are right about one thing: we do need to control spending. We should not listen to those on the left who think that there is a magic money tree. There is not. Many of my colleagues on the Government Benches and I know how flippin’ difficult it is to get money out of the Chancellor, because she has this difficult job of having to control public spending. Let us talk about that for a minute. The Conservatives failed to invest in our public services, infrastructure and growth when they were in government, but let us also look at what they did on profligate waste. They spent £73,000 in 2019 topping up the Government’s wine cellar; £1.7 million painting Boris Johnson’s prime ministerial planes, including £800,000 on a Union Jack; £500,000 in a single year on chauffeuring ministerial red boxes around Whitehall; £11 million changing the colour of our passports; and £120 million on their festival of Brexit.
Joe Robertson
Why is the hon. Member going on about spending decisions of previous Governments, when his Chancellor said last year that her Budget had wiped the slate clean? She said, “It’s on us now”. If she accepts responsibility for where she is today, why does he not?
Sam Rushworth
The point I am making is that spending for spending’s sake is not what any responsible Government should do. We should spend every tax pound well. These examples of waste are not things that we should continue.
There was the £100,000 spent on a fake bell that only bonged 10 times during Big Ben’s maintenance. Truss spent £1.8 million on executive travel as Foreign Secretary, not to mention the £500,000 for her private jet for a single trip to Australia in 2022. Then again, she spent £3,000 on a lectern.
Lincoln Jopp
The hon. Member is nickel-and-diming the debate. One big question faces the Chancellor: what to do about the two-child benefit cap, which costs £3.5 billion, so let us not worry about the odd £50,000 here or there. I would like to hear a clear statement from him: is he for lifting the two-child benefit cap, or for keeping it?
Sam Rushworth
That is a fair question, and I will answer it. It is important that we do not return to the days when the Conservatives were in office and vanity projects wasted so much public money, because child poverty is the scourge of our time. We need a national mission to eradicate child poverty. Some of what we need to do will come through, for example, our looking at the two-child cap, but not all of it. I have argued in this place for us to extend free school meals, and I am pleased that the Government have listened to that and are extending them to more children. I have argued in this place for free breakfast clubs, and I am pleased that the Chancellor is listening and funding them. Unlike the Conservatives, she is funding free childcare, because these things matter, too. This is not just about benefits; it is about ensuring that we give children what they need to have a meaningful childhood.
Bradley Thomas
I am not sure that I heard an answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp). Does the hon. Member support a two-child cap, or would he like it removed?
Sam Rushworth
I have never supported the two-child cap. The Conservatives introduced a two-tier benefit system that penalised younger families in a way that it does not penalise older families. My genuine view is that this needs to be looked at creatively. I do not know what the Chancellor will do, but my view is that we need to do something about the problem; possibly we need a tapered system. I have a big family, and I know that my fifth child did not cost what my first child did. I have confidence that this Government, like the last Labour Government, will eradicate child poverty.
I make the point again that child poverty is not just about benefits; it is about what we do to improve childhood. It is about giving children more access to the creative arts, as the Education Secretary this week announced we would. It is about getting youth hubs back; we are working on that. It is about free breakfast clubs, and the warm home discount being extended to more people.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I apologise—I may be a little hard of hearing. Could I ask the hon. Member once more for a quick yes-or-no answer? Would he vote to get rid of the two-child benefit cap?
Sam Rushworth
That is not a vote before the House right now, but I have been pretty clear in my answer. I never agreed with the cap when the Conservatives introduced it. They did terrible things that put too many children in my community into poverty. The Government are addressing child poverty in multiple ways, including through the welfare system. However, children are not poor just because we do not have good enough benefits. In Bishop Auckland, people do not want better benefits; they want better jobs, a stronger local economy, better infrastructure, better education and a better health service. All that will require public spending. If I may say so—[Interruption.] Do you want to make an intervention?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I do not want to make an intervention. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) does, but I certainly do not.
Sam Rushworth
I was distracted by the chuntering of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and thought that he may have wanted to make an intervention.
I will finish as I started. For me, the choice is really this: do we return to the dark days of austerity, which created the challenges that scourge the community that I represent, or do we lift people out of poverty, give them hope and the public services that they need, and invest in the critical infrastructure that brings our economy and our country into the 21st century? I know where I stand on that. Do the Conservatives know where they stand?
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), who clearly has an ideology that he believes.
As a Conservative, I believe in lower taxes, and that people have a better understanding than Governments of how to spend their own money. I want to see more South Shropshire constituents keep more of what they earn. Last year’s Halloween Budget hoicked taxes by £40 billion a year. It included a hugely damaging rise in employer national insurance contributions, which has added almost £1,000 to the cost of employing someone. We are stunting the wealth creators, and that is not acceptable. The Chancellor did that with one hand, and withdrew support from our suffering high streets with the other. Pubs will have to pay an extra £3,000 on average because of the changes to business rates, and they are feeling it.
The latest statistics have confirmed that economic growth has flatlined, despite the Chancellor’s promise to
“lead the most pro-growth, pro-business Treasury our country has ever seen, with a laser focus on delivering for the working people”.
How is that going? Since last year’s Budget, a huge number of people—the figure is approaching 180,000—are out of work. Jobs have been lost, and unemployment is up to 5%.
A year ago, the Chancellor told the country that she would not come back with any more tax hikes. The slate had been wiped clean. She clearly said on TV: “This is what I will be doing, and I will not have to come back.” No matter what reason they come up with, if the Government break that manifesto promise, I believe it will hurt them beyond what they believe possible. They have run out of road in their continual blaming of the previous Government. However, it seems almost certain that that is what will happen, so pensions, savings, cars and houses are all sadly in the frame for Labour’s Budget.
South Shropshire is a big rural constituency, so let us consider rural prosperity. The Chancellor’s policies have killed growth, fuelled inflation and reduced opportunities for South Shropshire residents. On average, productivity, earnings and ease of access to further education are all lower in rural than in urban areas. Closing those gaps could add billions to England’s economy. A stronger economy is needed to enhance public services. I agree with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland that we need strong public services, but we cannot stifle private industry and businesses to get them.
The shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), has shown how huge savings can be made at the same time as cutting taxes for working people. If the shadow Chancellor and shadow Treasury team set out clear objectives, we should put party politics behind us and adopt some of them for the good of the country.
The family farms tax is crippling farmers in South Shropshire. I have a huge rural constituency—25% of my constituents work in the agriculture industry—and the tax is really hurting it. The Budget must reverse the cruel family farm tax, which needs to change. Farmer confidence has dropped to its lowest-ever level on record. More than 6,000 farms have already closed under this Government. That is concerning, and it is a threat to food security.
The Budget must also reverse some measures to release the stranglehold on the high street. Every Member would struggle to find a business in their constituency that says, “I am enjoying the measures that have been put in.” More than a thousand pubs and restaurants on our high streets have already gone—that is the equivalent to two every single day. That is an issue. I welcome the fact that a future Conservative Government would abolish business rates for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. That would stimulate growth, and we could then invest in the areas where we need to.
Dr Luke Evans
This toxic concoction creates a cumulative cycle. The pubs that do survive have to reduce staffing and hours. In rural areas, that might increase loneliness and reduce opportunities for young people to get jobs. That cyclical nature means a spiral into decline. I am concerned about that in my area. Does my hon. Friend share that concern for his area?
Stuart Anderson
He raises a huge point. In my constituency of 700 square miles, the local pub and village hall are community hubs. After Remembrance Sunday, I took my family to the Queens in Ludlow. I have met many publicans across South Shropshire. Experienced publicans are still just able to keep trading on reserves, but they are not really making a profit. The ones who are just setting out to build up that reserve are going broke. It is just not a viable situation for them at the moment.
Council tax bills doubled in the time that Labour was last in power, representing an extra £751 on an average band D home. The Conservatives put in veto powers to ensure that council tax did not increase over a certain amount. We allowed local areas to receive the funding that they wanted by raising council tax within 5%, but without excessive rises. At the moment, less funding is going into rural areas but council tax is going up by a dramatic amount, so people are paying more and getting less.
The County Councils Network has named Shropshire council as one of 16 local authority areas that will see significant cuts in direct Government funding. It suggests that there will be about £9 million of cuts to Government funding over the next three years. That will affect many different services, including Shropshire Fire and Rescue Service, which has said so on record.
I have written to many constituents as part of my “shop local” survey, and I have heard from almost 10% of them—thousands of people have responded. People say that they love going to the local high street and want to do so. However, the footfall numbers are dropping. Businesses say that they do not have confidence, and that it is getting harder and harder to trade. That is causing major issues on the high street. We must release the stranglehold on the high street and encourage growth. The biggest factor, businesses tell me, is the tax hikes, which are crippling. I make a plea to the Government to change their approach to taxing small businesses, or they will destroy the country.
Lincoln Jopp
Will my hon. and gallant Friend take an intervention from any Labour Member who is prepared to say that they have spoken to a business in their constituency that welcomes the NI tax increase?
Stuart Anderson
I will gladly take an intervention from any Labour Member whose local businesses say that the tax on local business is good. Anyone?
Sam Rushworth
I spoke to a business in my constituency that said it understands why the Chancellor made that decision. One of its biggest concerns is the number of days that it loses to sickness, and it understands the importance of improving public services and of having a better educated and healthier workforce.
Stuart Anderson
I am happy that you intervened, and if you support tax hikes for your—
Stuart Anderson
I will start that again, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy that the hon. Gentleman intervened. If he speaks to businesses across his constituency, they might say that they understand the tax hike, but I am asking if any of them support it. I am happy if he wants to intervene to say that they do.
Despite the huge pressures, I will continue to campaign for funding and support that enables businesses to thrive. The biggest area is tax cuts, and it remains a vital part of my focus to unleash rural prosperity for South Shropshire. I urge colleagues across the House to vote down any future tax rises.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for opening it. As Members will know, I take any opportunity to speak or to intervene, but a couple of weeks ago I missed an opportunity when the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) asked whether any Labour Members wanted to lower taxes. I have two excuses for not intervening on that occasion. The first was that I had only just walked into the Chamber, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) has found, someone cannot intervene if they have only just walked in. The second reason I did not intervene on the right hon. Gentleman was that I have to declare an interest when it comes to tax: I am the son of not one but two of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs tax inspectors—[Interruption.] I know; I am turning into the Prime Minister and talking about what my parents did for a living. I am also the grandson of an HMRC tax inspector, so I have to declare an interest as I would not be standing here if it were not for tax.
Dr Ben Spencer
Tax collection and working for HMRC are important jobs. Obviously the tax collector gets a bad rap in popular culture, but I wish to thank the hon. Gentleman’s parents and family for what they do.
Chris Vince
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind intervention. I like the fact that, even in a debate about tax in which we have opposing views, we have been able to come to some sort of consensus—my speech has already done its job, one might argue.
The answer that I thought of giving the right hon. Member for Braintree about tax was that I would love residents in Harlow, particularly those in low-income families—23% of under-16s in Harlow live in low-income families—to pay less tax. However, we have seen underfunding in our local services, with the hospital and schools falling apart, and roads that frankly look like the surface of the moon. If we were to live in a low-tax haven—I do not suggest that all Opposition Members say we should—it would lead to those local services suffering, and it is those lower-income families who cannot afford private healthcare, private schools, or to get their car fixed every time they go over a pothole, who would suffer.
Chris Vince
I will, as long as the hon. Gentleman does not ask me about renationalisation.
Jerome Mayhew
I know that the hon. Member cannot pronounce that word. I quite understand the points that he makes—he is heartfelt in making them, and he thinks there should be Government spending on those issues. However, he was aware of every single one of those issues before the 2024 general election, when he stood on a manifesto commitment not to raise income tax, not to raise national insurance, and not to raise VAT. Does he accept that if his Government resile from those promises, it will be a huge breach of trust with the British people?
Chris Vince
I thank the hon. Gentleman for again mentioning that I cannot say “renationalisation”—well, apparently I can; I just cannot say it when we are on “BBC Look East” together.
I stood on a manifesto to ensure that I got investment into my town, and I am delighted that this Government have promised, for the first time, a realistic and fully funded timetable for a new hospital for Harlow, with a guarantee that Harlow will be the home of the UK Health Security Agency—I appreciate that I am now turning into a party political broadcast. My priority is to ensure that every young person in Harlow has the best possible opportunities, and I know that that is what this Government will do. I know that difficult choices need to be made by the Chancellor, and I will not pre-empt the Budget—Opposition Members will not be surprised to know that, as a humble Back Bencher, I do not know what the Budget says.
I mentioned that my mother was an HMRC compliance officer, and I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for paying tribute to her. I asked my mother to talk to me a little about what she did at the Inland Revenue, and later at HMRC. She said, “I will write a couple of bits down for you.” Hon. Members will be pleased to know that I am not going to read out the four pages that she wrote, but I will give a few selected highlights. I will miss out the bit where she says, “Hello Darling, thanks for asking”, but she wrote that she joined the Inland Revenue as an inspector of taxes in 1975—I thought that was very honest of my mum. That was pre-computers, and she was
“manually calculating assessments, processing returns and issuing code numbers, i.e. PAYE.”
Apparently it took 18 months of training to do that, and she successfully passed the exam, as hon. Members will have gathered.
If we fast forward, she took a career break—if hon. Members are wondering why she took a career break, I am standing right here. She initially worked at the national insurance organisation, until that merged with HMRC. Her role was to help people with gaps in their national insurance records—basic investigation work and contacting employers. In 2003, she
“returned to HMRC ‘proper’—to employer compliance investigation team.”
He job was to visit employers and check their records. Very positively she found that
“most companies were compliant, but they made mistakes.”
There was a scheme—this is something I would suggest to the Minister if he was in his place—that ran courses to ensure that businesses got it right. That could be really important. When we talk about tax evasion, there are people who do that on purpose, but there are also some who just need that help and support.
At compliance reviews, my mother also checked that foreign employees had the right to work in the UK. She was subsequently promoted to regional manager—well done mum—where she managed 100 staff and eight managers who were below her. Her team met taxpayers face-to-face in their offices, or in their homes if they were vulnerable, and they
“helped people complete tax returns, claim allowances, and ensure they paid the correct tax.”
They also administered what were then child tax credits. She was also
“able to authorise hardship payments in this context.”
Sadly, in 2014, 20,000 staff in HMRC customer services were made redundant, and as Members across the House will know, that included my mother—[Hon. Members: “Ahh!”] Thank you. HMRC decided that customers—that is taxpayers—should telephone for assistance, but telephone staff were not given 18 months of training, and if people could not get through on the phone they were told to go online. Across Essex, there were a number of cuts to local offices, including in Chelmsford, Witham, Colchester, Harlow, Bishop’s Stortford—that’s not in Essex—and Hertford.
Joe Robertson
I confess that I am struggling to understand the relevance of this. If it is so important to Budget setting, has the hon. Member given his mother’s note to the Chancellor for her to read?
Chris Vince
I thank the hon. Gentleman—I had not thought to do that, but I will do so. I am sure my mother will appreciate that I am having that conversation. I briefly spoke to the Chancellor before this speech, to let her know about my mum’s circumstances. I just put that on the record, and I thank the hon. Member for his intervention—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I think there will be another intervention, but I want to bring us loosely back to the subject of taxes. While I can see that the career of the hon. Member’s mother at HMRC is related to taxes, it would be unfortunate, would it not, if I had to put a tight time limit on other Members?
Chris Vince
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So I cannot talk about my father’s and grandfather’s experiences—[Interruption.] No, okay.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for becoming the human face of tax collection in this debate. A number of my constituents also work for HMRC, and they have told me that the period of cuts has impeded the agency’s ability to collect corporate taxation and get into the public purse revenues that are rightly due. Is that not a relevant factor when talking about the Opposition’s plan to cut 132,000 civil servants?
Chris Vince
The ultimate point here is that an estimated £5.5 billion was lost to the Treasury in 2022-23 as a result of tax evasion, and an estimated £6.6 billion was lost in 2023-24. What impact does the Minister think the previous cuts to HMRC will have on the amount of revenue collected, based on the current taxation rules, which were also agreed to by the Conservative party? How different would the amount in the coffers be if those cuts to HMRC had not been made? Will he consider that fact in the Budget and look at how we can support HMRC to ensure that we collect the correct taxes? Let us talk about the tax that should be collected but is not being collected because of the starving of funding for HMRC. From personal experience, I know that my mum and her colleagues made money for the Government. I appreciate that I went a little bit off topic, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I hope you understand the point I was trying to make.
To reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in his opening remarks, the Budget will be set on 26 November, which is why we will vote down this motion.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
After the next speaker, I will impose a seven-minute time limit.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). I thank him for cantering us through his mother’s career at HMRC—on behalf of the whole House, I thank her for her service, and I ask him to pass on our very best wishes.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as a near neighbour to my constituency, I am sure that you will know that the history of Gosport has always been umbilically linked to the fortunes of our armed forces. The town was effectively nationalised by the Royal Navy two or three centuries ago. As the size and structure of our defence base changed, with that, over many decades, went many of the jobs and livelihoods that depended on it. Job density on the Gosport peninsula is almost 50% lower than in the wider south-east region, which is an issue that I have spent 15 years as an MP trying to help drive solutions for. There is nothing more important to an area like mine than maintaining the conditions that give businesses the confidence to invest, employ and grow, but the overwhelming foundation stone for growth, and for the innovation and investment that will solve the productivity puzzle that the UK is facing, is that businesses need to be able to make long-term decisions and plan for the future.
Employers in my constituency, both large ones like StandardAero, QinetiQ and STS Defence and the numerous small and growing businesses, need to be able to rely on stable borrowing costs and to know that the cost of materials will not rise unsustainably in order to have the confidence to take on new staff and start apprenticeship programmes. Investors like those who took the plunge and moved to the Solent enterprise zone at Daedalus airfield, creating hundreds of local jobs in the process, need to know that if they put their capital at risk by investing, the Government will not reach in on a whim to take a large slice of any reward. The fact is that employer tax rises put all of that at risk. That is what we have seen since last year’s Budget and why local people are nervous about this year’s Budget too.
Tax fulfils two purposes: one, which the Chancellor knows well, is to raise revenue for the Government, but I am not convinced that she has given much thought to the other, which is influencing changes in behaviour. The pessimism and growth downgrades in our economy over the past year have provided hard and fast evidence that changes to the tax regime are at least as powerful at achieving the second goal as the first. Some £40 billion of tax rises very effectively mowed down those green shoots of post-pandemic recovery, but worse than that, they incentivised businesses in my Gosport constituency to make decisions that run in direct contrast to what our area needs. There are fewer employment opportunities and fewer chances for young people to build good-quality careers.
I have heard worrying stories about the impact that the employer national insurance rises announced in last year’s Budget of unintended consequences have had in my constituency. The common thread is that the national insurance change hit the businesses for which labour is the highest cost hardest, putting services that my constituents rely on every day at risk. A fifth of everyone who works in Gosport works in caring, leisure and other service occupations. Those are by far the biggest employment sectors, and account for almost three times the average for England, so my constituents felt the Chancellor’s national insurance rises the hardest.
Dr Luke Evans
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about what happened a year ago. Another problem is that all the kite flying in the Treasury at the moment means that people are now making decisions to withdraw their pensions schemes, not employ people and not invest. Is my hon. Friend seeing that in her constituency, as I am in mine? All that kite flying has real-world consequences, even before we get to the Budget in three weeks’ time.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend is 100% right to point out that people are making knee-jerk decisions because of fear about what the Chancellor will do, and they are delaying business decisions that they might otherwise have made that would have brought growth to my constituency.
My constituency lies on the south coast. The stunning Solent coastline may mean that Lee-on-the-Solent, Stubbington and the wider Gosport area is a wonderful place to retire. As I often repeat, we have the largest proportion by percentage of veterans of any place in the United Kingdom, but that requires adequate health and care provision. However, care providers, whose main cost is personnel, are struggling.
The Nuffield Trust has calculated that the national insurance rise costs England’s 18,000 independent adult social care providers £940 million, which has severe consequences for the elderly and vulnerable people who need the service. One local provider, who operates a 44-bed care home offering residential care for the frail elderly and those living with dementia, suggested that they had no choice but to pass those national insurance rises directly on to their customers. As a result, one constituent told me that he was seeing an increase of nearly 8% in his brother’s care home fees.
At the other end of the spectrum, Hopscotch nursery, which looks after 1,900 children across our local region and provides fantastic care and support, told me that the jobs tax added £1 million to its overheads—that is a 10% increase, which means a 10% fee increase is being passed on to many of my constituents. Working parents need childcare, so working parents have to pay. What is the impact? Reduced household spending and a slower economy or, even worse, a parent dropping out of work to look after the children. Perhaps that is why we have seen growth flatline, borrowing costs rise and, this week, unemployment reach its highest level since lockdown.
On 26 November, will the Chancellor demonstrate that she has learned the lesson that tax rises that hit employers’ bottom lines have serious implications for our businesses, communities and economy? I would be shocked if she has not, but we are still hearing reports that hiring costs are going to increase yet again. None of the hospitality and retail businesses in my constituency will welcome that. After all, the sector has already seen 80,000 job losses.
I am particularly concerned for young people. A recent Telegraph article said that young people were giving up on Gosport because of the lack of employment opportunities. For many, a job in hospitality or retail is the first step on the route into work. Businesses in the sectors that take on so many young people across my constituency, from adult social care and childcare to hair and beauty, are telling me that they are not taking on more staff as a result of the Chancellor’s changes to national insurance contributions. In fact, the National Hair and Beauty Federation told me that, at the current rate of decline, there would be no new apprenticeships in that sector at all within the next few years. It is not a coincidence that this year my constituency saw the number of young people between 18 and 24 years old claiming unemployment-related benefits rise by 31%. So when the Government conduct their new independent review into why this is happening, they might want to start by looking in their own backyard.
When the Chancellor is considering the vast array of tax measures at her disposal to fill the £30 billion black hole, will she consider the impact on the employment of young people of any proposals to further penalise retail and hospitality businesses? She might even consider taking a Conservative growth policy, and announce that business rates will be scrapped for high street businesses such as pubs.
It is not only businesses that support growth. Across Gosport, Lee-on-the-Solent, Stubbington and Hill Head, many people dedicate their own time to volunteering, towards supporting sports clubs, charities, health forums and community organisations. Those groups are the backbones of our communities, but like any organisation they cost money to run. The Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, which I chair, has heard how increasing costs have impacted the ability of charities and voluntary organisations to deliver the services that local people rely on and love.
We often forget that charities face employment costs too. Despite 83% of charities recording an increase in demand for their services over the past 12 months, last year’s tax hike added a combined £1.4 billion to the wage bills of more than 44,000 charities. A huge amount of pessimism is growing in the sector. A third of charities are reducing their workforce as a result of the tax rises, and a similar number think that the sector is in an unhealthy space.
The increase might be easier to shoulder were it not for the parallel drop-off in funding streams. Tax rises mean less money for charitable giving, especially if the Chancellor is going to go after pensioners with her increase in income tax. I cannot stress enough how much tax rises have hurt and will continue to hurt the charitable sector, and the unintended consequences are huge. We have less charitable giving and fewer hours volunteered, as people work longer and salary sacrifice schemes are raided, while increased costs threaten jobs at national charities such as Oxfam, Scope and the National Trust, which face the loss of £50 million through restrictions on their ability to claim gift aid.
Sports clubs do a fantastic job of alleviating pressure on charities and the NHS, but they can also reduce the burden on the Chancellor to pay out-of-work benefits. On current estimates, spending on working-age disability and incapacity benefits is expected to increase by £25 billion to more than £70 billion by the end of this Parliament, and an estimated 148.9 million working days were lost due to sickness or injury in 2024. Physical activity can play such a vital role in the prevention of so many conditions, and so many of our sports clubs lean in, but the tax rises in last year’s Budget mean that the sector is in a precarious position and unable to meet its potential. The facilities that teams use to practise, play and socialise need staff as well as revenue streams. Tax undermines the work being done by our sports clubs to increase the take-up of physical exercise, reduce the burden on the NHS and keep our communities together.
We do not yet know what the Chancellor plans to announce at the Budget in a couple of weeks’ time. Last year we saw £40 billion-worth of tax rises. It was the highest tax-raising Budget in a generation, and I know that many people in my constituency were shocked. That was not what the Government promised when they were in opposition or at the general election. We now fear that the Chancellor will go big on tax rises, despite categorically saying last year that she had wiped the slate clean and would not be coming back for more. My concern for my constituents is that they have seen no tangible benefit from last year’s Budget, just pain, and they will undoubtedly shoulder the burden whenever new measures are announced.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on his constituency, which I drove through. I enjoyed a drink or two in one of the pubs in his town of Ludlow, and it was really good to be there. Fortunately, I sat next to some Labour supporters in the pub, so I am grateful for that too.
There has been quite a lot of bluster from the Conservatives today. However, sadly for them, a party that repeatedly broke its manifesto promises, crashed the economy and brought public services to their knees has no credibility. It is all brass neck and no contrition. This Labour Government are still cleaning up the mess that the Conservatives left—a mess that has deep consequences for our economy, with the impact of austerity, their bodged Boris Brexit deal, and Liz Truss’s mini-Budget, which homeowners and many others have been paying the price for.
Changes to fiscal policy are made at the Budget, which will be set out on 26 November, not today. That is just one of the many reasons why we will vote against this motion. What I can say is that my colleagues in the Treasury will ensure that the Budget is underpinned by Labour’s values of fairness and opportunity and focused on the priorities of the British people: protecting our NHS, reducing the national debt and improving the cost of living.
Lincoln Jopp
It would make things so much simpler for the House if the hon. Gentleman would put a date on when those on the Government Benches will take responsibility for running the country. I do not mind if it is in six months’ time or a year’s time, but we can then all go home—I have lots of things to do in Spelthorne until then. When the Government finally come to terms with the fact that they are in charge and are responsible, we will all be grateful.
John Slinger
Frankly, it took 14 years for the Conservatives not to apologise for any of the decisions they took, so I do not think we need any lectures from the hon. Member or from other Conservatives.
Contrast our values with the values of the Conservatives: austerity, financial recklessness under Liz Truss, and a dodgy Brexit deal. We cannot return to austerity and economic chaos.
Stuart Anderson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for talking highly of my constituency—Ludlow is lovely. Does he realise that austerity started under the Labour Government when they were last in power? They started measures to make cuts in 2008-09.
John Slinger
I absolutely accept that the previous Labour Government took difficult decisions towards the end of their tenure in office following the global financial crisis. What happened from 2010 onwards was unnecessary and reckless, and we are all still paying the price to this day.
John Slinger
I will not; I may give way in a little bit, but let me make some progress.
We will ensure that we avoid another decade of under-investment in public services and infrastructure. I am sure we all agree that we owe it to future generations to ensure that the economy we hand down is secure, with debt under control. I would like to hear more from Conservative Members—perhaps they would like to intervene on me. Their motion makes no mention of the public services that would be cut. How many doctors, teachers, soldiers and police officers would they want to cut? I am happy to take an intervention.
Jerome Mayhew
If the hon. Gentleman is looking for ideas about how to cut spending, he could do worse than to look at the proposals set out at the Conservative party conference, in which we identified £47 billion of public sector cuts that would not require any of the cuts that he suggests.
John Slinger
That £47 billion seems rather like a number plucked out of thin air. Frankly, I do not think that that number holds any credibility.
The previous Government cut national insurance in 2024, which was deliberate sabotage. They cut public services from 2010 onwards, which was deliberate ideological recklessness and is still damaging the services that our constituents rely on.
John Slinger
No, I will not.
The consequence? Chaos. Under the Conservatives, prisons were full. We had a lack of prison places and a crisis so bad that it led the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), it is said, to go to the country early. Local government was underfunded. Schools were literally at risk of collapse. Waiting lists were at a record high. Every time I knock on a door, people tell me of the lengthy waits they are undergoing. They often say that there is no difference between the parties and that all politicians are the same. Well, the Conservatives increased waiting lists, and we are getting them down faster than we promised; they are at the lowest level for two years.
On promises, the Conservatives are in no position to lecture us. In 2019, they pledged to build 40 new hospitals. Where are they? I am waiting. In 2019, the former Prime Minister, Mr Johnson, said:
“We will fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan we have prepared.”
Where is it? How did that go?
In 2010, 2015 and 2017, the Conservatives promised to bring net migration down to the “tens of thousands”. When was it that net migration peaked? It was in June 2023, when it peaked at 906,000.
Dr Spencer
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting argument. As I understand what he is saying, does he stick to the manifesto promises on which he was elected?
John Slinger
I absolutely believe we should implement the manifesto that we stood on, and I am proud to do that.
John Slinger
Since hon. Members mention taxes from a sedentary position, let me say that the Conservatives broke their tax pledge by increasing national insurance in 2021.
John Slinger
I will not give way.
The Conservatives broke their triple lock promise in 2022 and 2023.
John Slinger
I will not give way; I will make a little progress.
The Conservatives paint themselves as economically competent and as the party of low taxes. Well, Liz Truss blew the first claim out of the water. On the second claim, the tax burden under the Conservatives reached a record high of 36.3% in ’22-23.
Bradley Thomas
On a very brief point of clarification, is the hon. Gentleman saying to this House that he would like this Labour Government to not increase taxes and therefore stick by their manifesto?
John Slinger
I am saying to this House that my right hon. Friends in the Government have to take very difficult decisions to deal with the problems this country faces, many of which were caused by decisions taken by the Conservatives. They left mines in our national finances, our public services, our system of taxation, and more besides. This Government are not just manoeuvring around those mines, leaving them for future generations; we are defusing them. We are getting on with the job of renewal and, unlike Opposition parties, we will not take risks with the next generation through undue debt. We will invest in the national interest, and we will reform things, as we are showing with NHS England. We will take the tough long-term decisions that are necessary to rebuild Britain. We are doing this with our Labour values at the forefront: fairness; opportunity for all; protecting the vulnerable; empowering people, businesses and organisations; challenging vested interests; long-term investment; an industrial strategy; skills for the future.
Lincoln Jopp
On the topic of tough decisions, I have a really simple question for the hon. Gentleman, which will probably do him some good in the coup that is currently going on. Is he for lifting the two-child benefit cap, or for keeping it in place?
John Slinger
I am for doing absolutely everything we can to reduce child poverty. One way in which we can achieve that is by ending the two-child cap—there are other measures. However, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor; it is not for me to decide right now in the Chamber.
Our approach is paying off. We were the fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first half of the year, and the average person’s disposable income is £800 higher now in real terms than just before the election, but there is not time for me to go through the long list of our achievements. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will set out more in the Budget. In my view, ours is a can-do approach, not a kicking-the-can-down-the-road approach.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Too many of my constituents know 26 November 2025 already. Usually, Budgets come and go without making a huge impact on the public consciousness of people living their daily lives, but this year is different. It is different because businesses and families are terrified about what the Chancellor is cooking up for them.
What the Chancellor and the Prime Minister could have done a couple of weeks ago—indeed, a couple of months ago—is to put their fears at rest, confirm the Labour manifesto and confirm the promise not to increase tax on income, national insurance or VAT. The Prime Minister was prepared to do so in the summer; he did not revert to this absolute nonsense that he is not going to write the Budget. No one is asking him to write the Budget, and no one is asking the Minister to write the Budget from the Dispatch Box today. What we are asking for is confirmation of a manifesto promise that he and others got elected on less than 18 months ago. The Prime Minister committed to that promise in July, but failed to do so two weeks ago. Either he and his Government are indifferent to the worries of my constituents and the British people, or they are cooking up plans to tear up their manifesto and increase taxes they said they would not. I suspect that it can only be the latter.
Sir Julian Lewis
There is, of course, a third possibility, which some people with twisted minds have been suggesting: that the Government plan to do some pretty terrible things in the Budget but are setting up a strawman that they are going to break their manifesto promises. Then, when they do not do so, everybody will swallow those other terrible things. Is that too Machiavellian?
Joe Robertson
My right hon. Friend, whose constituency is just across the water from mine, is far more experienced in this place than I am. I admit to a certain naivety in not imagining that Machiavellian intention within the Government to set up such a strawman, but the point remains the same. If they are doing so, they are indifferent to the economic worries of my constituents and others, particularly hard-working families and businesses.
The question that we as the Opposition have raised today is what the Chancellor is going to do with the situation that she has created. Having sat through this debate, it is surprising to have heard so much deflection from Government Members—so much determination, in November 2025, to talk about previous Budgets under previous Governments. It is an obvious deflection technique, but in so doing, they speak against their own Chancellor. In November last year, she was very proud of herself in saying that her previous Budget had dealt with the black hole—a mystery black hole that she had identified, but let us take her at her word—and she wanted credit for having closed it off and wiped the slate clean. Her actual words to Sky News were “It’s now on us”, meaning that from that date, any problems in the economy and in future Budgets would be hers to deal with, and would have been caused by her decisions.
Last year, the Chancellor blamed the Conservatives for a £22 billion black hole. On a political level, one can understand that—why would she not? She had just come into government; she felt she could get away with it. This year’s black hole is bigger. It is £30 billion, and it is on her. That is why she is faced with the choice of raising money from hard-working families. What she could do is seek savings from the ballooning disability welfare bill, which, according to the OBR’s figures, is set to reach £100 billion by the end of the decade. She tried to do that earlier this summer, but her Back Benchers were not having any of it, so she and the Prime Minister had to shelve those plans.
We learn today that not only have the Prime Minister and the Chancellor lost the confidence of many of their Back Benchers, they have also lost their grip on No. 10, with its staffers briefing out against the Health Secretary. Today, the Prime Minister has had to admit to this place that he did not authorise any of that. In so doing, he has demonstrated that he has lost control of No. 10, his own operation. He is now having to suck up to the Health Secretary, the man who wants his job, in order to try to hold his operation together. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor could try to make savings—the shadow Chancellor has very kindly identified £47 billion of savings for them.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
You have mentioned the £47 billion of savings, but you have neglected to identify the number of teachers—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. If the hon. Gentleman had been here for more of the debate, he would have heard that I am being particularly pernickety about the use of the word “you”. I have not identified anything this afternoon, and I do not intend to do so. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make his intervention short, given his short tenure in the Chamber this afternoon.
David Pinto-Duschinsky
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise. The hon. Member has not mentioned how many teachers, how many doctors and how many police would be involved.
Joe Robertson
The reason I have not identified any doctors, teachers or police is the fact that there are none to identify. The savings of £47 billion have been listed by the shadow Chancellor. They include cuts to the civil service in Whitehall—I suspect that the hon. Gentleman’s Government may be dragged kicking and screaming to cut it, in some way at some point, by us—and they also include £23 billion of cuts in the welfare bill. It is the right thing to do to incentivise work and lift people from welfare into work, something in which the hon. Gentleman’s party used to believe. One way of doing that is making employers want to employ people, but the Chancellor, in her last Budget, disincentivised work, because she taxed work by raising national insurance contributions. As we stand today, there are 180,000 fewer people on the payroll than there were when this Government came in, and it is no surprise that the economy is grinding to a halt.
In fact, the Government are doing worse through the Department for Business and Trade, by introducing an Employment Rights Bill that will further disincentivise work. It has disincentivised people, young people in my constituency, from finding a seasonal summer job, because it has lowered the hourly threshold at which national insurance contributions come in, so it is less beneficial to employ people for fewer hours and, indeed, younger people, who used to be cheaper to employ while they were between education and full-time work.
As was explained so eloquently earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), it is the unintended consequences that have really damaged the economy and made it harder to employ people—although she was, I think, generous in describing them as unintended consequences, given that the Chancellor, the Treasury and the Government should know the consequences of their policy decisions. It makes me wonder whether they were in fact reckless, and were quite happy for businesses to soak up the additional cost and come back to the taxpayer for more money.
I urge those on the Government Benches—very few of whom are present today—to maximise all possible pressure on their Chancellor to do the right thing by their constituents and the British people.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Opposition motions are usually detailed—as, indeed, is the next motion on the Order Paper, relating to energy—so the brevity of this motion deserves comment. The most important line is, I think, the first:
“That this House calls on the Government to control public expenditure”.
In the hands of this Opposition, that short and seemingly innocuous phrase is a euphemism for cuts to essential services, and a return to the austerity agenda that the public rejected so decisively a year ago. All that follows in the motion hangs on that intent. After all, the Opposition accept that were the positions reversed, they themselves would probably be putting up taxes.
Earlier in the debate the shadow Chancellor, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, said that he had been quoted out of context. According to the longer transcript, as reported by City AM, he said:
“If I was in exactly her position”
—the Chancellor’s, that is—
“and I had to deal with tax, and I was down the end of the spectrum where the black hole was really big, I would probably go for income tax…I wouldn’t want to be in that position but that’s the cleanest thing to do.”
Jerome Mayhew
As we are looking for clarity, what the shadow Chancellor was saying was that if he was in the Chancellor’s position, that is, if he could not cut spending and had to raise tax, perhaps that is what he would do, but that is not what his intention is. His intention, very properly, is to control spending, as any responsible Government would. Why will the hon. Gentleman’s Government not do the same?
Laurence Turner
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because it brings me to my next point. The Opposition have come to the House today stating that all these difficult matters have been resolved and there is no need for tax increases at all. They say that they have a plan for cutting £47 billion of public expenditure. I have a copy of that plan with me, but it is not much of a boast, because it is a very sparse document. The right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) said, “Further detail will follow,” but a month has passed and we are still waiting. Perhaps the shadow Minister who winds up the debate can let us know whether the Opposition will be publishing a more detailed document.
Gregory Stafford
To bring the hon. Member back to the controlling of spending, may I ask him a question that other Members on his side have failed to answer? Would he be in favour of keeping or scrapping the two-child benefit cap?
Laurence Turner
I have said it a number of times on the record and in this House before, so it is no evasion to say that I am no fan of the cap at all. As an incrementalist, I would like to see at least some solid progress on lifting that cap, and I hope that we will be in a position to remove it completely.
Laurence Turner
No. I have already taken two interventions and I want to make a bit of progress with my speech, but I might come back to the hon. Member.
I hope that the Opposition do publish more detail, because, if they do not, it will be widely suspected in the country and the House that they know that their claims do not withstand the lightest of scrutiny. It will also be concluded that the real function of that document is to act as an exercise in wishful thinking, and that it is designed to avoid the taking of difficult and unpopular decisions.
Some parts of the Opposition’s claims can be dispensed with briefly. They tell us that they would save £3.5 billion by closing asylum hotels; I think my constituents would choke on their cornflakes on that one, because they know that the Conservative party was the originator of hotel use, just as small boat crossings were not an issue before 2019. I am glad that, under Labour, hotel placements in Birmingham are down by 50% compared with their peak, and I look forward to their use being eliminated completely.
The greater part of the Opposition’s claimed savings is £23 billion of supposed cuts to the welfare bill, but, again, we have had only the scarcest of details. Let us be clear about the scale of what is being discussed: £23 billion is the equivalent of a quarter of the universal credit bill, more than half the disability social security bill, and two thirds of housing costs.
To give her credit, the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said last week that she would be happy to share a further breakdown of those savings. Again, that has not been brought forward. If the Opposition are to ask the House to have any confidence in their proposals, they must provide that information—not examples of proposed cuts, but the cuts in their totality.
Dr Ben Spencer
One of the striking features of this debate is how much time the Government Benchers have spent discussing our record in Government and our future plans. It is almost as if they are lingering, cheering on, and desperately in need of a change of Prime Minister. Will they facilitate that?
Laurence Turner
When Opposition Members talk about defenestration, I do listen—because of their greater expertise in these matters. And, of course, “What’s past is prologue”—the hon. Gentleman tempts me to get on to the Zinoviev letter, but that might be one for another day. However, I have actually made only one brief reference to the last Government’s record. We are scrutinising their motion and their proposals; this is an Opposition day debate, and that is a proper function of Parliament.
The other part of the Opposition’s document that I want to comment on is their intention to axe 132,000 civil servants. Some of those people are my constituents—as has already been noted. Not only is this pledge a rehash of a “here today, gone tomorrow” promise once announced by Boris Johnson and never seen again, but it is unclear where exactly the Opposition see those job cuts falling. Is it the additional trade and customs officials hired since 2016? Is it the additional Department for Education staff hired as a result of academisation—effectively a transfer of functions from local government to central Government? Is it the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government staff hired as a result of the growth in statutory burdens on our local authorities? I think all our constituents who work in those roles deserve at least clarity on what the Opposition’s intentions are.
David Pinto-Duschinsky
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is interesting that the Conservatives have put forward lots of fantasy proposals about various cuts they cannot make, yet strangely failed to mention any of the covid money that went missing on their watch, or its recovery?
Laurence Turner
My hon. Friend is right, and we could all point to examples of waste and inefficient spending under the previous Government. That is, of course, part of the context of where we find ourselves today, as are the £9.5 billion of undisclosed spending pressures that were withheld by the Treasury on their watch from the Office for Budget Responsibility.
I will just say this before concluding, because it has been part of the debate: we are today in a pre-Budget debate, and no Back Bencher knows the contents of what will be announced. But when we do look back on the past in that reflective way, I think the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) had—
Bradley Thomas
I wonder if the hon. Gentleman could tell the House whether he would be content if income tax, national insurance or VAT were to rise in the Budget in two weeks’ time.
Laurence Turner
I will happily say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think any of us come to this place wanting to raise taxes. I will just draw attention to one thing in the Labour party manifesto: an important statement that a growing economy needs strong public services. I welcome the record investment in our NHS—the biggest in 20 years—which has seen waiting lists in Birmingham fall by 20%. That is a philosophical difference between my side and his, but it was also a very important part of the manifesto that I stood on.
Earlier, the right hon. Member for New Forest East suggested that he remembered when Hugh Dalton resigned in 1947. I am not sure that the numbers can be right on that one, but I will just say this. Every Conservative Government and leadership from 2010 onwards claimed mitigating circumstances—some were great, such as the pandemic, and some less so—when they deviated from manifesto commitments. There is no doubt that the weakening of international trade, the imposition of tariffs and the forthcoming OBR revision on productivity estimates are new and relevant factors. That is why difficult conversations are currently happening in Governments and Parliaments across Europe. When the Conservatives demand consistency from others, they would do well to reflect on their own confounding record.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
This debate is much broader than mere numbers on a spreadsheet buried in the Treasury; it is about trust, stewardship and the future of our country. That matters because, at the last general election, the now Government and all those elected on their manifesto said they would not raise taxes on “working people”, yet at last year’s Budget, they did precisely that. They introduced £40 billion-worth of tax rises—under the guise of national insurance in the majority of cases—which have a trickle-down effect on working people up and down the country.
To compound matters, on 25 November last year the Chancellor addressed the Confederation of British Industry and made a cast-iron promise: no more borrowing, and no more taxes. That was a pledge to every family, every community and every business in this country, yet we are now on the precipice of the Government breaking their promise. To do so would irreversibly damage the public’s confidence in the Government’s ability to manage our economy. Simply put, every tax rise hits families, pensioners and small businesses. There is a simple maxim: borrowing today is merely debt for tomorrow. Every pound borrowed has to be repaid, and it has to be repaid with interest.
I know that those on the Government Benches do not necessarily regularly take the words of Margaret Thatcher to heart, but she said:
“Pennies don’t fall from heaven. They have to be earned”.
That is what people up and down this country are doing every day: they are grafting to provide for their families and their future. She was absolutely right. History teaches us that unchecked spending commitments undermine growth, reduce confidence and erode the state’s ability to serve those who are most vulnerable. By contrast, having control over public expenditure is not an ideology or something to be feared; it is simply common sense. It is about cutting waste, and it is about making hard choices today so that future generations are not saddled with crushing debt. That is responsible government.
It was Churchill who said that
“the price of greatness is responsibility”.
When the Government came into power with great fanfare, there was a sense that they wanted to be a great reforming Government. Well, is there any greater responsibility than to families, who budget carefully; to citizens, who trust the Government to keep their word; and to the public, who expect manifesto promises to be kept? People live within their means.
Sam Rushworth
Was the hon. Member a Conservative in 2010, when George Osborne promised not to put up VAT, or in 2019, when Boris Johnson promised not to put up any taxes—both of them made promises that they went on to break because, they said, the circumstances of the country required it—or is he a recent convert to his position?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The hon. Member may have forgotten the covid pandemic that swept this country, which of course turned the tables, and difficult decisions had to be made.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
No, I want to make this point. The difference is that the Chancellor told the media last year that the buck stops with her. She has to own these decisions.
As I say, people in this country are asked to live within their means, and they make sacrifices and plan for contingencies. They expect the Government to do the same, so when the Chancellor promises not to borrow more and not to tax more, the country should be able to take her at her word. Such promises are bonds of trust between the Government and the people.
I have a certain degree of sympathy for Labour Members, who have been put in an invidious position. They have been asked to break a promise that they made to their constituents and their country. I ask them to look into their hearts, and to think about whether this is really what they want to be remembered for. Will they show the leadership, the independence of thought and the resolve to vote for this motion?
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
This will be a very simple speech, because it has only a single fundamental point, which is that honesty in politics matters. That should not be a controversial statement. In debates in this place, we are advocates for a political philosophy, and for certain political tactics, and yes, we should put forward our case as attractively as possible, perhaps using statistics that make our case more effectively than others, but if we downright mislead the public, a line is crossed. That is wrong, because it is taking the public for fools.
In the election of 2024, the Labour party had a manifesto on which every single one of its Members was elected. There was an identified £7 billion that they intended to raise through tax rises, but a core promise at the very heart of the manifesto was that apart from that, there would be no tax rises—in particular, no increases to national insurance contributions, income tax or VAT. That is the very basis of their electoral mandate, and even then, they only managed to secure 34% of the vote. The first breach of those promises came in October last year: the tax rises were for not £7 billion, but £40 billion. That was justified by a wholly fictitious £22 billion black hole, a figure that the Office for Budget Responsibility refused to support, and that the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Financial Times, among others, could not identify.
The Government raised taxes on employers; it was a tax on jobs of fully £25 billion. The IFS said that was a “straightforward breach” of their manifesto. We were told that this was a one-off, and that the Government had “wiped the slate clean”. The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s words were that they were
“not coming back with…more taxes”;
they had fixed
“the foundations of our economy”,
and she said, “It’s now on us.” Those are not my words, but the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The second Budget is in just two weeks’ time, and no global event has blown this Government’s plans off course. There has been no pandemic, and there has been no European invasion sending electricity and energy prices through the roof. If things have changed, it has been as a direct consequence of the political and economic decisions of the Government.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Would my hon. Friend agree that what has actually changed is the inability of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to control their Back Benchers, who now feel free to demand whatever public expenditure they think is convenient?
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The Prime Minister tried—half-heartedly, admittedly—to save £4.5 billion from the welfare budget. He put his Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in the ridiculous position of starting a debate arguing for £4.5 billion of savings from long-term disability and health benefits, only for her to end the very same debate advocating for a £300 million increase in those same benefits. The Prime Minister has lost control of his Back Benchers, and he has lost control of his Government’s spending.
We have had no global event, but we do have Government policies that have been economically disastrous. Labour is truly the tax-and-spend party. It has raised the tax burden to the highest in history—certainly since the second world war. As for spend, it raised £40 billion in tax, borrowed a further £30 billion, and increased spending by £70 billion. According to the Government’s own plans, they intend to borrow half a trillion pounds extra during the course of this Parliament. And for what? Has there been reform of public services? No. Public sector productivity has declined. We are getting less for our money—even more so in healthcare, where the decline in productivity is fully 8.3%. What they have done is increase wage inflation. For public sector pay, it is more than 6%, whereas in the private sector, it is a third less.
The Government are coming back for more. They intend, we are told through multiple briefings to newspapers, to breach their core election manifesto pledge and raise taxes, because they cannot reduce spending.
Sam Rushworth
What the hon. Gentleman says about healthcare is not quite credible. I appreciate that his researchers will have tried to find a statistic that works for his speech, but it is undeniable that we have delivered significantly more NHS appointments. Waiting times are coming down, and satisfaction levels are going back up again for the first time since the Conservatives broke the NHS.
Jerome Mayhew
One quick clarification: waiting times have actually increased in each of the past three months, so they are not going down at the moment. If we hose enough money at a system, we can get increased results, but what we get per pound spent has declined by over 8%. That is a very serious point.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Further to the intervention by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), is my hon. Friend aware of the Office for National Statistics report from last week, which showed that NHS productivity has declined since the Labour party took office? Would he like to invite the hon. Member to retract what he just said?
Jerome Mayhew
I could not have put it better myself. These are not statistics made up by my researchers; they are from the Office for National Statistics.
The decisions that we are told the Chancellor is about to make in two weeks are not inevitable. There is another choice. She can grow a backbone—so can the Prime Minister—and impose some control over public spending. We have set out a plan to reduce spending by £47 billion. I have heard the criticisms and challenges from Labour Members. They have a budget of £1.3 trillion to work with; are they seriously saying that they cannot find £20 billion of necessary savings from a £1.3 trillion budget? If they cannot, then they do not deserve to be in government.
The motion is not a sleight of hand. It is a simple, short motion, which merely asks Government Members, when they choose which Lobby to go through tonight, to decide whether they will stick with their promises—their manifesto commitments. Will they treat their constituents as fools, or will they vote with the Opposition and defend their, albeit shaky, democratic mandate?
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Under Labour, Britain is living in a doom loop of high spend, historically high debt, and higher taxes. That is killing growth, fuelling inflation, reducing opportunities and absolutely weakening our economy.
I have spoken to numerous businesses across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and our surrounding villages, and they are all anxiously awaiting the undoubtedly business-crushing Budget in two weeks’ time. The Government’s lack of understanding of business should surprise no one; Government Front Benchers have more experience of the trade union movement than of business. Indeed, when the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), was asked which companies supported her damaging Employment Rights Bill, which will cost businesses £8.3 billion and cause around 326,000 job losses, she could not name a single one.
The avoidance of engagement runs goes right to the top of this Government. We have seen that in this debate. We have had what I would call a utopian socialist vision from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), who mentioned that Labour came into power at the last general election to change. Given how much Labour has resiled from its manifesto, “change” is about the only word left that it is still sticking to. Speak to people and businesses in my constituency—and, I am sure, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—and they will say that things have not changed for the better.
I have to say that the Liberal Democrats’ lack of interest continues. Not a single Liberal Democrat Back Bencher has chosen to speak in this debate on the fundamentals of how we will grow and run our economy. Not a single one thought it important to talk in it. That is shameful. I hope that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), for whom I have a lot of respect, speaks to his colleagues about this.
Our motion asks the Government to stick to their promises; I am concerned to see that that wording would be removed by the Liberal Democrat amendment, which thankfully was not selected by Mr Speaker. It is an extraordinary situation.
Sam Rushworth
I will refer to the hon. Gentleman’s comments about my contribution. Perhaps because our constituencies are different, his constituents do not face the same challenges as mine. The sorts of changes I am talking about are things like getting NHS dentists back, reopening Sure Start centres, fixing the problems on our high street, improving our schools and getting the waiting lists for child and adolescent mental health services down. These are the serious things that my constituents are looking to me to deliver. The hon. Gentleman and I know as much as each other does about what will be in the Budget, but I will be looking for a Budget that invests in the public services that we need, and in infrastructure, which has sadly been neglected for far too long.
Gregory Stafford
The hon. Gentleman has aptly described the social utopia that I accused him of describing. The fundamental point is that if we do not have businesses contributing to the economy, we cannot fund public services. If 90,000 people in the hospitality sector are made unemployed, they are not paying income tax, and we cannot support public services. The idea that the Government can just raise money out of nowhere forever, inevitably, without consequence, is not sustainable, and we are seeing that in our economy.
Charlie Maynard
I have already said this, and will say it again: I absolutely—and I speak on behalf of my colleagues—expect the Chancellor to stand by her promises.
Gregory Stafford
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. Hopefully, that means that the Liberal Democrats will vote for our motion later.
Gregory Stafford
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head—our motion probably does not fit the narrative that he is looking for.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland just said that neither he nor I know what is in the Budget. While that is technically correct, the Government have been flying many kites about what will be in this Budget, pretty much since the summer—more kites than Mary Poppins—and I think that gives us some indication of what will be in the Budget. As has been said, that has caused great uncertainty and worry. Businesses are either deciding not to invest because they are so worried about what will happen, or delaying investment decisions because of the Budget.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I would like to quote the chief executive of the CBI, who says:
“Scrapping the Climate Change Act would be a backwards step in achieving our shared objectives of reaching economic growth, boosting energy security, protecting our environment and making life healthier for future generations.”
The chief executive of Energy UK says:
“Treating the Climate Change Act as a political football is a surefire way to scare off investors.”
Does the hon. Gentleman support his party leader’s objective of scrapping the Climate Change Act 2008, given that these two respected authorities say that doing so would damage investment in our economy?
Gregory Stafford
I do not think I have mentioned the Climate Change Act, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it. I think what my constituents want—[Interruption.] I am trying to answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, and he is barracking me before I have even had a chance to answer. My constituents tell me that they want green policies and sensible moves to reduce carbon and pollution, but they do not want them to hobble our economy and hit them in their pockets at a very difficult time when they are being taxed to death by the Government. The owners of Rutland London in my constituency spoke to me about the Government’s much-vaunted policy paper “Backing your business: our plan for small and medium-sized businesses”, which came out recently. They said that the plan “while promised to cut red tape, lacks delivery details, relies on third-party co-operation, and depends on enforcement rather than details, plans or even an outline, none of which have been set out to us.” Once again, we have another supposedly amazing thing that this Government have done, but businesses do not want it.
During the general election, Labour told the public that it would not raise taxes—it said that 41 times. Then, as we have heard, the Government raised taxes to raise £40 billion. At that point we could have had a sensible discussion about how we were going to reduce the size of the state, reduce inefficiencies and increase productivity, but we had none of those discussions. Essentially, we had a tiny change to welfare, which this Government, because of their Back Benchers, could not get through.
While I disagree with the Labour Back Benchers on that, I am asking them now to find the backbone that made them stand up to their Front Bench last time and to do so again. If the Chancellor comes to this House and raises taxes on working people, I ask them to find that backbone and vote against the tax rise. Their constituents will thank them, and the country will thank them.
In the minute or two I have left, I want to focus on local leadership. I think it is incumbent on us as local leaders to meet and listen to constituents and businesses. That is why I am running a business roundtable next week, and I am very grateful that the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), is coming to speak at it. I recommend speaking to businesses not just because we are local leaders, but because Members on the Labour Benches would learn something. They would learn that their constituents are not in favour of this.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland made some reference to our constituencies not being the same, but I can tell him that in my constituency, as I am sure is the case in his, there are business owners suffering, families struggling, farmers worried about what they will do with their taxes and small businesses that will be broken up because of this Government’s tax. There are also thousands upon thousands of people who have either lost their job or will not get into employment because of what this Government have done.
It is time for this Government to act—stop tinkering, stop the gimmicks, and stop punishing hard-working families and small businesses. This country deserves more than promises. It deserves action, certainty, and a Government who are on the side of those who work, innovate and contribute every day. What we need from the Chancellor in two weeks’ time is a Budget that actually invests in growth, supports jobs, protects household incomes and cuts the red tape on businesses that I described earlier.
I urge the Minister to take this opportunity seriously and ensure that the Chancellor and the Government listen to their constituents and my constituents and produce a Budget that restores confidence, ambition and hope in this nation.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
One thing that this Government are really good at is creating a feeling of fear and worry, particularly among my constituents. They are looking at what has happened to them as a consequence of decisions that were taken in the last Budget. I am talking about people from all walks of life, across the board—people who employ people, people who are employed, people who work in hospitality and people who work in the charities sector, who have had to make very difficult decisions as a consequence of the impact of the last Budget.
Jerome Mayhew
We have talked about the fear that our constituents have, but there is another fear held by businesses. My hon. Friend will know that business confidence has plummeted to the worst level on record, and investment decisions taken by businesses have been delayed because businesses are worried about the impact of this terrible Budget that we are facing. Does my hon. Friend agree that the speculation fuelled by the anonymous briefings from No. 11 are already damaging our economy?
Dr Spencer
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That was pretty much what I was going on to say. We are seeing this constant kite-flying about various different potential taxes or cooked up schemes that could affect different walks of life, as the Government are trying to keep meeting their burgeoning and ever-growing spending commitments. That is making people lose confidence, and it has a real impact on the decisions they are making here and now, even without the policies having been enacted. Like it or not, the Budget on the 26th is already here and operating. It is operating through the media, and people are making decisions now that are having a real impact, particularly in my patch.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
This is a serious point. People who are worried about the financial situation in the country will save rather than spend, whether they are private individuals or business. But is not the very aim of this debate to fuel that speculation and make people feel more anxious?
Dr Spencer
We were hoping that this debate would clarify the inability of the Prime Minister to answer the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition only two weeks ago: about whether he would repeat the manifesto commitment not to raise the big three taxes. We are in a period of uncertainty that we are trying to resolve, and it has been created by this ongoing kite flying.
Lincoln Jopp
Would my hon. Friend agree that the corollary of taxes is expenditure? We have tried to elicit some clarity from Government Members about whether they would like to raise the two-child benefit cap, which would cost £3.5 billion, or leave it where it is. Given the Chancellor’s kite-flying exercise in the media recently, would my hon. Friend be prepared to take an intervention from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who suggested that we were the ones spreading uncertainty?
Dr Spencer
I thank my constituency neighbour, and of course I am always happy to take interventions.
Dr Arthur
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. My home town is Kirkcaldy, and a former MP for Kirkcaldy is Gordon Brown, of course. In the Blair-Brown Government, he did a lot of work to cut child poverty, which is something I am really proud of, and he cut pensioner poverty as well. Conservative Members should be absolutely ashamed of what they did to child poverty in the UK. I and my colleagues on these Benches, I am sure, will do everything we can to reduce child poverty—including, I hope, removing the two-child cap.
Dr Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarity. Labour Members have been keen to talk about the past, so I am glad that he brought up Gordon Brown, who sold the gold at record levels, which led to a mess that we had to clean up.
Homeowners are concerned, particularly in my constituency, where many people are asset rich but cash poor. Many pensioners are worried about pension tax. People who do the right thing—make responsible decisions that we encourage, whether investing in pensions or saving for the future—are seen as targets, or potential targets, by this Government when it comes to paying for the profligate spending being offered. Those people are desperately worried. The truth is that we have to stop spending money that is not ours to spend.
Sam Rushworth
I think that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I read out a list of the billions of pounds of profligate spending by the Conservative party in government. I am pleased that this Government have stopped that and that he is a convert to our cause.
Dr Spencer
I have to say that I am getting a bit exhausted by this “14 years” narrative and this recurrent chewing over the past. I want to talk about the future and decisions now. I want to talk about bringing hope for the future again. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the past, we can talk about the past—the dodgy private finance initiative deals under the previous Labour Government, or Gordon Brown selling the gold. We can talk about the International Monetary Fund bailout. I might go back to the future, but if the hon. Gentleman wants me to continue in the past, I can do so. I am happy to take an intervention.
Joe Robertson
My hon. Friend was seeking an intervention—from the Opposition Benches, I think, but I thank him for taking one from me. Is not the tragedy that we are stuck for the rest of this decade with this Government? They are clearly not going to hold a general election while they are bombing in the polls. The country is in their hands for the rest of the decade, but all they want to do is talk about previous decades. What must our constituents and their constituents be thinking when they hear this sort of stuff?
Dr Spencer
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. Our constituents are hurting. They are in a difficult situation and very worried about what is going to happen in two weeks’ time. They look at this place and see Government Members just wanting to talk about the past over and over again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. When the hon. Gentleman makes an intervention, he should do that via me, facing the Chair and not the Back Benches.
Charlie Maynard
Let us talk about trade, Madam Deputy Speaker. I find it extraordinary if we look at the future. I think it was Stephen Bush in the Financial Times who talked about the permanent lobotomy that the Tory party needs to have when talking about Brexit. If we are talking about getting money into the Exchequer, let us get our economy moving again and get growth back into the economy. Let us open up a customs union with Europe and get our economy growing. Let us look to the future.
Dr Spencer
I have to apologise to the hon. Member. I came into the House in 2019, and it strikes me that this debate is probably better suited to 2018, before I was elected.
On the situation that we find ourselves in, many Labour Members have spoken about the Chancellor or the Government bringing in free this and free that. The Government do not have money and the Chancellor does not have money. It is not even just taxpayers’ money that they are pledging to spend; it is our children’s money. That goes to the core of the problem that we face.
The decisions that the Government are taking to keep on and not cut spending and to keep on borrowing and borrowing are not on my head. They are not on the heads of anyone in this room. Those decisions are on the heads of our children. Families know how to budget, and this is the equivalent of a parent saying, “We fancy going on holiday to—I do not know—Lanzarote this year and we are going to borrow money to do it. I am not going to borrow it on me, though; I am going to borrow it on my kids. They will take out the loan and they can pay it back in future.”
It is fundamentally and morally unacceptable that we are in this position and that the Government do not have an approach to try and drive down the deficit and pay back the debt. That is why I am so pleased that the Leader of the Opposition announced the golden rule for making sure that policies going forward recognise that we cannot keep on spending money that we do not have.
In the last Government, from 2010 onwards, we worked really hard on driving down debt, and we had almost got there, in terms of reducing the deficit, when covid kicked off. Can people imagine the situation we would have been in if covid had kicked off without the work we had done to balance the books and without the fiscal firepower that we had to get through it? I remember the debates that we had around covid, and I remember well the first year—I am sure everyone in this Chamber does, whether they were a Member or not. I remember early on being desperately worried that the shadow of covid would loom long and loom hard, and that, over the next decade, we would see the impact of turning off the economy for two years.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
During the general election, the Labour party said that it would not increase income tax, national insurance or VAT. It repeated that it would not increase taxes on working people. In its manifesto, it said it would increase spending by only £9.5 billion and that that was to be paid for by £7.3 billion in extra taxes and £3.5 billion in extra borrowing. That was a modest plan with a prudent margin. It was a plan put forward to the electorate to show that the party could be trusted with the public finances. My constituents might be surprised to learn, however, that if they now look on the Labour party website, that manifesto is rather more difficult to find than it was a couple of months ago.
It is fair to say that we Conservatives did not believe them, so we were not entirely surprised when, within weeks of moving into Downing Street, the Chancellor told the country that she would have to raise taxes after all. She had apparently found a magical £22 billion black hole. I say “magical” because nobody other than the Government seemed able to locate it—certainly, the Office for Budget Responsibility could not find it. It was, of course, a fiction to give the Chancellor cover for what she always intended to do, which was a massive increase in taxes, borrowing and spending, because that is what Labour does. Dogs bark, cats miaow and Labour increases taxes, borrowing and debt.
In her first Budget last year, the Chancellor did not raise taxes by the £7.3 billion promised in the manifesto. She increased taxes by £40 billion. She increased borrowing not by the promised £3.5 billion, but by £32 billion. And believe it or not, she did not increase spending by the promised £9.5 billion. She increased it by £72 billion. The Chancellor imposed £40 billion of extra taxes on our economy. She increased employer national insurance, stamp duty and capital gains tax and she imposed extra taxes on family businesses and family farms, then she pretended that none of those were taxes on working people.
Charlie Maynard
Will the hon. Member acknowledge that debt has risen from £0.5 trillion to £2.9 trillion from 2005 to 2026, forecast to March? That is nearly six times as much, and the great majority of that happened under the Conservatives’ watch. Yes, we can talk about covid, but covid is a very small portion of that—about £0.7 trillion—so what about the rest of it? Is anyone going to take any responsibility for that?
Sir Ashley Fox
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Liberal Democrats joined a coalition Government in 2010 with the Conservatives. We inherited a deficit of £156 billion in 2010—11% of GDP—and it took 10 years, to 2020, to reduce that steadily to 2% of GDP. For all the moaning and whining from the Labour Benches about austerity, what we were trying to do—as a coalition Government for five years and as a Conservative Government for the remainder—was to live within our means, and that is tough. That is really difficult. It is about improving public services, but without necessarily hosing money at them. We see that most successfully in the field of education. In England we have seen a dramatic increase in reading standards and the standards of examination of English pupils caused by genuine reforms. That compares very favourably with what has happened in Scotland and Wales, where those reforms did not take place. The skill of government is in improving public services without always spending more money. The Liberal Democrats used to have a few Members who were called “Orange Book” Members. It is a shame there are so few of them left.
Who does the Chancellor think she is kidding when she says she has not increased taxes on working people? Try telling the farmers in my constituency that they are not working people, or the young family where both parents work and are saving to pay the stamp duty on their first home. As Labour Members will recall, that first Budget was not well received, so to draw a line under her broken promises, the Chancellor said:
“We’ve now wiped the slate clean. It’s now on us. We’ve put everything out into the open, we’ve set the spending envelope for the course of this Parliament. We don’t need to come back for more.”
Except we know that that is not true. She is coming back for more. She is now set to break that promise again by putting up taxes again.
Jerome Mayhew
Does my hon. Friend have any idea why the Chancellor has changed her mind or what it is that has affected her decision? Just a year ago, she said that she did not need to come back for more, but now she says she does. Has there been any great global shock, or does he think the problem lies closer to home?
Sir Ashley Fox
I would suggest two reasons. First, our economy has slowed down as a result of the very tax increases that the Chancellor has imposed. Secondly, the feral Labour Back Benchers have made them lose their nerve. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor therefore cannot control public expenditure in any way at all. The British people are already paying the highest tax burden in 70 years and Labour wants to increase it further. It is sad to say that this Government have no clue as to how the economy works. I genuinely believe that their Front Benchers want to reduce unemployment, but have they ever considered that if they increase employer national insurance charges and the cost of employing labour, businesses might use less of it? If they pass an Employment Rights Bill that increases the cost of labour, might businesses use less labour? Might that be why unemployment has increased every month since they took office? Is that why unemployment increases under every Labour Government?
Labour is just as ignorant on the effects of taxes and spending. If the Government tax entrepreneurs, there will be less enterprise. If they increase benefits, they should not be surprised if it becomes more attractive to claim them. Unfortunately, Labour’s answer to every question is more spending because, of course, it is what they do best: spending other people’s money. We never hear about its plans to improve efficiency or get better value for the taxpayer because there are no such plans.
Labour’s higher taxes and borrowing are leading to higher unemployment and lower growth. We are in a doom loop created by the Chancellor, and if we are to revitalise our economy, the first step is for the Government to control public expenditure. That is why we have outlined our plans to reduce expenditure by £47 billion. We will reduce welfare spending by £23 billion. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, Reform UK and other high-spending left-wing parties, we would keep the two-child benefit cap. We would reduce the size of the civil service to where it was in 2016, saving £8 billion, and reduce overseas aid by a further £7 billion. We would use those savings to cut both borrowing and taxes to bring about a new spirit of enterprise and confidence in our country.
It is ironic that it is the Conservatives calling today for the Government to stick to their manifesto promise not to increase taxes. The British people will notice if they break that promise for a second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
I am grateful to be able to respond to the debate on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition.
Let me start by thanking everybody from both sides of the House for their contributions, but in particular those on my side of the House. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) pointed out the impact of the family farm tax on his farms in Shropshire and that 6,000 farms across the country have closed. The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), who is sadly not in his place—probably on the phone to his mother—spoke well about Harlow and his mum. I particularly enjoyed the bromance emerging between him and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer).
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) spoke well about the impact of the rise in national insurance contributions on the Gosport employment market. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) said a good quote by Margaret Thatcher. As the MP for Grantham, I particularly appreciated it, but it still rings true today about spending other people’s money wisely.
My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) rightly highlighted that not a single Liberal Democrat Back-Bench MP has turned up, which I agree is completely shameful. We did hear from the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), who had the temerity to talk about our country’s reputation when it is his leader who is prancing about in a wetsuit falling off paddleboards—slightly ironic. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), who made a number of important interventions, pointed out that every Labour Member should ask themselves the same question every morning when they wake up, “Who voted for this?” None of them have a mandate for further tax rises, just as they did not have a mandate for last year’s jobs tax increase. They must know this. The proof is right in front of them. Labour has over 400 Members of Parliament and fewer than 10 have shown up. I was going to say that they have come to defend the indefensible, but they have not even done that. None tried to defend the indefensible; we just heard more and more speeches about the past, while their constituents are living in the present.
I think that Labour Members know that the upcoming Budget is surely the beginning of the end. The Government have lost control. Just when the Prime Minister should be focused on fixing their mistakes, he is instead having to oversee co-ordinated briefings against the apparent plots to depose him by his own Health Secretary. It is troubling, to say the least, that the Prime Minister seems more worried about the damage coming from inside his own Cabinet than about the damage already done outside it. The truth is that the Labour party will not be forgiven. Socialism has failed everywhere and every time it has ever been tried.
We should not forget that Labour won the last election because it promised not to be a socialist Labour Government. It said that it would not fiddle with the fiscal rules to borrow more money. It said that it would not increase national insurance, income tax or VAT. It said that it would not pursue ideologically driven policies that would push up energy bills—in fact, it said that it would cut those bills by £300. Unfortunately for the country, this has very much turned out to be a socialist Labour Government after all: higher taxes, fewer jobs, lower confidence, and an economy put into reverse—back to the 1970s. That is felt in every boardroom, every workshop, every pub and every place of work across this country. The best thing that the Government can do right now is take responsibility for their actions and show leadership. After just 16 months of Labour, inflation has doubled, taxes are heading for record highs, borrowing has risen rapidly and unemployment has surged to the highest level since the pandemic. And none of that takes into account what may yet be to come.
We know that the Chancellor deliberately picked the latest time possible for her upcoming Budget, in a last-ditch hope that someone, somewhere might come up with something that makes it all better. The date of 26 November is a highly unusual one for an autumn Budget. The last time we had a Budget this late, phones still had aerials, Mark Morrison was “returning the mack”, and we had to rewind VHS tapes before taking them back to Blockbuster. If only we could rewind the past 16 months; sadly, we cannot.
Sir Ashley Fox
Does my hon. Friend agree that this very long lead-in period for the Budget has caused enormous uncertainty for businesses, which have faced a string of briefings in the media about every possible tax rise, and that the very date that the Chancellor has chosen for her Budget is itself causing more uncertainty and delaying investment decisions?
Gareth Davies
I could not agree more. In fact, markets and investors have now endured week after week of reckless and irresponsible speculation, not about whether Labour will put up their taxes, but about which taxes will go up. The endless uncertainty that my hon. Friend mentions has caused relentless Treasury kite-flying that has damaged confidence. There are so many kites in the air but none of them is tied to an actual plan.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) said it well: everyone seems to be looking over their shoulder to see who the Chancellor will come for next. That cannot be what Labour MPs want in the run-up to Christmas. They have a chance tonight to reaffirm the promises that they made to all their constituents. It should be their easiest vote this year. Their core manifesto commitment, which won them the election, is printed in black and white in the motion. To fail to support the motion is to confirm to each and every one of their constituents that Labour is content to betray their trust. Be in no doubt, the country is watching.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions today, as well as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his opening remarks, and the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) for summing up for the Opposition. He was Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury for a time under the last Government, and he will know just how busy the period two weeks before a Budget can be for a junior Minister in His Majesty’s Treasury. I imagine that when he was in my position, 14 days out from a Budget or autumn statement, with officials rushing in and out of his office with advice on various measures, and a day full of meetings trying to get the details right, there was nothing more he would have wanted in the world than be called to the House for an Opposition day debate. I thank him and the shadow Chancellor for calling this debate at such a crucial time in the Budget-setting process.
I expect some interventions during my remarks over the next 10 to 15 minutes, and I encourage Members across the House to play what I will call Treasury Minister bingo. If I am asked questions about the upcoming Budget, I intend to respond with, “The Chancellor will make all decisions on tax and spend at the Budget, and I will not comment on speculation.” We can see how many interventions we get, and how many times we get to play Treasury Minister bingo. That is just to forewarn those who, like me, perhaps enjoy a game of bingo—
Joe Robertson
I appreciate that this is the end of a debate and the Minister is trying to be funny, but a lot of constituents I speak to do not find this period particularly funny, and would like the Minister to confirm that his Government will stick to their manifesto pledge. Please can the Minister not respond with the word “bingo”? This is a really serious matter.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The Chancellor will make all decisions on tax and spend at the Budget, and I will not be commenting on speculation. I have said that is what I will say if people continue to intervene. We are two weeks out from a Budget, and I will not be commenting on speculation from the Dispatch Box today.
Jerome Mayhew
I have heard what the Minister says and I do not ask him to comment on the Budget, but can he confirm whether he thinks that manifesto pledges are important?
Dan Tomlinson
If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask questions about the manifesto, I am glad that he is interested in the change that this Government are bringing through their manifesto. We have invested in our NHS and introduced new taxes on non-doms. We have introduced free breakfast clubs, and invested in HMRC to reduce tax avoidance—we will come on to talk about that, after the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). We have set up Great British Energy, and we are implementing the National Wealth Fund.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dan Tomlinson
Let me make a bit of progress if I may—I will happily take a further intervention in good time. It is a sorry fact, but it is true that Conservative Members squandered their time in power, just as they squandered much taxpayer money. After 14 years of failure they left people paying more for less, and enforced a policy of austerity for too long, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) spoke about in his contribution. That policy brought public services to their knees—something we needed to fix—and saddled us with so much debt that we now pay £1 in every £10 of public money in debt interest payments alone. I agree with the contribution from a Conservative Member who said that that is not a morally acceptable situation, but that is the situation we inherited, and one that we intend to change. Over the course of this Parliament the international comparisons bear out, and we are on track to reduce the deficit that we inherited faster than any other G7 economy. That is the stability that the Chancellor is returning to the public finances.
Laurence Turner
The Minister has just spoken about public services and touched on productivity. At the start of the debate, the shadow Chancellor talked about the importance of timely public sector pay settlements to productivity increases. Having been a union official in the aftermath of the strikes by ambulance workers, I have some insight into this issue. Ministers in the previous Government said that they wanted productivity increases, but negotiators for the Government had nothing to suggest on productivity links and they were asking the trade union for ideas.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for his years of work and experience supporting public sector workers and our proud trade unionists.
Conservative Members have mentioned the statistics that have been published of late. There is much that we need to do to ensure that the investment that we make in the NHS comes with improvements in productivity and output. The Health Secretary was talking about that today in reference to our reforms to NHS England, and about ensuring that we are not duplicating spending in both the Department for Health and Social Care and NHS England. I thought that Conservative Members were against quangos, but it turns out that they are against that reform.
Jerome Mayhew
I am encouraged to hear that the Minister wants to link increased funding with productivity increases. In that spirit, why was the resident doctors’ pay rise not linked to any productivity increases?
Dan Tomlinson
In the end, in order to sort out the strikes we needed to give public sector workers a fair deal. The situation that they were left in was not fair, with their wages going up significantly less than prices over the 14 years that the Conservatives were in power. The Health Secretary has been clear about not wanting to go as far the pay settlement demanded, but the situation that we reached last year is right and proportionate, and we hope that we can continue to invest in reform of our NHS.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dan Tomlinson
Let me make a bit more progress—I am only on page 2 of a six page speech—[Interruption.] I am taking many interventions, but I will take fewer.
The previous Government saddled us with much debt, as we have talked about, with £1 in every £10 of public money going towards debt interest payments, perpetuating a stop-start cycle of public investments that left us with roads full of potholes, train lines that cannot even make it between London and the north of England, and an unpredictable business environment, with business taxation going up and down all the time. All that gave us an incredibly narrow base for regional growth, with few parts of the country forging ahead, while too many in the rest of the country fell behind.
Levelling up was a Conservative slogan, not a solution. Instead, this Labour Government are growing the economy and lifting living standards in all parts of the country, investing in infrastructure to get Britain building again, and working with local leaders and Members of Parliament to build pride in place and revitalise communities. That is the change that we are bringing. The Conservatives had the opportunity to invest in our public services, to upgrade rail, roads and connectivity, and to protect our NHS, but instead they threw money around with little regard for its value.
A key factor in our stalled productivity is that, time and again, the Conservatives had the option to choose economic responsibility, but they chose political convenience instead. The austerity that they pursued after the financial crisis, when interest rates were at record lows, was a sledgehammer to our economy, gutting public services and cutting the essential flows of investment that would have aided a faster recovery. As the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) said, and as Liberal Democrat Members are wont to mention, they then went ahead and implemented a rushed and ill-conceived Brexit deal that brought extra costs to businesses and extra disruption to trade. When the pandemic arrived, our country was not ready. Our public services and our economy have been severely weakened.
Gregory Stafford
As I told the hon. Member yesterday, he has the second worst job in Government, which I think he is feeling today. Even if what he has just said is true—I do not agree with him—after the Budget last year, the Chancellor said that the slate was wiped clean and that no more tax rises or borrowing would be needed. What has changed between then and now?
Dan Tomlinson
I was glad to attend the hon. Member’s Westminster Hall debate last night on wine producers across the UK. I am impressed by his close reading of all the words of members of the Cabinet; I hope one day to be as diligent as him in following the utterances of the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and all Ministers.
When it comes to the inheritance that this Government and the British people are dealing with, let me say that if wage growth since the financial crisis continued at the pace that it had before, it is not that families in my constituency, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) and across the country would be £1,000 or £2,000 a year better off; they would be £12,000 a year better off. Imagine the difference that that would make to the businesses and communities across our country if we had not had that productivity stagnation.
In the end, we will see at the Budget that the OBR is implementing its review of productivity. I will not pre-empt that review, but it is right and proper that we ensure our fiscal forecasts are based on accurate understandings of what has happened in the past to our productivity, because the past is a guide to the future. I hope that this Government will continue to beat the outcomes that happened under the previous Government, when productivity almost flatlined, and that is exactly what this Budget will be about.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) asked the Minister a specific question. In October last year, the Chancellor said, “We are not coming back for more. We have wiped the slate clean. From now on, it is on us.” What has happened between then and now? What has changed?
Dan Tomlinson
One of the things that has changed is that Conservative Members seem to have found £47 billion down the back of the sofa and are coming forward with plans that are not deliverable, just like they did when they were in government. They have done the job of a losing Opposition—we have been there in the past—whereby numbers used in opposition are not serious or credible. We all know where that ends up.
The Conservatives said recently that they would slash taxes and pay for it with £47 billion of fairyland spending cuts. For context, that is the equivalent of firing every police officer in the country. Of course, I am not saying that they will do that or that they have joined the “defund the police” brigade, but what would they do? We do not really know, because all we have is a menu without a price list.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
One unexplored area we could look at to raise some of the money we need is selling the brass neck of the Conservatives on the commodities market. Having cheered when Liz Truss delivered her mini-Budget, they now have the gall to lecture us about fiscal responsibility.
Dan Tomlinson
And the Conservatives have the gall to lecture us about managing the public finances well. They say that they want to cut civil service numbers. Between 2016 and when the Conservatives left office, there were 130,000 more civil servants. The former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip and former Prime Minister said that he would cut civil service numbers by 91,000; they then went up. In October ’23—when the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), was in my role—the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) unveiled an immediate cap on civil service numbers and pledged to cut them by 66,000; they then went up. Between May 2022 and July 2024, the numbers went up in every single quarter. I am not sure that the public would leave the Conservatives’ restaurant at all satisfied if they bought the items on their menu, because everything they have promised does not seem to turn into reality.
I will conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Dan Tomlinson
Hon. Members want more! Okay.
If this debate has taught us anything, it is simply this: not only do the Conservatives need to stay in opposition for longer, but I am sure that they will do so. So far, they have learned nothing from their time on the Government Benches. There is no humility for their mini-Budget, no plan for giving Britain a brighter future, and no grasp of the realities that the country and the world face. They also have no will to face up to reality, to show leadership or to make choices that will support our public services, businesses and citizens.
Meanwhile, this Government have given the country the fastest growth in the G7 in the first half of the year. We have raised wages and living standards, and the Bank of England has cut interest rates five times because of the economic stability we have brought, which has reduced mortgage payments and lowered the cost of borrowing. This Government have increased public investment in capital spending by over £120 billion over the course of this Parliament, building for the future—something that the Conservative party failed to do. That is the difference that a Government with British values at their heart can make. At this month’s Budget, we will put those values into practice again, with fairness and opportunity for all so that we can secure our economy, strengthen our public services and lift living standards for the British people.
Question put.
Energy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 97 / Noes: 336 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendment (b), in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the shadow Secretary of State to move the motion.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to introduce a plan for cheap power by cutting public expenditure to remove the ‘Carbon Tax’ (UK Emissions Trading Scheme) from electricity generation and end Renewable Obligation subsidies; notes that the UK has the highest industrial electricity prices in the world and the second highest domestic electricity prices; further notes that high power costs are holding back economic growth and making households poorer; believes that cheap energy is essential to enable economic growth, the expansion of the artificial intelligence sector and the electrification of heating and transport; further calls on the Government to stop the Allocation Round 7 auction, which will lock consumers into high energy bills for decades; also notes that three quarters of the UK’s energy needs are met by oil and gas, and recognises the vital contribution of the North Sea industry to the nation’s energy security, to skilled employment, and to the public finances through billions of pounds generated in tax revenue; notes that shutting down domestic oil and gas production would increase reliance on foreign imports with higher carbon emissions; and also calls on the Government to end the ban on new oil and gas licences and to scrap the Energy Profits Levy in order to maximise investment in that sector.
Our cheap power plan would cut electricity bills for everyone by 20%, and under it, we take a common-sense approach to British energy security by backing the North sea. The plan recognises that the biggest problem the country faces is the cost of our electricity. It is a problem for living standards, for industry, for artificial intelligence and for electrification. The focus of any Government should be making electricity less expensive, not more expensive, as Labour’s plans will. They should be about making electricity cheap. Under our cheap power plan, we would axe the carbon tax—which has gone up by 70% this year under Labour, pushing up everybody’s energy bills—and scrap the renewable obligation subsidies, which result in some wind farms get three times the market price for electricity.
I would like to start by thanking the Liberal Democrats, who came out this morning as backing the second part of our plan. I would also like to thank Reform, which appears to have copy and pasted the plan wholesale, and the Tony Blair Institute, which just two weeks ago said that we need to ditch Labour’s disastrous clean power plan in favour of a cheap power plan that takes off carbon taxes. That sounds familiar.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Even before my right hon. Friend came into the Department and asked for a whole-system energy cost analysis when I was the Energy Minister, our strategic objective was to be among the countries with the cheapest electricity prices in Europe by the 2030s. Does she have any idea why the Labour party has now dropped that as a strategic objective?
Claire Coutinho
I thank my right hon. Friend, who is so knowledgeable on matters to do with energy. He is right: the only people who have not got the message are Labour Members, who are on the wrong side of this debate. The Secretary of State promised to cut bills by £300, but bills have gone up by £200 since the general election. I warned Labour Members over and over again that this would happen, but they did not listen. Now, under their plans, energy bills will keep on rising. They might not want to hear that from me, but they should listen to the trade unions, or to energy bosses, who came to Parliament just a few weeks ago and, in a bombshell moment, said that even if gas prices went to zero, bills would still rise because of Labour’s plans. I would hazard a guess that their view is shared by the Prime Minister, given that he tried to sack the Secretary of State at the last reshuffle. What does the Prime Minister know that these guys don’t, I wonder?
Our electricity is already some of the cleanest in the world, but it is also the most expensive. If we want people to adopt electric cars or electric home heating, we need to make electricity cheap. If we want artificial intelligence or industry to succeed in this country, we need to make electricity cheap. If we want people to have a better standard of life, so that they can spend more money on their families than on their bills, we need to make electricity cheap. Our cheap power plan would cut electricity bills by 20%, and not just for a favoured few, whereas Labour is pushing up bills for 22 million families to give handouts to 6 million. Our plan would cut bills for everybody—households and businesses. It would mean £165 off the average family’s bill, but even more if they spend more—and we could do it now.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
When the right hon. Lady speaks about “our country”, does she include Northern Ireland? Would her motion extend to Northern Ireland? Unfortunately, we are subject to EU regulations, which on 1 January will introduce the carbon border adjustment mechanism; so in addition to the iniquitous Irish sea border, there will be a carbon border. Her party brought that about. What does she intend to do about it in the future?
Claire Coutinho
The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to raise the plight of Northern Ireland. As he knows, there is a single energy market on the island of Ireland, but we need to cut electricity costs for everybody, right across these isles.
The first part of our plan would be to axe the carbon tax. The carbon tax on electricity pushes up the price of gas, wind, solar and nuclear, and it has gone up by 70% this year, thanks to the Government’s policies. We asked Labour Ministers about this, and they pretended not to know anything. We warned them not to put the tax up, and they said it was a Conservative scare story, but here we are. The Secretary of State blames gas for high bills, and I am sure the Minister will do the same in his speech, but a third of what we pay for gas is a carbon tax that the Government choose to impose. If the Secretary of State thinks that the price of gas is too high, he could take off the carbon tax and cut the price of gas by a third tomorrow. Guess what? That would make wind, solar and nuclear cheaper, too. Every time someone blames gas, it is like them complaining that their bath is overrunning when they will not turn off the taps. It is in the Government’s gift to axe the carbon tax. It has gone up because of them, so what are they waiting for?
Secondly, when the wind blows, there are wind farms in this country getting three times the market price for electricity, thanks to renewables obligation subsidies. That is clearly mad. The Secretary of State doubled those subsidies when he had his last chance to ruin the energy system. We closed the scheme in office, but it is time to scrap it.
Those two policies would cut people’s electricity bills by 20% now, in time for winter—and in time for us to be a world leader in AI, and to stop the crippling redundancies in the industry that are coming down the track. Instead of taking up those policies, the Labour party is doing something very different: it is intent on locking us into higher prices for longer.
The results of the Secretary of State’s botched wind auction will become clear in January. When the Government promised to cut bills, the cost of electricity was £72 a megawatt-hour. Last year, they locked in a fixed rate of £82 for offshore wind, and this year they are offering up to £117. These are fixed-rate, inflation-linked contracts, and they have extended the length of those contracts, so we will be paying these prices for 20 years. Essentially, they are signing us up to a 10% fixed-rate mortgage for 20 years, because they do not want to be on a 4% variable that moves around. The problem is this: if they sign up to higher prices than the current cost of electricity—this is before we include all the extra costs of wind, such as paying to turn it off when it is too windy, and paying for back-up when it is not windy enough—how will that cut bills? There will be higher prices for longer. Those are the prices that not only you and I will pay, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that our children will pay.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
We saw this in the health service, with the private finance initiative; £13 billion of investment became £80 billion of public debt to pay back. Does my right hon. Friend worry that Labour seems to be following exactly the same principle by locking in these high future costs for our children and for the country?
Claire Coutinho
That is exactly right, and I will come on to that point in a moment. Everyone remembers those contracts. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct; the Secretary of State is signing us up to this century’s PFI, but this time, the cost goes straight to our energy bills.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Would my right hon. Friend agree that the Government could at least be consistent in their management of contracts for difference and auctions? Does she share my bemusement at the fact that they have dismissed one way of providing about 7% of our grid requirements in fairly short order, which is accepting the interconnector between Morocco and the UK? That would bring reliable solar and wind-powered energy to the UK.
Claire Coutinho
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the reliability of electricity, which is what we need. We need electricity that will work in the winter when the sun is not shining, or when the wind is not blowing.
The question I would ask is this: why is the Labour party signing up to those high prices and locking all our constituents in for 20 years? It is because the Secretary of State is in the pocket of the wind developers. These are the highest prices for wind power that we have seen in a decade. [Interruption.] Ministers might shake their heads, but that is just a fact. It is much higher than the price of electricity right now, so why would they be buying more than ever before at the highest prices in a generation and fixing those prices for 20 years? I say this to Labour Members: if their constituents are saying to them—which I am sure they are—that their bills are too high now, what will they say to them in January, when it will be the Labour party that locks them all into even higher prices for longer?
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Can the right hon. Member remind the House which party was in power when we reached cripplingly high energy prices that led to the cost of living crisis that we have today?
Claire Coutinho
I remind the hon. Gentleman that when I was Energy Secretary, bills came down by £500. Under this Secretary of State, they have gone up by £200. What he needs to explain to his constituents is why signing up to higher prices on inflation-linked contracts for 20 years will fulfil the promise he made to those constituents to cut their bills by £300. I wish he could explain that.
It is worth Labour Members listening to this. From the Tony Blair Institute to the most respected energy economist, Sir Dieter Helm, everybody has pointed out this risk to them. It has not come to them without warning, the fact that they are signing up to prices much more expensive than gas for decades. They are on the wrong side of this debate and they are on the wrong side of consumers. Come January, when the results are published, everybody will be able to see that. And they will ask them: were you warned? Did you do your job in Parliament and speak up for me and my bills? Here is the problem. Their whole position is not driven by what is best for consumers; it is driven by ideology. Nowhere is that clearer than in their war on the North sea. When Scottish Renewables says that Labour’s policy on oil and gas is damaging the transition, surely even Labour Members must realise that they are on the wrong path.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a very able speech explaining why the clean power 2030 action plan is so ruinous for consumers. What she has not mentioned is that trying to connect up this very dispersed array of wind farms across the North sea requires an enormous amount of new infrastructure. We now know that the load factors are being reduced, so we will require 30% more wind turbines to create the same net zero effect. The wind farm investors themselves do not have to pay the full infrastructure costs for connecting all that up; it is the consumers who pick up the bill. So, there is another hidden subsidy for wind power that is not reflected in the guaranteed prices that are already being paid.
Claire Coutinho
My hon. Friend is, as ever, an expert on this issue. If we look at the price cap and why it went up recently, it is those hidden costs. It was the balancing costs, paying wind farms to turn off when it is too windy. Next year, the network costs are about £100 per family. He is absolutely right that we have to look at all the extra costs that are coming down the track.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I am really worried about my constituents who will face higher bills going into winter and beyond. The message is clear, is it not? This Labour Government have the power to get bills down, but they are making a choice not to do so.
Claire Coutinho
My hon. Friend is exactly right. These are political choices and the Government should reflect on them.
When it comes to the North sea, we know that we will need oil and gas for decades to come—even the Climate Change Committee acknowledges that—yet thanks to the Government’s policies, we are paying Norway billions of pounds for gas from the exact same fields they are banning the British industry from drilling.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady was kind enough to go through her plan with me. I will be honest: I think there is merit in discussing some of the proposals—[Interruption.] No, it is not what Opposition Members think. There is merit in discussing some of the proposals on a cross-party basis, and I am sure the Government will do that. The motion talks about the highest industrial energy prices in the world and the second-highest domestic energy prices, but that was true throughout the Conservatives’ time in office. They grew and became a massive problem. It is something I came across in this place in my time here. What is it about the situation that she found when she was Secretary of State, and her predecessors found, that made it so difficult to address those very high energy costs?
Claire Coutinho
I thank the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for his time and willingness in going through the plan. Costs were not always so high; we actually had the lowest gas prices before the crisis, and we had lower electricity prices as well. What has happened is that we have switched a lot of costs into fixed costs, and those costs are increasing. It is something everybody is looking at, from the Tony Blair Institute to the trade unions—people right across the political spectrum. We need to address this issue because there is a huge amount on the line, whether that is growth or living standards. As I have said, AI is here in the near term; we cannot wait until the 2040s, which is the Government’s plan. Even then, it is not clear that their plan would bring down bills at all.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Is it not the truth that the reason energy bills are still so high is because we still produce a lot of electricity by burning gas? Burning gas, which is sold on the global market, keeps energy prices high. That is the main problem. We need to decouple electricity from gas prices, and particularly to get away from gas.
Claire Coutinho
As the Chair of the Select Committee was happy to spend some time with me on this, I hope that the hon. Lady would be too, because she might learn something. Some 40% of our electricity prices are wholesale prices, while 60% are fixed costs, which covers things like building out the networks, which is going up phenomenally under the Government’s plans, as even Ofgem has pointed out; it also covers switching off wind farms when it gets too windy, which we spent £1 billion on this year, and will spend £8 billion on in 2030. I urge the hon. Lady to go and look at the numbers.
Our imports of foreign gas, which has four times the emissions of British gas, have soared because of what the Government are doing to the North sea; they were up 40% year on year at the beginning of this year. When the unions, the chief executive of Octopus and even the chair of Great British Energy have said that we should keep drilling in the North sea, do Government Members not wonder whether their Secretary of State has got this wrong?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
indicated dissent.
Claire Coutinho
The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, but nothing I have said there is factually incorrect.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Claire Coutinho
I will make a little more progress.
The truth is that, with the winter fuel payment cut, the promise to cut bills by £300, shutting down the North sea and supposedly achieving clean power by 2030, their Secretary of State has told Government Members to back policy after policy that unravel as soon as they meet reality. Time and again, he has made them look like fools.
There are hundreds of thousands of jobs on the line as well as billions of pounds in tax revenue. In fact, the Government would have to pocket less tax from working people at the Budget in two weeks’ time if they just backed the North sea. Never in my life have I seen a Government deliberately shut down a successful industry like this. It is economic vandalism based on student politics—no wonder their Minister got booed when he went to Aberdeen. The Government should scrap the windfall tax, end the mad ban on new oil and gas licences, and back our cheap power plan.
Several hon. Members rose—
Claire Coutinho
I will make a bit more progress, because other Members want to get in.
We heard a lot this morning about the different factions jostling to replace the Prime Minister, but I have an idea that they can all get behind. I say to the Blue Labour faction, “If you want to protect industry, you need cheaper electricity, so back our cheap power plan.” I say to the Blairites, “If you want to make the most of AI, you need cheaper electricity, so back our cheap power plan.” I say to the soft left, “If you care about lifting people out of poverty and improving living standards, then back our cheap power plan.”
Our plan will not just help 6 million households by jacking up the bills for 22 million, which is what the Government are doing—it is what the Minister will no doubt boast about when he talks about the warm home discount. Instead, it will cut electricity bills by 20% for everyone. Government Members should think about this: at the last energy price cap, the reason bills went up was not gas—Ofgem was very clear about that—but because of the political choices of this Secretary of State. He keeps making them defend the indefensible.
Speaking of the Secretary of State, where is he? Thousands of Aberdonians are losing their jobs—where is the Secretary of State? We are being locked into higher bills for two decades—where is the Secretary of State? We are missing out on an AI future—where is the Secretary of State? Since July he has bothered to come to the House to explain himself just once. He is a walking, talking cost of living crisis, and his mistakes will be with us for decades. If I have read the news correctly, he is apparently tucked away somewhere plotting his leadership bid. But let us be honest, the country was asked that question and it was very clear what it thought about the prospect of Prime Minister Miliband. He should stop plotting and start cutting people’s bills.
The final question I would ask Labour Members is this: are they not fed up? Are they not fed up of defending these policies that keep turning to dust as soon as they meet reality, of telling their constituents they will cut their bills when instead bills keep rising, and of being political mushrooms left in the dark and fed a pile of manure? We were all mushrooms once, Madam Deputy Speaker.
If this is going to be the one and only Parliament the Labour Members have, they should at least use it to do something worthwhile. They must stand up to the Secretary of State and stop him from locking their constituents into higher prices for longer. Put cheap energy first and vote for our motion tonight to back 200,000 jobs in the North sea, get back to growth and cut all our constituents’ electricity bills by 20%.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the record, I have never been a fungi.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
I beg to move amendment (b), to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and insert:
“welcomes the extension of the Warm Homes Discount which this winter will provide £150 off energy bills for 2.7 million more families, taking the total households supported to around six million; regrets that the previous Government’s failed energy policy resulted in the worst cost of living crisis in generations; supports the creation of Great British Energy, to take back control of the UK’s energy system and provide energy security; notes that the Government is delivering the biggest nuclear building programme in decades, kickstarting Sizewell C nuclear power station, backing small modular reactors and investing in fusion power; further welcomes the consenting of enough clean power to provide power for more than 7.5 million homes across the country; also welcomes that the Government is bringing forward a plan for the North Sea’s energy future, and the creation of tens of thousands of jobs in nuclear, carbon capture, hydrogen and renewable industries as a result of the Government’s clean power mission; and recognises the Government is putting the UK back in the business of climate leadership, for energy security today and the protection of future generations to come.”
For too long the British people have paid the price for a broken energy system and an over-reliance on imported fossil fuels. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the wholesale price of gas went spiralling, and as a result our typical energy bills nearly doubled in the space of a year. This was a direct result of successive Conservative Governments refusing to invest in clean, home-grown power while leaving our electricity grid to wither. In recent years, millions have struggled with fuel poverty, and many still face enormous debts today. Their failure was a disaster for family finances, business finances and public finances.
As we head into another winter, the effects of this are still being felt by the many, but we must be honest: this was neither unexpected nor unavoidable. Since the 1970s, half of the UK’s recessions have been caused by fossil fuel shock. The Conservatives had 14 years to do something about our energy security, but instead of making us stronger and more secure, their policy of complacency, dither and delay left us completely reliant on petrostates and dictators to keep the lights on.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I was just wondering whether the Minister remembers what else happened in 2022, around February time, that might have impacted gas prices.
Martin McCluskey
I have mentioned the war in Ukraine in 2022, but this was not a crisis caused only by the war in Ukraine. It was a crisis caused by 14 years of under-investment—as I just said there, it was dither and delay.
Graham Stuart
The Minister talked about honesty, which is ironic given where he sits at the moment, in the Government of which he is a member. The Minister is better than this. He was talking specifically about renewables. Less than 7% of our electricity came from renewables in 2010, and by 2024 the figure was approximately 50%. To suggest that the Conservatives did not transform and improve our renewable energy is a falsehood, and because I know he is a better man than this, I am sure the Minister will now withdraw the allegation he made.
Martin McCluskey
The Conservatives are turning their back on the policy they followed for 14 years, which the shadow Secretary of State supported for years.
Bills did not rise because we built too many solar farms or wind turbines. As the Conservatives’ motion helpfully points out, we are still dependent on oil and gas for three quarters of our energy. Bills rose precisely because they did not build enough clean, home-grown energy. They were not ambitious enough. They buried their heads in the sand and accepted the status quo.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before Matt Rodda makes his intervention, I want to be clear that the language we use also means that we do not accuse each other of falsehoods.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I commend the Minister for his speech; I hope my words will reflect the seriousness of the issue in front of us.
Does the Minister agree that, sadly, the last Government fell woefully short on building new solar in particular? I think the statistics are very much along the lines of more solar being approved in the first few weeks of the new Labour Government than was approved in the whole term of the last Conservative Government. Will the Minister update me on those figures and provide a little more light and less heat in this debate?
Martin McCluskey
I think I am right in saying that the projects that we have consented since last July would power 7.5 million homes through solar. The work being undertaken by the Secretary of State on the solar sprint will see us go even further on solar.
Let me make some progress. A year and a half ago, fed up with the status quo that I was talking about a moment ago, the British people voted for change. From the moment when this Government came into power, we have been laser-focused on our mission to make the UK a clean-energy superpower; that is the only way to strengthen our energy security, to bring bills down, to create a whole new generation of good jobs in the energy industries of the future, and to build a more secure, prosperous Britain for generations to come.
Claire Coutinho
The hon. Gentleman just said that the costs of building more wind and solar farms had not fed through to bills. But if we look at Ofgem’s last price cap, we see that paying wind farms to turn off when it was too windy made bills more expensive. We have spent £1 billion on that this year; by 2030, we are projected to spend £8 billion. That is an enormous added cost. Those are consented wind farms that cannot get into the grid.
Martin McCluskey
If we had built the grid as we had planned to, we would not be paying those constraint payments—that is the whole point. Every wind turbine we put up, every solar panel we install and every piece of grid we construct are helping to reduce our reliance on gas.
Martin McCluskey
Allow me to make some progress.
In just 18 months, we have made the biggest investment in clean, home-grown energy in British history, with more than £60 billion of Government funding and a further £50 billion of private investment. As I said, we have consented enough clean power for the equivalent of 7.5 million homes, including nine new solar farms and offshore wind farms in the Irish sea and the English channel.
We have started building the next generation of nuclear power, including Sizewell C power station in Suffolk. We have set up Great British Energy, our publicly owned energy company that the Conservatives still oppose. That is already installing solar panels on hundreds of schools and hospitals across the UK, so that money saved on energy bills can go back into key services. We have kick-started Britain’s carbon capture and hydrogen industries as we lead the way on the technologies of the future. That is the immediate difference that this Labour Government have made to our communities.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I suggest that the Minister does not crow too much about GB Energy, given that at the Scottish Affairs Committee the Scottish Secretary let the cat out of the bag about the 1,000 jobs—“Well, we never really meant 1,000 jobs at GB Energy, just maybe 1,000 jobs somewhere, some time.”
When will Labour lower people’s energy bills by £300? It sounds to me as if that is to be at some indeterminate point in the future. The electorate could rightly and justifiably have thought that Labour meant some time in the immediate future.
Martin McCluskey
We have committed and remain committed to the reduction in energy bills laid out by the Secretary of State. The Scottish National party can oppose GB Energy as much as it wants, but the company will deliver good, high-quality jobs in Scotland. On what the hon. Gentleman said about the Secretary of State, I should say that jobs are being and will be created by GB Energy right across the supply chain.
Perran Moon
Robert Gordon University estimates that 90% of the UK’s oil and gas workforce have skills with medium or high transferability to the offshore renewables sector, making them well positioned for the transition. If the SNP does not want those jobs in Scotland, can the Minister please send them to Cornwall?
Martin McCluskey
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will carry on arguing for jobs across the UK, but particularly in Scotland and not all in Cornwall.
I will make some progress on my speech. Even in the face of rapid progress across the country, some, including many on the Opposition Benches, still cling to the status quo of stagnation and decline. Those who suggest that we should simply generate more electricity and generate more electricity with gas, leaving billpayers across Britain—
Martin McCluskey
If she will allow me to make progress, I will allow her to intervene. Those would leave billpayers across Britain to deal with the consequences. The reality is, as the shadow Secretary of State must know, that with our ageing gas fleet, half of which is more than 20 years old, in any scenario we would need to invest in rebuilding our power system. The truth is that replacing old gas plants with new ones would be significantly more expensive, and those costs would be met by consumers while also leaving us more exposed than ever to the global price of fossil fuels, over which we have no control.
Martin McCluskey
The hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress.
The data shows that solar and onshore wind remain the cheapest power sources to build and operate in this country. When faced with a choice between investing in new, expensive gas and increasing our reliance on unstable fossil fuel markets, or the alternative of clean, home-grown energy controlled by Britain, creating jobs for Britain, bringing investment to Britain and powering Britain, really, there is no choice at all.
Harriet Cross
The Minister just referred to the oil and gas sector as “the status quo” or something that we should be moving away from. Does he also mean the 100,000 jobs supported by that sector, the millions in investment and the billions that we get in revenue from that sector? Which part of that does he not support and which part of that does he not want to protect while we transition to new energies? It sounds to me like he wants to shut it down tomorrow. Those are my constituents, the local economy in my area and energy security for the country. He seems to be very willing to get rid of them.
Martin McCluskey
The hon. Lady makes a timely intervention because I am about to address all those points in this section of the speech.
Nowhere is the transition more important than in the North sea. For decades, its workers, businesses and communities have helped power our country and our world, using all their skill to tackle mammoth engineering challenges in some of the most extreme conditions on the planet. There will continue to be a role for oil and gas, and the workforce will continue to play its part for decades to come, but we are also following the evidence. The reality is that oil and gas production has been falling for decades, by around 75% between 1999 and 2024. The North sea oil and gas industry has lost around a third of its direct workforce in the last decade; that is, 70,000 jobs lost during the time in which the Conservative party was in government, when it had no plan to deal with the transition.
We face a choice: do we continue to let that happen, do we abandon entire communities with no plan for the future, or do we act, creating new skilled jobs and helping our workforce to take advantage of the opportunities that clean energy brings? This Government have chosen to act.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
The Minister will let me explain why, in the Alice in Wonderland world of the Government’s net zero policies, it is right to import liquefied natural gas, which for some reason does not count in our carbon footprint, instead of producing our own gas, which would count but which would be cheaper, far easier and more carbon-efficient to produce in our own country. Why are the Government pursuing that ludicrous policy, which is self-harming the economy, making our trade deficit worse and losing tax revenues for the Government because we are not exploiting our natural resources?
Martin McCluskey
We have been net importers of oil and gas since 2004. The Conservatives are making the precise point for us. We want to reduce the reliance on imports and we want to reduce the reliance on oil and gas by building clean, home-grown energy here in Britain.
Martin McCluskey
One moment—the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to make progress.
We have been investing billions in carbon capture, hydrogen and offshore wind. We are also providing up to £20 million of funding from the UK and Scottish Governments to ensure that the existing workforce benefits from new opportunities in new industries, including through the oil and gas transition training fund, which provides thousands more offshore workers with bespoke careers advice and training.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend references Scotland. I was at COP26 in Glasgow the last time we had a Conservative Prime Minister who showed real climate leadership on the global stage, yet we have now seen the sad spectacle—and we will see more of it later today—of a party that had a distinguished tradition of environmental protection and climate change reality running away to the Reform vote, which is an empty one. Does the Minister agree with the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, who said:
“Certainly in my party, it’s all about bashing the green agenda, and personally I don’t think we’ll get elected on that. I didn’t see us soaring in the polls as a result of saying what rubbish net zero is. I didn’t see a massive leap in support for the Conservatives”?
Martin McCluskey
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent and interesting point.
It is interesting to see this turnaround by the Conservatives. I am struck by something the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) said before:
“Look, nobody’s saying that net zero was a mistake. Net zero in the round was the eminently sensible thing to do. We need to decarbonise and we need to have an ambitious target to aim for.”
I have a page of quotes here from when he backed net zero and the policy of this Government. His former leader, Theresa May, whom I think he was Parliamentary Private Secretary for, said:
“To row back now would be a catastrophic mistake…the science remains the same…We owe it to our children and grandchildren to ensure we protect the planet for their futures, and that means giving business the reassurance it needs to find the solutions for the very grave challenges we face.”
By turning their back on all this, Conservative Members have built a coalition that includes businesses and members of their own party who are now turning against their new policy on clean energy.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)
As we are trading quotes, we now learn that energy bills are set to rise by hundreds of pounds because of the Government’s green levies. That is not just my opinion; it is the evidence of Centrica, of Octopus Energy and of EDF. Is the Minister seriously coming to this Chamber and saying that some of the biggest gas and electricity suppliers to the country are wrong?
Martin McCluskey
I am coming to this Chamber and saying that we need to continue to invest in building out the grid. That is what that levy pays for, and those companies that the right hon. Lady has mentioned know that that is what it pays for. If we fail to do it, it will lead to higher bills for consumers across the country.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
As someone who has actually worked in this industry, I appreciate a lot of what the Minister is saying. I have also noticed the gap in the narrative coming from the Opposition, because it was in 2017 that Theresa May’s Government took the decision to close the gas storage facilities that would have helped with a lot of the pressures we have been talking about. Does my hon. Friend agree that this requires long-term vision, and that perhaps the Conservatives were not as good at this as they are now claiming to have been?
Martin McCluskey
That really gets to the heart of the point, which is that the Conservatives are abandoning their long-term commitment, which was in the national interest and on which we had consensus across this Chamber. They are abandoning the national interest in favour of what they think is their short-term political interest.
Several hon. Members rose—
Martin McCluskey
I would like to make some progress on what I was saying about the North sea. We are working with industry and the Scottish Government to extend the energy skills passport, making it easier and quicker for oil and gas workers to bring their expertise into new sectors. In the coming weeks, we will also publish a response to our North sea energy future consultation, setting out the framework for building a world-leading offshore clean energy industry in the North sea.
Dr Murrison
The Minister’s constituents, like mine, are worried about their electricity prices right now—not in 10 years’ time or 20 years’ time, but right now. They are paying the highest electricity prices, bar one, in the world and the industries and businesses on which they rely are paying the highest electricity prices. A third of the wholesale price of electricity is the carbon tax. There is a solution here, is there not? It is to reduce this ridiculous carbon levy.
Martin McCluskey
The other solution is that we get off gas—that we move away from gas on to clean power. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that the warm home discount, which is giving support to one in six households across the country this winter, is providing £150 of support—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) dismisses that, but it is essential support for families and the most vulnerable people in our country who need it.
We must not lose sight of the fact that clean energy is the economic opportunity of this century. Since July 2024, the confidence instilled by our clean energy mission has seen £50 billion of private investment announced for clean energy, creating jobs, strengthening supply chains and rejuvenating industrial communities across the country. Our carbon capture clusters will support over 35,000 highly skilled jobs in Merseyside, Teesside, the Humber and Aberdeenshire, including 1,000 apprenticeships. Sizewell C will support 10,000 jobs at peak construction. Our small modular reactor programme, for which Rolls-Royce is the preferred bidder, will support 3,000 jobs in Northern Ireland, and £100 million has gone to Belfast harbour to support two new major wind farms in the Irish sea, creating more than 300 jobs. In East Anglia, future offshore wind projects are supporting another 100 jobs. In Carrington in Greater Manchester—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The Minister will be aware that many people hope to contribute, so I hope he will come to a conclusion shortly.
Martin McCluskey
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With that in mind, I might not take further interventions from hon. Members.
In Carrington in Greater Manchester, there will be 200 jobs in the region—I could go on. All those jobs are what the Conservatives are turning their backs on—the new clean jobs of the future.
While we sprint towards our clean energy goals, we are also doing everything we can to protect those who have borne the brunt of this crisis. As I said, the warm home discount is providing support to an extra 3 million households this winter. We are working with Ofgem to relieve the burden of energy debt that many consumers face. To support British industry, from next year 500 of our most energy-intensive businesses will get a cut to their bills, with thousands more firms getting discounts in 2027.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will know that one of the most energy-intensive industries in the country is the ceramics sector, which cannot go off gas because the technology simply does not exist to change the kilns from gas to electric—that process cannot happen. Under the Conservatives, the sector was excluded from the current supercharger scheme. Will the Government please consider—we beg again—extending the current supercharger scheme to include the ceramics sector, so that we can bring down the electrical costs that it incurs while not being able to look at the gas prices? Thousands of jobs are on the line and places like Stoke-on-Trent need this help. They need it now, and we would be most grateful for anything the Government can do.
Martin McCluskey
I know my hon. Friend is a champion for that industry and for his constituents. I will pass that on to colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade, who will look at it.
The previous Government stood idly by as jobs went overseas, but we will not. Through our industrial strategy, we are taking action to reduce industrial electricity prices. We are introducing the British industrial competitiveness scheme from 2027, which will reduce electricity bills by up to 25% for over 7,000 eligible British businesses.
If we want to create new good jobs and revitalise our industrial regions, we must seize the opportunity to make Britain a world leader in clean energy. This is the economic opportunity of the century. The Conservatives seem to want to double down on their record of failure. Do they not want to remember that their failed energy policy caused the worst cost of living crisis in memory for British families? Do they not want to recognise that their plans would mean jobs, investment and growth going to other countries, rather than into our communities? Do they not realise that their plans undermine the very confidence that British businesses now have in the energy transition? Now is not the time to turn to old solutions that have utterly failed, but to seize the incredible opportunities ahead of us. Now is the time to build our clean energy future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, to ensure that most people can get in, Back Benchers will be on a four-minute speaking limit.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
When this country is at its best, we rise together to face challenges and threats. We roll up our sleeves and deploy ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit to meet those threats and challenges head on. That is what we need now: a collective patriotic endeavour to tackle climate change, cut bills and ensure that our economy is based on cleaner and cheaper British energy sources that will not run out and that are immune from the whims of foreign dictators—what is not to like? Sadly, there are colleagues in this House who do not like that, who are against that patriotic endeavour to secure the future for our children and grandchildren. It is not for me to speculate on their motives, but for the security of our country and the good of our future, we certainly need to ensure that those people never get anywhere near power.
Let’s start with the one part of this motion that we can all agree on: energy bills are far too high. The typical family has to pay £60 a month more than it did five years ago. British businesses still face some of the highest electricity prices in the OECD. That is bad for the cost of living, bad for business and bad for economic growth, so we must bring energy bills down. The simple question is, how?
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making a spirited speech that gets to the heart of what we are all trying to address. There are fiscal levers that we can pull to ensure that we bring down bills. Does he share my sense of disbelief about the irony in the Conservatives’ earlier motion suggesting that there should be no further tax rises of any kind while they are simultaneously willing to propose a set of multibillion-pound measures to scrap all those levies?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Back-Bench speeches are already limited to four minutes. If interventions are long, the limit will drop further. Please be mindful of that.
Tim Farron
I will limit the number of interventions that I take, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Conservative party had a record of being, or at least presented itself as, the party of sound money. This appears to be a decision to move away from that and instead to chase after our permanently absent colleagues.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The cost of energy bills for the average household will be £1,775 this year. Charities indicate that energy companies are owed £4.4 billion by UK households. Does the hon. Gentleman fear, as I do, that the vulnerable and needy will be unable to heat their houses this winter because of the money that they owe? They cannot take on any more debt.
Tim Farron
Fuel poverty is a reality and a stain on our country. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise it on behalf of his community.
Let us get to the heart of this debate. We must bring energy bills down, and the question is how. I am afraid that the plan put forward by the Conservatives is nothing more than a mirage. They say that we should cut bills by removing the renewable obligation levy—that is great. As always, we are ahead of them and have set out our plan to do just that, but the key difference is that our plan is properly funded through a windfall tax on the extra payments that the big banks are getting as a result of quantitative easing. The plan in this motion is funded by the Conservative hand wave—a classic these days—of saying, “We’ll just cut spending.” What happened to the Conservative party being the party of sound money?
Dr Evans
In the previous debate, we talked about tax, and the funding that the hon. Gentleman mentions was also being used to deal with the tax burden on the high street. Will he explain the Liberal Democrat policy? How would they levy these taxes on social media giants and big banks, and where would that money go? It seems as if they are spending it twice in one afternoon.
Tim Farron
That is not the case. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning two of the sources of the additional income that we would raise. It is all very well just to blandly say, “We will get the money from somewhere,” but not to say where. The Liberal Democrats have said where we will find the money. His party has done nothing of the sort. The people who support sound money and wise economics are leaving his party in droves, and many of them are coming to the Liberal Democrats.
Tim Farron
I will not because we need to let other people speak later.
Given the Conservatives’ record in government and the complete lack of detail about which spending they would cut, it is very rich that they are asking us for details—we have given some. Once upon a time, the Conservatives did not believe in the magic money tree, but today their plans seem to rest entirely on its fictional bounty. The only other part of their plan that would supposedly bring down bills is the scrapping of the current auction of new renewable projects altogether.
Let us remember what that would actually mean. It would cut between £11 billion and £15 billion of private investment in cheap, clean power.
Tim Farron
The right hon. Lady says that it is not cheap. Over the lifetime of the projects, yes, it is cheap. Does the Conservative party not understand that the up-front costs are one thing, but the input costs over time—over 20 years—are as cheap as chips? This is basic economics, and I struggle to comprehend how a party that was in government for so many years has lost touch with reality so very quickly.
Tim Farron
I will not.
That would be a disaster for our economy, our communities and our young people. Far from bringing down energy bills, it would make us even more reliant on imported fossil fuels, which are expensive. Energy bills skyrocketed in the past few years because of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. That shows what a truly terrible idea this is. What happened to the Conservative party being the party of national security? That idea is long gone, too, alongside its commitment to sound money. Putin would profit, while British families and pensioners struggle.
The whole argument being put forward by the Conservative party, and by our habitually absent colleagues on the fourth row back, is that bills are too high because we are investing too much in renewable power. They say that we should stop investing, scrap our climate commitments, and bills will magically come down, but it is just not true. It is not the price of renewables that is pushing up bills; generating electricity from solar or wind is now significantly cheaper than gas, even when we factor in extra costs for back-up power when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. However, people are not seeing the benefit of cheap renewable power, because wholesale electricity prices are still tied to the price of gas, even though half of all our electricity now comes from renewables, compared with just 30% from gas. That is because the wholesale price is set by the most expensive fuel in the mix, which in the UK is almost always gas. That is not the case in some other countries in Europe such as Spain and France.
Graham Stuart
As this is supposed to be a debate, will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Graham Stuart
One of the hon. Gentleman’s fantastical suggestions is that he has a way of breaking the link between gas and electricity prices. I do not know which model he wants to follow—that of China, or perhaps a Korean model—but will he please explain how exactly we do that? When I was the Energy Minister, I looked to see whether that could be done, and we could not find a way of making it work. I am really interested to see the Liberal Democrats’ detailed work, and for them to explain it to the House.
Tim Farron
That the right hon. Gentleman was the Energy Minister makes me question the selection standards of the previous Prime Minister. How far do we need to look? The channel is not that wide. Look at France and Spain. France has nuclear, and Spain has renewable energy—[Interruption.] If people stop chuntering, I will explain. In Spain and France there is no reliance on gas, partly because of nuclear in France, and in Spain it is down not to nuclear but entirely to renewables. If the right hon. Gentleman had looked not very far away at the other side of the Bay of Biscay down in Spain, he would see that it is entirely possible. How do we decouple ourselves from reliance on gas? It is blindingly obvious: do not make it so that we have to rely on gas, and invest in renewables—it is so obvious that it is almost beyond belief that people who held that brief not long ago do not get it. Investing in cheap renewables, and making sure that people see the benefit in their bills—that is the answer.
The Conservative’s plan would rip up our crucial national commitment on climate change. I will not repeat quotations from previous Prime Ministers such as Baroness May of Maidenhead and Boris Johnson—Boris Johnson, now a moderate and a progressive by comparison, which is utterly stunning. It is distressing that the Conservative party has left behind traditional voters who do care about the environment and our economy.
Communities such as mine bear the brunt of the impact of climate change, as well as farmers whose businesses are blighted by ever-lengthening droughts and ever more severe floods. Communities such as Kendal, Burneside, Staveley, Appleby, and Grasmere are experiencing appalling flood damage. In just three weeks, we will note the 10th anniversary of Storm Desmond, which did hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of damage to our communities, and devastated lives, homes and communities. An apparently once-in-200-years event happened only a few years after two once-in-100-years events. It is obvious that things are changing; do not dare to tell Cumbrians that climate change is not a clear and present danger.
Fuel poverty is worse in our area too, and 27% of our housing stock was built before 1900. Those homes have solid walls, and are hard to insulate and expensive to heat. North Westmorland has the least energy-efficient housing in the whole of England, with 17% of homes classed as either F or G, but we are well placed to provide the solutions. Our coastal waters hold huge amounts of latent energy, yet like the rest of the UK they are largely untapped for tidal power. Britain has the second highest tidal range on the planet after Canada, and we are making use of nearly none of it—what an absolute waste.
Tim Farron
I will not.
Just think about all the jobs that could be created in Cumbria if we did that, all the cheap energy that we could generate and all the bills that we could slash. We have the big scale answers in our community, as well as the small scale ones. The Coniston hydro scheme has been hugely successful, but its future could be secured and the energy bills of the local community drastically reduced if only the Government would deliver the P441 code modification to make local energy markets a reality for us in the lakes, and across the United Kingdom, in every community. Local energy markets would open the floodgates—pun intended—for local schemes in every community, in every constituency represented in this House and beyond, so that households and businesses benefit from cheaper, cleaner energy created by people they know.
What would a real plan to cut energy bills, while continuing the UK’s leadership on climate change, look like? We have set it out in our amendment on the Order Paper: do not slash investment in cheap, clean renewables, but increase it, as we Liberal Democrats did when we were in government. We quadrupled the amount of renewable power generated between 2010 and 2015. We also say: make homes warmer and cheaper to heat with an emergency upgrade programme; and work with the European Union to trade energy more efficiently, cutting costs and reducing reliance on gas. In addition, we must end those expensive, old renewable obligation contracts from 20 years ago that impose levies on people’s bills and stop them seeing the benefits of cheap renewables, and move them on to cheaper contracts for difference, pioneered by the Liberal Democrats, to bring down prices and drive investment at the same time. Now, that is a real plan that treats the British people with respect, by presenting actual solutions, rather than vacuous soundbites.
In closing, the crushing poverty that millions endure as a result of eye-watering energy bills is real, and it is an outrage. The threat to our world and to our children’s future from climate change is real, and it is an outrage. Loving our neighbour means having a real and practical plan to tackle both. The motion does not provide that, but I am determined that we will.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss energy and climate change, although I am still reeling from the speech made by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho). By my count, she talked more about mushrooms than about climate change.
The debate comes just weeks after one of the most deadly storms on record caused such destruction in Jamaica. The Imperial college storm model concluded that the storm was appreciably stronger and more dangerous because of climate change. We are debating this motion in the shadow of the UN Secretary General’s comment that humanity has failed to keep global heating to below 1.5°C. With that backdrop, it is sad to see such a defeatist motion put forward by the Conservative party
That said, perhaps it is apt that we are debating the subject on an Opposition day, because the Conservative motion before us opposes many of the things that the party did in government. The Conservatives set up the UK emissions trading scheme in 2021, but now they want to scrap it. They introduced the levy on the oil and gas sector, but now they want to scrap that. The Climate Change Act 2008 was a Labour achievement that had cross-party support for many years, but now, most shockingly of all, the Conservatives want to scrap it.
Bill Esterson
The Conservatives also privatised the national grid. We were warned at the time, in 1989, that that would not lead to massive investment from the private sector, and we are now living with the consequences of that lack of investment over something like 40 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that that Conservative failure is another reason why we face such high energy bills?
Andrew Lewin
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I will go on to talk more about why investment now is good for us, in both the short term and the long term.
We have a genuinely sad state of affairs. There have been Conservatives who have taken the climate very seriously, from Lord Deben, with his leadership of the Climate Change Committee, to the former Prime Minister Baroness May. I am even old enough to remember Lord Cameron, then Leader of the Opposition, imploring people to vote blue to go green. I know I do not look that old. The message is clear that the Conservative party is no longer interested in that, and I will address the rest of my speech to those in this place who are still serious about reducing emissions, protecting the planet and doing what is right for the next generation.
Dave Doogan
Speaking of screeching U-turns, when the hon. Gentleman was campaigning for last year’s election, he told his potential constituents that he would lower their energy bills by £300. What is he saying to them now?
Andrew Lewin
As I will go on to say, I am telling them that investing in a decarbonisation scheme and having warm homes is exactly the way that we get bills down. Just last week, I met Tina in Hatfield. Tina is a council house resident, and she benefited from the social housing decarbonisation scheme. Her home was retrofitted last year, with new insulation, triple glazing and a host of other improvements, and she is thrilled with the results. She told me, most importantly of all, that last winter, her monthly energy bill fell from £140 to £67 a month.
Tina’s experience proves that we can cut emissions and cut costs. It also proves that there is not a fight between fighting climate change and providing support with the cost of living; the two can and must work together. That is precisely why our Labour Government have expanded the social housing decarbonisation scheme, and why I am proud that funding for wave 3 will see more than 600 council homes in Welwyn Hatfield brought up to energy performance certificate rating C by 2028.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is being most generous in giving way. Under the last Conservative Government, we went from 7% to nearly 50% renewables. We cut emissions more than any other major economy on earth, but as has been said, we also saw electricity prices go very high. When I was the Minister responsible for net zero, we were looking at heat, transport and industry, and the fundamental way of decarbonising each of those is through electricity. How can we decarbonise them if we keep driving electricity prices ever higher? I admire the hon. Gentleman’s ideological fervour, but we have to get prices down if we are to take a balanced approach that looks after families and decarbonisation.
Andrew Lewin
I recognise that improvements were made by the last Government, but if the right hon. Gentleman is listening carefully—I am sure he is—he will hear that that is the theme of my speech, and of comments from Government Members. It is so sad to see the Conservative party walk away from the Climate Acts and from being a party that takes these issues seriously. That is the sad thing, and that is what matters.
Hundreds more families in my constituency are about to enjoy the same experience as Tina, meaning that they can live in warmer homes and have dramatically lower energy bills. Upgrading our homes is the right priority; it is yielding results, and will continue to do so, but it will take time to scale that up across the country. The same is true of our investment in new nuclear power, the continued growth of all forms of renewables, and mandating that from 2027, every new home must have solar panels on the roof.
In parallel, the Government are right to recognise the urgency of now. Energy bills are down from their peak, but they are still significantly higher than before Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, so it is absolutely right that we have targeted plans to ease the pressure on families on lower incomes this winter through the warm home discount scheme, which will reach 2.7 million families across the country and around 11,000 families in Welwyn Hatfield.
The Conservative motion reflects the sad journey of the Conservative party. At best, they are ignoring climate change; at worst, they are playing to the climate sceptics, who might be plentiful on Elon Musk’s X, but there are very few of them in this country or, I suspect, in the constituencies of Conservative Members. In contrast, this Labour Government are absolutely right to invest in warm homes, to back renewable energy and to declare that tackling climate change is, and will remain, a national priority.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I am delighted to speak in this debate, because this is such an important topic for many of my constituents across South Shropshire. Both individuals and businesses need energy prices to come down—the cost is not sustainable, and it is on the wrong trajectory—and we need to be honest with the British people about the route for achieving that.
The Leader of the Opposition has clearly said that the net zero target is not achievable. We are being honest in this discussion. I believe that over the coming few years, all Members in this House will see that the target is not achievable, and it will be reversed. We are trying to bluff the British people—I think that is the word I would use—and make them believe that if we offset our carbon emissions and bring them down that way, it is okay to import all our energy. We have many more reserves that we can use before we need to bring in any energy from overseas; we can pull the reserves out of our ground and use them. There is a lot more that we can do on that.
Members may say, “We need to look at solar.” Let us look at rare earth metals, which I have spoken about several times in the Chamber. There are 17 rare earth metals, 90% of which are processed in or through China, which literally uses a scorched earth policy to pull them out of the ground.
Perran Moon
The hon. and gallant Member has mentioned rare earth metals. The Government will hopefully come out with their critical minerals strategy before the end of the year. We have vast resources of critical minerals in the United Kingdom; why did the previous Government not invest, so that we are not reliant on China?
Stuart Anderson
The hon. Member raises a very interesting point. China looked at this issue 30 years ago; when I went over to Australia about five years ago, the Australians were looking at it, and the US was looking at it, too. Every country outside of China has left this way too late. Putting in place a critical minerals strategy now is way too late, but we still need one in place. We need to look at this issue. All the magnets that we use in this country, including for MRI scans, require rare earth metals. That strategy should be in place today. We got that wrong—I am happy to admit that we did not get our rare earth metals strategy right—and it is costing us. Everybody is waking up to the need for that strategy, but we cannot say, “Let’s just pull those metals in from China; we are very happy for them to offset our carbon emissions over there.”
I also want to look at energy from a defence perspective. We need energy to ensure that we have strong defence. Recently, the Government committed to the NATO standard, which is to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence and 1.5% of GDP on defence-related areas. We should focus on article 3 of NATO—internal defence—and that 1.5% of defence-related spending should be focused on a couple of things, namely energy security and food security. I am a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and discussions are ongoing about how that money should be used. If our tanks do not have any fuel to get where they need to go, they cannot fight; that is before we even look at ammunition and things like that. Rather than saying, “We have to go faster on renewables,” we should be having the bigger discussion about national resilience and energy security. The world is the most unstable it has been since the second world war. We need something in place now, and we need to move to what is sustainable. Defence is key to that.
I have mentioned food security. Outside of Much Wenlock in my constituency, which has just been voted the happiest place to live in Shropshire—it is a lovely place to live—there are 600 acres of prime agricultural land that can grow food, and a beautiful view that is one of the best in the country. There is an application to replace it with 600 acres of solar panels. I have not found one person in the constituency who wants to turn that land into a site for solar energy; it is only the landowner who wants to. If we put solar panels all over it, as part of the roll-out of solar at speed—the Minister has mentioned that the Government are going quicker—we will be doing so with no regard for local people and what they want for their communities. This is really detrimental; the discussion about net zero is getting killed because local communities are being overridden.
I have talked about the speed of solar, and about defence and food security, but we also need to look at homes that are off the grid. In South Shropshire, only 42% of homes are on gas mains; many are off the grid. I think the average across the country is about 73%. Some of the Government’s plans that the Minister has set out are not working for a lot of off-grid communities. There are a lot of old homes in South Shropshire, many of them built pre-1945, that are too expensive to retrofit.
Stuart Anderson
I will conclude with that. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Clearly, this country faces an affordability crisis. People cannot afford their energy bills or their housing bills, and that means more than just not being able to pay the bills—it means that they are losing faith in us in this place, because democracy is no longer delivering for them. We Labour Members want cleaner and cheaper energy, to ensure that people can afford their bills and do have faith in us, but there is another reason. The decisions we make now in this place will live on for decades—for generation after generation. The carbon we emit between now and 2050 will live, not just with us, but with our great-grandchildren and their grandchildren. It is so important that we get this right at this moment.
The motion tabled by the Conservative party backs expanding North sea oil and gas. That would not make our energy cheaper, and perhaps more importantly, it would not make us more secure. The Conservatives talk about a cheap power plan. They were in power for 14 years. We had the most expensive energy bills in the G7, with the highest inflation, because they left us dependent on natural gas—and what do we see today? Exactly the same plan all over again. Natural gas is setting our energy price for 98% of the time. It drove 80% of the increase in the wholesale cost, with 50% of the wholesale cost driving the increase in energy prices. How on earth can the Opposition today want us to relive and repeat those mistakes over and over again?
Let us talk about North sea oil and gas in particular. Taking all of it out, as the Opposition are proposing, would leave five years-worth of supply—and then what will we do? What will we invest in then? We will be dependent on natural gas over and over again. That is exactly why we invest in the future. Moreover, the North sea gas bill is twice as expensive as those in the middle east, so it does not even make economic sense.
Harriet Cross
Projections show that if we fully utilised the oil and gas in the North sea we could cover half our energy needs up to 2050, so there is a lot more in there than five years-worth, but even if it were true that there was only five years-worth, why would we be increasing our imports to cover it? Why would we not be using what we have, given that we will be a net importer for years to come in any event? Why are we closing down the North sea if, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it will all be gone in any case? It makes no sense.
Dr Sandher
The gasfields that the hon. Lady is talking about are geologically unstable, and it is not even clear whether we can get them out. Only 20% of the reserves of the gasfields that we knew of in 1997 are left—and when we get to 2050, what will we do then? That is precisely why this Government are investing in clean, home-grown energy that is cheaper and more secure for the future, and we know that is the case because the Conservatives used to believe it too. You used to believe in net zero. You used to believe in the Climate Change Act. Look at how much you have changed. It is a deep shame.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I have not changed; I am still here.
Dr Sandher
I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Our plan, which used to be shared across the House, is precisely to invest in cleaner, cheaper energy for all, because we know that wind and solar are 60% cheaper than natural gas. We know that because, after the capital costs, wind and solar are free. As for the network costs, we need to balance them in any case, and renew our grid. That too was an approach that we shared across the House, and it is a shame to see where we are.
Beyond investing in clean energy, which is cheaper, we are also investing in home insulation so that people use less energy at home and bills are lower for families, and they do have faith in us in this place. On top of that, we are redistributing the costs through the warm home discount and the standing charge. I am so glad that the living standards coalition put that forward.
Gareth Snell
National Energy Action estimates that Stoke-on-Trent is No. 1 in the country for fuel poverty. According to its analysis, even if we reduce energy bills, as we will do, most of the energy will simply disappear through leaky windows, draughty doors and uninsulated homes. Does my hon. Friend accept, agree and acknowledge that there must be a twin-track approach, and that not only must we bring down the overall cost of energy, but houses must use less energy so that we are cleaner, greener and cheaper?
Dr Sandher
The House will be shocked to hear that I do agree. This is about getting bills down for families, which is so important. When homes are insulated, that reduces energy demand as well, which means that our transition is easier and cheaper. When we build and insulate homes, that is not just good for bills, it is not just good for people, but it is good for jobs as well—good non-graduate jobs, of which there are too few in our move to a post-industrial economy.
Most important of all, however, is getting carbon down for good. The decisions that we make now, and the carbon that we emit, will live with us for ever. Either we, in this place and across the country, will make these innovations and live up to our duty to this generation and those in the future—either we will stop emitting carbon, which will mean cheaper and cleaner energy, and our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be thankful to us—or we will not. This is the moment for us to rise to. This is why we are investing in that cheaper, cleaner energy—yes, so that it gets bills down for good, but also to ensure that we live up to the promise we make to the generations to come.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
No industrialised country has ever been able to succeed without cheap, abundant energy. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) so rightly says, the Government must prioritise delivering cheap, abundant energy for households across the country. The plan that she laid out last month would knock nearly 20% off the average household energy bill by cutting the disastrous taxes that this Government continue to defend.
Not only do this Government plan to keep hitting families with extra taxes to fund their ideological commitment to unreliable and expensive energy sources, but they plan to make the situation even worse by shutting down energy production in this country and making us even more reliant on imports from abroad. Businesses can feel it: far too many are being forced to cut back or close their doors altogether, because the cost of doing business is simply too high. That means that pubs, nursing homes and family farms are all forced to make painful decisions because of this Government.
For industrial businesses, it is even worse. Some of the best well-paid jobs of the 21st century—in high-skilled manufacturing or in AI—rely on access to cheap energy. Those are jobs that can revitalise communities and enable people to build successful lives for themselves. Our competitors around the world understand that, but this Government do not. We need people to start new industrial businesses here, but why would anybody do so when the Government are only going to make their lives harder through their commitment to sky-high bills and intermittent, unreliable forms of energy?
Those on the Government Benches often talk of sustainability, but there is nothing sustainable about this situation. People across the country can feel it in their energy bills each and every month. Thanks to rising bills, many families simply do not have enough money left at the end of the month to save for a home, plan a holiday, or even send their children on a school trip.
James Naish
This January, Centrica said this regarding Rough, the largest gas storage facility in the UK:
“If Rough had been operating at full capacity in recent years”—
which was a decision that was not taken in 2017—
“it would have saved UK households £100 from both their gas and their electricity bills”.
So does the hon. Lady agree that the sustainable thing to do would have been—and still is—to invest in gas storage facilities?
Katie Lam
I thank the Member for his intervention, but we should still be investing in storage from the North sea; that is still the best storage that we have.
The real human cost of Labour’s plans on energy is that the cost of living crisis is being made even worse. And all the while, countries such as China and India continue to open new coal-fired factories. UK emissions are the lowest they have been since the 1850s, while China pumped out more carbon between 2013 and 2020 than Britain has produced over the past 220 years. That is not just because it is a bigger country; China’s per-person emissions are more than double the UK’s, and are rising.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend throw any light on the apparent contradiction whereby the Government seem prepared to import fossil fuels—thus exporting our carbon footprint—but not to allow us to develop our own fossil fuel resources? Is it because they are afraid that, once we develop them, we will not want to stop using them, or is there some other explanation?
Katie Lam
It is, unfortunately, a mystery to me. I do not understand why we would be making this trade. It is clearly a bad one. No matter how much we might wish it were otherwise, this Government cannot and will not make a dent in addressing global climate change. We are simply sending our emissions abroad while British businesses and families pay the price. People across the country are being forced to make hard choices because this Government will not face the facts and deliver the cheap, abundant energy that we so clearly and dearly need.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
It is time for some home truths. The Conservative Government oversaw such a disastrous energy policy that it led to the worst cost of living crisis in generations. It started so well, and they just bottled it: they blocked wind power projects, failed to invest in nuclear, failed to invest in the grid, and were clueless when it came to solar, tidal and geothermal. Once again, it falls to this Government to clear up the mess left by the Conservative party, and we will not take any lectures from them on how to build a just transition to deliver long-term, sustainable, domestically produced energy to reduce bills.
Cornwall became a post-industrial land way before virtually any other part of the country, and anyone who visits Cornwall cannot miss the mines and wheelhouses that evocatively blend into our beautiful landscape. The Cornish Celtic tiger was tamed, but it is set to roar once again thanks to this Government’s commitment to critical minerals and the renewable transition. The hon. and gallant Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) mentioned critical minerals, and our resources of tin, which is used in virtually every electrical device, lithium, which is used in EV batteries, and tungsten will provide domestically sourced resources to accelerate our transition to renewables while creating thousands of jobs and, as he said, reducing our reliance on Chinese imports.
It is beyond me why that took so long, but it has now taken 15 months of a Labour Government to see the benefits in Cornwall. Why the previous Government did not invest in Cornwall I have no idea, but driving down the A30, we can see that our landscape has new beautiful features, with wind turbines creating sustainable energy for local people. We have vast opportunities in wind, solar, geothermal and tidal, and Cornwall’s opportunities play a strategically prominent role in transitioning away from fossil fuels.
Saqib Bhatti
The hon. Member is making the argument for exploiting our home resources so we do not have to import such resources from elsewhere, but that is exactly the argument when it comes to North sea oil, is it not?
Perran Moon
No, absolutely not. I am talking about why the Conservative Government did not make the investment in critical minerals that this Labour Government identified straightaway. It was there, and has been there for decades—for centuries, in fact—and it has been ignored, so we are now reliant on Chinese imports.
Bill Esterson
One of the challenges in bringing down energy costs is the up-front cost of the equipment people need to take advantage of cheaper electricity. My hon. Friend knows a lot about electric vehicles because he used to work in the sector, and he knows that the salary sacrifice scheme was the biggest single way of getting electric vehicles on to the road. Does he agree with me that the Government should look at a similar scheme for solar, battery, insulation and potentially heat pumps as a great way of enabling consumers to benefit from cheaper electricity?
Perran Moon
I declare an interest, as the UK’s largest ground source heat pump company is based in my own constituency. I am a big advocate of ground source heat pumps, and I am hopeful that the Government will come forward with plans, particularly for social housing, to support that sector. My hon. Friend makes very valid points.
The opportunities in Cornwall would be scuppered without the likes of the round 7 allocation, and thousands of green job opportunities would be quashed. Opposition parties need to wake up. This Government are committed to transitioning away from fossil fuels, because to do so means that we will break free from the shackles of the wholesale gas price. We can control supply, and in doing so we will reduce domestic and business energy bills, rather than continually being exposed to the whims of the likes of Mr Putin. I know that some Members—maybe they are not here at the moment—quite admire Mr Putin, but this Labour Government, and, I suspect, those who are paying through the nose for Putin’s whims and the previous Government’s failure to invest, do not.
Talking of ideology, I must ask this question: what is it about the oil and gas-backed, climate change denying opposition parties that make them feel so threatened by the green energy transition?
Perran Moon
I will not give way because of time, and I know that other Members are still to speak.
Opposition Members’ constituents will not thank them for blocking access to sustainable, low-cost energy, and Ministers know that we on this side of the House fully understand and support the transition, with interventions such as the warm home discount, which I do applaud. I urge Ministers to continue to ignore the siren calls and to pursue the path to long-term, cheap renewable energy, lowering bills and regenerating areas such as Cornwall that were long abandoned by the Conservatives. The previous Government lost the plot on energy, but this Government are taking back control of our energy industry.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
My constituents are looking at their rising energy bills, already the second highest in the world, with a real sense of fear. People should not have to choose between heating and eating because of the direct choices—the political choices—of the Labour party.
It is not just residents I am hearing from. Many local organisations, from hospices to food manufacturers to the local pub, are worried about the rising costs. The Secretary of State’s ideological attacks on North sea oil and gas production are devastating not just communities across Scotland but high streets right across the country. Businesses are already struggling with lower footfall as customers rein in spending, worried about the security of their own jobs. It is a doom loop and the Government simply do not get it, but our small businesses do—businesses such as Wicks Farm in my constituency. It produces some of the best strawberries in the country, which, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would love to invite you to try. David, its director of agriculture, feels that there is no plan and no support—not for energy, not for infrastructure and certainly not for growth.
Rich and Mark, who run East Beach Guest House, a beautiful boutique hotel on the shoreline of Littlehampton beach, tell me they face a cliff edge of costs imposed by the Chancellor: the jobs tax, the family business tax and the costs of the Employment Rights Bill, as well as eye-watering energy bills. The Government are an existential threat to small businesses, and the families and communities they support. Enough is enough.
The reality is that every pound spent just to keep the lights on is a pound not spent in our shops. When businesses suffer, we lose jobs, skills and the very places where people meet, work and build a community. That is why I welcome the work done by the shadow Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) in setting out what we on the Conservative Benches will do to support families and businesses right across the country.
Alison Griffiths
I will not, given the time constraints.
Our cheap power plan would axe the carbon tax, scrap renewable levies on household bills and put money back into the pockets of hard-working people, because if we give families certainty and give businesses room to breathe, the growth will follow. This is how we build an economy that works for everyone, not just on paper, but on every high street and in every town.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
More people are now recognising that all is not well with the current approach to energy policy or net zero. That matters because the cost of energy is deeply tied to the cost of living, the cost of doing business, and the security and resilience of our country. It therefore follows that any energy policy which sees us spend £250 million per month to import energy from Europe because our own production cannot meet demand can only be called a failure and a security risk.
The country urgently requires an energy policy that is realistic, reliable and rooted in the pursuit of prosperity, yet what successive Governments have legislated for has been anything but. The net zero agenda is not working and it is time we were honest about that fact. The target may have been well-intentioned, but the current pathway is unaffordable and unworkable.
What many people will be wondering is, how did we get to this point? To address that, we must look back to the Climate Change Act 2008. When the Act was passed, it was the first legislation in the world to set a legally binding national framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it applies only to territorial emissions; that is, emissions that occur within the UK’s borders. This means that while it can be made to look as though we are meeting our climate targets, with a reported 54% reduction in territorial emissions since 1990, we are in fact exporting an increasing share of our emissions elsewhere. This phenomenon, known as carbon leakage, occurs when UK-based industries shut down or relocate overseas to avoid high carbon costs, only for the UK to continue importing the very same goods, often with higher embedded emissions.
Net zero by 2050 may lower UK emissions on paper, but perversely, it is also driving up global emissions in real terms as we become more reliant on imports.
Several forces contribute to this situation. First, UK electricity prices are now among the highest in the developed world, driven in no small part by net zero policies. Secondly, under the UK emissions trading scheme, firms in energy-intensive sectors must buy allowances for every tonne of carbon dioxide they emit—a cost their foreign competitors may not face. Thirdly, the rise of green finance regulations such as mandatory environmental, social and governance disclosure and climate stress testing has constrained domestic investment into high-emissions sectors, even as our competitors around the world forge ahead without similar constraints.
Rebecca Paul
I am going to continue, but thanks for the offer.
The economic consequences are now plain to see. Since 2021, the output of UK energy-intensive industries has fallen by around 35%. In sectors such as steel, petrochemicals and fertilisers, this trend is not theoretical, and the damage already done to once-proud industries is plain to see. At Grangemouth in Scotland, INEOS recently announced the closure of its ethanol production facility. Its founder, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, issued a stark warning at the time, saying that Britain is offshoring its emissions and onshoring virtue—we close plants here, import the same products from abroad, and claim we are greener.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the decision to reduce North sea oil and gas output in favour of increased imports. On paper, this slashes the UK’s territorial emissions, but in reality, it leaves us more reliant on volatile overseas markets, increases our net carbon footprint and surrenders billions in domestic tax revenue and thousands of skilled British jobs. We appear to have confused decarbonisation with deindustrialisation.
What do we have to show for years of adherence to the Climate Change Act and everything that came with it? We now have the second highest domestic energy prices and the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, with 12 million families struggling to pay their energy bills. I defy anyone to try to sell that as any kind of success.
The old orthodoxy has been tried and found wanting, and we now need a better way forward. That is what we are offering today with our cheap power plan, which delivers on energy security, supports economic growth and protects the public from unaffordable green extremism.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is vital that we challenge the bankrupt energy record of the UK Government—a record of failure that continues to punish Scottish workers, strip our national wealth and plunge families into fuel poverty.
The current policy being prosecuted from Westminster is not a sustainable plan. It is quite simply ripping jobs from the north-east of Scotland with nothing to replace them. Scotland is an energy-rich nation, abundant in both oil and gas, with world-leading renewable potential.
Perran Moon
Does the hon. Gentleman realise that 90% of the jobs in the oil and gas sector are easily transferable to the renewables sector?
Graham Leadbitter
Yes, the jobs are transferable, but the work they can be transferred to needs to exist. It does not exist at the current time. The downturn in the North sea from a crippling fiscal regime is absolutely destroying those jobs and the skills that we need to get to that clean energy potential.
The SNP is clear in its support for a just transition for Scotland’s oil and gas sector, recognising the maturity of the North sea basin and aligning with our climate change commitments. However, we must be absolutely clear that a just transition does not mean simply stopping all future oil and gas activity overnight, as that approach threatens energy security and destroys the very skills we need to transfer to net zero.
We have repeatedly called on the UK Government to approach decisions for North sea oil and gas projects on a rigorously evidence-led, case-by-case basis, with climate compatibility and energy security as key considerations. Instead, we have seen a fiscal and licensing regime that is actively destroying the highly skilled jobs required to deliver clean energy security.
The energy profits levy is a crippling tax on Scotland’s energy and we must see its end in the upcoming Budget. We have seen the consequences laid bare: Harbour Energy confirms a cumulative headcount reduction of approximately 600 roles since the EPL was introduced in 2022, blaming the “punitive domestic fiscal regime”. Meanwhile, a landmark report found that one in four north-east firms has slashed jobs due to the tax. The decline in North sea oil and gas jobs currently outstrips the number of jobs created by the scale-up of the clean energy industry.
The loss of highly skilled offshore workers with transferable skills without the jobs to transfer to makes a mockery of the just transition. The Chancellor has the opportunity to fix this in two weeks. The question is: will she?
Furthermore, where is the support for the alternative? Labour promised that its flagship GB Energy project would bring down bills and create 1,000 new jobs in the north-east of Scotland, yet only 13 out of 69 employees at GB Energy are based in Aberdeen, while 31 are employed in London. Now we have heard the astonishing admission that creating 1,000 jobs was never the intention.
Let us turn to the soaring cost of living and the broken promises made to Scottish households. The Labour party promised to cut energy bills by £300 before the election, but the reality is that since the Government took office, bills have soared. Independent analysis shows that average energy bills could rise by £287 on their watch. To meet their original pledge, the Labour Government would need to cut bills by nearly £600. The situation facing Scots is completely absurd: we are an energy-rich country where bills are going up while energy jobs are going down. We produce enormous amounts of electricity, yet Scots pay among the highest energy bills anywhere in Europe.
Finally, we must address the UK Government’s ideological obsession with nuclear energy, which threatens Scotland’s transition to renewables. Scotland already has an abundance of clean, renewable energy—enough to power our country several times over. We do not need expensive nuclear power, yet Scots are being forced to pay for a nuclear power station they do not want and will not benefit from—and at great risk to our economy. I am speaking, of course, about the nuclear tax being imposed on Scottish households to fund the construction of Sizewell C in Suffolk. The plant is not expected to generate electricity until the mid-2030s at the earliest.
Furthermore, the long-term legacy of nuclear power is routinely ignored by Ministers. The true cost of the geological disposal facility for nuclear waste is now estimated to be up to £69 billion at current prices. The body responsible for the GDF project has described it as “unachievable”. This is an eye-wateringly large amount of money.
Whether it is the reckless fiscal regime destroying jobs in the North sea, the broken promises leaving families facing sky-high bills, or the imposition of a toxic nuclear tax to fund white elephants in England, Westminster’s energy policy—dictated to us by both Labour and the Tories—has been a complete failure. It is no wonder that more and more Scots are concluding that the only way to escape this repeated mismanagement and the only route to cheaper bills is through a fresh start with independence. It is time to put Scotland’s energy in Scotland’s hands.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
As we head towards winter, I am sure that, like me, many Members will have begun to receive emails from worried constituents asking how they will afford to heat their homes this winter. The reality is that they were promised by this Labour Government that their energy bills would fall by £300. Instead, they have risen by almost £200. Britain now faces some of the highest electricity prices in the world, affecting everyone from families to businesses and communities. This comes down to one simple truth: this Labour Government are putting ideology before the British people.
Aphra Brandreth
I will continue because of time.
For those who doubt this, let me set out the cost of the Secretary of State’s policies, with statistics sourced from his own Department. The UK now faces the world’s second-highest domestic electricity prices: four times higher than those in the US, with 12.1 million households struggling to pay bills and 43% spending over 10% of their income on energy. At a time when energy security is crucial, the Government are closing our North sea oil and gas sector—an illogical move that in reality will cost us jobs and billions in lost economic value, all while not actually delivering the environmental benefit that many people understandably want to see. Shutting down domestic production does not reduce demand. It just means importing more from abroad, often with a far higher carbon footprint. Why do this Government persist with an ideologically driven approach when even the chair of Great British Energy and the Scottish renewables sector have both called for continued drilling in the North sea?
The Conservatives have set out a clear and credible plan for cheaper energy. Of course I want a clean and healthy environment for this generation and future generations, but we also need to recognise the wider context. If we make wise and prudent decisions today to support our economy, and if we utilise the resources we have and encourage investment and growth, we will have a springboard to pursue a greener future.
My concern is that we are making decisions influenced by the Climate Change Act. By only counting domestic emissions, one could, for example, close industries in the UK and shift production overseas, resulting in lost jobs, revenue and growth. Yes, it would meet the requirements of the Act, but all the while resulting in increasing global emissions.
Good intentions are not matching the reality for families or for the environment. I support our plan to cancel the carbon tax on electricity generation, saving every household £75 a year, and to end outdated renewable subsidies, saving families a further £90 annually. Labour promised a £300 reduction in bills, but bills have risen by £200. That is the price of putting ideology over delivery and pragmatism. I urge Members to back the Opposition motion and back our cheap power plan.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Martin Wrigley has agreed to do three short minutes before we go to the Front Benchers.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
The biggest issue in my inbox is the cost of living and the cost of energy in particular. In the south-west, we are a net contributor to renewable energy, and we could do even more with tidal power investment. Yet our energy bills are higher than the national average. In my Newton Abbot constituency, we have higher fuel poverty than the average, and 23% of households in the district are in off-gas-grid areas.
Yet we face electricity bills based on the price of gas. That is because the electricity generation market is set up using so-called marginal cost pricing, which effectively increases the wholesale price of renewables to that of electricity generated by gas because gas power plants are flexible and used to top up the supply. Even though a significant and increasing proportion of the UK’s electricity is generated by sources with low marginal costs such as wind, solar and nuclear power, these generators also receive the higher marginal price set by gas.
Under the marginal pricing system, the UK’s electricity market price is set by gas 98% of the time—the highest rate across Europe and well above the EU average of just 40%. All that is under the Government-controlled system of contract to energy generators, to provide a level of certainty in the productivity and supply. But we have to break the tie with gas and marginal cost pricing.
The introduction of contracts for difference, used most significantly for offshore wind and introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) in the Energy Act 2013, is a good step but it still relies on setting a strike price for energy, which is heavily influenced by the price of gas at the time of the deal. In the 12 months to September 2025, renewables accounted for 42% of the UK’s total energy mix, while figures for the second quarter of 2025 indicate that renewables made up a record 54% of electricity generation.
The answer for cheaper bills, according to experts, is to intervene in the design of the market to stop the cost of gas plants from setting the price for the whole market, not to increase the reliance on fossil fuels that are choking the planet to death with carbon emissions.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Two Labour promises gone in one day—that must be a record, even for this failing Government. We heard today confirmation that there is no way that the Government are going to cut energy bills by £300 by 2030. This is a party that campaigned on the pledge of cutting bills by £300, yet we have seen families’ bills go up. The party consistently blamed volatile gas prices, until the gas price fell; now it must confront the reality that its extortionate auction rounds, race to Clean Power 2030 and strangulation of our North sea industry are impacting households up and down the country. This Government have no plan to cut energy bills for the British people.
In comparison, our cheap power plan, as set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), would cut families’ bills by 20% immediately. Our cheap power plan would take £165 off the average electricity bill by axing the carbon tax on electricity generation, stopping the Secretary of State’s rip-off auctions and scrapping ridiculously expensive old renewable subsidies.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not normally read in the Chamber—I do not think it is good form—but in this case I will. This is available on the shadow Minister’s website. He says:
“I am also proud of the UK’s world-leading role in tackling climate change…with the UK being the first country to introduce legally binding long-term emissions targets under the landmark Climate Change Act in 2008.”
He now wants to scrap that Act, does he not?
Andrew Bowie
Yes, I do want to scrap that Act. We will scrap that Act because the cost to the British people is far too high and it is unsustainable. That is why we want to bolster domestic energy security by backing British oil and gas, supporting workers and reducing reliance on imports, which have soared as a direct result of this Government’s policies.
Andrew Bowie
I will not because time is limited, and I want to give the Minister time to respond—oh fine, go on!
Tom Hayes
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. On that same website, he talks about the deep emissions cuts that result from the Climate Change Act’s emissions targets. Does he agree with the website that were it not for the Climate Change Act, those emission reductions would not have happened?
Andrew Bowie
I did not know that my website was such a go-to place for Labour MPs. I recommend they read some of the other things on that website, including the setting out of how our cheap power plan will reduce bills.
Saqib Bhatti
I have not had time to go on my hon. Friend’s website, but I hear it is a good read. The fact of the matter is that he puts forward a policy that will cut energy bills—the opposite of what the Government are doing—create jobs in the North sea and ensure economic growth. Is that not the case?
Andrew Bowie
Yes, and I recommend he looks at my website because everybody else in the Chamber seems to have done so by now.
Andrew Bowie
I will do so one last time and then I really need to make progress.
Wera Hobhouse
I am interested in hearing what he has to say about cutting bills. Does he not recognise that the cost of letting climate change go on unmitigated is a vast one for every household in this country?
Andrew Bowie
I remind the hon. Lady that, as she well knows, we cut our carbon emissions faster than any other developed nation on Earth and yet global warming is increasing. We need to encourage other countries to reduce their emissions, but we do not do that on the backs of British bill payers, who pay far too much for their energy. I thought the Liberal Democrats would be supportive of creating jobs and reducing bills and the burden on British people, but obviously they are not.
The Government’s policies have seen imports soar as a direct result. Those policies have been described as “naive” by the GMB; “incorrect” by the American ambassador; they will make Britain increasingly dependent, according to the Norwegian Government; they need replaced, says Scottish Renewables; and they lead to a “haemorrhaging” of energy jobs, according to none other than the head of Great British Energy, Juergen Maier. In fact, the only person who seems to think that this is a good way to manage our energy industry is the Energy Secretary.
This Government are sacrificing an industry and livelihoods, communities and prosperity on this mission, many of them in my constituency. The irony is not lost in the north-east of Scotland. We import more gas from abroad, from the very same sea that we are prevented from exploiting ourselves, and at a higher carbon footprint, while workers in Aberdeen and across the north-east of Scotland and the domestic supply chain across the United Kingdom see their jobs disappear. Aberdonians are incredibly proud of the fact that an Aberdonian accent can be found in every oil-rich nation on earth. Soon, the only place we will not find a Scottish oil and gas worker is in Aberdeen itself. One thousand jobs are set to be lost every month as a direct result of the policies of this Labour Government, because those people are leaving. They are off to the middle east, Australia, the far east, South America, Mexico, the USA and Canada—in fact, they are off to anywhere the British Labour party is not in charge of energy policy.
This successful industry is enduring a politically manufactured decline, made in Whitehall and devastating livelihoods across the UK and particularly in Scotland. This Government are demonstrating a reckless disregard for the industry, which for decades has kept the lights on in this country; an industry that we will continue to need for decades to come.
The oil and gas industry has been through challenging waters before. The 2014-15 global downturn and oil price collapse saw a contraction in operations and job losses. Yet the response could not be more different. In 2015, the Conservative Government commissioned the Wood review and initiated a policy of maximum economic recovery from the North sea. We recognised the value of the domestic industry and acted accordingly.
Our oil and gas industry is facing tough times again, but this time the downturn is only in the UK. Globally, the energy industry is booming. In the UAE and Saudi Arabia, the gulf of America, South America and Norway, activity is increasing, and New Zealand has just overturned the ban on drilling brought in by its previous Labour Government. The difficulties experienced in our domestic industry are the result of political decisions driven by ideology over pragmatism.
I very much hope the Chancellor is listening to us on these Benches, and to the workers in the oil and gas industry, their unions, the businesses, the Americans, the Norwegians, the renewables industry and even Juergen Maier, because we are at a critical turning point. The industry stands on a precipice. The Chancellor must act now. If she does not act now, at this Budget, the UK will not have a domestic oil and gas industry left to salvage. The real irony is that the Secretary of State, in his vitriol and zealotry, is jeopardising the future of renewable energy in the North sea. As the Port of Aberdeen CEO said this week as he announced further job losses, our energy sector risks being “stranded” in limbo between the destruction of our oil and gas industry and a nascent renewables sector. Also this week, we saw Shell divest from offshore wind projects. The Government just do not get it. With their scorched earth strategy against our traditional offshore industries, they are decimating a skilled workforce and dismantling a world-leading supply chain. Talent and capital are moving elsewhere.
We need cheap energy, and that means all of the above: nuclear, gas, hydropower and innovative technologies, and renewables if it can be proven that they will cut bills. As this Labour Government rip the floor from beneath the oil and gas industry of today, they will soon realise that they are losing the workforce, the supply chains and the investment of tomorrow, but there is another way: our way. The Government should declare the North sea open for business, reduce our reliance on imports, get rid of the energy profits levy, build more nuclear—big and small—create energy abundance and cut electricity bills for families by 20% right now using our cheap power plan. They could do it but, blinded by ideology, I very much doubt they will.
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members across the House for their contributions in this short but punchy debate this afternoon. This issue of how we build an energy system for the future has rightly become a huge political topic—a conversation not just in this House but much more in the public domain than it has been for some time. Energy is hugely important, and that is why it is even more important that we rise to the occasion to plan a future energy system that works for everyone in this country and that is based on a credible long-term plan, not on what we saw from the Conservatives today.
It has been an interesting debate, not least because quite a lot of it seemed to contain the echoes of the Tory party of late debating with itself. We had mentions of Boris Johnson and Baroness May, and I think we have doubled the number of visitors to the shadow Minister’s website just in the past half hour. Of course, there are plenty of quotes to go around. We do not need to go right back to the dim and distant Boris Johnson days. We can go back just to 2023, when the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), said that
“the climate transition presents huge opportunities for this country and the people of this country when it comes to jobs, investment and improving our energy security.”
She apparently does not believe in any of that now. She said in the same speech:
“We are not rolling back from our targets at all”—[Official Report, 16 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 114-115.]
However, she stands here today and proudly seems to dismiss all those targets.
I was particularly pleased to hear from the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) earlier. He seems to be the only person left in the Conservative party who is willing to defend 14 years of investment in renewables. Everybody else in the party wants to turn their back on that investment, but I am delighted that he is here, in this debate and in many others, to remind us of his contribution.
Graham Stuart
The Minister is a thoughtful person, and I think he will share the concern about North sea oil and gas, for instance. On the specific topic of renewables, we are proud of what we did, but under the Climate Change Act—which has no cognisance of what happens to the economy; it is just decarbonisation or bust—we now have extraordinarily high electricity prices. We need to decarbonise heat, transport and industry, and the main way to do that is by electrification, which puts us in a bind. That is why I believe we are right to look at getting rid of the Climate Change Act and look at a new, balanced system that recognises that we must balance economics with the righteous move towards tackling climate change.
Michael Shanks
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman was able to have another opportunity to speak positively about the Conservative party’s record on renewables when no one else in his party seems to want to talk about that at all.
A number of hon. Members said that the reason we are still subject to the volatility of gas prices is that it still sets the price far too often. The only way that we will bring down prices in the long term is by removing gas as the price setter. That means that we need to build more renewables, but another key point that the Conservatives have missed is that they built lots of those projects while not building the grid to connect them. They talk about constraint payments, but that is the legacy of a party that for 14 years failed to build the grid that would bring significantly cheaper power to homes and businesses across the country.
Wera Hobhouse
Is it not the truth that once the projects have been built, the energy is free? There is no commodity concentration, because the wind and sunlight cost nothing; there is very little cost apart from the installation.
Michael Shanks
I would say that it is significantly cheaper to generate electricity from renewables, but I might not go quite as far as the hon. Lady does.
There is a false argument that because the wholesale price of gas is cheaper, we should simply rely on gas more. That completely ignores the fact that we have an ageing gas fleet in this country, and would have to build significant numbers of new gas power stations to take advantage of that price. The figure the Conservatives frequently throw around compares the construction costs of renewables with the cost of gas, not the cost of building gas power stations, whereas renewables have extremely cheap ongoing costs in the long run.
Michael Shanks
Sorry, I will not. I have a great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I have four minutes to sum up this debate.
For a long time in our post-war history, there was consensus. It was fuelled first by the transformative discovery of gas in the North sea, but also by a protracted period of us not worrying about whether, when we flicked on a switch, the electrons would flow. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine threw all that consensus away, and it threw into stark reality our dependence on gas power. By 2022, astronomic energy prices, which many of our constituents still face, shattered the complacent idea that continuing with the system we have known for a long time would work.
The answer is to build a system fit for the future. That will not be easy. Too often in this House and in our public discourse, we have come to believe that we can achieve difficult things by giving simplistic answers. This issue is complicated, and only by tackling the root causes of our dependence on gas, and the failure to build grids and the infrastructure of the future that we need, can we deliver not only long-term bill discounts for our constituents, but the energy security that we badly need. Most of our electricity grid was built in the 1960s and has not been upgraded since. It is holding back economic growth, but it is also failing to get cheaper power to people’s homes across the country.
The country faces two paths. From the Conservatives today, we have heard the status quo—the idea that we carry on as we have done, hoping that the volatility of fossil fuels will give us cheaper prices for a little while, until we get to the next spike and fail to protect our consumers. We have seen that time and again. In the past 50 years, half of the recessions in this country have been caused by our exposure to fossil fuels. We will not do the same thing again. We will not build an expensive monument to how we used to do things—to a system that let people down. We will deliver change and build an energy system for the future. That is why we are delivering our clean power mission.
I turn to the contributions on the North sea, which is a hugely important subject. I am afraid that I do not have quite as much time to sum up as I thought I might. It is important to recognise that the North sea has been in transition for a long time. Failing to recognise that does not help the workers in the North sea now. The status quo has led to a third of those workers losing their jobs in the past 10 years, and it has let down workers and communities. The failure to have a plan has let them down, but we will not do that. The status quo cannot be sustained, either economically or practically, so we will set out our future for energy in the North sea in the coming weeks. It will recognise the importance of creating new jobs and driving forward investment in renewables, carbon capture and hydrogen. We will not talk down those industries, but we also recognise that oil and gas will be with us for decades to come. The workers who have powered our country for more than half a century will continue to have a hugely important part to play in our energy system and economy.
There are two paths ahead of us: ambition for our country, or the barely managed decline that we have all faced in the past 14 years; hope that we can build something better, or defeatism that says we should not tackle the climate crisis or build new infrastructure because it might be too difficult; building for the future, or the yellow brick road of nostalgia, which has let so many of our constituents down. All of us in this House want energy security, economic growth, cheaper bills and to improve people’s lives. What divides us in this place is our ambition. We are ambitious for the future of the country, for what we can achieve, and about tackling the climate emergency. We will get on with that. The Conservatives need to learn the lessons of their 14 years of failure.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today we had an urgent question on the process for appointing the Independent Football Regulator. In her response, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was unable to give crystal clear answers about the involvement of the Prime Minister in that process. This evening we learned from No. 10 that the Prime Minister did sign off on the appointment of David Kogan, who donated to the Prime Minister’s campaign—an involvement that the Prime Minister’s ethics adviser has called regrettable. Can you advise if the Prime Minister will make a statement? What alternative mechanisms are there for him to inform the House and update the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of that point of order. I have not received any notice of a statement on this matter, but the Treasury Front Benchers will have heard what he has said and will no doubt share that information. Other parliamentary mechanisms are available for pursuing such matters. I am sure that the Table Office will be able to assist the hon. Member, if he needs further advice.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I hope it is not a continuation of that point of order, because I have made my statement clearly.
Graham Stuart
The Prime Minister is of course responsible for the enforcement of the ministerial code. If he has breached it, as appears to be the case, is there a role here for Mr Speaker? What other methods are there, not just for securing a debate on the matter in this place, but for the Prime Minister to be held to account for not doing what he is supposed to have done, and what his ethics adviser said he should have done?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The right hon. Member is incredibly experienced, and will no doubt know that the ministerial code is not a matter for the Chair. He will obviously pursue all avenues available to those in the House—there are many—to continue this conversation.
Business without Debate
Petitions
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I wish to present this local petition on behalf of my constituents in Rushcliffe, who have signed it to signal their desire for the centre of West Bridgford to have a dedicated Changing Places facility.
As debates in this House have repeatedly noted, Changing Places facilities are a highly valued initiative. They give people with disabilities, their families and their carers more freedom to participate in activities that the rest of us take for granted. I hope that both Rushcliffe borough council and the Government will take note of this issue.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Rushcliffe in Nottinghamshire,
Declares that West Bridgford town centre, alongside many other town centres across the country, is in need of dedicated Changing Places facilities to make the town centre more accessible, particularly for families with children who have special educational needs and disabilities.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Rushcliffe Borough Council to explore reallocating funds to deliver Changing Places facilities in West Bridgford as soon as possible, and to make the delivery of Changing Places facilities a national policy priority.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003129]
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of the residents of Ward End ward in Birmingham. The petition calls on the city council to safeguard children and parents around Thornton and Sladefield schools, where I have undertaken school gate surgeries over the past month. Right now, children are at risk from dangerous driving on Bamville Road and St Agatha’s Road. Implementation of a one-way system on those roads, together with a proper study of a one-way system on Chetwynd Road and St Joseph’s Road, would ensure safer children, happier residents and fewer damaged vehicles. This is now possible thanks to the hard work of the city council and its transportation lead, Councillor Majid Mahmood, and his decision to earmark £3.8 million of the clean air zone revenue budget.
The petitioners therefore request
“that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Birmingham City Council to implement a one-way system on St Agatha’s Road and Bamville Road in Ward End, to ensure the safety”
of children, residents and their vehicles.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Ward End in the constituency of Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North,
Declares that Birmingham City Council, in collaboration with local residents, must seek to address the safety of local children around Thornton School, by implementing a one-way system on St Agatha’s Road, and Bamville Road.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Birmingham City Council to implement a one-way system on St Agatha’s Road and Bamville Road in Ward End, to ensure the safety of both residents and their vehicles on the roads.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003131]
Nolan Principles
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I rise to address the Nolan principles. I wish I could say, as the dentist might, that the next 30 minutes should be pain-free, but I cannot; this is going to hurt, and it is not because of the Prime Minister’s current difficulties. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate.
Members will know that the seven Nolan principles are now part of the fabric of our public life in this country. We might have expected—in fact, we were led to believe in the Labour party manifesto—that this Labour Government would restore our faith in standards in public life. Sadly, like so many people, I remain to be convinced that this is the case. Time and again we have seen, and are seeing, examples of Ministers and others failing to meet those basic standards, particularly honesty, integrity, accountability and openness. Most recently, as highlighted by me in a point of order, the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), made some very dubious claims from the Dispatch Box regarding water quality in Scotland. Those comments were repeated in writing to a Cabinet Secretary in the Scottish Government, on social media, and in broadcast interviews. Thank goodness for the Office for National Statistics, but I have yet to hear a clarification—or better still, an apology—from said former Secretary of State.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life published its last report and recommendations in November 2021, entitled “Upholding Standards in Public Life”. Among its findings were the following: that there still needs to be greater independence in the regulation of the ministerial code; that the scope of the business appointment rules should be expanded, and those rules should be enforced through legal arrangements; that reforms to the powers of the Commissioner for Public Appointments are needed to provide a better guarantee of the independence of assessment panels; and that transparency around lobbying is poor, and requires better co-ordination and more frequent publication by the Cabinet Office.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Member for bringing this debate before the House. I was on Ards borough council from 1985, and the Nolan principles came in in 1995. They were very clear about the need for integrity, selflessness, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Those principles were formulated to bring us into line, and when they were introduced in 1995, I was very grateful to have them. As public trust is at an incredibly low ebb, does the hon. Member agree that now more than ever, all elected officials must cling to those vital principles as a foundation of public service?
Seamus Logan
I thank the Member for his intervention, and I will address his point later in my speech.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life noted that
“standards regulators in government are not sufficiently independent”
and that
“government needs to take a more formal and professional approach to its own ethics obligations. To address this, we recommend a number of stronger ethics rules; that standards regulators in government are given a basis in primary legislation; and that government develops a formal compliance function. The arrangements to uphold ethical standards in government have come under close scrutiny and significant criticism in recent months. Maintaining high standards requires vigilance and leadership. The Committee believes our recommendations outline a necessary programme of reform to restore public confidence in the regulation of ethical standards in government.”
Those words, written in the teeth of one of the most corrupt regimes in Downing Street that the country has ever witnessed, still hold true today, more than four years later.
In Scotland, the seven principles have been extended further with two additional requirements:
“Public Service: Holders of public office have a duty to act in the interests of the public body of which they are a board member and to act in accordance with the core tasks of the body.
Respect: Holders of public office must respect fellow members of their public body and employees of the body and the role they play, treating them with courtesy at all times.”
I recommend those additions for wider consideration.
Interestingly, just this summer the former Prime Minister John Major intervened again, telling the current Prime Minister that he needed to crack down on misconduct in politics and citing examples of scandals in political funding, the award of honours, lobbying, “unsavoury” behaviour, bullying and “Partygate”, as well as whole Governments breaking or bending the law and shielding their own colleagues from censure. His suggestions for improvement included asking the House of Lords advisory commission to scrutinise the suitability of political peerages as well as their propriety, about which I shall say more in a minute or two; giving statutory powers to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments so it can impose sanctions on former politicians and officials who flout time-limited lobbying bans; ensuring that the Government respond swiftly to recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life; new protections to prevent wealthy foreign interests from influencing politics through mega-donations—I understand that a cap on individual contributions is under consideration, which will be of interest to certain Ministers who have already received extensive donations from organisations directly supplying to sectors within their portfolios; and returning the Electoral Commission to its former status as an independent body free of Government guidance.
Labour promised an ethics committee in its 2024 manifesto, and has now, I understand, established an Ethics and Integrity Commission. One might hope that this body will make a significant contribution, ensuring the proper and full application of the Nolan principles. They are intended to apply not only to Members of this place but to those in the other place, and, in fact, to all public servants. But, as Harold Macmillan famously said, “Events, dear boy, events.” I give you the current civil war in the boardroom at the BBC, an organisation for which I have tremendous respect and remain a critical friend. Many feel that this almighty mess may be traced back to the appointments process, which cannot be said to be as we would like it to be.
As for this place, when things go wrong, Government spokespersons tell us that their Ministers do the right thing in these circumstances, but it seems to me that they only do that when they are found out. We have seen an example on this very day. What hurts the most—this is relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I will explain towards the end of my speech why it matters so much—is that this Labour Government have been mired in scandal almost from day one. They have accepted expensive glasses, suits, accommodation and clothing for relatives from wealthy donors. A peer has been allowed privileged access to 10 Downing Street and been involved in appointing advisers. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have used costly freebie tickets from lobbyists to attend football games or concerts.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way, on that point?
Dr Arthur
It will be very brief. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned tickets. As he will know, a Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary used a limousine to attend football matches. Surely that does not sit easily with him. Let me also point out that his party’s Government are running Scotland via Holyrood, and things have not always been above board there. I am thinking particularly about very senior members of his party deleting text messages relating to the covid inquiry, which was an absolute disgrace. Will he join me in condemning that action?
Seamus Logan
It always strikes me as very strange that Labour MPs from Scotland who are keen to be elected here spend most of their time talking about events in Holyrood. Why do they not go up the road to the Parliament there?
I was talking about the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Furthermore, three junior Ministers have been forced out of office as a result of conflicts of interest in housing and entanglement in an overseas corruption case. [Interruption.] Members are chuntering from a sedentary position. They are not watching enough Parliament TV. No one can hear you at home—I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker; no one can hear them at home.
I can also cite the former Deputy Prime Minister’s resignation over underpaid tax on a second home purchase, and the forced sacking of the former United States ambassador, Lord Mandelson, over his close personal involvement with the late Jeffrey Epstein. What are we to make of the fact that Lord Mandelson still sits in the other place, while the former Duke of York has been stripped of his peerage? Meanwhile, the self-proclaimed invincible Baroness Mone—who, despite admitting to conducting herself in a less than totally honest way in her dealings with the media, and in other ways that, at the very least, fell well below the standards of conduct that we might expect—still has her seat in the other place.
Trust in politics is at an all-time low. In June 2024, four in five Britons said that they were dissatisfied with how they were governed, according to the British social attitudes survey. Other opinion polls show this Government to be the most unpopular in history, with the Prime Minister’s personal ratings at an all-time low—after only 16 months. The Nolan principles are now clearly integrated into the new Public Office (Accountability) Bill, exemplified by the new duty of candour. Duties and obligations are all very well, however, until you are the only person in the room doing the speaking or demonstrating candour.
Sadly, there is still a culture of fear across the public sector, and even in the BBC, in relation to speaking up. Unless the Nolan principles are backed up by proper protection for those who speak up—including a confidential and anonymous reporting platform—whistleblowers will be confronted with a choice: to speak up and potentially lose their career or their job, or to stay silent and potentially fall foul of the law.
An office of the whistleblower would relegate those choices to history and help to reduce or bring an end to the harm to the public. Such an office would be the very embodiment of the Nolan principles. So many of the scandals we have seen could have been prevented or limited if an office of the whistleblower had existed. I hope to join the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) when she meets the relevant Minister in the near future on this point.
To conclude, why does all this really matter, beyond the obvious need for high standards in public office?
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Will the hon. Member take an intervention?
Patricia Ferguson
I am grateful. As the hon. Member knows—or at least I hope he does—I care deeply about these issues too, and in fact spent some six years on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in Holyrood, which was referred to earlier. Would the hon. Member be content if the Scottish Government were to seek a Sewel motion on the proposal he is suggesting, so that this could be a cross-UK initiative, rather than just one that focuses on this place?
Seamus Logan
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but of course I am not in a position to speak for the Scottish Government. Once again, Labour Members are referring to matters in Holyrood rather than the place to which they were elected.
As I was saying, this matters because, in the context of a disastrous loss of confidence in the behaviour of public servants—including us—and in the face of a dramatic loss of public trust, is it any wonder that people do not take part in the democratic process any more? Is it any wonder that people might consider voting for parties on the far right? Is it any wonder that we see trouble on our streets?
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman talks about people considering voting for parties on the far right; the former leader of Reform UK in Wales of course recently pleaded guilty to eight counts of bribery. Lord Nolan highlighted the need for openness; does the hon. Gentleman agree that, with £4.6 million in suspect donations coming from overseas, we need to take measures against the foreign Governments and state-linked groups intervening in our politics?
Seamus Logan
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; he is obviously agreeing with the point that I made earlier.
This matters because the behaviour we are seeing is simply unacceptable. Is it any wonder that snake-oil salesmen and saleswomen obtain support? History teaches us that, when the people lose faith in the democratic process, when they lose trust in the Government, when our institutions fail them—which is what is happening before our very eyes—the door opens to dangerous people who do not have our interests truly at heart. That is why the Nolan principles really matter.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing the debate. He said it would not be pain free, and he was true to his word, but I know he cares passionately about these matters. Whether it is the Hillsborough law, the Kincora children’s scandal—he has campaigned on that for many years—or other injustices, I know he cares deeply about our public services and the Nolan principles underpinning them, so I will take this in that spirit.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
It was fantastic to see the consensus in this House in relation to the Hillsborough law. Does the Minister share my concern that the Scottish Government have yet to confirm whether they will match the non-means-tested legal aid that is written into the Bill, as passed on Second Reading last week, across the rest of the United Kingdom?
Chris Ward
As I understand it, the Scottish Government have had a number of years to address that, and they still have not done so, so I hope the First Minister will get to that and we can clarify it.
We are celebrating 30 years of the Nolan principles this year, and the principles set out by Lord Nolan in 1995—honesty, integrity, accountability, selflessness, objectivity, openness and leadership—are rightly the foundations of standards in public life across the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East said, with public trust in our public services and our politics at a low point, they are as important, if not more, as they have been at any point in the last three decades.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The Minister talks about public trust, and one way to try to restore that trust is to hold accountable every single breach of the Nolan principles in this and every other place obligated to follow them. The public do not see that accountability in action, so would he agree with me that the new Government can do more to hold Members accountable for breaches?
Chris Ward
I will come to accountability later, but I do agree that there is more that can be done on accountability. I would argue that this Government are making some progress on that, but I do agree, and I will come on to that later.
I want to assure the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East and the House that the Government are committed to strengthening and upholding the Nolan principles. Indeed, just last week the Prime Minister reiterated at this Dispatch Box that those principles
“are not some kind of optional extra, but the very essence of public service itself.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 658.]
It is worth reminding the House that the Nolan principles do not just apply to politicians; they apply to all public servants, elected or not, in local and national Government, as well as the civil service, the police and those in health, education, social care and other services. They also apply to those in the private and voluntary sector who deliver services paid for by the taxpayer. I do want to emphasise that the overwhelming majority of public servants seek to uphold these principles, and live and breathe them every day. In my opinion, we are too quick to point out those who fail and too reticent to point out those who live them every day.
However, it is true that in recent years, as has been mentioned, public trust in our politics and our public service more broadly has been eroded. Indeed, it was in response to the events of the last Parliament—partygate, the complete sidelining of the independent adviser and the abuse of public contracts during covid—that this Prime Minister outlined a number of steps to strengthen the ministerial code and to try to breathe new life into the Nolan principles.
That is why the Prime Minister put the Nolan principles up front in a strengthened ministerial code, rather than as an afterthought or as an annexe. It is why the Prime Minister has empowered the independent ethics adviser to launch his own inquiries without prime ministerial approval, which I think we can all agree is a welcome change from the last Government. It is also why the Hillsborough law, for which we have all waited so long and which I know Members across the House support, will ensure that every public authority has a legal requirement to adopt a code of ethical conduct based on the Nolan principles. I know that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East will agree that this is an important step forward, and I hope it can be a catalyst to drive improvements across the public sector based around the Nolan principles.
I know the hon. Member called today, as he has done previously, for an office of the whistleblower. I do understand why, and I know how strongly he feels about it. As he will know, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have both looked at this recently and published reports on how to improve whistleblowing in the civil service, but neither of them recommended creating an independent body due to the risk of duplication. The Government agree with that, but I do hope that he will work with us—I am sure that he will—during the passage of the Hillsborough law to try to ensure that it delivers the candour, justice, accountability and safety that whistleblowers need.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
It is absolutely apparent from looking at the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which is known as the Hillsborough law, that it will create enormous pressure on any number of bodies, particularly the employment tribunal, which I understand has tens of thousands of cases waiting. I could list any number of others, but I shall not do so now. I hope I will have an opportunity to explain that in my planned meeting with the Minister, but it is crucial that people have someone independent to go to so that they do not end up in the employment tribunal, where they will be roundly trashed and lose not only their reputation, but their way of earning a living.
Chris Ward
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I agree. That is why we need to get the measures in the Bill right, and why I hope that she and other colleagues will work with us in Committee and as the Bill progresses.
I respect the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East a lot, but I simply do not accept the general depiction he gave of the Government and the lack of progress made. I remind him that we have delivered on a manifesto commitment to establish the Ethics and Integrity Commission, which will promote the seven principles and report annually on improving standards. We have closed ACOBA—the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments—and reformed the outdated business appointments system. The ministerial severance system has also been reformed to save the taxpayer money and to end the scandal we saw under the previous Government, where Ministers got large amounts of public money after either being removed from their position or returning very quickly. And just this week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government announced strong new powers to improve standards and accountability across local government.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way; it is much appreciated. Just briefly, those standards are very much welcomed, particularly in my constituency. Does he agree that they must be applied at parish and town council level too? We want expectations aligned across all public services.
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend raises a very good point, although I should remind him that I think parish councils are about to be abolished in the local government reorganisation so we might have to look at that, but I take his point, which is a fair one.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East mentioned a number of recent cases where, to put it politely, he suggests the Nolan principles may not have been abided by. I will, of course, not comment on the specifics of all of those, or indeed those where the Scottish Government may not have always abided by the principles, but I will say that the Prime Minister has made clear how seriously he takes Ministers abiding by the code. It is why he invited the independent ethics adviser—the independent adviser on ministerial standards —to address Cabinet on the first day after the election and why he has stuck ever since to a very powerful role for that position, which I think we can agree is a step forward.
The final thing I want to say is that I have heard the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East say before that he believes that
“our leaders…cannot be trusted to do the right thing unless they are legally required to do so.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 123WH.]
After recent years, and perhaps even recent weeks, I understand his scepticism, but I do not accept his fatalism. I believe that the vast majority of our public servants and our leaders are trustworthy. I believe that every day they seek to show leadership with honesty, integrity, accountability, selflessness, objectivity and openness. But where public servants fail to meet those standards, there must be clear and effective accountability.
Iqbal Mohamed
I thank the Minister for giving way. One area that I do not believe is fully covered and needs to be expanded on is racism and discrimination. It is not clear which one of the seven principles covers that. Normally it would breach all of them, but I gently request that the Government look at how we can hold Members of this House and those in office accountable for language used that is definitely racist.
Chris Ward
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point, particularly for Members of this House, but also across public services more broadly. We have seen some very worrying reports of that recently in our core public services. If it is okay with him, I will discuss it with my colleagues in the Government Equalities Office to see what we can do and write back to him. He raises a good point.
As I was saying, I do not accept the fatalism set out by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East, but where there are failings and public servants do not meet high standards, there needs to be swift and effective accountability. It is, of course, the responsibility of this Government and these Ministers—indeed all Governments, politicians and public servants—to strive to reflect what Lord Nolan set out 30 years ago. As I have said, the Government are taking steps to achieve that. I am the first to accept that we are not there yet, but we are making progress.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
At the end of August in Nottinghamshire, where I am a Member of Parliament, the leader of the county council banned the Nottingham Post and Nottinghamshire Live from speaking to him and his local authority, representing a dangerous moment where local accountability was not being adequately recognised. Will the Minister speak to his colleagues about how we can bolster local journalism and the role it plays in the accountability part of the Nolan principles?
Chris Ward
Absolutely. On local government, I will just reiterate that the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary set out important powers earlier in the week to try to improve standards and to hold people to account. Hopefully that will help.
Seamus Logan
I thank the Minister for allowing me to make a short intervention. I appreciate the number of times he has referenced the points I made in my speech. Can he advise us in this place what the Government can do about peers in the other place who fall below the standards that we and the public have come to expect?
Chris Ward
That is a matter for individual parties and for the Lords to look at. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on this question, because House of Lords reform is another area that the Cabinet Office is overseeing. I do agree, with regard to recent cases in particular—across the House, I should say—that there is a need to improve trust and accountability. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which we intend to take through Parliament, is part of trying to modernise and improve the House of Lords. I think it would be a big step forward if we could pass that Bill. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on his broader point, if that is okay.
Finally, as I have said, the Government are taking steps to breathe new life into the Nolan principles. We are not there yet but will keep working on it. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East for securing this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison—for the first time, I believe. The regulations were laid before the House on 15 October.
The Government have identified data centres, the buildings that store much of the data generated in the UK, as essential infrastructure that is necessary to support, grow and develop the UK economy and that is integral to delivering the UK industrial strategy. As hon. Members know, data infrastructure now underpins almost all economic activity and innovation, including the development of AI and other technology. It is increasingly critical for public service delivery and how citizens interact with one another and the state. For those reasons the Government formally designated data centres as a sub-sector of communications in the list of critical national infrastructure in September 2024—a recognition that their loss or compromise could severely impact the delivery of essential services or have a significant impact on national security, national defence or the functioning of the state, as is the case with other CNIs: energy, water, transport and other sectors.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the planning system effectively facilitates development to meet the needs of a modern economy, including supporting essential digital infrastructure such as data centres. In July last year we consulted on how the national planning policy framework could better support economic growth in key sectors, given their importance to our economic future. In response to feedback from a wide range of stakeholders we announced plans alongside the publication of that revised NPPF in December last year to enable certain large-scale projects within knowledge, creative, high technology and data driven industries to be directed into the nationally significant infrastructure projects consenting regime process. These regulations deliver on that announcement by prescribing data centres as a type of business or commercial project that may be directed into the NSIP consenting regime. In effect, they add data centres to the existing nine prescribed projects set out in the schedule to the Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) Regulations 2013.
The inclusion of data centres as prescribed business or commercial projects means that certain proposed data centre projects are capable of being directed to proceed through the NSIP consenting process under section 35 of the Planning Act 2008. It is important to stress that the regulations we are debating today do not require any or every proposed data centre project to proceed through the NSIP route. The regulations will provide an opportunity for developers of certain proposed data centre projects to choose, should they wish to do so, to request to opt in to the NSIP consenting process. Circumstances where a developer may wish to make such a request include, to provide the Committee with just a few examples, where a proposal also involves associated energy generation; where it may be particularly large or complex; or where it could benefit from the one-stop shop approach that the NSIP consenting process provides for. To be clear, sections 35 and 35ZA of the Planning Act 2008 would require developers of a data centre project to submit a qualifying request to the Secretary of State. They may direct a data centre into the NSIP regime only if they consider that the project or proposed project is of national significance, and that it meets the other requirements set out in section 35 of that Act.
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is drafting, as we speak, a national policy statement for data centres, which will set out the parameters, thresholds or other relevant factors that may indicate whether a particular data centre development proposal could be regarded as one of national significance and so capable of meeting the requirements of section 35. Similar to national policy statements for other sectors of infrastructure covered by the NSIP regime such as energy, transport and water, the NPS that DSIT is currently preparing will also set out a national policy and the policy framework for decision making for data centres. This will provide greater certainty to applicants and decision makers alike.
DSIT is aiming to publish a draft NPS for public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny in accordance with the requirements of sections 7 and 9 of the 2008 Act shortly after these regulations are proposed to come into force. The published draft NPS may also be considered as an important and relevant matter in the decision-making process for any data centre project that has been directed to proceed through the NSIP consenting process. In the meantime, the written statement that was published alongside the existing 2013 regulations states that the Secretary of State will consider “all relevant matters” when considering whether a project is of national significance. That incudes considering whether the project is of a “substantial physical size”, is likely to have a “significant economic impact” or is important for driving growth in the economy.
To conclude, what we are discussing today is merely the mechanism by which certain data centre proposal zones deemed to be of national significance may choose, subject to the Secretary of State’s decision, whether to give a direction to opt in to a different planning route—the NSIP consenting route—rather than going through the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 planning process. The legislation enables developers to request that their proposals be considered under the NSIP regime, subject to the Secretary of State’s direction.
We are taking the proposals forward on the basis of receiving an overall favourability of responses to our consultation on them, and because of the important role that such data centres have in supporting the Government’s economic growth mission. I hope that the Committee will agree that the changes are sensible and proportionate steps in ensuring that the planning system is flexible enough to adapt to emerging priorities.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison, and to sit next to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). I also welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister, and I appreciate the remarks he has made in this Committee. I welcome the opportunity to address this statutory instrument on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition.
As the Minister has said, the UK is home to Europe’s largest data centre market, and the Opposition welcome the aims of the regulations in so far as they wish to enable the market to continue to grow—and to do so with greater ease. It is fair to say that the Government and the Opposition have not always seen eye to eye on aspects of the Government’s planning reforms. The Opposition would not being doing our jobs correctly if we did not draw attention to some of the brazen power grabs made by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—and specifically by the Minister’s former boss—in the name of devolution, reorganisation and planning reform.
When it comes to data centres, however, we are clear that it is the right approach to work towards a less complex system to help see them built. That is not to say that the regulations are perfect. Having looked over the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, it is regrettable to note that the Government have brought the regulations without the accompanying draft national policy statement, which, in the Government’s own words,
“will set out the framework for decision making in relation to data centres.”
As the Committee pointed out, it makes it much more difficult for this House to consider and fully understand how the applications will be assessed without having seen that first.
Secondly, as the Committee noted, the Government are removing the current statutory consultation requirements at the pre-application stage of the nationally significant infrastructure policy process and substituting them for non-statutory pre-application engagement with local communities. As we have seen throughout the debates regarding the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, it is not just the Opposition that are concerned about proper consultation with local communities. As the Committee suggested, it would be prudent to seek further assurance from the Minister that meaningful opportunities will still exist for local communities to make representations on proposed developments. I seek that assurance from the Minister today.
The need for that assurance is underlined by the fact that the former Secretary of State waved through two data centres due to be built on the green belt that were not just deeply controversial in their local communities but rejected by the local planning committees. The green belt is not there to be torn up or concreted over on a whim, and it is vital that the Government manage to not just build data centres but build them where they are most wanted, needed and appropriate.
Beyond that, there is also a concern that there is no size threshold for data centres in the regulations, nor any definition, which raises the question of whether very small developments should be captured or included. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify that. Finally, it is vital that the Government go further and faster to reduce the high commercial energy prices that put our data centre market at risk. To date, companies have sought to invest in the UK for our data centre-friendly business environment, but the energy policies of the Minister’s colleague, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, are putting that status at risk. I hope the Minister shares those concerns and makes his colleague aware of the potential damage he is doing.
I hope the Minister will respond to these concerns in full and in good time, and I thank you, Dr Murrison, for the opportunity to share them with the House.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. The Liberal Democrats broadly support the statutory instrument, but we have a number of issues to raise. One is that this measure should not mean the overriding of all planning policy. Indeed, green belt policy needs to be protected. Although we welcome the fact that an NPS is being developed, it would have been more helpful to see the draft of it at this stage. We encourage the Government to go further and consider a national policy statement for business and commercial projects generally, because they will have a big impact as nationally significant infrastructure projects.
There are significant opportunities with big business and commercial developments of data centres. Such developments enable the meeting of standards that cannot be met with smaller piecemeal development. With an eye to what we all must do—seek ways to drive down bills for householders—it is worth noting that there are 1.4 GW of data centres in the UK; that means 1.4 GW of heat. That heat is often the subject of agreements in which companies are paid to take it away, but it is free heat that could heat over 1 million households. We hope there will be a clear requirement in the national policy statement to ensure, as happens in other countries, that “waste” heat—which is free or has a negative cost, because sometimes a company will pay to have the heat removed from its site—is used in local networks wherever possible. We strongly encourage the Government to go down that route.
We also want the strategic spatial energy plan introduced so that there is a national overview of where data centres are located, with the proviso that under this statutory instrument the Secretary of State will consider, on a case by case basis, whether or not to direct under section 35 that a data centre is a nationally significant infrastructure project. We are content to support this measure, but we urge the Government to move forward with their national policy statement to ensure the provision of free heat from data centres to households and to defend key planning policies that must remain in place, such as protection of the green belt.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesman for that series of points and questions, to which I will do my best to respond—I note that some of them stray outside of my departmental responsibilities. We are talking specifically about putting in place necessary changes to the planning regime to allow formal requests to be made for data centres to be considered under section 35. Other things, such as the spatial plans that the Liberal Democrat spokesman just mentioned, are matters for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and the NPS is obviously a matter for Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. However, I will make sure that the relevant Ministers are made aware of the comments of the hon. Members.
I will start by responding to the points made about the draft NPS. That NPS is still in development and testing. Given the time that it may take to comply with the statutory requirements for designation of a new national policy statement, it was considered appropriate in this instance to lay the draft SI in advance. As I made clear, we intend to publish the NPS in draft form near the time at which this SI will come into force. The laying of the SI last month gives an indication to the sector—and the Government think that this is important—and to prospective data centre applicants at a very early stage in their development, who may be interested in using this route, that we are moving forward on delivering against the commitment we made last December. It also recognises the importance that we give to the delivery of data infrastructure more generally.
DSIT aims to publish the draft NPS after these amending regulations come into force, so it is possible that it will be published before any requests for a data centre to be directed into the NSIP consenting regime either come forward or need to be decided. That would mean that the draft NPS would be considered as an important and relevant matter in the decision-making process for any data centre project that is subsequently directed to proceed through the NSIP regime.
The shadow Minister mentioned the changes that we are making through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. We will have a significant amount of time tomorrow to discuss amendments to that Bill. As the shadow Minister will know—and as the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner will know, having been involved in scrutinising the Bill in Committee—we intend to publish pre-application guidance on what developers that want to submit a development consent order through the NSIP route should do. The consultation on the scope and design of our proposed guidance closed on 27 October. The responses to that consultation will inform the development of the guidance.
Applicants will be expected to use engagement to deliver high-quality applications. There will still be an expectation of high-quality, early, meaningful, and constructive engagement and consultation to take place with those affected, but we do believe—we had extensive arguments about this in the Bill Committee—that we need to move away from the rigid statutory requirements to this more flexible, guidance-led approach, which will improve flexibility for applicants to take into account community views and to respond appropriately to get the better outcomes. As we have discussed and as I have said many times, the current system is having a number of perverse outcomes that are not leading to beneficial results for that industry.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I should declare that I have a data centre in my constituency under construction. It went through the normal planning route. Will the Minister confirm to the Committee that if someone wants a data centre to go through the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, the local planning authority and local people will still be able to have a say on the application?
Matthew Pennycook
That is a fair question and the hon. Gentleman pre-empts the next point that I was going to make, specifically about local accountability. This is important. The NSIP consenting process provides substantial opportunity for interested parties, including local communities and local authorities, to have their say on proposals going through that process.
Under the Planning Act 2008, local authorities are invited to submit a local impact report giving details of the likely impact of the proposed development on their area, which the Secretary of State must have regard to when deciding the application. The examination process, which all NSIP applicants need to go through, provides the opportunity for local communities, interested parties and statutory bodies to make representations and for them to be considered by the examining authority in examination of the application and in the subsequent report that will be made to the Secretary of State for a decision on whether to grant development consent.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
This is a little parochial to London, but can we ensure that local authorities in London are consulted, along with the Mayor of London, so that their power to decide is not usurped by the mayor?
Matthew Pennycook
As I said, the NSIP regime provides for local communities, local authorities, other statutory consultees and stakeholders to input into that process. In a similar way to how a local planning authority undertakes a period of consultation to enable views on a planning application to be expressed, the examination process under the NSIP regime—which all NSIP applications must go through—provides the opportunity for local communities and interested parties to make representations to be taken into account by the examining authority in examination of the application and by the Secretary of State when they come to decide whether to grant development consent.
In the time I have, I should respond to a couple of other issues that were raised. Power usage was a point made by the hon. Members for Orpington and for Taunton and Wellington. Energy and carbon footprint are a key issue for data centres. The sector operates under a climate change agreement to encourage greater uptake of energy efficiency measures among operators. The UK has committed to decarbonising the electricity system by 2030, subject to security of supply, and data centres will increasingly be powered by renewable energy resources.
Newer, purpose-built and modern data centres can provide compute at a higher efficiency than older, converted data centres, in terms of the amount of power they draw on, but data centres will play a major part in powering the high-tech solutions to environmental challenges, whether that is new technology that increases the energy efficiency of energy use across our towns and cities, or development and application of innovative new tech that takes carbon out of the atmosphere. We are, however, very conscious that data centres draw on quite a significant amount of firm power, and the Government will take that into account in making decisions as to whether individual applications go through.
Lastly, I should address heat, which the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington rightly mentioned. He is absolutely right to say that data centres produce a significant amount of heat. The technology exists to capture that heat and to use it in district heating networks, or to meet significant demand. There is potential, therefore, for the heat to be captured and used to further benefit than happens currently, but there have already been successful examples—which are worth highlighting—of using data centre heat for hospitals, homes and other uses. One such example is the use of a data centre to heat a local swimming pool in Devon. We will take that into account, as I am sure DSIT did in the drafting of its national policy statement and in its conversations with other Departments. However, I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s comments are brought to the attention of the relevant Minister.
Gideon Amos
I intervene simply to place on the record my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I recently undertook a study trip to Denmark to look at waste heat. I probably should have put that on the record, but it is in the register.
Matthew Pennycook
I hope the point is well made that, as part of the NPS process and more widely, we are engaging with developers and operators to determine whether the Government should be making further interventions that are necessary and proportionate to encourage the take-up of such solutions.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
In the States, a lot of data centres have had pushback from local communities, which are seeing an increase in their energy bills. We cannot quite work out why. Will the Minister commit to work with me, DESNZ and possibly DSIT to ensure that when data centres are built as national infrastructure—because of this change in legislation—that will not mean that consumers end up paying higher prices for whatever reason? I welcome the focus on using waste heat to benefit local communities, but I feel somewhat anxious about that increase in consumer bills because of the building of data centres.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, but she tempts me to stray way outside my departmental responsibilities. Instead, I commit to ensure that the relevant Minister from DESNZ is notified about her concerns and that we all reflect, as a Government, on the point made.
In conclusion, notwithstanding the range of considerations about data centres that we have discussed, I wish to draw the Committee back to what the draft regulations seek to achieve. They are merely an enabler for data centres that might be considered of national significance to be capable—only at the request of developers of such projects—of being directed to an alternative mechanism for obtaining development consent. Applications for data centres directed to the NSIP consenting route will undergo a thorough and robust process. As I said, that will include examination by an independent examining authority where local communities and others can participate and register their views before the Secretary of State decides whether to grant consent. I hope that the Committee will agree that it has considered these amending regulations and will be supportive of them.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I declare an interest: my wife sits as an immigration tribunal appeal judge in the Bradford Tribunal Hearing Centre.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. The immigration skills charge was introduced in April 2017. Its aim is to incentivise UK-based employers, including the UK branches and subsidiaries of overseas businesses, to take a long-term view of investment and training. It is designed to address historical under-investment in training domestic workers by UK employers and to deter some from turning to immigration as a cheaper alternative.
The skills charge is paid by employers looking to sponsor skilled workers for visas lasting more than six months. It also applies if they wish to extend the employment for a further limited period. Senior and specialist workers also pay the charge, unless they are an EU national coming to work in the UK for less than three years. The increase will not prevent service supply by intra-corporate transferees from continuing, as it does now in line with our international trade commitments. The charge is paid up front when the employer assigns a certificate of sponsorship to a migrant worker and is calculated automatically based on dates provided by the employer as part of the sponsorship process.
The charge has raised approximately £2.7 billion since it was introduced. The income provides financial support to help maintain existing skills budgets across the United Kingdom, which is important for a range of reasons, such as ensuring that immigration is not seen as the sole solution to dealing with the skills needs in our economy. As education and skills are devolved, the income raised helps to maintain funding levels for each of the devolved nations. It is distributed between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland using the formula devised by Lord Barnett.
The draft regulations give effect to the commitment in the Government’s immigration White Paper, published on 12 May, to raise the cost of the immigration skills charge by 32% in line with inflation. From 16 December 2025, therefore, medium-sized and large employers will need to pay £1,320 per person they sponsor per year. There will continue to be a reduced rate for small and charitable organisations of £480 per person per year.
The money raised will continue to support skills programmes and give those already in the UK the opportunity to fill high-quality jobs needed for the future growth of the country. Upskilling workers already here in the UK will also help us to fill future jobs from within our country. That will reduce the need for businesses and organisations to rely on recruiting international workers, in turn helping to bring down overall levels of net migration. The Government have been clear that the levels of net migration have been too high and must continue to come down.
As is the case now, there will continue to be exemptions from the charge, such as employers seeking to recruit people into PhD-level occupations or to recruit a person who is switching from the student route, or where the person is being recruited for less than six months. The draft regulations make a minor update to the list of exempt occupations to reflect the latest occupational codes from the Office for National Statistics. They do not add or remove any occupations that are currently exempt, but in some cases reflect where occupations have been separated from groups.
The immigration White Paper set out a comprehensive plan to restore order to our broken immigration system. We must ensure that the immigration system strikes the right balance between bringing in workers who can fill skills gaps and investing in our domestic workforce. The immigration skills charge is designed to ensure that employers contribute to our continued investment in developing the skills that the country needs, sending the clear message that immigration should not be relied on as an easy alternative. The draft regulations support the Government’s ambitions to reduce overall levels of net migration and to aid our resident workforce in finding high-quality jobs through skills training. I commend them to the Committee.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Turner, and I am pleased to respond to the regulations on behalf of the Opposition.
Increasing the immigration skills charge is a welcome move, and my party has no objection to the legislation. Our priority must be to ensure that every British citizen has the opportunity to gain the right skills and find good work. When an employer hires from abroad, it is only fair that they should pay their share towards investing in our own people. That sound principle was established by my party in government. However, the regulations alone will not achieve the transformation that we need in our immigration system.
The Home Secretary has said that the Government
“will do whatever it takes to secure our borders”,
and the Minister said just now that net migration remains too high and must come down, but tough words have not led to a real plan for cutting immigration yet. Ministers have tried to claim some credit for the almost 50% fall in net migration triggered by the visa changes introduced at the end of the last Parliament. I want to be clear that my party believes that even that leaves immigration unacceptably high. The Government’s impact assessment forecast an absurdly tiny reduction—of only 14,000—in net migration through the measures in the immigration White Paper, which the immigration Minister mentioned.
Where the Government have acted, they have announced several proposals to make it easier for people—such as Afghan dependants—to come to the country and even to create a new scheme for Gazans and their dependants. The Government said that they would “smash the gangs” and stop the crossings, but the deal with France has already failed. It is not even one in, one out and back again. Ninety-four people have been sent back to France but more than 12,000 have come here since the deal came into effect. On the training of British workers, the Government have defunded level 7 apprenticeships for anybody over the age of 22.
Pumping the economy with cheap foreign workers has harmed our productivity, undercut wages and changed the social fabric of our country. We have a short-termist economic model that prioritises consumption over investment and imported labour over British workers. My party’s position is clear: net migration must be brought down drastically, but we must also have a robust and ambitious post-16 education system that gives young people in this country the chance to thrive in the trades and industries of the future.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
After years of mismanagement by the Conservatives, our immigration system is a mess. Public trust has been shattered, and it is up to this Government to restore that confidence and rebuild our broken immigration and asylum system. It is right for the Government to increase the immigration skills charge in line with the rate of inflation, and it is right that it was introduced in the first place to ensure that we invest in our domestic workforce. However, the Liberal Democrats believe that increasing this charge for those in the health and social care sector is a mistake. It makes zero sense to penalise hospitals and care homes that are trying to hire the staff they desperately need. It transfers money from the NHS to the Home Office at a time when our GPs, hospitals and hospices desperately need money, so please will the Minister consider putting the health and social care sector on the reduced rate?
Mike Tapp
I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions. I am pleased that the hon. Member for West Suffolk agrees with this policy. There is endless amusement for me in being lectured by the Conservatives on the immigration system. I hope that continues, because we need some amusement in this place.
Nick Timothy
Is the number of channel crossings up or down in the last year?
Mike Tapp
The crossing rates are very similar to those of 2022. In 2018, 400 crossed; more than 150,000 have crossed since then. There is no doubt that we inherited open borders from the Conservatives, and that is why the amusement continues. We have said that we will do whatever it takes. By that we mean that there is more to come. I am not going to ruin the party with policy announcements in this Committee.
Regarding the Gazan refugees, we are a firm but fair Government. Where we need to help people, we will. It is a shame that that view is not shared by the Opposition. I will touch on the pilot scheme with France, which was criticised. It is what it says on the tin: a pilot. The Conservatives were begging for that pilot from the French, but obviously could not strike the deal. The scheme will grow and as it grows, it will form more of a deterrent to those sitting in Calais. We look forward to that.
I welcome the questions of the hon. Member for Woking about the NHS. His points are valid. However, we are clear that we need to ensure that the public sector, as well as the private sector, recruits from the British workforce. There are plenty of young people, and elderly people, who would love to—and could—work in the NHS. The measures will encourage that.
Mr Forster
Will the Government agree to study the impact on the health and social care sector of increasing this charge?
Mike Tapp
When we froze the social care visa route, lots of consultation was conducted to ensure that we fully understood the implications. We fully understand that to go in the right direction for this country we need to incentivise the public sector and the private sector to recruit from the skills that we have here. We are the sixth richest nation on Earth: there is a lot of talent here; we did not get there by accident. We must continue to encourage all companies and the public sector to recruit from within.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (Permitted Disclosures) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (Permitted Disclosures) Regulations 2025.
With your permission, Mr Dowd, I will make a brief statement on the sudden and tragic passing of Baroness Helen Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner. Baroness Newlove was a formidable champion for victims, and her work will be carried on by many who have known her and who have had the privilege of working with her for so many years. It has been a genuine honour to work with her in my role as the Victims Minister. All my thoughts and, I am sure, those of the whole House are with her family and loved ones at this difficult time.
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. The draft statutory instrument amends section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. Section 17 was brought into force on 1 October this year, and makes it clear in statute that confidentiality clauses—also known as non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs—cannot be enforced in so far as they seek to prevent victims from reporting a crime to the police. Section 17 also extends that protection to certain other disclosures required for victims to obtain confidential advice and support essential to coping with, and recovering from, the effects of crime.
Now that section 17 is in force, NDAs entered into on or after 1 October 2025 will be legally unenforceable in so far as they attempt to prohibit such disclosures. That means that individuals who are a victim of crime, or who reasonably believe they are a victim of crime, are allowed to disclose information. That information must be to certain individuals for certain purposes related to the criminal conduct they have suffered. That is the case even if an NDA they have signed seeks to prevent them from disclosing that information.
Under the legislation, victims are permitted to make disclosures to the following bodies: the police or other bodies that investigate or prosecute crimes; qualified lawyers; regulated professionals, including regulated healthcare professionals; victim support services; regulators; and a victim’s close family. Those are known as the permitted disclosures. Disclosures to each of those bodies are permitted only if made for the relevant purpose for the body specified in the legislation, each of which relates to the criminal conduct. However, disclosures made for any other purpose, or to bodies not listed in the legislation, are not permitted, and the NDA may remain enforceable in such instances.
To ensure that section 17 comprehensively achieves the policy aim, this instrument makes three changes to it. The first is to add the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to the list of bodies to which victims can make a permitted disclosure. That is for the purpose of pursuing a claim under the taxpayer-funded compensation schemes that it administers—the criminal injuries compensation scheme 2012 and the victims of overseas terrorism compensation scheme 2012.
Victims sometimes feel unable to tell the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority about settlement agreements they have signed related to the criminal conduct they are seeking compensation for, and that can be because of a confidentiality clause in such agreements. That hesitation can make it harder for the authority to assess their eligibility for compensation. It can also affect how much compensation they receive. Including the authority in the list of permitted disclosures will ensure victims can share relevant information with the authority for the purpose of a compensation claim related to the criminal conduct they have experienced, without fearing legal consequences under the NDA.
Flowing from that, the second change will amend section 17 to allow disclosures to courts and tribunals for the purpose of issuing or pursuing proceedings in relation to a decision by the authority on such claims. That makes it clear that appropriate disclosures are permitted throughout the entire legal process for pursing compensation from the schemes that the authority administers, including in the small number of cases where a compensation decision is challenged in the courts. It is vital that the Courts and Tribunals Service has access to all relevant information, and this amendment makes it clear that an NDA cannot be enforced against a victim sharing certain information with courts and tribunals in that context.
The third and final change the instrument introduces is an amendment to the definition of a qualified lawyer in section 17(6) of the 2024 Act. Currently under section 17, victims may disclose information to a qualified lawyer for the purpose of seeking legal advice about criminal conduct. However, the definition does not include registered foreign lawyers—those who qualified outside England and Wales, but are registered with and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Those lawyers can own and manage authorised law firms and, in certain circumstances, provide reserved legal services. The provision will ensure that victims can make disclosures to any regulated lawyer in England and Wales for the purpose of seeking legal advice about criminal conduct, without needing to verify where that lawyer qualified. That change removes unnecessary barriers and ensures that victims can seek legal advice without fear of breaching an NDA. If this instrument is approved by Parliament, the changes will apply to NDAs entered into on or after the date it comes into force.
As hon. Members may know, the Government are seeking to make further changes to NDAs through an amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill that was tabled on Report in the Commons in October. The amendment will void NDAs to the extent that they seek to prevent a victim of crime, or someone who reasonably believes they are a victim of crime, from speaking about the criminal conduct to anyone and for any purpose.
That measure complements an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill that provides similar protections for workers in relation to certain work-related harassment or discrimination. Once commenced, the Victims and Courts Bill measure will repeal and replace section 17 of the 2024 Act, including the changes proposed by this instrument. This is effectively a bridging measure. However, we recognise that the Victims and Courts Bill may take time to achieve Royal Assent and to be implemented. As such, commencing section 17 from 1 October 2025 and then taking forward the changes proposed under this instrument ensures that victims can benefit from these protections without delay while work continues on passing and implementing the Victims and Courts Bill.
This instrument seeks to make three technical changes to section 17 of the 2024 Act to ensure that it comprehensively achieves the policy aim. The changes would make sure that victims of crime are able to access appropriate support from the right agencies and professionals without the fear of legal consequences from an NDA, in order to cope with and recover from the impact of crime. They will pave the way for future reforms under the Employment Rights Bill and the Victims and Courts Bill. I therefore commend this instrument to the Committee.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I join the Minister in paying tribute to Baroness Helen Newlove, somebody I had the pleasure of getting to know and working with over the past 12 months. She was a fierce advocate for victims and their families, and her direct experience of an appalling crime made her credible and impactful in all the work she did. I remember discussing the changes that were being made in Committee to the Victims’ Commissioner and using her as an example of someone who made the most of the power she already had. She would have made even more use of the new legislation that strengthens the Victims’ Commissioner.
As the Minister said, we are considering delegated legislation to make an addition to section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which was passed by the previous Government. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston—the original sponsoring Minister for that legislation—is with us on the Committee. That Act rightly ensured that victims can never be prevented from reporting crimes to the police and other bodies because of non-disclosure agreements.
We can be proud of introducing that measure. It was passed with a clear mechanism for extending the bodies to which a disclosure could be made. Today, we are making use of that power, to enable victims who have signed NDAs to disclose information to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority when making a claim for compensation, and to the courts or tribunals that deal with any related proceedings. That will ensure that the CICA has a full picture of the circumstances that it should properly consider before deciding what, if any, award should be made to a victim. At present, victims are unable to tell it whether any compensation has already been received, which is a matter it should be able to consider.
The regulations also extend the definition of a qualified lawyer to include registered foreign lawyers. That practical step will allow victims to seek appropriate advice wherever they are based.
As I am sure the Minister will confirm, the original legislation was carefully considered and had various checks and balances in place. As she said, the wholesale recasting of those mechanisms in the Victims and Courts Bill was part of a relatively late amendment that did not have the full and detailed consideration that the House would have been able to give it in Committee. She will therefore understand why we want to see further debate, discussion and consideration of this new approach as the Bill progresses through the House.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am slowly beginning to get used to life on the Back Benches and to sitting on neither the Government Front Bench nor the Opposition Front Bench in Delegated Legislation Committees.
Following the Minister’s announcement earlier, I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to Helen Newlove. I had the privilege of working with her in both her first and second terms as Victims’ Commissioner, both times while I was serving as the Victims Minister—the role the Minister now occupies. Helen brought to her role integrity, decency, kindness and fun; indeed, when I first met her, she had been on “Desert Island Discs” and we ended up singing one of her choices, “Bring Me Sunshine”, before our first ministerial meeting. That set the tone for how we worked together, and she became a friend, so I will miss her hugely. I know the same will be true of victims up and down the country, because whatever her friendship she was always fearless and forthright in speaking up for the rights of victims and in making sure their voices were heard loud and clear. Today, this country—but especially the victims community—has lost a very powerful champion.
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, for his comments: I did take the legislation on which this statutory instrument is based through in the wash-up period just before the last general election. I also pay tribute to Dame Maria Miller, who campaigned very hard on this issue, and to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who was a forceful advocate—although always polite and friendly—in banging on my door and seeking to nudge me a little further.
I will not comment on the amendments before the House more broadly in the Victims and Courts Bill. All I will say is that I welcome the pragmatic and sensible tidying-up in this instrument, which is a bridging measure, but also a means to fill in a few gaps that were, I suspect, missed by both sides of the House in their desire to get the 2024 Act through before the election. I therefore welcome the instrument the Minister has brought before us today.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome the contribution from the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, who did sterling cross-party work on the original legislation. I look forward to debating further measures relating to this issue when we look at the Victims and Courts Bill. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Privatisation of Sycamore Adventure Centre
Proposed expansion of Plymouth City Council into the South Hams
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
Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Typhoon fighter sovereign capability.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I requested this debate as an opportunity to have the time and space for a more in-depth discussion about securing the future of our sovereign capability in air combat, with the most pressing element being the production of Typhoon fighters at the BAE Systems Warton site in my constituency.
The skilled workforce and cutting-edge technology that make Warton the world-leading facility that it is have taken decades and billions of pounds of investment to develop and maintain. As I go around my constituency, I meet families who now have three generations working at the site and dedicating their careers to it. When we combine the number of jobs provided to local people with all those who have moved to Fylde to work in the critical defence sector, it is easy to understand why it is such an emotive subject. Their service, ingenuity, skill and determination over generations of workers has built a truly impressive sovereign capability.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
On the workforce, will the hon. Member commend and welcome the great contribution of others across the country, such as those at Rolls-Royce in Filton in my constituency? Similarly, generations of people work there together, and it is wonderful to see. They have played a big part in helping us to secure the recent deal and will also play a key role in engine production and maintenance.
Mr Snowden
Forgive me; the hon. Lady will gather from my accent that I will have a slight Lancashire bias in this debate. However, it is obvious from the stats that BAE Systems produces on economic impact and jobs that the supply chain—all those who contribute to the production of Typhoons—is spread across the country. It is a nationwide effort to maintain this sovereign capability. Very few countries in the world can boast the ability to fully assemble their own world-class fighter jets. In an ever-more unpredictable, hostile and dangerous world, we are reminded of why having such assets and abilities is so important.
Before I go any further, I would like to take this opportunity to place on the record again my thanks on behalf of Fylde, Lancashire and the whole country for all the work that has gone into securing the Turkey Typhoon order, which is one of a number of potential deals that has been in the making for several years. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) recalled to me the standing weekly meetings that were held in the Ministry of Defence during his time as the Minister for Defence Procurement, to keep the pressure on and the momentum going to secure export orders. His and others’ work was critical in overcoming our German partners’ objections to exporting Typhoon to certain countries, and the recent deal would not have been possible without that significant amount of work.
The new Government clearly picked up the mantle with vigour and determination to get the deal over the line. There is plenty of glory and praise to go around for everyone. It is a major boost that has been warmly welcomed in Fylde and Lancashire, but we all know from the history of the Eurofighter programme, and Tornado before it, that export orders alone cannot sustain it. While everyone involved in the deal should take time to pat themselves on the back, there is significantly more work to be done before anyone can rest easy that this sovereign capability is secured into the next generation.
To put this into sharp context, we are now the only partner in the Eurofighter programme that is not purchasing Eurofighter. Not only that, but the Government have made an active decision to purchase 25 American F-35s instead of British Typhoons. Along with many people right across Lancashire, local businesses and the unions, I am utterly perplexed and concerned by that decision.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member understand that there is a difference in capacity between an F-35 and a Typhoon? They have fundamentally different roles, and to have an armed forces that works, we need them both.
Mr Snowden
They do provide slightly different roles, but they have the same general one in air combat. Many people say that in aerial combat Typhoon will get the highest the quickest, and according to many pilots and those involved, that is one of the most important factors. I will address the difference in capabilities between the two aircraft later in my speech. I thank the hon. Member for his enthusiasm this early on a Wednesday morning.
As I was saying, the Government’s decision has brought me into an alliance that, as a Conservative MP, I never thought I would be in: campaigning hand in glove with and on the same side as trade unions. I must say that they have put their passion and their all into standing up for the workforce that they represent in Lancashire, and I know they are watching today.
Although an element of the F-35 is built by BAE in Lancashire, it is a drop in the ocean compared with what an order for 25 Typhoons would have meant for jobs and investment. The order book for F-35s is already extensive, so ironically the UK’s order will not have a noticeable impact on job security in Lancashire. In the meantime, the final Typhoons have already rolled through the assembly line at Warton. It is pretty much out of work, which is a terrifying prospect for the workforce, supply chain and community.
Even with the order from Turkey, there will still be a two to three-year period when the assembly line at Warton will be sat empty, waiting. The skills on the line—not just to assemble a modern fighter jet but to certify and test its readiness for combat in simulations and live flights—are such a crucial part of our sovereign capability. To maintain the whole-cycle workforce, from production to assembly and testing, there would need to be getting on for around 100 Typhoon orders between now and the Tempest going live. That puts the need for an RAF order into perspective.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a good speech. I recently paid a shadow ministerial visit to Warton and Samlesbury, and we saw the penultimate Qatari Typhoon painted and ready to fly out, I think within a couple of days. The last one may even have gone now as well. To emphasise his point, this is extremely pressing, is it not?
Mr Snowden
That is the nub of the argument about why this debate is about sovereign capability. While there will be balance—I will come on to the difference in capabilities between the aircraft, as raised by the hon. Member for Swindon North (Will Stone)—this is about maintaining a sovereign capability that, once gone, would take a generation to bring back.
This goes beyond jobs. To maintain and develop our sovereign capability, the RAF needs to be investing in, using and supporting the development of Typhoon. The RAF needs to be fully bought into its development: working with BAE systems on future orders, defining new requirements and capabilities, and enabling the development of future generations of the aircraft—a role only the RAF can truly play. The 6,000 jobs at the Warton site make up a workforce who, if lost, take our sovereign capability with them.
The only way to secure the site to allow the time to secure multiple export orders was to place the order for the RAF as part of the strategic defence review. This also made sense because it would have boosted the export campaign itself—it is a pretty hard sell to make when we are not even buying it ourselves. Someone I spoke to about the export campaign said that one of the first questions they always get asked is, “Are you buying it yourselves?” What kind of message does it send to say, “Please buy our fighters while we go to buy somebody else’s”?
To go back to the need to bridge the period between now and Tempest coming live, it is important to note that Tempest will not replace Typhoon. The point is simply that the site is secured by the order book for the new aircraft going live. We will still need the more agile fighter jet category that Typhoon occupies, as the different aircraft will perform differing air combat roles. As one person from the military described it to me:
“Tempest is the big, bad aircraft that has the tech and payload to blast into the battlefield and establish air superiority. The role of future generations of Typhoon is to then clear up, run smaller missions and maintain that air superiority.”
That makes it even more critical that the RAF and the Government remain bought into the continued development of Typhoon. They must place regular new orders, in addition to carrying out refurbishment, as we will need that sovereign capability for generations to come alongside Tempest.
If we continue to erode the skills base, with investment and innovation in favour of paying for America to develop and maintain its own sovereign capability instead, ours will wither as a result of the UK’s short sightedness. That is why I have been like a dog with a bone about this issue since getting elected.
It has been obvious over the past few years that the decision about the order of the 25 Typhoon jets would fall on whoever was in power when the next big defence review was conducted. To address the hon. Member for Swindon North’s intervention, I had hoped that the review would take a holistic look at what placing an order would mean, not just for the RAF’s specifications and requirements but for maintaining our sovereign capability—a phrase I am deliberately using over and over again. We should count ourselves incredibly lucky as a country that we are more secure for being able to produce our own fighter jets. We should do everything at every opportunity to invest in and continue to develop and improve that capability.
Instead, the order has been sent across the Atlantic, with a vote of confidence in and a significant investment cheque for another country’s sovereign capability over our own. Even if there were certain requirements, and the RAF had been led to believe that the F-35 had advantages, the investment could and should have been made in the Typhoon programme, through BAE Systems, as part of the continued development of that aircraft. That is how it is supposed to work when we make our own aircraft. But I suspect that there may have been more to it than just that.
Members may be surprised to know that this is by far and away not the first time I have discussed Typhoon and Tempest in Parliament. The ebb and flow of questions and answers on this subject between me and Ministers runs through Hansard over the last 18 months. Let us take a little trip down memory lane and look at some of the timeline. We start on 7 November 2024, with a written parliamentary question to the Ministry of Defence. I simply asked whether the Department had a budget for new Typhoons in 2025-26. The then Minister for Defence Procurement, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), replied:
“Budget allocations for 2025-26 will be set in the usual way and informed by the findings of the Strategic Defence Review.”
In a follow-up written question on 15 November 2024, I asked what steps the Department was therefore taking, given that the production line was already falling empty, to ensure that skilled workers in the defence sector were maintained. I received what can be described only as a public sector word salad of an answer, talking about partnership working and future procurement strategies, while the assembly line emptied.
On 28 November, starting to get frustrated, I asked a question in business questions. I gave the long timeline of written and oral questions I had asked, trying to get answers and certainty, only to be brushed off by Minister after Minister. I was promised a meeting with the Secretary of State for Defence to discuss the Typhoon order—it never happened.
On 6 January 2025, in defence questions, I asked:
“Christmas came early for the UK defence industry when Spain placed an order for 25 Eurofighters on 20 December, and Italy followed suit on the 24th. But there is still nothing from the UK Government on the 25 Typhoon jets that are needed for the RAF. Will the Minister spread some festive cheer into the new year, and give us an update on where the Government are with placing that order for 25 Typhoon fighter jets—a delayed Christmas present for the UK defence industry and the RAF?”
The Minister for Defence Procurement replied:
“I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is certainly true that exports are important”—
critically—
“in addition to production for our own use.”
There was then a general comment about the strategic defence review, and the Minister finished by saying:
“The rest of our spend on such matters is part of the SDR. Once that is completed, there will be conclusions”—
slightly obvious. She went on:
“It might not be a Christmas present—I do not know when his birthday is—but a present some time later.”—[Official Report, 6 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 586.]
“Yes,” I thought, “there it is: a hint on the Floor of the House that the order for Typhoon is coming.” It was said in the strongest possible terms without saying, “Yes, we are about to buy them. Please, just wait.”
Mr Snowden
Possibly.
From January 2025 onwards, the sector press started reporting on the need for and the likelihood of a Typhoon order being placed. Then, on 2 June, the strategic defence review was published, and there was the shock announcement that the Government would not purchase Typhoon, as expected, and would purchase F-35. The question that I and so many others have is simple: what happened? I am sure the former Minister for Defence Procurement is a politician of such experience and integrity that she would not have given strong indications of a potential Typhoon order simply to get out of an awkward parliamentary question from a lowly Back Bencher such as myself, and neither would the Government would want to see expectations around a Typhoon order build in the media if they had no intention of placing one.
One big thing brewing throughout that period was that the US President made it clear that if NATO allies wanted to include defence infrastructure in their 5% target, they needed to buy US military kit. If countries wanted better trade deals in the tariff wars then—you guessed it—they had better buy more hardware from the US.
To conclude, I have the following concise, separate and clear questions that I and my constituents would like to be answered. First, given that the specification, lead time and price of both aircraft did not change between the Government hinting they were ordering Typhoon and their then going in the opposite direction with an order for F-35s, what changed? Secondly, have the Government ruled out placing any new Typhoon orders in this Parliament?
Thirdly, given that the Turkey order will not fill the order pipeline gap, and the urgency of the situation outlined by the shadow Minister, what financial support will the Government provide to maintain the Warton site this financial year and next? Fourthly, will the Government please clearly state that they accept the principle that the lighter sister fighter aircraft to Tempest should remain a sovereign capability and, therefore, will be Typhoon? I will be grateful if the Minister would answer those questions in turn when he responds; I shall count how many answers we get.
I want to finish by paying tribute to the workers at BAE Systems in Lancashire, in both Warton and Samlesbury. It is good to see cross-party representation here from MPs in Lancashire who also have dependent workforces and jobs. There is such pride in our community for the world-leading technology produced at Warton. I am so proud to see how the workforce have held it together, kept going and remained hopeful—even as the assembly line emptied—that the orders would come to keep the site going and their jobs secured. The workers I have spoken to celebrated the fact that Turkey has done its bit for Lancashire and Fylde by ordering new Typhoons; they are now waiting for their own Government to do their bit and place the order.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I commend the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for bringing forward the debate. I completely associate myself with his comments about the workforce up there; generations of my constituents have worked at the Samlesbury and Warton sites. I quite enjoyed his speech—most of it, anyway.
I was lucky enough to visit the Warton site recently with the Prime Minister, when he announced the Turkey order. It is fair to say that the workforce was absolutely buzzing; this is such an important order for them. We have 20 brand-new Typhoons guaranteed and fully assembled at the site up there, with an option for a further 20, guaranteeing up to £8 billion in investment and securing production facilities and critical jobs for at least a decade.
As was mentioned, BAE Systems is also spearheading sixth-generation fighter development, under the Tempest programme, which is expected to enter service around 2035. As the hon. Member for Fylde mentioned, BAE Systems at the Samlesbury and Warton sites is also heavily engaged with the delivery of the F-35, which is now in service with the RAF. I understand that—for reasons not known to me—the RAF prefers the F-35 to the Typhoon. That was shared with me by the unions and a number of individuals.
The last UK sovereign order for Typhoons was back in 2009. I note that the hon. Member did not say that the previous Government ordered no sovereign Typhoons between 2010 and 2024. Given that the production of these aircraft takes almost five years from ordering to completion, we now have a gap at the production facilities because they did not order any.
The previous Government’s combat air strategy was published in July 2018. It had the clear objective that the F-35 Lightning would replace the ageing Tornado GR4—which it has—and then partner the Typhoon until the latter leaves service around 2040, with the global combat air programme Tempest being the successor. Much work must be undertaken to ensure that critical upgrades to the current 111 operational UK sovereign Typhoons take place, particularly around the enhanced radar and the weapons the aircraft carries.
The Government must continue their efforts to ensure that more Typhoons are sold on the export market. As the hon. Member said, that needs to be done as a matter of urgency. There is an argument to be had that the Government could consider a sovereign order now that could potentially be exported in years to come. That has happened historically, although I am completely cognisant of the fact that there are constraints on the MOD budget and the UK Budget at the moment. However, that is a consideration that Ministers may have.
Mr Snowden
The hon. Member is giving a good speech in defence of jobs in his constituency. On the point about previous years—I touched on this in my speech—it became obvious that the next big defence review would have to be the point where the crunch decision was made on this. I echo the point—it was probably remiss of me to miss this out in my opening remarks—that placing that order and then potentially releasing it is a very good way of not only potentially boosting the export campaign, but covering the two to three-year critical gap that we have now that the assembly line will be empty. I thank the hon. Member for making that point.
Mr Foster
I agree, but Ministers have a difficult decision. The recent publication of the strategic defence review has committed us to the Tempest programme, but we must await the details of any updated combat air strategy, which is obviously clearly linked to the defence investment plan and acquisition pipeline.
To conclude, the securing of the Turkish Typhoon export order has been a real game changer for my community in South Ribble and the wider community of Lancashire, and for procurement across the entire country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) mentioned. It is a great start. It has secured a number of jobs at the Warton site for a decade. We must support the Government and BAE Systems as much as we can, and get as many of these aircraft exported as we can.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for presenting the debate so well, and his passion, knowledge and deep interest are obvious. I support his plea: he, I and other Members in the Chamber wish to see any work retained in our own businesses, wherever those may be in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I also support his determination to ensure we retain the reputation as the world’s top fighting force.
It is a pleasure, as always, to see the Minister in his place—he has certainly earned his money in the last couple of days, and I am sure he will earn his money tomorrow as well. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), in his place. He has a deep interest in these matters, and I wish him well in his contribution. The spokesperson for the Lib Dems, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), also has a passion for this issue.
As a boy—that was not yesterday, by the way; I can just about remember when I was a boy—I imagined being a fighter pilot. Imagine Jim Shannon being a fighter pilot! People in the Ards peninsula would be scared stiff at the very thought. That came from listening to local men telling stories of the second world war; my grandchildren look up to their grandfather, and I suppose that when I heard the soldiers and Air Force people who came back from the second world war telling their stories, that sparked an energy and an interest in the subject right away. When I think of Typhoon fighters, that little boy in me from 60-odd years ago is excited once more—excited for what we can do, and excited by what the Labour party and the Government wish to do. It is the right thing, and it inspires us all.
This land-based, multi-role fighter, capable of both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions, forms the bulk of the RAF’s combat air fleet alongside the F-35. It also forms the RAF’s quick reaction alert force, providing air defence in the UK and across the wider NATO airspace when deployed overseas.
Mr Gregory Campbell
On the quick reaction alert force, the NATO coverage and the contribution the Typhoon fighter would provide, does my hon. Friend agree that the proximity of the Irish Republic to the UK means that, in effect, we offer that nation some coverage and protection—which I presume we are quite happy to do—but at no cost to it whatever? Every NATO state has to pay considerably into NATO expenditure; the Republic pays nothing. Should our Government not approach the Government in the Republic to say, “We are covering for you. How about spending some of your money?”?
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend, who always instils words of wisdom in these debates. He is right: the Republic of Ireland is our neighbour, and we want to have an economic friendship and relationship with it—by the way, we do not want to be annexed by it, and we are quite clear where we are on that. However, we do provide F-35 and Typhoon aircraft coverage, which the Republic gets the benefit of. I am not sure whether anybody from the Republic of Ireland listens to these debates or even knows about them, but maybe even as we speak someone is cluing in and saying, “You know something? There is an obligation for us. Let’s do our part alongside the UK.”
The envy of the world, the RAF had 129 Typhoon aircraft, of which 107 are still in service. When he introduced the debate, the hon. Member for Fylde said that almost 21,000 people are employed across the UK in support of the Typhoon programme. It is estimated that the programme contributed £1.6 billion to the UK’s gross domestic product in 2020. Its importance cannot be denied.
My constituency of Strangford and the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) have large numbers of manufacturing jobs, so we understand how the lumbering allocation of contracts can bring hope—and then sometimes despair—to the workforce. I understand the frustration of the hon. Member for Fylde at the Government’s refusal to back British and ensure that our countries supply and make all possible goods.
I have argued the same case with the Ministry of Defence in relation to using Harland and Wolff in shipbuilding for defence contracts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East, myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) have had a meeting within the last month to help ensure that the company can get more contracts. When the Minister replies, perhaps he can give us some encouragement for Northern Ireland in relation to procurement and contracts. We do not get the maximum we should out of defence contracts in Northern Ireland. We have a very skilled and able workforce, with apprenticeship opportunities, so we should focus on that.
I completely support the hon. Member for Fylde in his quest to ensure that the Ministry of Defence fulfils promises in a timely manner. As always, I am encouraged by Thales and the extra two Government contracts that have been put in place. There are now 200 new jobs there and apprenticeship opportunities. I have spoken to the management, who are very keen to ensure apprenticeship opportunities. I know some of them young fellas—I have known them since they were born—and they are the new apprentices and the new workforce for Thales.
It is not simply the future of manufacturing in Fylde that is at risk; it is the defence of this nation. Whenever we speak for something, we do so collectively. This is about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England —working together. Those who serve this country in uniform come from all over, and we want to make sure we all get the benefit.
If the war with Russia and the Israel conflict have shown me anything, it is that those with the best weaponry have the upper hand. People seem to forget that, were it not for the Iron Dome defence system, Israel would have been rubble because of the incessant onslaught. If the Ukrainians did not have access to Thales lightweight multi-role missiles—LMMs—the battle against the might of Russia would be very different. I remember, in the first stages of the Ukraine war, the way that Thales LMMs were used to halt Russia’s advances and basically destroy its advance forces. They could be fired over the tops of houses and bungalows, and into the roads in between, to destroy the Russian armour. Those are the things that we should be promoting. When I saw them working in Ukraine, I was encouraged to know that some of my Strangford constituents—as well as probably some of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East—manufactured them, and that they were able to destroy and halt the Russian advance.
The capacity and capability of our armed forces are, of course, world renowned, and the availability of top-of-the-range Typhoons are part of that. We must have Government backing for our defence strategy. I do not doubt that that is coming, by the way—this is not a question for the Minister—but sometimes we need encouragement and reassurance, which I think is what the hon. Member for Fylde is seeking. He is right to do so for his constituents and, indeed, for this great nation. We must also have backing for our manufacturing industry, which is the backbone of this great nation.
I support the hon. Gentleman and look to the Minister for firm action behind the words of affirmation that are undoubtedly coming. The time for fulfilment is now, and our manufacturing industry is more than ready to fulfil. We can deliver. This great nation has done it before; we can do it again, and we should do it now.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
It is truly a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), a fellow Lancashire MP, on the passion with which he spoke.
I associate myself with all the remarks that have been made, and will be made, in welcoming the Turkey deal. As has been said, it was a massive boost for workers at Samlesbury and Warton, and has been received with great enthusiasm. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster), the hon. Member for Fylde and I have long been calling for it, and it comes on the back of huge amounts of hard work from Ministers and civil servants in the Department.
We must not underestimate the massive impact that the order will have, but it is not job done; we now need to look at how we can kick on. As has been highlighted, it is imperative that we secure the sovereign capability, production base and competitive position for the next decade and more. We need to finish the job. I have come to the conclusion that the only way of doing so is through a UK Typhoon order. That is what we need to maintain our world-leading position, the skills and the expertise that were so crucial in securing the Turkey deal. The decision was not taken by the previous Government and it now falls to this one.
A UK order would mean that maximum value is retained here. We will hear all the arguments about the sections being made at Samlesbury for assembly at Warton. I agree with the argument that a UK order would also build confidence in the quality and longevity of the aircraft, which would bolster our ability to secure future international orders. In any case, the fundamental point, as has been highlighted, is that we need more new fast jets. We had 137 Typhoons. Thirty tranche 1 aircraft will be retired by 2027, and that leaves 107 tranche 2 and tranche 3 fighters, which are ageing and will be retired by 2040. Despite upgrades, they do not have the full range of capabilities that could be delivered with the latest tranche 5.
For sure, we all get very excited by the potential of the Tempest global combat air programme, but it will be, at best, the late 2030s before it comes online. As has been said, it is not a direct replacement or comparator for the Typhoon, so we have a clear capability gap to fill somehow. Part of that is being addressed by the purchase of the F-35, which creates an opportunity. Although the F-35 is a brilliant aircraft, it is, as has been pointed out, a very different aircraft from the Typhoon, with different design philosophy and different capabilities.
That creates an opportunity for a blended Air Force. The F-35 is primarily a stealthy, ground-attack, precision strike aircraft able to penetrate heavily defended areas. The Typhoon is an air dominance fighter with a higher top speed, faster acceleration, better climb rate and superior sustained turn performance. The Typhoon is also compatible with a full range of British-made missiles such as the Meteor and Spear 3, whereas the F-35 currently is not. There is an opportunity for a blend there. We do not need to choose one or the other; we can bring the capabilities together to create an Air Force truly fit for the 2030s and onwards.
Mr Snowden
The hon. Member is making an excellent point. I have no objection to us having an element of F-35 within the RAF. It is important to have blended capability. The key point is that Typhoon as a platform could be developed and adapted to perform some of the roles that F-35s do. They are largely in the same frame of aircraft, in the sense that they both occupy the lighter fighter range, compared with what Tempest will be. If we are going to have Typhoon as a sister to Tempest in the future, using investment opportunities now to build, develop and change the Typhoon platform to have different variants of it would be a good way of maintaining sovereign capability.
Andy MacNae
The hon. Gentleman is reaching levels of technicality that I do not fully understand, but I think the fundamental point is that we should strike a balance and try to get the best of both. The Typhoon is a platform that can deliver capabilities that we very much need. As has been pointed out, other Eurofighter partner countries have taken exactly that decision. In December 2024, Spain ordered an additional 25 Typhoons. At the same time, Italy ordered 25 to replace its tranche 1s. Last month, Germany placed an order for another 20 Typhoons, taking its total order pipeline to 58. Those countries have protected their domestic fast jet manufacturing capability while ensuring that they have a mix of capabilities to address the full range of conflict scenarios that, sadly, we can look forward to.
Mr Francois
I completely accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument about a blended force of Typhoon and F-35, but does he accept that one of the drawbacks of the F-35 is that we are effectively at the mercy of the joint programme office in the United States? That has led to serious delays in the integration of the Meteor, a highly capable air-to-air missile, into the F-35 because American systems have been prioritised. That is a bit of a problem, is it not?
Andy MacNae
The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. I would not use the same sort of pejorative language, but a recent National Audit Office report highlighted exactly those integration issues and, as I have pointed out, the Meteor and Spear 3 are not currently compatible with the F-35. There is no doubt that sovereign capability means maintaining all the controls to deliver the independence and resilience that a tier 1 nation surely requires in its defence strategies.
I will briefly take a wider perspective. Lancashire is home to world-class defence industries, as we all know. Every single growth plan that talks about Lancashire’s future has those at its heart. The fact that we can go into schools in places like Bacup, Whitworth and Darwen and talk about some of the best engineering and technical jobs in the world being just down the road is invaluable to building aspiration in places that need it most. The apprenticeships and career opportunities at not just at BAE, but the many innovative companies in the supply chain, mean that Lancashire and the north-west is the best place for anyone who wants to work in the cutting-edge manufacturing industries of the future.
Surely we should not be happy with merely sustaining that jewel in the crown. Rather, we should seek to strengthen and continually build skills, scale and competitive advantage. Turkey chose to order the Typhoon because the experience, quality and skills of workers at Samlesbury and Warton cannot be matched. We have the opportunity to build on that and give the ultimate vote of confidence by ordering UK fighters that will maintain our balanced and multifunctional fast jet capability through the next decade and more. I hope that the defence procurement strategy delivers just that.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I welcome Turkey’s order for 20 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft. I appreciate that it is good news for the UK, good news for the workers at Warton and Samlesbury and good news for BAE and the future production of GCAP. The Government have confirmed that the Turkish jets are tranche 4 aircraft, with the first of the order due to be delivered to the Turkish air force in 2030. The Government refuse to disclose the number of aircraft that will be delivered each year, but have confirmed that it will not impact our ability to conduct the RAF Typhoon phase 4 enhancement programme or, at the back end of that process, the manufacturing of GCAP.
I recently asked the Government what estimate the MOD has made of the contribution of Typhoon jets to GDP. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry told me:
“The biggest contribution of defence to GDP is peace and security.”
While in abstract I share that sentiment, it was not really the answer that I was looking for. Typhoon has been one of the UK’s most successful defence export programmes in recent years, with £1.4 billion in export contributions annually and over £30 billion of value to the UK economy, which is more than double the £12 billion initially invested. The programme contributes around £1.6 billion to the UK economy and helps to preserve our sovereign fighter jet manufacturing capability.
Under the NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency, the industrial subsystem production and workshare agreements across the partner nations arrangements dictate that the UK leads on manufacturing the front and rear fuselage, windscreen and canopy, fin and rudder, engine bay doors, foreplane and a range of major avionics systems, which make up 37% of each Typhoon aircraft. For both UK aircraft and UK-led export orders, final assembly takes place at Warton, where the major equipment components, which have been manufactured in Samlesbury by BAE Systems, are ultimately assembled. To that end, it would be good to know how much the order of 20 Turkish jets will create, given the satellite industries that orbit the final assembly and certification processes. Including the Turkish order, there are 154 Eurofighter Typhoons awaiting delivery across the partner nations of Germany, Italy, Spain and Kuwait. How many of those planes will receive final assembly at Warton?
What is the plan to ensure that there is no skill fade in the intervening years? While it would be nice to imagine a Kanban-style lean manufacturing process that sees Typhoons rolling off a production line every few days, these jets take several years to construct. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that those responsible for airworthiness testing and certification are kept current and competent between now and 2029, when the first Turkish jets will be approaching completion?
Beyond the order, it is worth addressing what assurances the Turkish have been given about the longevity of the jets. The Turkish air force will not receive the last of the jets until 2035, but the out-of-service date for the RAF is 2040. How will the jets be upgraded after we retire them? How will upgrades be delivered at the Warton and Samlesbury plants when they are focused solely on GCAP? The Typhoon is scheduled to remain in service with air forces across Europe and the middle east until the 2060s.
Our four remaining tranche 1 aircraft are based at the Mount Pleasant complex in the Falkland Islands, and I had the pleasure of visiting No. 1435 Flight earlier in the year to better understand their role in air defence and quick reaction alert for the south Atlantic islands. However, the handful of remaining tranche 1 Typhoons have an out-of-service date of 2027. Can the Minster confirm whether these will be replaced with tranche 2 or tranche 3 aircraft? If so, which other squadron will lose a flight?
As I mentioned, the current Typhoon fleet—our 67 tranche 2 and 40 tranche 3 planes—has an out-of-service date of 2040, but in a written answer to me on 24 September, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry stated:
“Typhoon will continue to serve as the backbone of the UK’s Combat Air Force until at least the 2040s.”
Can the Minister confirm whether the out-of-service date of Typhoon is 2040 or well beyond that?
I recently asked the Government about the scope of the planned upgrades for Typhoon, specifically with regard to the mark 2 European common radar system, defensive aid suites, avionics and weapons. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry confirmed that those would be outlined in the forthcoming defence investment plan, which it is rumoured will not be published until December.
The upgrade programme is due to take place over the next 15 years—coincidentally, the same as the aircraft’s remaining lifespan. The Minister has previously informed me that the phase 4 enhancement—P4E—upgrade programme is in the system definition de-risking phase of activity, following the system definition contract last year. The full scope of the P4E capability package has not yet been agreed, and without that agreement the programme cannot progress on to the design, development and demonstration phase. With that in mind, it appears unlikely that the P4E programme can be accurately outlined in detail in the defence investment plan.
With the best will in the world, we know the Government are not about to pull the trigger on a domestic Typhoon order. We cannot afford them, and they clearly do not fit into the combat air succession plan. Having read the strategic defence review, it is clear to me that Typhoon is seen as an integral part—the backbone, in fact—of our combat air capability, but the MOD clearly wishes to pursue exquisite capability, irrespective of the opportunity cost.
The current plan sees a mixed fleet of Typhoon and F-35B. I stress the “B” because, frankly, the announcement on the F-35A is a red herring. We are yet to receive the remaining F-35Bs of the current tranche. The remainder are set to be delivered by March 2026, taking our total to 47, with one written off having fallen into the sea. The mooted 12 F-35As are a straight swap for 12 F-35Bs from the next tranche. Those F-35As were pitched as dual-capable aircraft, and would therefore form part of the NATO nuclear mission. If that is the case, why will the F-35As be assigned to 207 Squadron’s operational conversion unit? Using the planes as a training fleet workhorse does not scream nuclear readiness. How many of the jets will be held at readiness?
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the highest echelon of pilots—those who are best trained—will be the operational conversion unit instructors? Therefore, the 12 aircraft allotted to the nuclear mission will be the leading edge of the force’s capability, so it makes eminent sense for that part of the force to deliver it.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s expertise in this field, being the decorated RAF pilot that he is. However, I also take that as Government confirmation that the OCU instructors will potentially form the backbone of our NATO dual-capable nuclear readiness force. Can the Minister confirm that when he sums up?
I know this is a trick question, as the Minister probably does not know what the nuclear readiness plan is, and I do not think the RAF knows either, given there is currently no timeline for gaining nuclear certification. At this point, it is worth noting that, in February, the US Marine Corps—by far the biggest user of the F-35B—changed its programme of record to more than double its order of the carrier variant, F-35C, while reducing its F-35B order by the same amount. Our carriers are not equipped with cats and traps, so the F-35C variant is a non-starter, but we should note the direction of travel of the US Marine Corps, given the combined arms nature of its brand of expeditionary warfare.
The Government have stated that the introduction of the F-35A variant will support the stand-up of a third frontline F-35B squadron, but the F-35A variants will not enter service until the 2030s—we have not even ordered them yet—and that is quite aside from the certification of nuclear capability. When will we achieve initial, and then full, operating capability for the F-35A with nuclear certification?
Crucially, our F-35s are not capable of conducting missions alone. It is not often discussed, although we have already mentioned it here, but the F-35 cannot yet carry the Meteor missile, MBDA’s beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile. The Government have previously confirmed to me that the current estimated timeline for the Meteor’s in-service capability is the early 2030s. Our top-of-the-range jet fighter currently has no stand-off air-to-air missile capability. It is effectively unarmed in the face of a near-peer aerial adversary against which we cannot expect to have day one air superiority.
In July, the previous Minister for Defence Procurement, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), told me:
“Block 4 modernisation will include the integration of UK-unique weapons and upgrades to air-to-surface and air-to-air weaponry.”
That would appear to be an aspiration, not a guarantee. Options for future Meteor development are still under consideration by the Meteor partner nations of France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Sweden, and the aim is to have reached consensus by the end of the year. Can the Minister provide an update on the progress made at the recent working-level discussions in September and October?
This issue was also recently identified by the Public Accounts Committee in its excoriating report, “The UK’s F-35 stealth fighter capability”, which highlighted:
“The Joint Programme Office…has invited the UK…to include a UK weapon in its so-called digital accelerator which it hopes will speed up delivery. In the meantime, the Department told us that as part of its Defence Investment Plan it is considering buying other weapons that are already available and integrated.”
In his response, can the Minister outline what off-the-shelf weapons the Government are currently considering buying as an interim solution to this problem? How do they intend to integrate an interim stopgap weapon?
At present, the solution is actually Typhoon. Yes, in order to use our very expensive, top-of-the-range, invisible-to-radar, fifth-generation F-35s, we have to fly them alongside our not-very-invisible-to-radar, fourth-generation Typhoons, because only they can carry the payload to defend them in air-to-air combat. I am not sure this is exactly what was intended by the hybrid airwing outlined in the strategic defence review.
That is before we point out that an independent carrier strike group is irrelevant if we need a land-based plane to support our carrier-based capability, and that for the F-35B to be in range of a target, the carrier would have to be in range of hostile ballistic missiles that we cannot feasibly protect them against. The future air dominance system, which will be its primary air defence shield, comes in the form of the Type 83 destroyer, for which the final business case is not due to be submitted to the Treasury until 2028—the 2035 initial operating capability for Type 83 already looks ambitious. I digress, and discussions on the limitations of designing our military strategy around our capability, rather than the other way around, are for another day.
The F-35’s out-of-service date is 2069, by which point some of our 138 airframes will be over 50 years old—older than any combat jet the RAF has ever had in service. What will be the final fatigue index of those airframes by then? Given the rapid development of uncrewed platforms, are we really going to rely on an ageing crewed jet as the backbone of our combat air capability in 2069?
Having covered a fair amount of ground, I close by reiterating that the recent Typhoon deal with Turkey is a good thing, but I fear there are an awful lot of unanswered capability questions regarding our air power. While the answers to all these questions are for the next month, when they will be published in the defence investment plan, the Minister knows well that I will circle back on every single one of those points—he probably suspects I have a tracker monitoring their status.
With that in mind, we need a clear and concise air power strategy, because talk of autonomous collaborative platforms and hybrid air wings is premature. It should be noted that the Chief of Defence Staff, in his previous role as Chief of the Air Staff, stated this summer that the RAF has
“no major equipment programmes planned for the next 15 years. We have what we have for the near and medium term.”
The question is not when the defence investment plan will be published, but whether it will have anything in it when it is.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) on securing this debate.
When we see the Typhoon take to the skies—its precision, power and unmistakable roar—it is easy to focus on what we can see: the aircraft, the pilot, the mission. Yet behind every Typhoon flight lies another story, one that begins not in the cockpit but on the ground in Farnborough, the birthplace of British military aviation.
For more than 25 years, QinetiQ, based in Farnborough, has been a quiet force behind the success of the UK’s Typhoon fleet. Its roots run deep in our national story. QinetiQ was born out of the Royal Aircraft Establishment —the cradle of so much British aviation and defence innovation. From the earliest flight experiments to the supersonic age, the Royal Aircraft Establishment defined our pioneering spirit, and today, through QinetiQ, that spirit lives on.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Having visited my hon. Friend’s constituency and seen some of those capabilities, I can say that they are incredibly impressive. Does she agree that some of the Typhoon jobs are sometimes forgotten? There are 800 jobs in Scotland, where much of the radar equipment is manufactured and integrated. That is not to mention RAF Lossiemouth in the north of Scotland, where the quick reaction alert pilots fly all the time, training and intercepting Russian jets, to protect our country.
Alex Baker
My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I will talk about radar shortly.
Our heritage enables QinetiQ to work in deep and purposeful partnership with the MOD, the Royal Air Force and the Air and Space Warfare Centre to provide mission-critical engineering outcomes. Its engineers, scientists and analysts are not merely maintaining aircraft but redefining what is possible.
Through the engineering delivery partner programme, and using facilities provisioned under its long-term partnership agreement with the MOD, QinetiQ provides expertise that keeps the Typhoon at the forefront of modern air power. When operational demands intensify, it is QinetiQ’s engineers who ensure that every airframe remains structurally ready for the challenges ahead. When pilots require new systems or improved safety equipment, it is QinetiQ’s aircrew systems specialists who deliver the rapid and safe clearances that protect lives.
When the RAF sought to extend the life of the Paveway IV precision weapon, it was QinetiQ’s analytical judgment and engineering insight that made it possible, delivering greater capability and saving the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds.
Led by QinetiQ across the country—at Boscombe Down, Coningsby, Malvern, Bristol, Lincoln, Warton and, of course, Farnborough—more than 200 engineers are working to ensure that every Typhoon mission, from routine training to live operations, is safe, effective and one step ahead of the threat. Their work on mission data, conducted side by side with the RAF, turns complex streams of information into operational advantage, ensuring that our aircrews have the intelligence they need in the moments that matter most.
Looking to the future, QinetiQ is supporting the development of the European Common Radar System Mark 2, a next-generation capability that can be tested on its dedicated flying testbed. That will take the Typhoon’s radar performance to new levels and stands as a testament to the strength of British science and engineering.
Mr Calvin Bailey
On that point, what is critical in our present epoch is that we are able to iterate technology fast, and to adapt to make the things we have more lethal, rather than just bringing new wants and designs. One of the pet strengths—
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman arrived late. He has made an intervention already and is now making a very long intervention. He should have some regard for other Members who have been here throughout the debate.
Alex Baker
Thank you, Sir Christopher.
It is innovation with purpose—a partnership between Government, industry and the armed forces that strengthens both our national security and our national prosperity. And now, with the recent deal between the United Kingdom and Turkey for the sale of 20 Typhoon jets—the biggest fighter jet agreement in a generation, securing 20,000 jobs across our defence and aerospace sectors—we can see the global value of this work. This deal is not only a significant export success; it is a vote of confidence in the skills, technology and sovereign capability of our defence industries.
QinetiQ’s engineering services work to help the MOD certify aircraft being delivered to Turkey will demonstrate how British expertise, born in Farnborough, continues to deliver excellence on the world stage. I was so pleased on Monday to welcome the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry to QinetiQ’s Farnborough HQ. It was an opportunity to see at first hand the extraordinary breadth of its work, from digital engineering and AI-driven analysis to advanced test and evaluation. The Minister saw what I have long known: that QinetiQ is not just maintaining capability but building the future of defence innovation in the United Kingdom.
The Government have published their strategic defence review, and QinetiQ will play a vital role in delivering mission-critical technologies that strengthen the resilience, readiness and reach of our armed forces. From advanced radar systems to digital test environments and next-generation flight safety, its expertise will help to shape a stronger, safer and more technologically advanced Britain. The future is bright, and it is being built in Farnborough by people whose work may not always make the headlines but whose contribution is indispensable to our national security.
There is a story from the early Typhoon test programme that captures this spirit perfectly. One night, a QinetiQ team at Boscombe Down encountered a problem. They worked continuously for 36 hours to analyse data from flight XP13, a trial that had revealed a critical systems anomaly. By dawn, they had identified the fault, developed the fix and cleared the aircraft to return safely to the skies. That single story tells us everything we need to know about QinetiQ’s role. It speaks of persistence and the willingness to stay at the desk long after the world has gone home. It shows precision, because in defence engineering, detail saves lives. It demonstrates partnership —the seamless collaboration between engineers, pilots and scientists—and it reflects pride in knowing that their unseen work makes every mission possible.
As we look to the skies and see a Typhoon soar, let us remember that its power is visible but its brilliance is built in part by QinetiQ, quietly, expertly and proudly carrying forward the legacy of Farnborough’s Royal Aircraft Establishment into a new generation of innovation and national service.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
I call Luke Akehurst, who I am afraid has been left with only a couple of minutes.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I was going to make some points about the industrial case, but those have been made very well by Members with a direct constituency interest in this programme, so I will talk about the role of Typhoon in air and missile defence. I have a strong interest in that subject and spoke about it in a Westminster Hall debate last year.
I do not often lose sleep over politics—I am quite a robust character—but there is one issue that keeps me awake, which is whether we are moving fast enough to defend Britain from air and missile attack. Russia poses a direct threat to us. It is real, imminent and growing every day. Typhoon forms one important component of the UK’s integrated air and missile defence, as our quick reaction alert aircraft at Coningsby and Lossiemouth. While ground-based air defence engages late, Typhoon engages early, making it a key part of multilayered defence.
Typhoon pushes our defensive perimeter outward, stopping threats before they get close to British bases, troops or even civilian targets. When suspicious aircraft approach UK airspace, the first thing that goes up to see them and turn them around is Typhoon. It is our fastest and most flexible interceptor. It can also provide, albeit rather expensively, a last-ditch way of destroying cruise missiles or unmanned aerial vehicles before they hit their target. It performed that role during the Iranian attack on Israel last year.
I welcome the commitment in the SDR to upgraded Typhoons, which will form part of the next-generation RAF. Upgrades to our current Typhoon fleet could transform our air defence capability. For example, integrating conformal fuel tanks on to Typhoon could increase their combat range to allow them to reach Russian airspace from the British Isles. I welcome the MOD’s confirmation that the UK will spend £2.35 billion to deliver the new European Common Radar System Mark 2 for the Typhoon fleet. Given the potential for Typhoon upgrades to level up our air and missile defence capabilities, can the Minister elaborate on a timeline for when further upgrades will be set out, and any detail on what upgrades are being considered?
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
It is, as always, an honour to speak under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for bringing forward this important debate. I hope the House will join me in recognising my friend Ryan, who is currently coming to the end of his training pipeline, flying solo on Typhoon. That training pipeline included three months sharing a room with me—it has been tough for him.
As a product, the Typhoon is the backbone of our ability to project air power, and the sharp end of the United Kingdom’s quick reaction alert. Beneath that product lie desperately stretched engineering forces at RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Coningsby. I owe it to those who, not long ago, confided in me to tell the Government clearly that they must prioritise those who sustain our platforms and aircrew, if they are rightly to expand the RAF as it faces the challenges of the coming decades.
Beyond the Royal Air Force, the Typhoon programme has, for decades, sustained UK aerospace engineering, supporting thousands of skilled jobs across the country, including many in Gloucestershire, continuing our rich aerospace heritage. The project, among others, has preserved UK expertise so that we can continue to design, build and upgrade world-leading systems here on our islands.
The Liberal Democrats commend the Government on this deal with our Turkish NATO allies. I extend recognition to the previous Government for initiating the deal. It will create jobs and stimulate much-needed economic growth in the UK, while enhancing NATO’s security and deterrence in this crucial region. Turkey plays a crucial role in our collective effort to defend against Putin’s imperial ambitions, serving NATO as a strategic ally on the Black sea. Eurofighter Typhoon is also, of course, a flagship for European co-operation. As my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have continually raised, it is vital for Britain to have a comprehensive security and defence agreement with our European allies.
We are pleased that the Labour Government have taken steps to secure this deal but, to the surprise of nobody, we call on them to go further. Do the Government consider that the Typhoon expansion will play a part in UK economic growth over the coming decade? Will the UK offer Typhoon to our eastern European partners as a means to access the €150 billion Security Action for Europe defence procurement programme? How are the Government working to broaden UK businesses’ access to skilled engineers, manufacturers and technicians? What are the Government doing to shorten the pilot training pipeline for fast jets?
Although we recognise our shared security interest with Turkey, we must be mindful of the challenges and complexities in our relationship with Ankara, as well as with other strategic allies. The continued detention of Istanbul’s mayor, Ekrem İmamoğlu, widely believed to be a politically motivated attack, remains egregious and speaks to an alarming trend of democratic backsliding in Turkey. Will the Government make it clear today whether they raised the issue in negotiations? If they did not, they must raise it with their Turkish counterparts at the earliest opportunity.
As I mentioned during the ministerial statement at the end of last month, I express gratitude to my many constituents who work in GE Aerospace in Bishops Cleeve. They have supported the Typhoon programme from its inception, with cockpit displays and fuel system equipment manufactured in my constituency. I also commend the defence industries across the nation whose innovation and endeavour safeguard our country. Large and small businesses have played an integral part in the process, and it is important that we recognise them all. The Liberal Democrats note that only 5% of the procurement budget is allocated to small and medium enterprises, despite a Government drive to integrate them into procurement: 42% of contracts go to the same 10 suppliers.
Small and medium enterprises are crucial to the UK defence industry, providing flexibility and innovation, and creating a vast network of high-quality jobs across the UK. However, they face unique challenges that limit their potential to contribute fully to defence capability and UK prosperity. The Liberal Democrats are fighting for a fair deal for small businesses, starting with more support for their energy costs and a complete overhaul of the unfair business rates system.
To conclude, the Liberal Democrats support the deal. We continue to press for further collaboration with our democratic European allies. We would strengthen co-operation through security and economic partnerships, and that should include a customs union with the European Union.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, as we debate the important role that the Typhoon programme plays in our nation’s defence and industrial strength.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) on securing this important debate. Since he entered the House almost a year and a half ago, he has proved a doughty champion for his constituents, for the defence industry in the north-west more generally and for his constituents at Warton for whom the Typhoon programme is crucial in particular. He made a very good speech to open the debate, and I know that he will continue to fight tenaciously for his constituents’ interests as this Parliament plays out.
I also take the opportunity to pay a personal thank you related to air defence. Recently, I turned 60 and, as a memorable birthday present, my local Conservative Association generously clubbed together to pay for a 30-minute, two-seater Spitfire flight in aircraft No. MT818 out of Biggin Hill, including overflying my constituency. I warmly thank the pilot, Barry, and all his colleagues at FlyASpitfire.com—who do what it says on the tin—for a wonderful day. At this time of remembrance, it brought home to me just how brave the few—some of whom had barely 10 hours on type—were in flying that iconic aircraft in mortal combat during the battle of Britain. I am deeply grateful for that truly unforgettable experience. It will literally live with me for the rest of my life.
Returning to the present, I also congratulate the Minister on the fact that the Government have now sealed the deal to export some 20 Typhoons to Turkey. For the record, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), when he was the Minister with responsibility for procurement, spent a considerable amount of time promoting that deal, as did Ben Wallace, the then Secretary of State. Nevertheless, it would be churlish not to say well done to the Government for capitalising on those previous efforts and bringing the arrangement to fruition.
That being so, I have some specific questions about the deal for the Minister which I hope that the House will welcome. First, can he confirm what tranche of Typhoon the new aircraft will be, including what variant of radar it will carry? That has implications not just for BAE Systems at Warton, but for our national radar manufacturer Leonardo, based in Edinburgh. As for MBDA, our missiles champion, is the Meteor missile also part of the sale to Turkey?
Secondly, a suggestion has been that Qatar will sell its older Typhoons to Turkey as part of the arrangement and that that might yet lead, in turn, to further Typhoon orders at Warton. Is that the case and, if so, what can the Minister tell us?
Thirdly, is the Minister able to say anything more about other potential Typhoon sales internationally, in particular to Poland or Saudi Arabia? A Typhoon order from Saudi would be a significant achievement and, indeed, negotiations to that effect have been under way for several years already. That, too, would be of great interest to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde, so I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to say anything further about that this morning.
As the debate is entitled “Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability”, I also take this opportunity to press the Minister on the future of the Typhoon in Royal Air Force service. The RAF has recently retired some 30 of the older tranche 1 Typhoons, and has been in the process of effectively cannibalising them in order to keep the more modern tranche 2 and tranche 3 aircraft flying. In terms of combat mass, that represents a worrying reduction of about a fifth of the entire RAF Typhoon fleet. The few remaining tranche 1s in service are now the fleet of Typhoons based at RAF Mount Pleasant. Will the Minister confirm that when they retire some time in 2026-27, the RAF will provide replacements of either tranche 2 or tranche 3 aircraft to maintain the air defence of the Falkland Islands, not least for the peace of mind of the Falkland Islands Government?
That would leave about 107 tranche 2 and 3 aircraft in RAF service. The tranche 3 aircraft are optimised to accept the new future generation of electronically scanned radar, now generally referred to as Radar 2, which has been under development at Leonardo in Edinburgh, in association with other European allies, for more than a decade. Tranche 2 aircraft can also be modified to accept Radar 2, but both tranches of aircraft require an important electronics update, known as P4E, in order to fully utilise the important new capability of Radar 2, including its crucial electronic warfare suite. However, as I understand it, the MOD has still not placed an order for the final development and installation of P4E, crucial though it is to Typhoon’s future.
Although Radar 2 has now been fully developed—indeed, I was privileged to see a prototype of it on a shadow ministerial visit to Leonardo some months ago—the MOD has still not placed a production order even for an initial batch of Radar 2s. That too represents a very important part of the UK’s Typhoon sovereign capability. Without an effective radar, much of the other investment in Typhoon is nugatory. Can the Minister say anything positive today about the future orders for Radar 2 and the associated P4E upgrade to the UK Typhoon programme, given that both—and we need both—are due to be in operational service by 2030?
BAE trade union colleagues, whom I met recently at Samlesbury, have been pushing hard for a further domestic order of Typhoon aircraft, not least to maintain key skills at the Warton site. They have no greater champion than my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde—“Tory MP backs trade unions to the hilt”. I appreciate that that is not an easy decision for Ministers to take, and that it must be considered in the context of the wider mix of potential combat air system, as several hon. Members have said. In that regard, to date the UK has ordered some 48 F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variants for both the Fleet Air Arm and the Royal Air Force, almost 40 of which have now been delivered—minus one, which had an unfortunate accident leaving an aircraft carrier. However, both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have been highly critical of the slow build-up of the Lightning force. Can the Minister say anything more encouraging about that?
The Government have intimated that they intend to buy another 26 F-35Bs, making 74 in total out of an originally planned order of 138. However, this summer they announced their intention to substitute 12 of those aircraft for the F-35A variant, which is capable of carrying the B61 tactical nuclear weapon, both in our defence of the United Kingdom and as part of our commitment to NATO. What more can the Minister tell us about how many F-35s the MOD still intends to buy, and what mix of variants that will comprise, in addition to Typhoon?
A crucial future part of our sovereign air capability is represented by the global combat air programme, which aims to develop a world-class, sixth-generation combat aircraft—a system of systems, potentially including autonomous adjuncts. It is being built with Italy and Japan, and is to be known in RAF service as the Tempest. As the Minister knows, the putative initial operational capability for GCAP is 2035, partly driven by a very hard in-service date for the Japanese air force. An industrial consortium called Edgewing, headquartered in Reading, has recently been formed to manufacture the aircraft, but there are already worrying rumours of delays. Will the Minister take the opportunity today to confirm that GCAP/Tempest remains on schedule, and that Tempest will still succeed our oldest remaining tranche 2 Typhoons from 2035?
The Typhoon is a fundamentally important part of the air defence of the United Kingdom and of our allies, and is likely to remain so for decades, even allowing for the gradual introduction of Tempest. As the Minister will appreciate, for those aircraft to be used most effectively, especially in the air defence role, they need to be closely integrated into the UK’s wider air defence network.
We now have a major gap in that capability, however, following the withdrawal of the Boeing E-3D AWACS aircraft in 2021, because of the frustratingly delayed introduction into service of its vital replacement the Boeing E-7 Wedgetail. The delays to Wedgetail are a disgrace; the aircraft is years late and has flown only a relatively small number of test flights. Rumours are circulating within the industry that this is due to a mixture of factors, including the integration of the MESA—multi-role electronically scanned array—radar and serious problems with the UK E-7’s bespoke command and battle management system.
A respected former procurement Minister, Sir Jeremy Quin, was recently appointed chairman of Boeing UK. I hope he can bring his experience to bear to sort out this debacle. What can the Minister say today about Wedgetail and when it is finally likely to enter operational service with the Royal Air Force? In short, when will the aircraft be ready to fight, rather than just conduct air displays as it did at the Royal International Air Tattoo this summer?
We await the Government’s long-promised defence investment plan, including details on the future of Typhoon. We were originally promised the DIP by the autumn. With the leaves already turning, I ask the Minister a straight question: is Christmas in the autumn? Can he guarantee that the DIP will be published in full by the time the House rises for the Christmas recess on 18 December, just over a month from now?
In addition, can the Minister assure us that the DIP will contain a similar level of granularity to the previous, well-established equipment plans that were published annually under Conservative Governments? They gave a considerable amount of detail so that the defence industry had a fighting chance of planning. The Minister will know that a bunch of major programmes are awaiting their fate with the publication of the DIP, including the phase 4 enhancement and mark 2 radar, the new medium helicopter and the wider combat air mix referred to earlier. After all this time, yet another Ministry of Defence policy document, with a bunch of glossy photos but not much detail, will not suffice. Perhaps the Minister can provide some reassurance this morning.
Finally, can the Minister guarantee to deliver the DIP, including for Typhoon, given that the MOD is now embroiled in a massive in-year cost-saving exercise, including efficiencies—spending cuts, in pub English—of £2.5 billion in 2025-26 alone? That is happening this financial year, right now; if that is not true, I will give way briefly to the Minister to deny it. Silence speaks volumes.
I will finish by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde on securing this important debate. I hope that we will get clear answers to the straightforward questions that he and I and others have put to the Minister this morning. Typhoon is vital to our future, and we all want to know what will happen to it.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
I thank you, Sir Christopher, for chairing this debate and the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for securing it. It is an important subject, and it will continue to be important for a long time to come.
In this week of national remembrance, when the service and sacrifice of our armed forces are at the forefront of our minds, I begin by paying tribute to all those who have served in the Typhoon force. Since its introduction in 2003, they have taken the risks that come with service and been a backbone of the RAF’s combat air capability. Over those 22 years, across many operations and theatres, Typhoon has proven itself to be the UK’s premier multi-role combat aircraft, successfully supporting a wide range of missions with its state-of-the-art technology incorporated over a number of upgrades.
Today, Typhoon plays an important role at home and abroad. We rely on the Typhoon force to fulfil the RAF’s primary role of protecting the UK’s skies through its quick reaction alert capability, enabling a swift response to any emerging security threats. Since September, on NATO’s eastern flank, we have had two Typhoons from 3 (Fighter) Squadron—supported by a Voyager from 101 Squadron—flying as part of NATO’s Operation Eastern Sentry. That mission reinforces the UK’s unwavering commitment to NATO and our allies.
Earlier this year, Typhoons from 2 Squadron deployed to Poland as part of Operation Chessman—NATO’s enhanced air policing campaign. That deployment involved more than 20 scrambles to defend NATO airspace, alongside numerous joint training sorties with 13 NATO partners. In recent years, Typhoons have also conducted successful operations in Romania and Estonia as part of our enduring NATO air policing commitment, in Libya for Operation Ellamy and in Syria and Iraq as part of Operation Shader. Alongside those deployments, our Typhoon force has strengthened interoperability with our allies through training exercises around the world, including as part of the ongoing deployment of our carrier strike group to the Indo-Pacific, alongside the mix of F-35Bs.
Our Typhoon force is made up of six frontline squadrons, the operational conversion unit, the joint UK-Qatari 12 Squadron and 41 (Test and Evaluation) Squadron, which operates under the Air and Space Warfare Centre. Together, they form a formidable capability.
As demonstrated by the breadth of Members here today, underpinning the Typhoon force is a UK-wide, highly skilled sovereign defence industrial base. That has been a source of jobs, livelihoods and economic prosperity across many Members’ constituencies, as referenced in this debate. It is the case that 37% of each new Typhoon aircraft is manufactured in the UK—in the constituencies of many Members who made comments earlier—meaning that we continue to benefit from the investment made by our NATO and export partners.
The Typhoon programme supports more than 20,000 jobs across the UK, including engineering, manufacturing and supply chain roles. Nearly 6,000 of those jobs are at BAE Systems—in particular, at Warton and Samlesbury. More than 1,100 jobs are in the south-west, including at Rolls-Royce in Bristol, producing modules for the EJ200 jet engines that will power the new Typhoon jets. There are also more than 800 jobs in Scotland, including at Leonardo in Edinburgh, manufacturing cutting-edge radar systems. These are high-value, well-paid, good jobs—the kind that put money in working people’s pockets, that help to revitalise communities and that deliver on defence as an engine for growth up and down the country.
Of course, last month, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister announced the fantastic news that Türkiye has placed an order to buy 20 Typhoon fighter jets—a deal worth up to £8 billion and a fantastic boost for the programme. It will support thousands of well-paid jobs and at least 330 British companies across the United Kingdom. As the Prime Minister made clear in his statement, that deal with a key NATO ally not only demonstrates that our defence industry and our defence industrial strategy are delivering, but strengthens our collective deterrence and, importantly, boosts our interoperability. It makes our country and every individual in it safer and far more prosperous.
That follows our record £10 billion shipbuilding deal with Norway, demonstrating that this Labour Government are backing our industry internationally. Bringing defence exports back into the MOD—a move that did not take place until this Government came in—and the creation of the new office of defence exports will ensure that we take a joined-up approach to exports to continue to go out and win big for the UK, making defence an engine for growth.
We set out in the SDR that the RAF’s future lies in accelerating its adoption of the latest technology and innovation, and setting the pace for warfighting as the leading European air force. The Typhoon is central to delivering control of the air for the RAF and is undergoing a comprehensive set of upgrades to deliver operational advantage to meet evolving threats.
The Typhoon will continue to underpin our combat air capability into the 2040s; it and the F-35 Lightning form an interoperable, complementary and extremely potent mix of UK combat aircraft. That means that the Government will continue to make significant investments in the Typhoon through-life programme, with the new electronically scanned radar programme alone underpinned by a £3 billion investment. This programme with our Eurofighter partner nations is on track for delivery in the next decade and will continue to sustain 600 jobs across the UK, including in Edinburgh.
This Government back our defence industry—some representatives of which are here today—all across the UK. It is a shame that the SNP Government in Scotland still do not do so with a full voice.
Al Carns
Great question.
As with any capability, it is important to plan for the long term. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, the Government are committed to continuing to work with our Japanese and Italian global combat air programme partners to co-develop a world-leading sixth generation combat aircraft for the RAF. What that looks like and what shape it takes will be down to technological and scientific input first of all; trying to pre-position and suggest something before any of that has taken place would be folly.
GCAP is a strategically important programme for UK military capability, our international relationships and, importantly, our defence industrial base. It is the centrepiece of the future combat air system programme—or FCAS, to add to the alphabet soup of acronyms—which also includes our next generation of crewed aircraft, uncrewed platforms, weapons, networks and data sharing, as well as support and training.
The combat air industry plays a central role in our industrial strategy and makes a vital contribution to the UK economy. Over the next 10 years, we plan to invest up to £30 billion in combat air through the Typhoon programme, F-35 programme and GCAP, a significant proportion of which we devote to UK companies, particularly in north-west England. Warton is also the home of Edgewing UK, which the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) mentioned, and the UK-based entity of the new industrial joint venture that will deliver GCAP. In total, there are already 3,500 skilled people working on GCAP across the UK, including in the new intergovernmental headquarters in Reading. Numbers will continue to increase as developments ramp up.
Let me answer some of the questions that were asked. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) rightly reiterated the benefit of the Typhoon deal— 20 new aircraft and £8 billion investment—but he also mentioned that there were no new UK orders for Typhoon between 2010 and 2024. That is why we have a gap now.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made, as always, a fantastic contribution. I personally believe that he would make a great fighter pilot, but I was trying to work out what call sign he would have—I thought “Merlin”, or something equivalent with a bit of gravitas, given the expansive knowledge that he has from his years in this place.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) made an interesting point about the co-dependence of our defence capabilities with the Republic of Ireland. I completely agree that there is a huge co-dependence, and we need consistently to remind our partners and allies of the centrality of UK defence not just for Ireland, but for Europe and NATO.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) supported the Türkiye deal, but he also mentioned the mixed fleet requirement. That is important, and I will come to it later. The Typhoon and F-35 do not do the same job; they are not the same capability. They are chalk and cheese—very different—and the mix gives the RAF a fantastic capability out to 2040. A lot of the detail, which Members will know is coming, will come in the defence investment plan.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) maintained his fantastic habit of asking almost 20 questions, alongside the 300 that he sent me over the past couple of weeks. I can confirm that the Typhoon is absolutely secured out to 2040. I say this relatively gently, but from a position of experience of having been a joint tactical air controller, and the chief of staff of the carrier strike group and the integrated network of our allies and partners on supporting expeditionary warfare, I would say that we have an immense fight tonight capability.
As the hon. Member will know, it is, as always with these things, about the balance of maintaining the skills, industrial base and jobs; predicting future capability requirements; involving new science, tech, data and quantum—the new way of war being fought in Ukraine—and mixing all that together to ensure that we can predict what capability our armed forces need. As Conservative Members will know from 14 years in government, that is an exceptionally difficult challenge, but we are absolutely taking it on.
I thank the hon. Member for Fylde for securing the debate. Spending announcements, including potential orders, will be made as part of the defence investment plan. He mentioned Christmas presents coming before Christmas, but Christmas presents come at Christmas. I will say that since taking office just over a year ago, the Government have signed more than 1,000 major deals in the MOD. We continue to procure not just traditional aspects, but cyber, drones and other capabilities for our armed forces to make sure that Typhoon—out to ’24—and the F-35 are part of an integrated and centralised force.
The F-35 Lightning and the Typhoon are advanced fighter jets that are regularly deployed in operations around the world. Both fighter programmes are central to UK defence and make a substantial contribution to not only our military capability, but our economy and defence industry. Talking about outlining and jumping ahead to future capabilities—I mentioned earlier the centrality of GCAP as we move forward to try to get the sixth generation fighter correct—our perception is that that looks like a plane and has a pilot in it; we just do not know what the capability will look like.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. Unfortunately, we have reached 11 o’clock, and although the next debate has been withdrawn, I do not have the discretion to extend this debate. That is something that we might consider on the Modernisation Committee, so that we have a bit more flexibility than we had today.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
SEND Provision: Kent
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered SEND provision in Kent.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir John. Many dedicated people are working to support children with special educational needs and disabilities in my constituency—in schools, doctors’ surgeries and social services, alongside many other professionals—but I am afraid to say that children in Folkestone and Hythe are being failed every day by the broken SEND system in Kent, which is presided over by Reform UK-run Kent county council. This is not an entirely negative speech, but I do need to start by describing what we are seeing on the ground every day, before I move on to the way forwards.
The reality in Kent is that, under Reform’s stewardship, the situation for SEND support has deteriorated to crisis point. My inbox is full of emails from desperate parents. This is not a bureaucratic failure alone: it is a moral failure. In 2025, children in Kent with SEND are still denied the basic dignity, respect and support that any civilised society should provide. The stories from my constituency are not just troubling; they are harrowing indictments of a local authority that has lost its moral compass.
Let us take the case of one boy who was diagnosed with autism and pathological demand avoidance. He is now in year 6 at a specialist SEND school. His parents, supported by professionals, identified the secondary school that could best meet his complex needs, but instead, Reform UK’s Kent county council named a different school, which itself had admitted that it could not meet his needs. To compound this, the education, health and care plan, which is meant to be a living document, mostly referred to his infant years. He is 11 now. Disgracefully, his future is being locked to outdated paperwork. When his parents challenged the decision at tribunal, KCC brazenly admitted that its sole reason for choosing an inappropriate school was money. Let us call that what it is: institutional neglect, sanctioned from the very top of the council.
KCC is gaming the tribunal system as a delaying tactic, to push back the date when it must pay for SEND children’s needs. KCC spends far more on SEND tribunals than any other local authority in this country, amounting to millions of pounds every year, despite losing almost all of them. That is a failure of leadership of epic proportions.
My team is inundated with accounts of heartbreak, of children’s needs dismissed and of families abandoned. Another local child with complex SEND has been on a sharply reduced timetable since February 2025. The school was forced by a lack of resources to push forward a plan at pace and in a fashion entirely unsuited to him. He was failed not by his teachers but by the absent leadership of the council.
A child in my constituency was for an entire year denied any placement, simply due to the delays in drawing up an EHCP, which were a direct result of council paralysis. A further example, which is perhaps the most shocking and saddening, is a family whose child has been driven to despair by the failed system and has voiced the wish not to go on living. That should horrify all of us, and it is happening under the council’s watch.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
I am grateful to serve under your chairship, Sir John. The stories that my hon. and learned Friend is recounting completely match those that I get in my inbox and hear in my surgeries—these stories are repeated across the county. My constituency has a higher than the national, regional and county average of people with learning disability needs, and we are just not getting the support we need.
I want to flag two things. The SEND team at the council is extremely unresponsive to parents and schools and, indeed, to me and my office—I am sure that is true for colleagues, too. There is also a pattern of schools saying they can care for a child but being turned down. That is happening over and over again, and people are being forced to travel many miles across the county in a way that is simply not possible for children with this level of need.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I remind the hon. Gentleman that interventions should be short—but I am a kind and generous Chairman.
Tony Vaughan
My hon. Friend’s experience is similar to mine. My postbag reflects a kind of ongoing unresponsiveness, which results in people feeling that they are just lost in the system. That is entirely unacceptable.
On a slightly different theme, for SEND children who wish to access a grammar school education in Kent, KCC seems to be refusing requests for extra time for the 11-plus test, in breach of the Equality Act 2010, and without giving any reasons. It is the law that extra time must be granted if a reasonable adjustment is required under that Act, yet Kent’s special access panel unfairly puts roadblocks in the way, stifling opportunities for our young people. The failures stretch beyond Folkestone and Hythe; they blight every corner of Kent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) said. This is county-wide neglect, shrouded in excuses.
I am not blind to the scale of the challenges, but I will not excuse the years of inaction and mismanagement, first under the Tories and now under Reform UK.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. and learned Gentleman for securing this debate. He is quite right to outline the issue of the growing demand and the complexity of needs. Similar things are happening in all of the United Kingdom, as indicated by the 51% increase in the number of SEND cases in Northern Ireland in seven years. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is perhaps now time for a completely different approach to SEND? Does he also agree that the educational needs of and opportunities for children must be prioritised and funded? Otherwise, we will consign a group of children to a life of feeling not good enough and not achieving enough.
Tony Vaughan
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is precisely why we need wholesale change in the system, which is what the Government are preparing to consult on. We will of course listen carefully to the proposals when they come forward.
Let me talk briefly about the system in Kent. Nationally, the demand for SEND support has grown, and EHCP requests have surged by 140% since 2015, as per the National Audit Office. In 2022, Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission handed down an improvement notice for nine glaring SEND failings in Kent. KCC scrambled to implement an accelerated progress plan and, after Government scrutiny in 2024, the notice was lifted. But still: where are the real improvements? My postbag tells a starkly different story.
I must raise concerns about the safety valve programme. The 2021 deal between the Department for Education and KCC was supposed to plug deficits, but in practice it has often made it even harder for families to access vital support. In areas like Kent with safety valve deals, EHCPs have become harder to obtain and parents are forced to jump over ever-higher hurdles. The priorities of the safety valve programme mean that financial savings are trumping the needs of children in Kent.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Oh, no—he is slightly older than me. [Laughter.] It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John.
My constituency borders Kent, and we also have a safety valve programme, as well as an Ofsted judgment of “systemic failings”, so children in my constituency, who cross that border, experience similar issues. Will my hon. and learned Friend join me in encouraging the Minister to look, as part of the reforms, at how these issues work on a cross-borough basis when children live in one borough but use schools in another?
Tony Vaughan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we are looking at how to change the system overall, we have to avoid a situation in which we have postcode lotteries and inconsistency, because a child who lives on one side of a border should not take any blame for the failures of the two local authorities.
The safety valve system has created financial targets that have led to perverse incentives to withhold help, suppress demand and punish aspiration. That is not reform: it is rationing. The result is that we see inappropriate placement, adversarial council relationships and broken trust. Kent’s families have had enough. The safety valve programme was policymaking for short-termism, not for real change. It was exactly the kind of sticking-plaster politics that we saw in recent years under the Tories, and Kent’s children are paying the price. I demand from Kent county council urgent, transparent and measurable actions to improve SEND support in our communities.
I will say a few words about those who have been running Kent county council since May. Reform UK recently accused SEND parents of “abusing the system”—a view that shames that party and this country. Reform UK was elected in Kent because it said it would cut waste and abuse, yet when its baseball cap-wearing smart young guys turned up, they found what everyone else already knew: after 14 years of Tory austerity, there is nothing left to cut. They promised millions in savings, but delivered only empty rhetoric and more hurt for those in need. According to Reform, the reason for our SEND crisis is waste and abuse, but that grotesquely misreads the reality faced by the children and parents who are battling for support.
Genuine, practical, long-term change is needed, and long overdue. As Folkestone and Hythe’s first Labour MP, and as part of a Labour Government determined to repair what has been broken, I am committed to forging solutions, not division. I therefore welcome the Government’s drive to build a fairer and truly inclusive SEND system, and agree with the Government’s position that inclusivity for SEND students must be embedded in mainstream schools and accountability moved to the heart of the Department for Education’s schools group, led by the Minister for School Standards. Reform has to have inclusivity at its core. I fully support the Government programme, which covers one in six primary schools, to train teachers in understanding neurodiversity.
I recently read an article in The Economist about how Portsmouth is providing an inclusive approach to supporting children with SEND. In Portsmouth, students with behavioural and learning difficulties are no longer automatically referred to the NHS for a medical diagnosis. Instead, each school’s SEND co-ordinator, or a designated teacher, sits down with parents to draw up the child’s neurodiversity profile, which allows teachers and parents to identify how best to accommodate the children’s needs and to identify stressors that make it harder to learn. This helps to identify specific things that could help the child. Only if that approach does not work are medical professionals brought in.
The adaptions that are needed are often quite simple. At one school, some students have a time-out pass to leave class for a few minutes when they need a quiet space, a reset, or a short break to run up and down the stairs. Tinted plastic overlays can help children with dyslexic symptoms. Teachers use an empathetic approach to things such as missing a uniform tie: a friendly greeting before asking nicely about the tie’s whereabouts prevents the build-up of tension, which causes problems.
The approach ensures that help for children with additional needs does not depend on a formal medical diagnosis or referral, and creates a culture where everybody can receive timely assistance through flexible, graduated support. Portsmouth’s commitment to shared best practice and ongoing collaboration makes SEND support a normal part of mainstream education, which benefits everybody. I am glad to say that Kent has started to pilot the same approach.
I support the Government’s work to ensure that Ofsted now grades down any school that excludes or off-rolls SEND students. The additional investment from the Labour Government, including the real-terms increase to the core schools budget, is crucial for SEND children, as well as for recruitment and retention. Frontline staff deserve security, reward and respect. Last year’s autumn Budget pledged an additional £11.2 billion in education spending by 2025-26, with £1 billion ringfenced for SEND. The new funding will enable more children with SEND to thrive, and not simply survive, in our schools. It is right that the Government are carefully considering how SEND should be reformed, and I support the Education Secretary’s commitment to real co-creation and to reform that is designed with—not for—children, families and practitioners.
I want to end on a positive note. I recently visited the Beacon school in my constituency, which supports children and young people with profound, severe and complex needs. I was blown away by the dedication of the staff, who were not just educating children but setting them up for life. I enjoyed meeting the children and young people, who were learning, creating, building and thriving. The school’s work to prepare children and young people for the world of work was cutting edge.
To every teacher, support worker and professional working with children with special educational needs across all Folkstone and Hythe schools, and in Kent, I say a huge thank you. They hold the system up. I will make sure that the system backs them and the children whose lives they change every day. We must ensure that every child gets the support they need to thrive and achieve their potential in life. That is the mission of this Labour Government. Despite the scale of the challenge, we will and must make this hope a reality.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I ask the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) to forgive me; I should have recognised that the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) is nowhere near as glamorous or youthful as him. The hon. Gentleman can put that on his leaflets if he likes.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this debate.
I was born in Kent and attended St Paul’s infant school in Maidstone in the 1960s. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, SEND education is clearly an issue in Kent. Many families in Wokingham tell me about similar serious difficulties in getting appropriate SEND provision for their children, with mainstream schools declaring that they are unable to meet their needs.
One constituent wrote to me that increasing specialist school places is essential, but schools are reporting that they cannot offer SEND places because of workforce shortages, not just because of a lack of building space. The issue needs to be tackled in Kent, as it needs to be tackled in Wokingham. That is why my constituent is calling on the Government to build specialist workforce capacity, including educational psychologists, therapists and specialist teachers, alongside new places for children with SEND.
In areas where there are severe shortages, the Government need to introduce fast-tracked training pathways to tackle the backlog. They also need to implement guaranteed minimum SEND training for all teaching staff, as well as incentives to retain specialist staff, many of whom have high caseload pressures.
Surely the Minister agrees that the Government need to listen to families such as the residents of my constituency and Folkestone and Hythe, who have had such negative experiences of the SEND system and know what needs to be done to fix it.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this incredibly important debate. We have had a number of debates in this Chamber about the SEND crisis, particularly in Kent.
I speak as the former leader of the opposition at Kent county council and I served on the SEND scrutiny committee, which looked at the SEND measures. I have also been a teacher and have worked in schools with young people with special educational needs.
I want to go through the various aspects of the problem, because the system is incredibly complicated. Like everybody here, I have met parents in utter desperation, in tears—in a place of hopelessness—because there is nowhere else to go. When they pick up the phone or send an email, there is no answer. I have brought them together with We Are Beams, a fantastic charity supporting our constituents in north Kent, and they have unburdened themselves and shared their frustration about the lack of communication and incorrect information being provided. My hon. and learned Friend spoke about EHCPs not being updated, which means that they are not implemented rightly in the classroom, so the young person does not get the right support. Parents feel gaslit; they feel that they have no one on their side. It is absolutely heartbreaking.
Children and young people I have met feel that they are not getting the right information and that they are not being included. They are missing out on key aspects of socialisation—the key skills that will enable them to work in the future. We know that early intervention at a young age can help to get young people and children on track to thrive. It is well established now that we are not all neurotypical; some of us are neuroatypical or have additional needs. An education system should support, encourage and bring out those wonderful talents, but sadly I fear that that is not happening.
I was a teacher under the last Government, and saw some of the changes that the then Education Secretary Michael Gove brought in. I remember starting a year with five statemented children in my year 8 mixed-ability class. I had two teaching assistants who were brilliant at helping me navigate the wonders of science education—but by the end of that year, those teaching assistants were taken out because the funding was not there, and the Education Endowment Fund said that TAs were high cost but low value. It could not have been more wrong. Years later, we can see that specialist teaching assistants are often the bedrock supporting our teachers. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) said some fantastic things about teachers and their workloads; it is a team effort.
I have visited a number of schools. Ifield is of course a fantastic special educational needs school, but there are so many young people there that they need more space. I have visited mainstream schools and seen how they are catering for children with special educational needs, but they lack the specialist TAs and the resources to help. I have had parents tell me about schools that are off-rolling students because they cannot meet their needs. There is nothing in writing; they are merely saying, “Please do not enrol your child here” at parents’ evenings. That cannot be fair and right.
The challenge that some heads pose to me is league tables and percentages of students passing their exams. They can either keep their exam grades up and high, or they can be inclusive—I am not defending that argument; I am just saying it has been presented to me. I do not think it is fair, and I think we should all be there to help young people succeed no matter where they come from or what their needs are.
There are parents, young people and schools, but the other part of the picture is the council. When I sat on the SEND scrutiny committee, it was striking even back then—maybe four or five years ago—that the caseworkers for SEND had double the number of recommended cases from the Government that they should have had. One SEND caseworker should in theory, by the Government’s then standards, have had 125 children to monitor and update plans for. In Kent at that time, it was double that. Although those caseworkers are inundated with parents and needs, they have been positioned as the gatekeepers rather than the supporters. A large part of what I hear from parents is that they do not feel that anybody is on their side. If there are to be changes to the system, we need to position caseworkers so that people can trust that they have their back and that they have their children’s best interests at heart.
The other paramount thing that I saw was the changes to the free school and academy system, which meant that local authorities could no longer build schools based on needs. It meant there was a delay in schools—including specialist schools—coming forward. Thankfully, we have a few green lights in Kent, but they should have been here years ago. Because the ability of local authorities to plan, prepare for and build schools was taken away, Kent was reliant on private specialist schools.
However, I fear that the council’s improvement notice may have been lifted in error when the Government came in last summer. A target of reducing the number of children with EHCPs on the council’s books, set under the last Government, is incredibly perverse. How does that put the needs of young people first? How can the parents of Kent have faith in the system? The council is under an improvement plan to reduce the number of children with EHCPs, yet parents and schools believe that having an EHCP will entitle them to further support. It is a complete perversion.
I say to our wonderful Minister that the message I have heard from parents and schools is that we must not water down the legal protections. They are long fought for and hard won, and when they work, they work really well. The problem is with their implementation. If there are any announcements or communications, the Government must be really clear about how they will preserve the legal protections.
Many aspects of the curriculum review can be welcomed. I would reduce the exams, for instance—there is an awful lot of pressure on youngsters at the moment, so that would be a good thing—but I encourage the Minister to look at other ways to demonstrate the sheer talent we have in this country, such as coursework and practical tasks. I am sure she knows never to underestimate the scale of the challenge; it is vast, but we are ready to help and support.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I am regularly contacted by parents or guardians of children to express their concerns about the provision of SEND education in our area, so I am grateful to my constituency neighbour, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), for securing this important debate, and I congratulate him on his excellent speech.
At the end of the summer and the start of the autumn, I organised a series of meetings for constituents with direct experience of the SEND system in Kent. I am grateful to the primary and secondary school headteachers and staff, as well as the representatives of local charity Differences Not Disabilities, who gave up their time to meet me. I especially thank the parents and carers who spoke so powerfully about the difficulties they have faced and, in many cases, continue to face with Kent county council in securing a suitable education for their children. I also appreciate the constructive and thoughtful way in which all attendees approached our discussions.
As the Government look to bring forward their proposals for reform of the SEND system across England, my constituents urge Ministers to ensure that abrupt change is not made to those areas that are working well. Otherwise, there is a risk that the successful parts of the system could be lost. My constituents would also like reassurances regarding education, health and care plans. They do not want to see them scrapped and would like to see a personalised plan like EHCPs remain in the reformed system.
There was strong feeling among my constituents about the need to strengthen early support for children and families and ensure that early intervention is not a one-off, but consistent. The headteachers and parents at my meetings were firmly of the view that when it comes to early intervention, a “little and often” approach will bring far greater benefits than waiting until a child falls behind or ends up needing specialist provision later on.
My constituents want to see a national training programme introduced for EHCPs. If they were well written from the start, there would be no need for the constant reviews that currently take place. We also heard that in Kent, delays in the issuing of EHCPs are the norm, with too many being issued well beyond the statutory deadlines. My constituents were clear that when EHCPs are eventually issued, they are not well written, and key provisions are being left out—often those that involve money.
There was also strong feeling among my constituents that the Reform administration at Kent county council does not properly take into account the views of parents when writing or amending EHCPs, nor give them the full information they are entitled to. That is also reflected when I make representations to the council on behalf of my constituents about the education of their children. I have to wait too long for responses and, when they do come through, often they are inadequate and cannot help my constituents.
In one case, I wrote to the council in February and again in March on behalf of a constituent regarding their daughter. The family had moved to Kent in December, and the daughter, who has an EHCP, was not in school at that time. Although I received an acknowledgment from the council in March, I did not receive a full response until last month—some seven months after first writing to the council. My constituent’s daughter only secured a placement at a special school at the start of the new academic year in September.
In another example, I wrote to the council in mid-July on behalf of a constituent who had expressed concern to me that her child was not in school. The council acknowledged my letter in August, but four months later, I am still waiting for a full response. The final example also dates from July, when I wrote to the council on behalf of a constituent to ask whether it intended to comply with a court order against it. I have recently received a reply asking if I could provide assistance by arranging and facilitating an effective and meaningful method of alternative dispute resolution.
As with most issues, funding for SEND and how it is allocated is critical. I warmly welcome that, thanks to the Labour Government, Kent county council has received an increase of £15 million in funding for SEND provision. It is important that my constituents now start to see the difference from this increase in resources. In our discussions, my constituents expressed a strong belief that SEND funding for mainstream schools must be ringfenced. If money is allocated for a child’s support, it must be spent on that child’s needs, and not diverted elsewhere.
Parents and teachers were clear that, instead of relying on new independent schools being built, Kent county council should be assisting local state schools in our area to adapt their facilities. With the right investment, my constituents expressed the hope that we could see more specialist hubs created in existing schools across Ashford, Hawkinge and the villages. Too many children at the moment have to travel long distances to receive their education. More specialist hubs in existing schools would allow more children to be educated closer to where they live.
It was clear from my discussions that we also need to reform the tribunal system. I have evidence from casework of how adversarial it has become, with solicitors and representatives on both sides—that message came across loud and clear in my meetings about SEND provision. Parents told me how most cases now end up at tribunal, and the majority find in favour of the child. The high number of cases that end up in tribunal and the fact that so many are successful are a clear indication of parents’ dissatisfaction with how the system is operating in Kent and that it is not working properly. The headteachers I have met believe that effective reform of the way that tribunals work would mean that the money that is currently spent on unnecessarily taking some cases to tribunal could instead be allocated to state schools.
I have written to the Secretary of State in more detail on some of the wider points that might be helpful as the Government bring forward their proposals, but I look forward to the Minister’s response to what Members and I have said in this debate about the situation in Kent.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this debate. He outlined some horrific stories of neglect and appalling treatment of children with SEND. I am not from Kent—I am from Devon—but all I can say is that I relate. We hear exactly the same horror stories in Devon, and I am sure right across the country it is absolutely shocking.
Children with special educational needs and disabilities and their families are the most vulnerable in our society. When these children do not get the support that they need, they will be less likely to be able to work and participate fully in society in later life, not to mention the issues that they face in the moment. Not only is providing the right support for these children vital for them, their families and their education, but it creates long-term economic benefits. It is not just economically right, though; it is morally right that we act to ensure that children with SEND have the best life chances both in Kent and across the country.
More than 20,000 children in Kent have an EHCP. Alongside all other local authorities, Kent has statutory duties to meet EHCP deadlines and offer provision, but it is facing rising demand and declining resources. Under the previous Conservative administration, SEND in Kent was put into special measures after it was identified that urgent action was needed to improve services: just 13% of EHCPs were completed within the statutory 20-week deadline in the year to March 2024. When the county was in special measures, however, there were some improvements: the provision of EHCPs by the deadline went up to 65%. As a result of the improvements, Kent was taken out of special measures, but my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) is calling for Kent to remain in special measures to allow the improvements to continue.
Even during the period of improvement, quantity did not equal quality. As other Members have said, there has been a litany of mistakes on some of the EHCPs, including the incorrect names of schools, schools that do not exist, schools that are not approved, schools that do not have funding, incorrect needs and spelling mistakes—really basic errors. As a result, Kent county council received more than 500 complaints mentioning EHCPs in the year to July 2025.
When families complain, they are often told to go to a tribunal. Kent county council spent close to £2.2 million fighting parents in tribunals from 2021 to 2024—more than double any other county council. Families see this use of tribunals as a tactic to try to get them to give up seeking appropriate support for their children, and unsurprisingly, the tactic often works, because the tribunals are utterly gruelling, as we in Devon know as well. Families and children spend months preparing for them, the emotional toll is enormous and it sometimes costs as much as £8,000 to get the required legal advice. All the while, the child is not receiving the special education that their EHCP says they require, and delays sometimes stretch to more than a year. Most of these parents know that this is the education their children need. They know they are going to win, but they are forced to jump through hoops, on top of what they are already coping with, as parents of children with special needs and disabilities. It is truly appalling.
The last time my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells—who is on paternity leave, so unfortunately cannot be with us today—spoke about this issue in this place, he raised the case of his constituent Ella, who has cerebral palsy and is nine years old. Her father told my hon. Friend about how, when the family complained that her EHCP had not been updated to meet her needs when she moved from nursery to school, and that their application for a placement at a specialist school was rejected with no consultation, they were told on both occasions to go to tribunal. Faced with no other option, Ella’s family opted to go to tribunal. They have now been given a date in May 2026, leaving them stuck for more than a year without a sufficient EHCP to meet Ella’s needs.
Between 2021 and 2024, 98% of SEND tribunals in Kent were successful for the parents, so it is clear that if the parents have the money, time and emotional bandwidth, they can go to tribunal and will be successful, albeit after a wait. However, many parents decide that they are not able, either financially or emotionally, to put themselves through that arduous process, and the same is true nationally. The parents who win that process are often those who are more able to advocate for themselves and their children, rather than those who are less able to do so. Local authorities lose nearly all the cases, wasting more than £70 million annually—£70 million that could be spent on supporting children, rather than fighting unnecessary legal battles.
Since Reform took over Kent county council, the situation has only got worse. Colleagues at the council report that Reform councillors are acting like clowns in a circus. Just six months after being elected, eight of them have either been suspended or expelled from their posts. It seems that Reform cannot run a bath, let alone a county council on which more than 1 million people rely. The chaos is only making the situation worse for vulnerable children with SEND, who need a council that will give them support. The June meeting on children, young people and education was postponed indefinitely, pushing back any support that might be provided. That was just one of a plethora of committee meetings, cabinet meetings and sub-committees that the incompetent Reform administration in Kent has cancelled because it is unable to deliver government.
Reform is simply unable to grapple with a crisis of this magnitude and scale. Worse, Reform is actively proposing withdrawing support from families with children with SEND. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has suggested removing home-to-school transport funding from some families. He said:
“There are things called parents”
for taking children to school, although he admitted some exceptions could be made for special needs students. Kent faces the largest bill of any council in England for providing home-to-school transport for SEND students at £68 million last year—the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) raised that issue.
The plan by the hon. Member for Clacton to cut school transport would be a disaster for parents who do not have the time or money to drive their children on hours-long round trips to special schools miles away, or might be driving other children in the opposite direction or trying to get to work. He would know this if he ever took the time to speak to the families struggling with this problem.
One Reform councillor in Cambridgeshire showed the party’s true disregard for supporting vulnerable young people when he recently described some children in care as “downright evil”. When given the opportunity to condemn those comments in Prime Minister’s Question Time earlier today, the hon. Member for Clacton refused. Many children in care have special educational needs and disabilities. Reform’s blaming of young people who need our support shows that it is simply not fit to deliver for children with SEND in Kent and across the country.
It is welcome that the Government now recognise that the system needs fundamental change, but their decision to delay the overhaul of SEND provision in England until 2026 is a betrayal of every child with SEND and their families who are looking for better solutions. To kick the can down the road could be an admission that the Government do not have a sense of urgency or that they are not sure what the solution is, but we do need urgent action. Owing to the delay, the detail of the Government’s plan remains unclear. Many families are worried that EHCPs will be scrapped or scaled back, with no idea yet of what could replace them. The uncertainty is understandably causing anxiety among parents who see the documents as the only way to secure the support that their child needs. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) spoke of the importance of some kind of legal protection around this support for families.
The Lib Dems introduced EHCPs in coalition—we are very proud of that. Before that, we had statements. If EHCPs are to be scrapped, families will still need some kind of statement of need to access services. Ultimately, the Government have to focus on the best way to meet needs and outcomes and not just focus on cost saving. As the Government are reviewing special educational needs and disabilities, it is important that the voices of children and families are heard. They see the system from the inside and experience its shortcomings. I know the Minister has met many families and campaigners and is listening.
After hearing those voices, the Liberal Democrats are also calling on the Government to commit to genuine change of the SEND system. We call for the Government’s White Paper next year to meet our five principles for SEND reform. Alongside putting children and families first, we call on the Government to boost special capacity and improve mainstream provision by building more specialist schools and investing in proper support in mainstream settings. The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe talked about some very successful interventions elsewhere in the country. Models that do not cost huge amounts of money but offer a creative way of looking at the issue should definitely be explored and rolled out widely.
Early intervention must be improved and delays reduced, and schools need to be resourced to accept children with SEND, with staff trained in integrated teaching and care. To achieve that, funding will be required. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to cap the profits of private equity firms providing SEND provision at 8% to ensure that money is channelled back into the SEND system and not into the pockets of shareholders. We also call on the Government to provide support to any child whose needs exceed a specified cost threshold to ensure that no child is left behind.
The Liberal Democrats would welcome the Government working with us on a cross-party basis to ensure that reforms are delivered quickly. It is vital we get this right. Every child has the right, irrespective of postcode, background or need, to thrive.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Before I call the shadow Minister, I point out to the hon. Lady the courtesies and behaviour in the House. If you are going to name another Member, you should notify them in advance. Did you do that?
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Right. I suggest you drop the hon. Member for Clacton a note to say that you raised him in the House and copy it to me. That would be wonderful.
Caroline Voaden
I think my office might already have done that. I will check.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Excellent. I call the shadow Minister, Saqib Bhatti.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and to speak in this important debate. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing it and for his opening remarks, and I am grateful to all Members who have contributed constructively.
This is not the first time that the Minister and I have discussed SEND in the House, and I suspect it will not be the last. It is hugely important. Every Member who has spoken has set out their experience of similar SEND issues, and our inboxes are inundated with messages about them, especially from parents who need our support. Providing for children with special educational needs is one of the most complex issues facing the country today.
Before I talk about SEND in Kent in depth, I want to put on the record my concerns about the way that Kent county council is being run. It is now under Reform’s control, and it is clearly a blueprint for what will happen wherever Reform is in charge. We should not forget that senior members of Reform UK have claimed that SEND is being
“hijacked by…parents who are abusing the system”.
As I have said before in this Chamber, that is hugely disrespectful, and I believe apologies are necessary. Issues such as SEND are of profound concern to all our constituents, and such remarks are far from serious; they suggest that there is no real thinking going on in Reform about how to deal with one of modern Britain’s most important issues.
Kent county council is yet to set out a clear plan for meeting residents’ needs, and that has been the case since Reform took over earlier this year. Families are understandably anxious, given that the council is failing to provide certainty on vital services. We should focus on that seriously, because the pattern could be replicated right across the country if Reform takes charge of more councils.
The pattern is already being replicated in other Reform-run councils. Closest to my constituency, the Reform leader of Warwickshire county council recently declared an emergency over SEND funding. I worry about the council’s approach to education, because the council leader recently suggested that children as young as eight should have to walk more than 5 miles to school. Clearly, that is not a serious way to look at our approach to education, or to cut costs, if that is the intention.
In their campaigns last year, many Reform candidates said they wanted to cut council tax, but they have now discovered what we already knew: that a huge amount is spent on special educational needs. They have no credible plan for cutting council tax. In fact, many Reform-led councils are touting council tax rises of about 10%, so we should focus on that and hold them to account. The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe said explicitly that residents will face higher taxes.
It is no secret that many local authorities, including Kent, face significant pressure in meeting rising SEND needs. To put it in perspective, Kent spends more on SEND than the England and south-east averages, and more than the 10 nearest comparable councils. In 2021-22, SEND pressure resulted in a £97 million overspend. In government, we recognised the seriousness of the challenge, not just for Kent but across the board, and introduced the safety valve programme to ensure that councils were not left to face the crisis alone. In Kent, that programme made great progress, which shows that the Department for Education and local authorities can work together.
The agreement with the then Conservative-led Kent county council was backed by £140 million from the Department for Education and £82 million from the council. It set out a longer-term plan to expand specialist provision, strengthen mainstream support, review EHCP processes and improve preparation for adulthood. Under the Conservatives, Kent submitted the required monitoring reports. The Department accepted them, and every scheduled payment was released. That shows that Kent county council was starting to deliver on its side of the agreement in challenging circumstances.
Dr Lauren Sullivan
When the previous Conservative Government introduced the safety valve scheme, which was essentially a blank cheque or a credit card, did they have a plan for how the money would be paid back?
Saqib Bhatti
I did not have the education portfolio at that time, so my remarks on that will be limited. We can agree that the system is and was under great strain; that is no secret. That is why I have said previously that it requires a cross-party solution. We will have to work together, because the challenges we faced will also be faced by the Reform council and the Labour Government. The hon. Lady will recognise that the circumstances were challenging and that Government money was put forward.
I want to ask the Minister, in the same vein that the hon. Lady put that point to me, whether she can provide clarity on what the Government will do to ensure that local authorities remain solvent and are not forced into section 114 notices as they look at SEND reform. Will the Government extend the statutory override, which is due to expire in 2026, to give councils certainty?
As progress is made in the SEND field, there is real concern about the delivery of special free schools. I will highlight those in Swanley and Whitstable, where families were promised places. It is clear from Kent county council’s response to the recent inquiry by the shadow Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), that the hold-up lies with the Department for Education. If we are to support children with SEND, and the Government say that is a priority, why are they not acting on that? We have a similar instance in Solihull borough that I am told is also being held up at the Department. Can the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that the Swanley school will open by 2027? Is she in a position today to issue a clear timetable on that? If not, I am happy for her to write to me. She knows that I will certainly write to her to chase answers to those questions. Those promises were made to children and their families, and anything short of that would be a betrayal.
In Kent and local authority areas across the country, the issue of SEND continues to cause deep stress and anxiety. The demand for SEND provision in Kent has been rising, especially in the post-covid world. Many families are already facing long delays, so parents are understandably anxious about proposed changes that might affect their children. The Minister knows that because her first outing was at a well-attended SEND debate. According to official DFE data, there are 54,497 pupils with SEND in Kent—that includes EHCP and non-EHCP special educational needs—and more than 6,600 of them are pupils in the independent sector. That means that 10.8% of SEND pupils in Kent are in independent schools. The Minister knows that I have been very vocal on the Education Secretary’s vindictive decision to impose an education tax on our constituents. Has the Minister considered the consequences of that for SEND pupils who are forced to leave the independent sector if independent schools are forced to close? I hope she has some data on that.
The point was made by the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) that parents should not feel blindsided. As the Government come forward with plans, communication is really important. There is also concern about the scrapping of EHCPs. Those are not just legal documents; they are lifelines that provide tailored support and set out binding commitments from schools, health services and care providers. Sixty per cent of children with an EHCP in England are in mainstream schools, yet Ministers have failed to clarify whether they will receive full support under the reforms. This is really important and I encourage the Minister to answer that point.
Unfortunately, anxieties have been further exacerbated by the delay in the SEND White Paper, which has been pushed to the new year. We know that SEND is not a new problem; we are holding debates and tabling parliamentary questions on the matter. Can the Minister today confirm a specific date for publication of the schools White Paper, and does she have any update on the future of EHCPs and how SEND will be provided for in future? As I said, parents and students in Kent deserve answers. They are clearly not getting leadership from the Reform-led council. I ask the Minister to commit to changing course and giving parents the clarity they deserve.
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on securing this important debate and bringing the voices of young people, parents and teachers in Kent into Parliament so powerfully.
I am grateful to all the Kent MPs who have engaged so widely with their constituents. I have received many letters and reports from those here and others who could not attend today, setting out some of the concerns we have heard. Some key themes, which I have heard time and again, include parents feeling that they have to battle through the system in order to get support; the lack of early intervention and help; and concerns about communication and parents not being listened to.
I was pleased to see Members from further afield—from Wokingham and even Northern Ireland—join the debate. It is telling that we saw more representation here today from Northern Ireland than we did from Reform, which is running Kent county council. I share some of the concerns that I think Members collectively have raised about the language being used by national Reform politicians—language about the system being “hijacked” and attacking parents and sometimes children. It is very difficult for families to have confidence when their legitimate fight for support for their children is being attacked.
I am deeply committed to working alongside families. I assure the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) that I wholeheartedly understand the urgency and the need for reform. As I have said before, I ran a council and I saw every day the huge pressures in the system. I have talked to parents, young people and teachers across the country and heard some of the same stories and concerns. We need to change things, but, as the hon. Member said, we need to work with them, because we saw what happened when the system did not really think about the consequences of decisions. The last Government left office talking about a “lose, lose, lose” system, but we want a system that allows young people to thrive, gives parents confidence in their children’s support and allows teachers and other professionals to give young people the support they need. We are working intensively with parents, teachers and other parts of the system to get this right.
We will bring forward our wider reforms as quickly as we can, but we are not waiting for those reforms in order to act. We have already begun making changes, including creating new places in special schools through a £740 million capital investment for 2025-26, of which £24 million has been allocated to Kent county council. We have heard about the need to have resource bases in communities so children do not have to travel for support, so that investment is incredibly important. I will write to the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) about the free schools that he mentioned, and I am sure that he will follow up if that is not speedy enough.
We are investing in multimillion-pound programmes such as the partnerships for inclusion of neurodiversity in schools and early language support for every child—new partnerships at a local level that bring together support—and reinvesting in early intervention, because we know how important early years support is for young people’s long-term outcomes. We are making sure, as we roll out the Best Start hubs, that there is specialist SEND support in them to intervene and support families as early as possible. We have worked with Ofsted to create changes in accountability and we are firmly focused on inclusion within the school system. It should not be possible for people to get a good mark from Ofsted if they are not delivering on inclusion.
As I have said, we are taking forward further work around co-creation, working with families and experts around the country, to make sure that we are getting reform right. However, we have already set out some clear principles: supporting early intervention and help; moving to greater inclusion so that more children can be educated locally, close to their families; ensuring fairness, because I have heard from many about a postcode lottery and different support in different parts of the country; and ensuring that the support that is in place is well evidenced and consistent. This is a shared endeavour that includes health, local government, schools and communities. We all need to work together to support young people to thrive.
We heard in some contributions about interventions that have already happened within Kent. Kent’s SEND services were inspected by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission in January 2019. That inspection identified nine significant areas of weakness requiring the local area to produce a written statement of action. A visit in 2022 judged that the area had not made sufficient progress in addressing any of its weaknesses. The council was issued with an improvement notice in March 2023. The progress was closely monitored and in August 2024, following a robust review, the Department lifted the improvement notice on the basis that Kent county council had met the conditions set out within it.
I assure the Members who raised concerns about the improvement notice being lifted that it does not mean that scrutiny has been lifted. We are working very closely to maintain that oversight of services and drive further improvement to make sure that every young person with special educational needs has access to high-quality services. That includes regular review meetings, attendance at Kent’s SEND partnership boards, close working with NHS England and the continued support of a DFE-commissioned SEND adviser. We take seriously all the points that have been made today.
Dr Lauren Sullivan
I am grateful for the assurance that scrutiny is still in operation. How can constituents and parents find out about the improvement plan and the scrutiny so that they feel that the pressure is still on?
Georgia Gould
As an action from today, I commit to write to MPs setting out more detail about that continuing scrutiny so that they can share it with their constituents.
Wider questions were raised about the curriculum and assessment review and ensuring that the curriculum and the provision in school support inclusion. I hope that my hon. Friend has read the Government’s response, which talks about not only some of the pressures that she mentioned, but the importance of enrichment. In Camden, whose council I used to lead, there is a school that has a phrase: “School should be unmissable”. We want to ensure that young people have high standards and the academic basis that they need, but also experiences in the arts, the outdoors and civic education. Those wider reasons to come to school are so important for a broad range of young people.
I thank Members for this important debate. It is an ongoing conversation and I welcome all the contributions that have been made. I am very committed to working cross-party on this issue: I had a meeting with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) this morning to talk about his advocacy and I will continue to hear from Members on both sides of the House. This is about the future of our young people and it is critical that we get it right, so I am keen to hear from everyone and to work in partnership with parents and young people. I look forward to continuing this conversation in Kent and beyond.
Tony Vaughan
I thank all Members for their contributions, which echoed the same problems that I identified in my constituency. Kent MPs highlighted similar experiences with Kent county council. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), with her huge experience in this area, questioned the correctness of taking KCC out of the special measures regime, as did the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) through his colleague, the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden). I am grateful to the Minister for undertaking to write to us about the nature of the ongoing scrutiny of Kent county council. The testimonies that we have heard today and that come into our inbox put pressure on those of us who are in the field, so to speak, to ask whether we are moving forward or backwards.
We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) and for Gravesham, and from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), about the importance of maintaining existing legal protections in the upcoming changes to the SEND system. They are absolutely right about that.
Several Members mentioned home-to-school transport. As the hon. Member for South Devon said, it is a huge source of expenditure for Kent county council. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford mentioned that specialist hubs could be a way of reducing travel time. I would add that creating and expanding specialist units within mainstream schools is another way of doing that. There are several examples of good practice in my constituency that avoid the need to travel long distances and that integrate children with special educational needs into mainstream schools, making it easier to go between the two units.
I thank the Government for their collaborative approach to formulating proposals for change in the upcoming White paper. We need to get to the point where mainstream schools can meet the needs of the vast majority of children with special educational needs, although I appreciate that they will not be suitable for all. Equally, where a child has a need, the currently available legal protections that enable that child to access the necessary support must be there. That is ultimately the route for children to achieve their potential.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered SEND provision in Kent.
Public Bodies: Governance and Accountability
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I will call Valerie Vaz to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. Other Members may intervene only with the permission of the Member in charge. As is the convention with these half-hour debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the governance and accountability of public bodies.
It is a pleasure to serve under you for this debate, Sir John.
I start by thanking the Minister in advance for attempting to respond to what sounds like a very esoteric topic. This debate is not about the BBC; it is about specific things happening in my constituency. In my view, this debate goes to the very heart of the democratic process. It is about strengthening our institutions and making sure they are accountable and working for our constituents.
How do we, as Members of Parliament, effect change for our constituents and raise their legitimate concerns when faced with public bodies that do not, prima facie—on the face of it—have any accountability to the electorate? I will raise the issues of a new school, Walsall Leather Museum and access to a railway station, as well as a simple issue of noise mitigation. All these issues relate to decisions made against the wishes of my constituents.
First, is it a new school or a white elephant? Under the previous Government, money was allocated for a new free school in my area. It was originally meant to serve the Blakenall area, but it was moved to Reedswood Park. A priority education investment area, an arm’s length body, was set up in 2022. It is not clear who chose the board or to whom the board was accountable. Nevertheless, three delivery partners were chosen by this unaccountable board.
An arm’s length body called LocatED then undertook a site analysis—I found out later that it was called a “pre-feasibility feasibility study”, and I think there is a special vocabulary for arm’s length bodies—on an old golf course in Reedswood Park. Friends of Reedswood Park is against this proposal. The park is a green lung for my constituents, because we are surrounded by motorways. However, the “best” bit about this project is that when the council was informed that the site had accessibility issues, a local councillor said, “But we can build a bridge.”
Through this arm’s length body, Department for Education officials appear to be driving this project. However, LocatED’s own analysis said that this site has its difficulties. The site options appraisal said that nine other sites were superior. However, what is even worse is that a member of the trust tasked with delivering the school was a member of the now-disbanded board. I am sure you will agree, Sir John, that this smacks of the covid VIP lane.
I do not know how or why this trust was asked to deliver the project, because many local trusts and schools have suggested that they are in a position to expand their places if needed. I have consistently asked in letters whether there is a case for a new school, and based on the numbers, there does not appear to be. The chief executive of Walsall council said on 11 November 2024, a year ago, that no decision has been made to build on the site and that the Department for Education will determine if the project will proceed. The cost of this school has been put at £50 million, even though there will be a surplus of school places by the time it is built. It will also be built in the wrong place.
The Secretary of State for Education said in a written ministerial statement on 24 October 2024 that
“since the cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future programme, some of this funding could have been put to better use”.—[Official Report, 24 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 8WS.]
That was the Secretary of State setting out her policy, so why is it not being applied in Walsall? Joseph Leckie academy has not received its full allocation of funding under Building Schools for the Future since 2010. Blue Coat academy needs a new heating system and to fix its roof. All Saints Church of England primary school has mould. All these schools have to bid for funding.
If other schools in the area say there is no need for a secondary school, and if the figures do not show a need for one—certainly not in the proposed area, which is wholly unsuitable—why is an arm’s length body not listening to headteachers, governors or me, as the area’s elected representative? Did the Windsor academy trust have an inside advantage? Is it right that officials and arm’s length bodies are driving this project against Government policy and then asking the Secretary of State to rubber-stamp it? We need reasons, which these organisations must give us when an eye-watering £50 million is being spent on one school while other schools are crying out for funding.
Something that is definitely not a white elephant is Walsall Leather Museum. It is well used and well known, nationally and internationally. This is about Walsall’s heritage. It is the only museum left, and it is housed in a red-brick former leather goods factory that was built in 1895. The council previously tried to close it, but it was stopped because of the outcry from constituents. In this case, an unelected institution, Walsall college, did a deal with the council that is far from transparent. The council commissioned a report in February 2024, completed on 19 May 2024, to ask where the future museum would best be located. The report cost £47,000, and it has not been published. We can probably guess that it says the museum should stay where it is.
On 8 October 2024, Walsall college’s finance and regeneration committee mentioned ongoing negotiations on the Leather Museum with Walsall council. A task and finish group was established between Walsall college and Walsall council to handle communications, with the aim of the council making a decision by December 2025 and work starting in June 2026. None of that was in the public domain; it took residents Linda and Andy Boyes putting in freedom of information requests to the council and the college just to find out when the acquisition was discussed, as well as other information.
My research on the accountability of institutions such as Walsall college has shown that if there is a “contentious transaction”, which clearly this is, the Secretary of State can step in. No one is clear on the full ownership of the site of the museum. The Land Registry is not clear, and the college is unable to say. Walsall college has a significant estate—11 acres, mostly undeveloped, on its Wisemore campus. It can house purpose-built special educational needs and disabilities provision, for which the college says it wants to use the museum, rather than using public money to convert the museum.
The museum is inspirational. One of its successes is Lauren Broxton, who is leading the campaign to save the museum, which inspired her when she visited as a child. She works with leather as a fashion designer. One of her exhibits is in the museum, and she is teaching the next generation. De Montfort University and Birmingham City University also use the Leather Museum as a learning tool, with students showing their wares there. It is quite nice to see.
When I wrote to the Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—who should be accountable, as I am sure you would agree, Sir John—I was told to write to the Arts Council, which then told me to write to Walsall council. The museum has been accredited by the Arts Council. This is about the culture and heritage of Walsall. No one appears to be accountable or able to intervene and listen to what my constituents have to say. I have had to write to the National Trust, Historic England and again to the Arts Council to save this heritage museum. A previous petition attracted 6,400 signatures, and a new petition has 1,500 after only 10 days
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Lady for securing the debate. Formidable lady that she is, I am surprised that she has not been able to crack the whip and get the desired result. The issue for us all—for you, Sir John, and everyone in this room—is that elected representatives are elected by the people to serve the people and be accountable for mistakes that happen. The right hon. Lady’s clear frustration is a frustration that I sometimes have back home. What I have done—the issue that she refers to is much larger—is bring all the interested bodies together, perhaps to bump heads or to get them to sit around the table and come up with something. Has she been able to bring together all those people, even those who do not want to speak to her? They should speak to her and, at the end of the day, they will.
Valerie Vaz
The hon. Gentleman pre-empts something I will come to at the end, as one of my asks is to do just that.
Visits to the museum are on an upward curve, with 14,000 over the past year. Now, the collection will be closed and put in storage until a new position is found, and nobody knows where. I am afraid that I have to use this phrase: it is the inclusion or collusion of Walsall college, an unaccountable body, that has resulted in the council deciding to close the museum, which will mean spending more money to refurbish it as a different entity and not as a purpose-built museum. This goes to the very heart of our community. I do not know whether you know, Sir John, but the leather industry and saddlers are the image of Walsall. I ask the Minister whether the Arts Council granting accredited museum status to the Walsall Leather Museum is not worth anything. If it is working as an arm’s length body, it should be accountable, and so should Walsall college.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I take a real interest in these matters, and my right hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. I believe it is ultimately about unaccountable power, and we need to find ways to hold these institutions to account. I can give the example of Bootham Park hospital in my constituency. It closed 10 years ago and is in the hands of NHS Property Services, which has paid nearly £2 million to keep the building empty while waiting for a developer to come along, when we could really use it. Is that not another example of how these bodies are hoarding our national assets, as opposed to using them for the benefit of the community?
Valerie Vaz
I thank my hon. Friend for that example, and it is important that she put it on the record. In the end, we as politicians get blamed for things that do not happen. I know the Minister has been tasked with a huge job, but hopefully these buildings will be used for the benefit of the community and all our constituents.
Walsall football club is nicknamed the Saddlers because of the leather industry. Way back on 16 September 2022, supporters contacted me because a disabled fan could not access the stadium—he had to go all the way into the town centre and then come back to the stadium. It has taken me three years and 10 letters to a series of Ministers for them to say “not yet.” The station will be used more if it is accessible. We have a bizarre situation where footfall is used to work out if a station is being used, and only then can we get Access for All funding. I do not know who makes up the criteria, but they clearly exclude most disabled people, as well as parents who will not access the station because they have to take prams up the stairs. The station serves the football club and is an accessible route to Birmingham and Walsall.
We met Network Rail and Transport for West Midlands in November 2023, and my constituents were promised a solution that never materialised. I wrote again on 11 December 2023, 10 June 2024 and 4 October 2024, and then on 6 December 2024 we were told that Bescot Stadium station was not on the list for 2024 to 2029, but that the Government can make funds available outside of that time. In the meantime, we have Poppyfields estate nearby, and on matchday there is parking and congestion everywhere. Fans would use public transport if the station were accessible.
Network Rail said that Jacobs consultancy is now undertaking a feasibility study. All it requires is a lift on either side of the walkway—how difficult is that? I ask, to whom is Network Rail accountable? I am happy to write letters, but my constituents want action. An accessible station means increased productivity and more use of public transport as the bus links are excellent, allowing parents, carers and even those going on holiday to use it—there is a hotel nearby, and the thud of suitcases can be heard as they go up the stairs. I just want someone, anyone, to say, “Yes, it is in the scheme, and it will be done.”
National Highways is another agency from which a simple yes would be great; I have had a succession of noes. Murdoch Way is near the motorway; while we are blessed with good connectivity, living near a motorway is difficult. National Highways has refused to introduce soundproofing barriers for my constituents on that road, despite the council stating in a letter that current sound mapping remains high and night-time noise levels exceed World Health Organisation guidelines. The evidence is there, yet the unaccountable arm’s length bodies say no.
Like Samuel Pepys, I can write letter after letter, but there has to be some change, because this issue goes to the heart of democracy. If people do not see change, and when their views are not taken on board or listened to, they will despair of democracy. For the school, I ask the Secretary of State to intervene and convene a meeting of interested parties. I can draw up a list so that everyone can sit round the table and be consulted. It must be fair to all schools, not just the favoured one that happened to be in that VIP lane on the arm’s length board. Public money must be used in the best way.
For the Leather Museum, the arm’s length heritage bodies should be tasked to support and preserve heritage, which I think they are. I therefore ask them to intervene and for the Secretary of State for Education to say to Walsall college, “This is contentious. Enough. You do not need this cultural heritage building.” And I want Bescot Stadium station to be told, “Yes, you will have an accessible station, because that is morally the right thing to do.”
For the residents of Walsall, unaccountable, unelected bodies will be reformed so that we as elected representatives can act in the public interest for the common good and for a good society.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I probably ought not to say so, Valerie, but that is music to my ears.
The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I want to take a moment to pay huge tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz). She is the epitome of a first-class MP and a doughty champion for her constituents, picking up local issues that people care passionately about and bringing them to the heart of Government. If anyone can knock heads together and make things happen, I believe it will be her. I look forward to seeing over the next few years all those problems solved.
I wish I could stand here with the power to wave a wand and give my right hon. Friend all the things she has asked for, but she has put them on the record, which is the purpose of this place. Ministers and Secretaries of State will hear what she has said, and I will do anything I can to support her in taking these matters forward. I have every confidence that the people of Walsall and Bloxwich could not ask for a better representative, and I completely agree with everything she has said.
Public bodies should be accountable and responsive, with democratic oversight. That is the foundation of our democracy. I understand my right hon. Friend’s frustration, because it is one that I share as an elected representative—even as a member of the Government. It can sometimes feel that decisions are taken too far away from the people we are meant to serve. People expect their Member of Parliament to have power and their Government to be responsive to them. When they vote for change, they expect those they voted for to be able to deliver.
Too often we see layers of bureaucracy building up over many years. We see power handed to unelected officials and arm’s length bodies that no one has ever heard of. All too often democratically elected Ministers—who are accountable to the public—pull the levers, but arm’s length bodies do not respond, and control sits in the wrong place. Far too often, such bodies have been an easy solution when there has been a problem in government and no policy solution; it is a case of saying, “Create another body, create another commission,” but all that does is to take decisions further away from the people they are there to serve.
I am delighted to say that in April this year, the Government ordered a fundamental review of arm’s length bodies. I am really excited to be the Minister playing a part in delivering that review. We no longer live in a world where we can simply spend our way to better public services. We have to rewire the state through system-wide reform, which is what we are undertaking to do.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich for raising this issue. She is right to recognise that the existing landscape of public bodies is overly complex, needs streamlining, and needs to be accountable in order to deliver our plan for change. The Prime Minister himself said in his speech earlier this year:
“It is not about questioning the dedication or the effort of civil servants. It is about the system that we have in place. That system was created by politicians… But…over a number of years politicians chose to hide behind a vast array of quangos, arm’s length bodies and regulators”.
I am pleased to tell my right hon. Friend that we will hide no more. Through our programme of work to reform the state, of which arm’s length bodies are a part, we will ensure that Ministers have the right accountability where services are delivered, and that those public services are delivered in the simplest, most effective way, ensuring value for money for taxpayers.
We launched the review on 7 April. It is examining the Government’s more than 300 arm’s length bodies and asking Departments to assess them against four key principles. The first key principle is ministerial policy oversight. Nationally important policies must be steered and controlled by Ministers. The public expect that level of accountability. The second is duplication and efficiency. We have to root that out wherever possible, including overlaps between arm’s length bodies and Departments.
The third key principle is stakeholder management. The Government have to engage with partners and constituents—the people—at every stage, but that cannot in its own right justify an arm’s length body’s existence. The fourth is independent advice. The Government think that arm’s length decisions should be justified only where there is a clear case for it, such as the need for operationally independent regulatory decisions. There should not be any other reason for decisions to be taken at arm’s length. If those challenges are not met, arm’s length bodies should not exist—it is that simple.
Our aims are straightforward: we will drive out waste and inefficiency across Whitehall, save the taxpayer money and cut the cost of doing government. More importantly, we are bringing democratic scrutiny back to the major decisions that affect people’s lives through ministerial control.
The review is ongoing, but we have already announced a number of changes to arm’s length bodies, which my right hon. Friend may have heard about. For example, we are abolishing NHS England and the Education and Skills Funding Agency. Doing so has returned nearly £250 billion of Government funding to direct ministerial oversight, ensuring that decisions about the NHS and the school system—a crucial issue mentioned by both my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell)—are taken by the Health and Education Secretaries, as they should be.
Rachael Maskell
I want to draw another two bodies to the Minister’s attention. Integrated care boards are completely unaccountable as they make clinical decisions about our constituents. They need to be evidence-based, but they are simply not working. Multi-academy trusts, too, are certainly not accountable—I have felt as though I was in the matrix, unable to escape or to nail the behaviours of some of the chief executives of those organisations, which have huge resources but are not delivering in the interests of students. It is so important that we get democratic accountability into those systems.
Anna Turley
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. She articulates the struggle that so many of us find in picking up bits of casework and trying to champion our constituents’ needs and wishes; we can get lost in the matrix, and it can be deeply frustrating. I know that Secretaries of State, including the Health and Education Secretaries, see that. They want to know that their decisions are having a real impact, and that there are not unaccountable people making decisions against the grain of what we are trying to achieve on behalf of our constituents. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point.
We are also repatriating the Valuation Office Agency into His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to speed up tax administration. We are abolishing Ofwat and creating a single regulator to cut water pollution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich will be delighted that we are folding LocatED into the Department for Education to accelerate school building, combining property knowledge with schools’ needs for better value—I urge her to focus her campaign about the free school she referred to on the Secretary of State. We are also repatriating the UK Space Agency into the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. We are taking action on a number of fronts, but that is just the start. We want the body of the state to be accountable to those elected to bring about change and deliver for their constituents.
I will briefly set out some of our existing processes that ensure effective arm’s length body accountability. Where possible, robust but fair departmental sponsorship is the key way to ensure clear lines of accountability between the arm’s length bodies and the Department. Those sponsorship arrangements promote regular interaction between bodies and sponsoring Departments to ensure that bodies are held to account for their use of public money and operate in line with the priorities of the Government of the day. I urge right hon. and hon. Friends with concerns about particular bodies to write to the sponsoring Secretary of State about those issues, because ultimately, those arm’s length bodies do have accountability arrangements in place.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
My concern is about interim officers in local government, and CEOs who pop up in one place and then pop up somewhere else a couple of months after they have resigned. What safeguards are in place to ensure that negative behaviours or actions in one organisation do not appear in another where the same individual is involved?
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend raises an interesting and important issue. Far too often there have been departmental silos, and silos within other public bodies, and they are not talking to each other. As she says, people can bounce around, failing upwards, and far too often there have not been channels of accountability and scrutiny to enable us to look at and manage performance. As part of our broader approach to public service reform, we are keen to look not just at how we manage recruitment, retention, training, accountability and performance within the civil service, but at how we ensure that people in the broader public sector are not failing upwards and are accountable to those they should be accountable to. I thank her for raising that.
To further raise the bar on accountability, we are committed to the continuous improvement of day-to-day checks and balances. A sponsorship code has been available since 2022, but we will look at it in the light of the arm’s length body review. Arm’s length bodies are also consistently reviewed through long-established lines of accountability, and through their boards and sponsoring Departments. Those boards scrutinise the arm’s length body’s executive decision making and oversee compliance with statutory and non-statutory guidance issued by the Government. Again, though, we will look at all those levels of compliance and accountability to ensure that they are fit for purpose.
As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, the public are impatient to see the change they voted for. They want it to become a reality. For them, it is not an abstract question of public service reform; it is about whether their local station has a lift to make it accessible, or where a school is built.
The Leather Museum that my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich mentioned sounds fantastic—a significant local and national asset that deserves to be recognised and supported. I urge her to continue her doughty campaign, along with Linda, Adam and Lauren, who sound as though they are doing a fantastic job. That museum deserves to have a bright future and I know she will do all she can to make that happen. I hope the Government will support her in that.
At a time when people are impatient to see change, I want to assure everybody that the Government are committed to transforming accountability across our arm’s length bodies.
Rachael Maskell
Could the Minister quickly say how we can participate in the review the Government are undertaking?
Anna Turley
That is a great question. I will take it on myself, as an outcome of this discussion, to write to colleagues to invite them to submit the kind of examples and evidence that we have heard here to the relevant Departments, and to me, as the Minister responsible for arm’s length bodies, to identify areas where public scrutiny and accountability have fallen short. There may be some more formal mechanisms that we can also undertake in the review but, in the meantime, I ask all them to write to Secretaries of State and to me with those examples; we would be happy to incorporate them into the review.
I will take this opportunity to repeat my sincere thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich for securing this debate, which is important for her constituents as well as all our constituents across the country. We put ourselves forward to serve because we want to bring about change and make things better for people in our communities, on our doorsteps and in our local areas. Only by reforming the way that accountability, transparency and power are delegated in this country can we have that effect.
It is right that the public expect public bodies to be accountable, to run effectively and to be aligned with our Government’s priorities. We only want them where they offer best value for the public, ensure that money is spent efficiently and effectively and, crucially, are democratically accountable. That is exactly what we are seeking to achieve through our programme of ALB reform. I thank my right hon. Friend and all hon. Members present for adding more grist to the mill on this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Carbon Budget Delivery Plan
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered progress on the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. This week marks the start of COP30 in Brazil, a moment when world leaders, scientists and campaigners come together, united in purpose, to confront the climate crisis head-on. Last week, the World Meteorological Organisation delivered another sobering warning that 2025 is likely to be the second or third warmest year on record. With every passing year, we see the growing cost of inaction—wildfires, floods, droughts and communities displaced across the world. The message is clear: we need bold action, and we need it now.
Since 2022, environmental charities and organisations have fought every step of the way to ensure that we have a competent and detailed carbon budget delivery plan. The last Government’s plan—if we can call it that—ignored expert warnings and was twice ruled unlawful by the High Court. The Climate Change Committee said last year that, under the previous Government, the UK net zero ambitions were “off track”. Thankfully, we are no longer in that chaotic place; this year at COP30, the UK delegation is carrying the message that climate action is not a burden but our route to a future, with stronger communities and a safer planet.
We know that without decisive action, bills will continue to rise, businesses will struggle, and the environment we all cherish, from the peaks to the coast, will be lost. We must be clear, credible and ambitious in our plans to decarbonise. It is how we will not only create high-paying clean energy jobs but cut households energy bills and invest to secure our future. The plan published by the Government at the end of October is a start, and it provides welcome clarity, but is it ambitious enough? In my constituency of Sheffield Central, people understand how urgent this is. They want action. They want the Government to commit to protecting our planet and making life more affordable.
It is disappointing that Sheffield will continue to be the only major UK city without electrified rail. Over the past year, when I have met Sheffield Friends of the Earth and our local Greenpeace group, they have shared my view that we must go much further, and we must work at a faster speed. I look to the Minister to provide answers to locals, who have now missed out on electrification, as well as newer, faster and cleaner trains in the region.
The cost of energy also remains one of the biggest worries for people in my constituency. Time and again, I hear from residents who are doing everything they can to make ends meet, yet their energy bills are still far too high, and they continue to rise. Too many families have been forced to make impossible choices between heating their homes and putting food on the table. That is why, alongside Power for People, I have pushed for a fundamental reset of how we generate and buy energy locally.
Clean, locally sourced and locally stored power relieves pressures on the grid, and granting local supply rights for community energy schemes is a common sense approach. It makes no sense for the cost of regulatory approval to remain so high that locally sourced energy must be sold back to the central grid, instead of being supplied locally. Can the Minister expand on how the Government will build domestic supply chains for clean energy? How will they create jobs and bring investment back into our communities?
It is also true that far too many of our homes, especially older homes, leak heat through poor insulation measures. That is why the warm homes plan is incredibly important. Investment is necessary for households to install solar panels, heat pumps, batteries and insulation. These measures will, in the long term, cut bills, reduce emissions and tackle fuel poverty for good. However, simply offering these retrofit programmes will not be enough; people must know about them and have confidence in them.
That is why it is so important to have places like the Sheffield Energy Hub, where fuel poverty charities regularly offer advice to people on energy efficiency, energy saving and the links between cold homes and unhealthy futures. Despite the expectation, the wider warm homes plan has not yet been published, and speculation that the upcoming Budget will remove green levies, which pay for home energy efficiency measures, is deeply worrying.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Climate Change Committee’s top recommendation was that the Government’s climate plan ought to remove policy costs from electricity bills. Does the hon. Lady think that the Government could seek to address that in the Budget?
Abtisam Mohamed
The Government should consider how consumers’ bills can be reduced. I want to see the warm homes plan feature, and I want it published so that we can have appropriate conversations about what is in it. If the cut to investment without guaranteed funding from elsewhere goes ahead, billions of pounds and over 100,000 jobs in the installation industry would be at risk. I urge the Minister to outline how the Government will end that uncertainty, bring the warm homes plan forward quickly and start the consultation so that experts and communities can help shape what is in it.
Improving energy efficiency is one of the quickest ways to lower bills, but it must go hand in hand with a bold push for renewable energy. We know that solar and onshore wind are now the cheapest and cleanest sources of power available. If we invest in them at scale, we can bring down energy costs for households and businesses alike, while strengthening our energy security and cutting carbon at the same time. That is why I have raised concerns about the extraction of the Rosebank oilfield. When I met Sheffield Rosebank campaigners, they knew, as I do, that extraction of the oilfield will not reduce gas prices, but it will have a significant effect on the climate. Today the developer’s impact assessment shows that extraction would release nearly 50 times more gas than originally cited.
At a time when the focus should be on clean, affordable and home-grown energy, approving one of the largest new oilfields in the North sea sends the wrong message. It risks locking us into decades of expensive, polluting fossil fuels, while doing little to reduce bills here at home. We should instead be putting that same investment and ambition into home-grown renewables, energy efficiency and a fair transition for workers and communities, building the kind of fair sustainable energy future that people in Sheffield and across the country want to see.
This is not just about homes; it is about jobs, growth and opportunity. Clean energy industries have the potential to provide high-skilled, well-paid jobs across the country, driving economic growth while tackling the climate crisis. The green economy has grown at three times the rate of the rest of the economy, yet in Sheffield, I have met businesses that have struggled with soaring energy costs, threatening their future and their workers’ livelihoods. A clear, fully consulted strategy is needed to ensure that support reaches the businesses that need it the most, as well as driving a greener and fairer economy. What are the plans to support small businesses struggling with their higher energy bills?
At the University of Sheffield, world-leading researchers are pioneering advances in sustainable aviation, developing cleaner fuels, lighter materials and cutting-edge technologies to help decarbonise. Through the university’s Energy Institute and Sustainable Aviation Fuels Innovation Centre, Sheffield is proving that climate action can go hand in hand with innovation, job creation and global leadership in the industries of the future. Although I welcome the current plan, I want to push the Government further, because it is vital that we lead by example on the global stage.
Many of my constituents worry about the overreliance on fossil fuels and the impact big polluters have on our environment. We know how disastrous it will be if large corporations continue to go unchecked in relation to their carbon emissions and pollution. That is why I have joined the Make Polluters Pay campaign, and why I am urging the Government to go further by introducing polluter pays measures such as a frequent flyer levy to curb the most polluting activities and fund green investment. COP30 has provided a unique opportunity for the UK to join France, Spain and others in the Premium Flyers Solidarity Coalition, which is committed to raising international climate finance by increasing levies on premium flyers including business class, first class and private jet users.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is estimated that we would have to plant a forest twice the size of Greater London to cancel out all the extra emissions created by the expansions of Heathrow, Luton and Gatwick, next to my constituency of Horsham. Does the hon. Member think that that suggests the Government are entirely serious about meeting our carbon budget?
Abtisam Mohamed
There is a recognition that we need to do more on our climate priorities and on addressing increased aviation. We definitely need to explore that, and I will press the Minister on it in the future.
The revenue raised could be used to support domestic priorities, including insulating homes and building clean energy, and provide international climate finance to help the most vulnerable communities around the world adapt to the devastating effects of climate change. By ensuring that those with the largest carbon footprints contribute the largest share, we can show that tackling the climate crisis can be done fairly without punishing those who are worse off.
As the world meets in Belém to chart a path for the planet’s future, the UK can once again lead by example. We must act with purpose, ambition and hope. We must protect our planet, cut bills and create jobs while restoring Britain’s leadership on the world stage. Tackling the climate crisis is not just about saving the planet; it is about building a better, fairer and more secure future for everyone.
Will the Minister address my questions to him today? Will he provide a timeline for when the warm homes plan will be published? Does he have an update on the midland main line upgrade, and on when Sheffield can expect that critical investment to resume? Will he expand on how his Department will build resilience into clean energy supply chains, create jobs and investment in Sheffield, and ensure that energy sourced locally can be bought locally? Will he confirm what support is being offered to small businesses struggling with higher energy bills? Will he outline the Government’s commitment to boost the green economy and fund research at Sheffield’s world-leading institutions? Finally, will he commit to ending Britain’s reliance on fossil fuel giants, and ensure that they pay their fair share in tackling the climate crisis?
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. I see that quite a lot of people want to speak. I will not set a time limit, but if you can be disciplined in how long your contributions last, that would be very helpful.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing it. To be honest, I am a bit disappointed that the Secretary of State did not come to the House to make a statement about the carbon budget delivery plan, especially given that the previous one was in breach of the Climate Change Act 2008, and given the urgency of the UK’s meeting not just its statutory domestic climate targets but its international obligations under the Paris climate agreement.
It is obvious that UK climate action has important domestic and international ramifications. We are holding this debate while COP30 takes place. The UN has warned that the goal of a 1.5°C limit is fragile. According to the UN Secretary-General, the current plans put forward by nation states to cut emissions will put the world on a pathway to 2.3°C of global warming if they are fully implemented, and yet the UK’s new carbon budget delivery plan will fall short of our own commitments under the COP process, via our nationally determined contributions. The delivery plan is looking to achieve 96% of the cuts for the 2030 NDC and 99% for the 2035 NDC. That does not even reflect the fact that the UK’s NDC commitments themselves fail to take account of the scale of ambition needed to tackle the burning reality of the climate crisis, in line with what the climate science demands, and to reflect the UK’s historic responsibilities—and therefore moral obligation—to take a fairer share of the global need to cut emissions.
The Government’s carbon budget delivery plan is absolutely better than previous versions—let’s face it, it was a low baseline—but it is still wanting, both in global terms and in terms of facing the climate reality. That needs to change; even more ambition is required.
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central talked about the warm homes plan and the wider need for investment, particularly in the housing sector. We must ensure all our homes are fully fit for the future. As she said, it must be recognised across Government that climate action is absolutely central. It is not just about tackling our carbon emissions; it is also a really important way to tackle inequality and generate a resilient, jobs-rich economy that will secure long-term prosperity for us all.
There are of course things to welcome in the carbon budget delivery plan, including tougher energy standards for the private rented and social rented sectors, welcome signals on heat pumps and so on, but to make our homes really fit for the future we need to think even bigger. We need to minimise embodied carbon in the housing sector, and maximise on-site energy generation, biodiversity in the construction of new homes and resilience in things such as flooding and overheating, which is crucial in tackling the impacts of the climate crisis, which is hitting harder and harder. Every new home—especially every new social home—must be built to the highest standards.
We urgently need the warm homes plan. It is deeply concerning that there are rumours that the Government are seeking to rob Peter to pay Paul by taking money away from the warm homes plan—that crucial long-term investment in insulating our homes and making them fit for the future so that people have cheaper bills. We must not put a short-term sticking plaster on bills. We need both, not one or the other—[Interruption.]
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division in the House. We will suspend for 15 minutes, and when we return Ellie will draw her speech to its conclusion reasonably speedily.
Dr Chowns
I will conclude with three brief points. First, reframing the carbon budget delivery plan as a growth plan takes things in the wrong direction. It is the myth of infinite growth on a finite planet that got us into this mess in the first place, and that is driving the climate and nature crisis. This moment demands climate action that is rooted in tackling inequality, not feeding the pockets of developers and big oil bosses.
That brings me to my next point. The science on fossil fuels is unequivocal. In addition to the positive measures in the carbon budget delivery plan, we have to keep fossil fuels in the ground. Rosebank and Jackdaw cannot—must not—go ahead.
My final point is to put on record my thanks to Friends of the Earth for challenging the last plan in court and for its ongoing commitment to holding Governments to account. All this is possible only because of the Climate Change Act 2008. We all have a responsibility to uphold that incredibly important piece of legislation, which is key to ensuring that together we build a sustainable future for our country.
The British public remain very supportive of ambitious climate action. They want to know that measures are being taken to transition the economy, build a sustainable future and tackle the huge risks of climate breakdown. We all have a responsibility to ensure that that future is liveable for ourselves and future generations. I look forward to continuing to work across parties to build that positive future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
About six people want to contribute, so they each have about four minutes. I will not make it formal, but I know I can rely on you not to let me down.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing the debate and introducing it in the way she did.
To misquote Bill Clinton, “It’s a limit, not a target, stupid!” The carbon budgets we set represent a threshold we should not breach, not a target we should aim for or just dip under. We are having this debate now because our courts ruled that the original carbon budget delivery plan was unlawful; it lacked credible plans to meet our obligations.
Published just two days before the legal deadline, the Government’s new plan states that they have sufficient policies to achieve their sixth carbon budget, which required a 77% reduction in emissions from the 1990 baseline. So, do they? Remember that carbon budget 6 is the first to include international aviation and shipping. The plan highlights where decarbonisation will be the hardest, and shows us those sectors that need to be prioritised if we are to achieve a totally clean, secure and affordable energy system by 2050. Our homes and buildings’ operational and embodied carbon need to be addressed, and our heavy industries, such as steel, glass and ceramics, need to find high-energy, low-cost solutions. The aviation sector must show how it can meet the Government’s expansion expectations without an over-optimistic reliance on the production of sustainable aviation fuel or a dependence on greenhouse gas removal technologies that are still not proven at commercial scale.
First, let us examine the energy and emissions projections that undergird the plan. The emissions projections include all planned, adopted, implemented and expired climate change policies. They are expected to deliver more than 100% of the emissions reductions to meet carbon budgets 4 and 5, but are projected to contribute only 76% of the savings needed for carbon budget 6. Over the summer, the Climate Change Committee examined 163 of those plans for reducing emissions. Fewer than half were considered to be fully credible, and more than a third were considered to be insufficient or to have significant risk of failure. On its top recommendation—to make electricity cheaper—the committee said that it had “not…seen any progress” in the past year.
It is good that the plans are improving and becoming more credible year on year, but the delivery plan states only that the Government “expect” the energy and emissions projections to deliver the requisite emissions reductions. It does not say that they are confident or give a percentage of probability, as we find in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The excellent people at Carbon Brief note that by counting all the various policies—past, present and future—alongside other modelling adjustments, the baseline for carbon budget 6 is already reduced by 46.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.
The policies assume the success of the zero emission vehicle mandate and the SAF mandate—policies that are still very much in the pipeline. The SAF mandate Bill is still only on Second Reading in the House of Lords. The first warning I give, then, is that the first tranche of policies—at table 3 in the plan—cannot be taken as a given, even though they have been incorporated into the lowering of the baseline for how we measure CB6.
Warning No. 2 concerns what the plan terms “wider factors”. That principally means the adoption of technologies, such as artificial intelligence, that are likely to improve energy efficiency, help integrate renewable energy generation and support sustainable practices, according to the technical annexe. The Government’s analysis finds that those wider factors, which also include consumer behaviour, could reduce emissions by an average of 20 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent a year over the period of CB6, from 2033 to 2037. The annexe admits that there is
“the potential for not all of these reductions to be realised”,
before saying that it “reflects a cautious approach”. I will await the CCC’s full assessment of whether these wider savings are realistic in its 2026 progress report.
The Environmental Audit Committee has recently published its report on warning No. 3, aviation. The final hearing of our inquiry was told that demand management would not be one of the measures to reduce emissions in the sector. Shockingly, that was despite the fact that in its advice on carbon budget 7, the Climate Change Committee said that demand management should account for 54% of emissions reductions in the sector by 2040. SAF only accounted for 33%, and efficiency improvements of technology were a paltry 13%.
The Department for Transport says that aviation can be fossil fuel-free by 2050 without demand management. Will the Minister ensure that the Government publish that unlikely analysis so that we can properly examine it? I am in no doubt that the Climate Change Committee will be keen to do so. I note that the committee clearly states that
“the aviation industry adopting the cost of aviation decarbonisation will help manage demand”.
Both the CCC and the recently published Whitehead review are very clear that the aviation sector must pay for the carbon that it pollutes in accordance with the polluter-pays principle.
The Whitehead review recommends that the sector should be required to pay for the greenhouse gas removals it needs to reach net zero, and that Government should ensure that they do so. A fossil-free sector will drive competition between SAF technologies and the new greenhouse gas removal technologies, which is a good thing and to be welcomed, but getting those technologies up and running with far greater urgency is an imperative, given the Government’s desire to go ahead with airport expansion. I remain sceptical at best about the Government’s approach to aviation, and it surely has to be seen as one of the biggest potential pitfalls in their net zero plans, relying so heavily as they do on technology that is not currently readily available.
The fourth warning is one voiced by many climate scientists, such as Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate change at the University of Manchester. It is that the Climate Change Committee appears to have changed its mandate from advising Government on what they must do to meet the scientific realities, to advising the Government only what they consider the Government will find politically acceptable and be willing to accept.
I have been a champion of the Climate Change Committee. I believe its independence and forthright advice have been why we managed to achieve such enormous bipartisan progress in tackling climate change. I commend the previous Conservative Government on all the progress they made on that, and I think we need to restore that bipartisanship. However, Professor Anderson rightly warns:
“Major societal transformations, such as moving from private car to public transport, are largely absent from the CCC’s recommendations.”
Instead, the CCC proposes that the UK should capture and store 36 megatonnes of CO2 annually by 2050, triple the current rate of the entire planet—I will say that again: triple the current rate of the entire planet—to avoid making that recommendation to a modal shift from private vehicles to public transport. That smacks to me of the committee dodging the tough advice where it thinks the Government might find it politically unwelcome.
My advice to the committee is to grow a pair. Over-optimistic reliance on future technofixes is not a solid policy basis to achieve the carbon budgets and reductions that we have set. The projection for carbon budget 6 is that we will be just 2 megatonnes within the 965-megatonne limit for that period. That takes me right back to where I started: these budgets are not targets to scrape under as narrowly as possible while trying to change as little about our way of life as we can. We did not carry on as normal during the covid pandemic, just waiting for the vaccine to come and save us. Instead, we acted urgently to fundamentally change the way we operated to protect the most vulnerable.
If we carry on as normal, seeking to do just about enough, we risk overshooting our carbon budgets. In doing so, we fail future generations, and we fail those in the global majority for whom the planet has already warmed too much—whose crops are failing through drought, whose homes are already under floodwater, and whose forests are already burning. Let us all be clear; the costs of inaction on climate change are far greater than the costs of action. That is why the carbon budgets are so important. It is all our responsibility to ensure that we have adequate policies in place to deliver them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. I said four minutes a speech. This is partly a debate about targets and figures, Barry, and the difference between four and nine is five.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this debate. I welcome the publication of this plan; on paper, it marks an important step in bringing our climate ambitions into alignment with our responsibilities to nature and to people. I particularly welcome the recognition that the climate and nature crises are inseparable. The introduction of an annual climate and nature statement to Parliament is a significant development, and I am proud that it grew from the Climate and Nature Bill, which I introduced earlier this year.
First, we must ensure that this plan truly treats climate and nature as partners, not as parallel workstreams. The commitments to restore peatland, create woodland, clean up air and water and reduce flood risk are essential, yet the scaling back of targets for tree planting and peat restoration is concerning. Ambition of language is not yet matched by ambition of action. We must move beyond a narrow focus on trees towards a whole-ecosystem approach, valuing soils, wetlands, hedgerows and biodiversity as carbon sinks and habitats. I am concerned by the heavy reliance on carbon capture and storage and sustainable aviation fuels. Speculation on technology that is still in development risks delaying real emissions reductions and offshoring ecological harm. We cannot afford to chase technical fixes at the expense of nature, when nature itself can be our greatest ally in the fight against climate change.
Secondly, the green transition must be fair and rooted in our local communities. The green economy can deliver cheaper bills, warmer homes and thousands of good jobs, but this will work only if we support the people who are already trying to drive change. Our farmers, local councils, schools and families want to be part of this transition, but they must be incentivised, not penalised. At the moment, farming emissions remain high, while clarity for farmers remains low. I know that my farmers in the South Cotswolds want to be part of a fair transition, but they need clarity on where the goalposts stand. There is no coherent strategy to boost domestic horticulture and arable production or to ensure that family farms are not squeezed out by intensification. A thriving green economy cannot come at the cost of hollowing out our countryside.
Community energy is another clear opportunity. Demand for community-run renewables far exceeds the support currently offered. Unlocking the right for community groups to sell energy directly to local people would be transformative and enable communities to truly participate in their own energy transition. I am troubled that huge ground-mounted solar projects, such as the one planned for my constituency, risk alienating the public, rather than including them. We need a just and fair energy transition that is as resilient to adverse conditions in the geophysical climate as potential future political climates. When this transition is deeply rooted in communities, it cannot be uprooted by a net zero-sceptic Government in the future. I welcome this plan, but we must ensure that it truly delivers from the ground up, not the top down. Let us empower farmers, communities, councils and schools to lead the way. Let us build a resilient, vibrant and nature-rich future that truly works for everyone. As Christiana Figueres has said:
“Doing our best is no longer enough. We must all now do what is necessary.”
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see another Hayes serving in the Chair, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this debate. When we talk about the carbon budget delivery plan, we are talking about progress towards a cleaner, fairer and more secure Britain. With COP30 getting under way properly, we know the consequences of breaching the 1.5° limit: there will be more people exposed to extreme heat, higher sea levels, increased food security risks, the extinction of species, a loss of virtually all coral reefs, and the spread of climate-sensitive diseases on a greater scale. We cannot allow that to happen.
Although we are tackling this issue for global reasons, it is clear that there will be benefits at home. Clean energy is the route to faster and more resilient growth. Analysis by Oxford Economics for Energy UK shows that we can add up to £240 billion in value to our economy by 2050 if we increase our ambition. The faster we move now, the more our economy will work for working people and the more good, secure jobs we will create.
I am particularly pleased that the Government are setting up Great British Energy with £8.3 billion of funding going into large-scale solar, offshore wind and grid-scale battery projects. I am also pleased to see today’s announcement by SSE of £33 billion of investment to unlock secure and affordable clean energy, and to support our economic growth. That is proof that when we invest in the green economy, we see investors returning that.
Sprinting to net zero does not just boost growth; it also protects growth. We saw what happened when the last Government failed to plan for resilience. Volatile international fossil fuel markets sent our bills soaring and made our growth sputter. Typical household energy costs nearly doubled in a single year and all our constituents are still living with the cost of that. Millions of people were pushed into fuel poverty and energy bill debt remains at record levels. Indeed, when the last Government finally acted, they did so at huge cost, spending £94 billion of taxpayers’ money. That crisis could have been prevented with sustained investment in energy independence and efficiency.
We should be going as fast as we can on net zero because another such crisis could be prevented with clean home-grown energy. The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that a fossil fuel price shock could cost us between 2% and 3% of GDP in the 2030s. We cannot afford such a shock to be inflicted on our constituents all over again.
The delivery plan faces several other challenges. We know that there are opponents who have chosen an anti-jobs, anti-science path that would spell disaster for our economy, our security and our planet. Too often, net zero has been treated as a political football. Deadlines have been delayed, targets have been softened and certain voices have claimed that our targets are “impossible” to meet. Indeed, there have even been threats to rip up green contracts, undermining investor confidence when our constituencies need investment in jobs in the green economy so that we can lead from the front. To all those who resist home-grown renewables or reject British-built nuclear, let me be clear: they are undermining our security, driving up our bills and holding back growth. That is bad for Britain and bad for our planet.
Our national security is our energy security, so I do have to speculate about some of the opposition to net zero. When I see that 92% of Reform UK’s post-2019 funding is linked to or comes directly from donors tied to fossil fuel interests, polluting industries or climate science denial groups, it makes me wonder. Similarly, we know that the leadership of Reform UK’s pick for First Minister of Wales was a paid Putin propagandist. Why is Reform UK so keen for Britain to be addicted to Russian-dominated fossil fuel markets? Our energy security comes in many forms.
We also know that despite all the political noise, the markets and the public remain firmly committed to clean energy. Among Fortune Global 500 companies, net zero commitments have risen from 8% in 2020 to 45% last year. Some 70% of the UK public support the net zero target, compared with just 18% who do not, and 65% of the UK public want more renewable generation, while only 7% disagree with increasing renewables. Polling by the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association found that 68% of people are uncomfortable with their pensions or savings being invested in companies that harm the environment.
Let me be clear: the Conservatives and Reform UK will lock Britain out of the race for green economic leadership. People up and down our country will lose out. However, Britain can no longer be held back, because the race for the jobs and industries of the future is speeding up, so we must go all-in on clean energy.
This is a critical moment. Global insecurity is driving insecurity at home, and many people feel ignored and left behind. While the world moves at speed, our politics remains stuck. People are hungry for change, but if this Government do not deliver it, others will—and that worries me.
Our task as a country is to lead in this era. It is not to defend the broken ways of doing things, but to create new methods to give people the stability and pride that they crave, and a country that is on the up once again as it leads the global race for green investment. We cannot afford to leave our country to those who will cosy up to Putin by indulging the fossil fuel markets and volatile prices that come with them. That means taking on vested interests, and restoring control of our energy and our economy. The dividing line in politics must be between the disruptors and those who defend a status quo that is working in nobody’s interest.
We know that net zero is the economic opportunity of a generation. Our net zero economy grew 10.1% in 2024. Net zero foreign direct investment was up 46% last year, reaching £20 billion, and 95% of major financial firms—representing over £1 trillion in turnover and £200 billion in green investments—say that they would increase UK investment with greater policy certainty, unlocking up to £100 billion. Is there policy certainty in scrapping the Climate Change Act or threatening to rip up the green contracts that the Government are delivering?
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. Can you bring your remarks to a close, otherwise no one else will be able to get in?
Tom Hayes
I apologise.
The capital is waiting, public support is strong and technology is ready. What is needed is yet more policy certainty, clarity and courage. We have seen so much already, but there is more to do. Net zero should not be a political football. It is a strategic national mission, the UK’s growth story and a foundation for jobs, competitiveness and resilience.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I call Susan Murray—you have a couple of minutes.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I will do my best. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing the debate and bringing attention to this matter.
Although some may deny its impact or severity, climate change represents the greatest modern threat to our planet. The data is clear. If we continue down our current path, millions of lives will be lost and our way of life will be changed forever. We have an opportunity to show the world that there is an alternative path to save lives and avoid catastrophe.
Steps have been taken to create a Britain at the forefront of climate action, but there are still gaping holes. Although we have enormous capacity for green energy production through wind, tidal and solar, we do not yet take full advantage of it. My constituents in Mid Dunbartonshire demand that we act faster. We must take the opportunity to produce wind turbines domestically; less than half of the wind turbines operating in the UK contain any British component. Instead, we ship turbines in from countries such as China, undermining their green credentials and costing British jobs.
We are not moving fast enough to upgrade our grid, meaning that we are restricting the energy output at some sites for as much as 71% of the time. At the same time, we seem to be ignoring the potential of community energy and local projects to take pressure off the wider grid and to provide cheaper bills to British people. It is clear that although we have incredible potential, we need to move faster to exploit it.
The Government must place decarbonisation at the heart of the UK’s industrial strategy. The net zero sector is growing three times faster than the overall UK economy and jobs in the sector pay almost 15% more than the national average. If we want good, long-term jobs for British people, we must look seriously at green energy. We can create manufacturing jobs producing the technology, jobs working on the grid, jobs working on offshore sites and many more, but only if we take climate change seriously. That means ensuring that workers and communities in sectors such as North sea oil and gas are not left behind as the industry declines, but supported to move into new, clean industries. Even if all our energy came from renewables we would need oil and gas for the foreseeable future, but it makes no sense to import gas, which is four times as polluting as local production.
The Liberal Democrats would introduce a carbon tariff to level the playing field and minimise carbon emissions. The skills already built up in Scotland’s energy sector are the skills that we need for offshore wind, grid upgrades and new green technologies, but there is an urgent need to invest in more skill training and housing if we want the sector to thrive, grow and build new sustainable jobs and communities.
The Government have listened to the Liberal Democrats before on green energy. I urge them to do so again to help create a cleaner, fairer future for our children, and across the world.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I call Sureena Brackenridge —you have two minutes.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this important debate. I will take this opportunity to link the national Government ambition of the carbon budget delivery plan with the local government ambition of Wolverhampton’s green innovation corridor.
The benefits of the clean energy economy are well reported and evidenced: creating energy security, lowering household bills, protecting our environment and building good local jobs. For too long, global price shocks driven by conflict and market volatility have hit my residents’ pockets. By investing in home-grown clean energy—from offshore wind to solar and local generation —we are keeping more of our energy and money right here in the UK. That means greater control over prices, and a fairer, more stable energy system for households across the country.
In the west midlands, Wolverhampton’s green innovation corridor has every potential to build our industrial past into a green industrial future. By connecting the University of Wolverhampton with a local manufacturing base and skills training for the industries of tomorrow, it can create local opportunities for great jobs of the future.
What does that mean for my constituents? First, it means jobs. The green innovation corridor is set to deliver over 1,000 skilled roles including apprenticeships for young people, retraining for experienced workers, and graduate opportunities. Secondly, it means investment and regeneration. The corridor will breathe new life into old brownfield sites, creating new workspaces and better connectivity, so that investment flows into local businesses, communities and shops. By linking our local ambition with the national carbon budget delivery plan and by backing the green innovation corridor, we are supporting jobs and households in Wolverhampton and Willenhall.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Well done for keeping to time. I am calling the Front Benchers at 5.28 pm. I call Jim Shannon—you have a minute and a half.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for setting the scene. The Government are trying to meet their carbon budgets, and that is important, but I want to make a quick point in the time I have on behalf of those who will suffer as a result. Families in my constituency as struggling more than ever, as charitable giving lessens and the ability for charities to provide help lessens as well.
Yes, let us reach the target for carbon budget delivery, but let us make sure that that is financially viable. I know several families who were comfortable for a number of years, but who are struggling now. On behalf of those struggling families in Strangford—there are struggling families in everybody’s constituencies, not just mine—we must ensure that we can achieve the goals while ensuring that the impact on our constituents is defensible.
I have always been proud to be forward-looking, but I believe that we cannot leave struggling families on the trail behind. Meeting the targets and goals affects all of us—some can afford it, but some cannot, and they are the people we should be looking out for. I am more interested in people such as my constituents and the bread and butter issues that they focus on all the time. Let us meet the targets, but let us make sure that people are looked after on the way there.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing this important debate. I am delighted that after years of delays, legal challenges and missed opportunities, we finally have a new carbon delivery plan. As we all know, however, a plan is not enough—it is actions, not words, that count.
Before I get into the action that is needed, I want to first acknowledge the great progress that has been made. The UK has halved its emissions since 1990. That is an exceptional achievement and one we should rightly be proud of, but much of that progress has been made by phasing out coal. Much of the heavy lifting on hard-to-abate emissions still lies ahead: decarbonising manufacturing, transport and agriculture and improving energy efficiency, all while protecting nature.
The key to further progress is changing the narrative. The transition to a low-carbon economy is not a cost or a burden; it is one of the greatest opportunities of our time. It can bring cheaper bills, warmer homes and thousands of well-paid jobs in the green economy. It is deeply disappointing that, having once lead the UK through varying levels of success in green technology, the Conservative party has abandoned its values and veered into climate denialism. Its recent calls to scrap the Climate Change Act just show how far it has fallen from the environmental leadership that Britain once showed.
The new carbon budget delivery plan is a step back in the right direction. The Government’s plan includes bold targets: low-carbon power making up 98% of the grid by 2035, 9 million heat pumps in operation, 1.6 million homes upgraded every year, and 75% of farmers engaged in emissions reductions. The Liberal Democrats support those aims, but we also want action now. We have proposed a 10-year emergency home upgrade programme, starting with free insulation for low-income households, ensuring that all new homes are zero carbon, and extending rooftop solar through the sunshine Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson).
We would also provide a social tariff for vulnerable households and move older renewable projects on to cheaper, more stable contracts. The Government’s investor prospectus is a good start, but stability is what really attracts private investment. The green economy is already growing three times faster than the UK economy as a whole and employs nearly 1 million people in well-paid, secure jobs. With clear policy direction, we can accelerate that growth.
The Government must end the sporadic nature of the climate portfolio and end the stop-start conversations with the Treasury. The £8.3 billion for GB Energy is good news—having spent a decade in renewable energy finance, I can tell Members that I would have supported that if it were £8.30—but it needs to be front-loaded, not spread out over the course of a Parliament. If we want to crowd in private investment, we have to de-risk the first 10p on the pound, not the first 1p.
There also need to be long-term secure funding streams that are accessible to start-ups and innovators. The net zero innovation portfolio was a great scheme. It invested around £300 million in early-stage climate ventures, leveraging up to £3 in private investment for every £1 in public grant funding. Sadly, it was scrapped this year. Will the Government confirm whether they intend there to be a replacement to the net zero innovation portfolio? Will they also confirm that the clean tech innovation challenge will proceed in 2026, as previously announced? In addition, I urge Ministers to commit a portion of the next round of Government carbon purchases specifically to carbon removal projects, to help to establish and grow the greenhouse gas-removal market.
We must reform how the National Energy System Operator manages battery storage. By prioritising flexible storage rather than reverting to high-emission generators such as Drax, we would be able to utilise a far greater proportion of the renewable energy that we generate.
On agriculture, the plan to recognise farmers as central to climate action is great, but we need to fund them properly. The Government’s cuts to the sustainable farming initiative and delays to environmental land management schemes mean that many farmers are left uncertain about the future and unable to invest in carbon reduction and nature-friendly initiatives. The Liberal Democrats would commit an additional £1 billion a year to support sustainable farming and rural resilience.
We must also accelerate the upgrade of our national grid, and ensure that communities affected by new infrastructure share in the benefits. Clean power cannot flow if it cannot be connected. The Liberal Democrats are also calling for a UK-wide adaptation strategy to embed climate resilience into every decision and support local communities to prepare before disaster occurs.
COP30 is currently being held in Brazil, and while the world’s negotiators grapple with finding an agreement, the British public are clear that they overwhelmingly support strong climate action. They want leadership. The Liberal Democrats believe we can halve energy bills within a decade, end fuel poverty and create a cleaner, fairer and more secure Britain. In the delivery plan, the Government say that they will
“seek to improve delivery and, where appropriate, will explore further measures, to ensure that the UK will meet its international commitments.”
Well, the Liberal Democrats believe in facts. We believe in science, the opinions of experts, and the inalienable truth that climate change is an existential crisis. We are here to help to improve that delivery, explore those further measures and ensure that our generation meets our commitment to future generations.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. Since the Labour Government took office, they have pursued an ideological net zero agenda that places meeting targets above supporting our constituents and cutting bills across the country. The carbon budget delivery plan is the latest example of that: a glossy plan that completely ignores affordability and reality.
The Secretary of State has spent much of his time in office promising that his policies will cut household energy bills by £300. That promise was made at the last election and was supported by the Prime Minister, yet that figure is not mentioned once in the flagship carbon budget delivery plan. There are sections on energy security and lower bills, but nowhere does it reference the £300 promise that the Secretary of State and others from the Labour party incessantly trumpeted across the media and from the Dispatch Box. If that pledge were real—if it were costed or credible—it would surely appear in the document that is supposedly designed to deliver it. Its absence tells us everything. The Government’s priority is not cutting bills, but chasing net zero goals regardless of the cost to hard-working taxpayers.
At a recent Energy Security and Net Zero Committee hearing, senior executives from the country’s biggest energy suppliers warned that even if gas were free in 2030, household energy bills would still rise because of the policy costs being loaded on to bills in the relentless pursuit of net zero. I repeat: even if gas were free—even if the wholesale market delivered us a miracle—bills would go up, not down. That is a failure not of the market, but of Labour Government policy.
Those energy companies are not hostile to decarbonisation; they are some of the loudest champions of net zero. Yet even they warn that the current approach—piling levies, subsidies and obligations on to consumers—is unsustainable and unrealistic. When those who believe in the Government’s energy objectives start doubting the approach, perhaps it is time for the Government to revisit their plans. Even Professor Sir Dieter Helm, one of the country’s most respected energy economists, has in effect described the Government’s clean power 2030 plan as economically incoherent. As he put it, we are
“baking in very high costs”
for the future. He is right.
It is not possible to legislate for lower bills while loading more costs on to every unit of power people use—a simple equation that the Government do not seem to have grasped, exemplified by what we have all seen in the carbon budget delivery plan. It is a classic Labour approach: a headline without a policy, a promise without a plan, a bill for everyone else to pay, and a vanity project that will simply not work. The truth is that Britain will not decarbonise by taxing, banning and bribing people into submission.
As the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), said at our party conference, the best way to cut emissions is to “make electricity cheap”. Cheap means clean power, because people and businesses naturally choose the most efficient technology available when it saves them money. This Government, however, have made electricity the most expensive form of energy that we produce. They have loaded every kilowatt with green levies, obligations and subsidies, and then tried to subsidise and redistribute when families cannot afford to heat their homes or to switch to electric vehicles.
We see the same erratic pattern in the operation of the Climate Change Act 2008, which forces Ministers to take decisions that make the British people less well off and our economy weaker, for the sake of meeting arbitrary climate targets. Take their boiler tax: it increases the cost of gas boilers to force people to adopt heat pumps, which may not work for them, to meet climate targets. We are chopping down trees in America, shipping them across the Atlantic and burning them in Yorkshire to generate electricity at three times the price of gas, because it is labelled as clean for the purpose of meeting the Government’s climate targets.
These are not the decisions of a Government guided by science or economics; they are the decisions of a Government trapped by targets, with a Secretary of State dogmatically following them. If the Government truly believed in innovation, they would focus on reforming the electricity market to bring prices down; they would remove the outdated levies that make our electricity the most expensive in the world; they would spend more on nuclear baseload; and they would back British energy security, from new nuclear to North sea gas, rather than making us more dependent on imported fuel by choosing to shut down the North sea.
The public understand that we must reduce emissions. They want a cleaner environment and a stable climate for their grandchildren. But they also expect honesty from the Government, and an approach that will actually work and actually decarbonise.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
I can say with absolute sincerity that it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I could not have wished for a more benevolent Chair for my first outing at the Dispatch Box here in Westminster Hall. I apologise to Members who may have been expecting the Minister for Climate, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), but she is attending the COP. I do hope that I am not too mean a substitute.
I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate. We all recognise how important the issue is. For me, it has been a real pleasure to sit and listen attentively to colleagues from throughout the House with such expertise. I shall endeavour to respond to many of the remarks that have been made, although I feel slightly sorry for the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). Everyone else in the Chamber challenged the Government for being too fast or too slow, while ultimately working towards the same objective, but he occupied a slightly lonely position. That is the position his party has chosen to take.
An investment in fighting the climate crisis, and in net zero, is fundamentally an investment for our future generations. The economic opportunity before us can improve the lives of working people not only in the future but here and now, and our policies are intended to do precisely that. We want to tackle the climate crisis while ensuring that we crowd-in private sector investment. In Prime Minister’s questions earlier, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister mentioned the £33 billon investment from SSE; the pursuit of net zero is clearly the pursuit of economic prosperity. Members have already mentioned the fact that the Confederation of British Industry says the green economy is growing three times faster than the rest of the economy, as are the good jobs provided by the green energy sector around the country.
Carbon budgets were a significant part of the debate. Ten years ago, the world was on course for 4° of warming, which would have posed a severe threat to human life. Today, through international action, we are on course for 2.6°, or below 2° if countries meet their full climate commitments. I was asked earlier about the Government’s focus at COP; fundamentally, our focus is multilateralism to get the world working together again. Of course, that is about ensuring that Britain retains its place as a climate leader, and that we do so in a way that supports communities and families through the UK’s transition.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, bring home the importance of thinking about the poorest in our society. I want to reassure him, and the House, that they are very much in my mind, and the minds of all Ministers, as we take forward these issues. That is why we are so concerned about getting bills down.
The previous Government left us an energy system that was tied to the international price of gas, which has left households with gas prices 75% higher than they were the year before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We have decided not to leave our future in the hands of international dictators and petrostates, but to return to energy security. That is what clean power provides us, and that is why we set up Great British Energy, which invests in the necessary kinds of projects. It also invests in community energy projects, which were mentioned by many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central.
Barry Gardiner
Does the Minister recognise that the policy costs mentioned by the shadow Minister are a regressive tax, and that it may be better to put those on to general taxation? Of course, the energy company obligations and other policy costs were introduced by the Conservative Government. Will the Minister give consideration to where they may best lie to ensure that what he said in response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is realised?
Chris McDonald
Matters of tax are left to the Chancellor, particularly this close to the Budget.
The Government’s approach to the transition is about incentives rather than punishments—it is about carrots rather than sticks. The economics are working in the direction of net zero, and net zero is no longer a political discussion, wherever the Opposition think they are. Net zero is an economic discussion, and one in which industry has been quite clear about where the benefits lie. As industry is decarbonising, it is also digitising, automating and becoming more productive. That is what will fundamentally drive down costs for consumers and provide good jobs.
Essentially, we have a choice ahead of us about the type of country that we become. We can either seize this opportunity and capture international investment, which is going two to one into green energy versus fossil fuel energy, or take the regressive approach of the Opposition, which leaves us at the mercy of petrostates.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Thank you, Minister; that leaves a moment or two for Abtisam Mohamed to complete our discussion.
Abtisam Mohamed
Thank you for your stewardship in the debate, Sir John; I will do my best to be as brief as possible. I thank all Members for their contributions and interventions. On the whole, they have been extremely positive, and they have wanted our Ministers to be as positive and ambitious as possible in tackling the climate crisis, not just for our constituents but for the Government as a whole.
A key point raised by the Minister was the Government’s focus on multilateralism; I welcome that approach, and our Government should take their rightful place as a strong leader on our climate obligations. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the shadow Minister has decided to ignore the facts and expert opinions. Instead, the Opposition’s ideological position is just to pretend that the climate crisis is not something real that we are living through.
I thank you again, Sir John, and everyone else for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered progress on the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan.
Nuclear Energy Infrastructure
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
The UK’s nuclear sector will play a critical role in delivering the Government’s clean energy superpower mission and supporting economic growth. The Government will ensure that the right enablers are in place to support the sector to deploy new nuclear projects across England and Wales, including a suitable planning framework.
To improve the planning framework for nuclear infrastructure, today the final version of the new national policy statement on nuclear energy infrastructure—called EN-7—was laid before Parliament, according to section 9(8) of the Planning Act 2008.
EN-7 sets out the policy for considering development consent applications for new nuclear fission infrastructure. The NPS will be applicable to nuclear infrastructure proposed to produce over 50 MW of electricity in England and 350 MW of electricity in Wales. It introduces a criteria-based approach, removes the deployment deadline for new projects, and expands the range of technologies covered to include small and advanced modular reactors in addition to the existing gigawatt-scale reactors. The new planning framework is robust, transparent and agile, and it will empower developers to identify potentially suitable sites against a set of criteria, ensuring safety, sustainability and the mitigation of impacts on the host community.
Once EN-7 is approved, either by resolution by the House of Commons, or by deemed consent by the House of Commons following a “consideration period” of 21 sitting days, it will enter into force.
[HCWS1049]
Transforming the Health Service
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
I am today updating the House on the Government’s plans to reform the health system in England, in line with our commitment to deliver a more accountable, productive and patient-focused national health service.
The Government intend to abolish NHS England by March 2027, subject to the will of Parliament. And as we have set out, the role of integrated care boards is also changing. ICBs now have a clear purpose as strategic commissioners, tasked with building a neighbourhood health service focused on preventing illness.
We are doing this to deliver a more streamlined, efficient and strategic centre. The size of the centre has more than doubled since 2010. The 2012 reorganisation of the NHS led to worse care for patients, at soaring costs, leaving taxpayers paying more but getting less. That is why the Government’s ambition remains to reduce staff numbers by up to 50% across the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and ICBs. These reductions will be made by March 2028.
Patients will experience better care as we end duplication and slash bureaucracy across the NHS, with around 18,000 posts abolished and more than £1 billion per annum saved by the end of the Parliament. These reforms will also give more power and autonomy to local leaders and systems—stripping away red tape and bureaucracy, and providing more freedom to better deliver health services for their local communities. Today’s announcement comes ahead of next week’s Budget, which will focus on cutting waiting lists, cutting the national debt and cutting the cost of living, and driving more productive and efficient use of taxpayers’ money by rooting out waste in public services.
As set out in our 10-year health plan, we are revitalising the foundation trust model that drove previous improvements in performance, but with the shift from treatment to prevention at its heart. And as our next step in delivering this commitment, I can today update Parliament that eight high-performing trusts will be assessed by NHS England to become the first advanced foundation trusts, based on their record of delivering quality care, strong finances and effective partnerships with staff and local services:
https://www.england.nhs.uk/advanced-foundation-trusts/
Further waves will follow over the coming years, driving up standards in every community.
This new designation will reward excellence with greater freedom for providers and clinicians to make decisions locally—from how services are organised to how money is spent—so that care can be designed around what works best for local people, not dictated from Whitehall.
On top of this, the best foundation trusts—those embracing the three shifts and demonstrating the strongest partnerships—will also be given the opportunity to hold integrated health organisation contracts. As an IHO, they will hold the whole health budget for a local population, alongside responsibility for improving health outcomes.
From the first wave of advanced foundation trusts, two will go forward as candidates for first wave IHO designation. We will work with these designates to further develop the IHO model, and over time we expect IHOs to become the norm.
All of this adds up to a very different kind of NHS. It marks a fundamental shift: from command and control to collaboration and confidence. It will not happen overnight, but with our investment and modernisation, this Government will rebuild our NHS so that it is there for you when you need it once again.
[HCWS1051]
Prevent Programme
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
On Thursday 6 November, the Home Office published official statistics for “Individuals referred to and supported through the Prevent Programme from April 2024 to March 2025”. Prevent is a key part of Contest, the national counter-terrorism strategy, and aims to stop people from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. It has supported nearly 6,000 people to move away from a pathway to radicalisation since 2015 and plays a vital role in safeguarding those most vulnerable in our communities.
Key statistics
In the year ending 31 March 2025, the Prevent programme experienced a significant increase in activity, with 8,778 referrals recorded, compared to 6,922 between April 2023 and March 2024. This represents a 27% rise compared to the previous year and marks the highest annual total since records began in 2015. Of these referrals, 1,472 were adopted as Channel cases, accounting for 17% of all referrals. This proportion is notably higher than the 7% recorded last year. As set out in the full publication, changes in methodology mean that caution should be exercised when making direct comparisons with previous years.
Looking at the nature of concerns raised, 21% of referrals were related to extreme right-wing radicalisation (1,798 cases), while 10% were associated with Islamist extremism (870 cases). A substantial proportion of referrals—34%—concerned individuals for whom no specific ideology was identified.
The UK terrorism threat level has remained substantial, with Islamist extremism the most significant threat, followed by extreme right-wing terrorism. Of those concerns related to Islamist extremism, 26% were adopted into Channel for support the year ending March 2025, an increase from 13% last year. While the increased number of adoptions is welcome, we recognise that given the prevalence of this threat type, Prevent must go further to build awareness and understanding so that people can identify and refer Islamist extremist concerns.
We continue to see an increase in concerns regarding those that have a fascination with extreme violence or mass casualty attacks. The tragic attack in Southport last year demonstrates the very real threat from non-ideological extreme violence, and the increase in referrals of this type to Prevent shows the vigilance of frontline professionals in identifying and reporting these concerns.
It is vital that Prevent remains threat agnostic so that it can deal with the full range of threats we face. As an early intervention programme, Prevent is in a position to intervene and provide support to anybody who is on a pathway to radicalisation. While the presence of ideology is clearly an important factor, Prevent must not limit its scope to cases where a terrorist ideology has clearly already taken hold.
Under this Government a range of steps have been taken to improve the ability of frontline professionals subject to the Prevent duty to spot the signs of radicalisation.
A new Prevent assessment framework was rolled out in September 2024 to support CT police to strengthen the quality and consistency of decision-making on all Prevent referrals.
In November 2024, we launched a new ideology training programme for frontline staff such as teachers and healthcare workers. This will help them to identify extremist ideologies, including Islamist extremism, and to refer people they are concerned about into Prevent for further support.
The role of independent Prevent commissioner was created in December 2024, to provide additional scrutiny and oversight of Prevent policy and delivery.
In September 2025, the Home Office issued new guidance which clarified Prevent thresholds for practitioners, following recommendations made the independent Prevent commissioner.
As the nature of radicalisation evolves, it is essential that Prevent can effectively tackle the threat we see today. The Home Office will continue to work with partners including counter-terrorism police, local authorities, health and education to ensure that Prevent can offer support to the right people, where they are at risk of being drawn into terrorism.
[HCWS1045]
Medomsley Detention Centre
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
The Government would like to make a formal apology to all victims and survivors who endured abuse while they were at Medomsley Detention Centre.
Medomsley held young men sentenced or remanded by the courts in the north-east of England from the early 1960s until the late 1980s. In the years since, it has become clear that shocking and systematic abuse took place at Medomsley, which was carried out by staff who were meant to protect the young people in their care.
Today, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman has published a report into what happened at Medomsley. This report makes for harrowing reading and gives an account of the physical, sexual and psychological abuse.
The PPO report was commissioned to investigate what authorities knew about the abuse, and if any action was taken at time to intervene.
The report sets out that the abuse often began when detainees arrived and for some continued after the young men had left Medomsley. It highlights that vulnerable victims were often deliberately targeted, including men from ethnic minority backgrounds who were subjected to appalling racism. Young men were hospitalised as a result of the abuse, and there were at least two tragic deaths, which were likely caused by neglect from the staff, who should have been caring for them.
The report highlights the huge impact of the abuse for those who had to endure it. This cannot be understated. Many detainees turned to self-harm, others to drink and drugs and some attempted suicide.
The report makes it clear that the staff believed that rules did not apply to them, that violence was an appropriate training method and that degrading and humiliating the young men was part of the culture at Medomsley.
In some of the worst cases, there was systematic rape and sexual assault, which involved ritual humiliation and degradation.
In regard to action taken at the time by authorities, the report details that there was a litany of failures. The complaints process was utterly flawed at Medomsley and young men were intimidated into silence. When complaints were made, they were denied or dismissed by Government officials. This means there was a complete lack of effective action in response to complaints or allegations.
In addition, much of what was happening at Medomsley was an open secret within the local community. The young men sent there were warned of the violent culture at Medomsley by lawyers, police officers, friends and family members. Some had never spent a night away from home and were subjected to terrible abuse at Medomsley.
Medomsley should have helped young men turn their lives around. Instead, it became a monstrous perversion of justice for the young men who walked through its gates.
There is nothing that will completely make amends for what happened and we cannot change the abuse which occurred at Medomsley. However, this statement, representing the Government, is to apologise.
We apologise for what victims and survivors endured, and for how long it was allowed to continue. On our own behalf and that of past Governments, we are truly sorry for what happened.
We must do everything we can to support victims and survivors of Medomsley. And in 2019 the Ministry of Justice established a settlement scheme for victims and survivors of physical and sexual abuse. To date, this has paid out over £10 million to over 2,700 individuals. Anyone who suffered abuse at Medomsley is still able to make a claim, and we encourage them to come forward.
However, victims have understandably wanted answers about how this was able to continue for so long. Today the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman report lays bare a combination of outdated societal attitudes, poor and ineffective governance, failures of leadership at every level and a complete imbalance of power. All these factors contributed to putting Medomsley, in the Ombudsman’s words, effectively beyond the law .
There are important lessons to be learnt from this, and this report also shines a light on conditions in today’s youth custody estate too.
The youth custodial estate today bears little resemblance to the one in which the abuse at Medomsley took place. The number of children in custody has significantly reduced and children are no longer detained for less serious offences. The Government’s approach is that depriving a child of their liberty must always be a last resort and where that is unavoidable, we must provide decent and dignified care, with rehabilitation at its core.
Children who are currently in youth custody are some of the most complex and vulnerable in society. Therefore, we must do our utmost to ensure they are kept safe and given the opportunity to lead positive and happy lives on release. We know that children are most likely to do that when cared for in therapeutic environments, by highly skilled staff—the opposite of what the victims of Medomsley experienced.
The Youth Custody Service today recruits and provides training for youth justice specialists in Young Offender Institutions, which accommodate many children across the estate. It is now mandatory for all staff to undertake safeguarding training, and other training packages such as the youth justice worker qualification are grounded in trauma-informed practice.
Although the estate looks different today, the recent inspection reports on Oakhill Secure Training Centre and Oasis Restore Secure School demonstrate that more must be done to keep children safe.
Today, I am announcing that we will create a youth custody safeguarding panel, which will be led by the chief social worker for children and families who will have responsibility for reviewing safeguarding arrangements in youth custody, including the complaints process. This to ensure victims voices are heard and not dismissed, like they were at Medomsley.
The panel will undertake a review of the safeguarding practices to ensure they are fit for purpose and subject to appropriate scrutiny. It will review the roles of all of those involved in caring for and supporting children, and it will report directly to the Minister for Youth Justice. I will ensure it drives forward changes to safeguarding children and commit to reporting on the panels progress in six months.
This Government are also making a number of legislative changes to protect children.
This includes implementing several recommendations from the 2022 independent inquiry into child sexual abuse and the 2025 national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse.
The response to the independent inquiry places a new statutory duty on individuals who work with children in England to report sexual abuse, or face being struck off from working with children. And those who try to deter them from doing so will face prosecution under a new criminal offence. This makes it clear that there will now be consequences for failure to act.
We will also consult on the creation of a new child protection authority to provide system leadership and ensure there is consistency in safeguarding nationally.
This Government are also bringing the landmark Hillsborough Bill through Parliament, which will place new obligations on public servants to provide evidence with candour proactively and without attempting to cover up wrongdoing. This will bring failures to light more quickly and mean those who abuse their position or fall short of the behaviour expected of those who hold public office will face criminal sanctions.
Finally, we are also introducing the Victims and Courts Bill, which will establish a new victims’ code. This will enhance the legal rights of victims to ensure they are informed, supported, and heard throughout the justice process.
Taken all together, each of these changes aims to protect children from harm, improve safeguarding, and ensure victims are supported throughout the justice process. Ultimately, they will help prevent a repeat of what happened at Medomsley.
This statement also pays tribute to the many who have campaigned tirelessly on this issue for so many years, including the hon. Members for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon), and many others.
I would like to recognise the families, who have supported their loved ones as they struggled to come to terms with what happened to them, and, finally, the men themselves. I cannot imagine what you have been through. I can only commend your courage, for being prepared to talk about your abuse, and your determination to get answers. Your fight to have your voices has been heard and will protect children in the future.
On behalf of the Government, I am truly sorry for what happened to you and that those in power failed you.
We may never truly make amends for the horrors you suffered at Medomsley. But we can, we must, and we will, take steps to prevent it from happening again.
[HCWS1050]
Cyber-security and Resilience
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
In June 2024, Synnovis, a supplier of pathology services to the NHS, was the victim of a ransomware attack. Computer systems were hacked, private patient data was stolen, and IT systems were rendered useless. This resulted in disruption to services at five NHS trusts and local care service providers across several London boroughs, causing delays to over 11,000 out-patient and elective procedure appointments and, tragically, contributed to the death of a patient. For Synnovis itself, the financial impact of the cyber-attack is estimated at £32.7 million.
The internet is one of the greatest engines for creativity and innovation, transforming every part of our lives, from how we communicate to how we book an appointment with our doctor. It is embedded into every part of the critical systems we rely on daily, with huge benefits. However, as the attack on the NHS provider shows, the technology that underpins cyber-space—the invisible world where all our online activity happens—can be attacked and weaponised by those who mean to do us harm.
Vulnerability to cyber-attacks is not limited to the NHS. Last year, over 600,000 UK businesses were subject to a cyber-attack. Independent research commissioned by DSIT—published today—shows the average cost of a significant cyber-attack for a UK business is over £190,000. When taken at the level of the economy, this suggests an estimated annual cost to businesses of £14.7 billion, or 0.5% of the country’s GDP. These statistics and recent high-profile attacks serve as a sobering reminder that cyber-security is not a luxury, and all organisations should take steps to defend themselves.
The Government are taking a wide range of actions to improve cyber-resilience across the economy. This includes:
Writing to leading UK firms asking them to take urgent action on cyber-security. So far, over 130 firms have responded to the letter with details of the actions they are taking, including requiring suppliers to adopt the cyber essentials scheme.
Launching a new cyber action toolkit to help small businesses boost their online defences.
Offering free cyber-security guidance, tools, training and codes of practice.
Offering practical, hands-on cyber-security help to small and medium-sized enterprises via nine regional cyber-resilience centres.
The “Stop! Think Fraud” campaign, which provides advice to the public and small businesses on how to prevent fraud and cyber-crime.
But where organisations provide essential services that the public and businesses rely on every day, we must go further to ensure that appropriate and proportionate safeguarding measures are in place. As the CEO of the National Cyber Security Centre warned,
“the challenge we face is growing at an order of magnitude”.
Yet as the threat has grown more intense, more frequent and more sophisticated, our defences have become comparatively weaker. The UK’s only cross-sector cyber legislation—protecting the essential and digital services the public and businesses rely on every day, like the NHS, transport system and energy network—is out of date and no longer sufficient to tackle the cyber-threats faced by the UK.
As the Prime Minister has said,
“national security is the first responsibility of any Government—that never changes. But as the world changes, the way we discharge that responsibility must change with it”.
In response to the growing cyber-threat, it is crucial that we act now to enhance the UK’s security and resilience—to protect our essential public services, deliver a step change in UK national security, and underpin economic growth.
This is why today we will introduce the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill to Parliament, updating the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018 through three pillars of reform.
Expanded scope: The regime does not cover every UK organisation. It is about those services that are so essential that their disruption would affect our daily lives. The original regulations in 2018 brought into scope services such as the NHS, the transport system and the energy network. Since then, cyber-criminals are exploiting new routes—managed service providers, data centres and critical parts of supply chains—to threaten our way of life. Recent incidents impacting Marks & Spencer and Heathrow airport involved managed service providers, leading to considerable business disruption and interrupting check-in and boarding services, respectively. This reflects the interconnected economy we live in. By bringing into scope more of the core services relied on across the economy, UK businesses and public services will be more secure and resilient.
Effective regulators: 12 regulators are responsible for implementing these laws. This allows for a sector-specific approach, as different organisations are vulnerable to threats in different ways, such as through the technology they use. The Bill will drive a more consistent and effective regime, with expanded and more timely reporting of harmful cyber-attacks, a stronger mechanism for Government to set priority outcomes for regulators to work to, and a fuller toolkit for sharing information, recovering costs and enforcement.
Enabling resilience: The Government do not currently have the powers to head off the threats faced by the UK as they change and evolve. That is why the Government will be given the tools to quickly strengthen our cyber-security and resilience in response to the ever-changing threat landscape, such as bringing more sectors into scope or updating security requirements, and responding to imminent threats to our national security and way of life.
The measures set out today respond to the threat we face—protecting the public at home, putting national security first, and making the UK a safe and confident place to do business.
[HCWS1046]
Fund Advance for Cash Paid in to Social Fund: Contingencies
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
I would like to notify the House that the Department for Work and Pensions has obtained approval for an advance from the Contingencies Fund of £1,610,000,000
The voted cash requirement for cash to be paid into the social fund exceeds that provided for in the main estimate 2025-26 due to changes to eligibility in the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payments Regulations 2025.
The Contingencies Fund advance is required to enable payments into the social fund to meet obligations until the supplementary estimate receives Royal Assent.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £1,610,000,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Department for Work and Pensions. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £1,610,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
The advance will be repaid at the earliest opportunity following Royal Assent of the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2026.
[HCWS1047]
Annually Managed Expenditure Budgets Increase
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
I would like to notify the House that the Department for Work and Pensions has obtained approval from His Majesty’s Treasury for an increase of £1,610,000,000 to non-voted AME—annually managed expenditure—budgets and the total AME budget control, to fund increases to the winter fuel payment in line with the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2025.
[HCWS1048]
Death of a Member: Baroness Newlove
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, on 11 November. On behalf of the House I extend our condolences to the noble Baroness’s family and friends.
Telemedical Abortions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness O'Loan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent proposals to extend access to telemedical abortions, and how they will ensure women’s safety and informed consent in the absence of in-person medical consultation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
Before I respond, I join the Lord Speaker—I am sure on behalf of the whole House—in extending our condolences sincerely to the late noble Baroness’s friends, family and loved ones. We will miss her greatly.
The Government have no plans to extend access to telemedical abortions. As with other matters of conscience, abortion is an issue on which the Government take a neutral stance. It is for Parliament to decide. The safety of women accessing abortion services is of paramount importance. All providers are required to have effective arrangements in place to ensure women’s safety and to obtain informed consent.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, before I ask my supplementary, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who was so brave and effective in all she did in this House and in her work for victims after the murder of her beloved husband, Garry. Helen had such compassion and courage, and she really was such a lovely person that she will be sorely missed, not only by her family, to whom I am sure we all send great sympathy, but by so many of us in this House and in the world beyond. We were indeed blessed by her presence among us.
I thank the Minister for her reply. It is not possible on the telephone to ensure a woman’s privacy, to ensure that she is not being coerced, or to verify that the woman seeking the medication is actually the person who will take it, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse, child abuse and trafficking. Government stats show that, since 2020, 54,000 people have been admitted to hospital in England for complications from abortion pills. Last year alone, some 12,000—over 6% of women taking such medication—required hospital treatment. To safeguard women and girls, will the Minister take action to restore the requirement for face-to-face consultations? Will she also assure the House that there will be no extension of the time limits for access to medical abortions?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the evidence base for telemedical abortion is sound. It has been thoroughly evaluated and it is recommended as safe by the World Health Organization, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and NICE’s evidence-based guidelines. There are no plans to do what the noble Baroness has requested, and I have to say that I do not recognise the statistics she raised, although I would be interested to hear more about them. But I assure your Lordships’ House that telemedical abortion is and must be carried out in line with clinical guidelines published by the royal college.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that the changes voted in to the Crime and Policing Bill in the Commons do not extend the provision of telemedicine, and that the 10-week limit remains? The introduction of telemedicine has meant that 40% of abortions now occur at less than six weeks’ gestation, in comparison to 25% previously. Does the Minister agree that the earlier that women can access abortion, the better it is for their health and well-being?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly can confirm that the changes voted into that Bill involve no change to the provision of telemedicine. To the noble Baroness’s other point, we would need to review the data, including the available data in respect of her question about health and well-being, on which I would be pleased to write to her further.
Baroness Barker (LD)
We on these Benches would like to note that the dedication of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, to sticking up for victims applied no matter who was in government at the time, and that was a very laudable thing to witness in this House.
Does the Minister agree that all the peer-reviewed evidence suggests that women who are in vulnerable situations find it easier and safer to access abortion services on the phone, and that study after study has shown that professionals employed in those services are very well attuned to finding out what, if anything, is happening to the person on the end of the phone, particularly if they are under duress?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I most certainly can agree with the points the noble Baroness has rightly made. There is a very clear pathway to providing safe care. The provision of telemedicine in this regard came in in 2022, and it has given safe abortions further ballast, so it is nothing other than a safe procedure, as I mentioned earlier.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I associate myself and these Benches with the kind tributes paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. She was a fierce campaigner, particularly after the sad and premature death of her husband—in fact, her death could be seen as premature, and we will all miss her greatly.
As the Minister and other noble Lords have said, much of the clinical evidence shows that telemedicine is just as safe as administering medication in a clinic. However, whatever your views on abortion, there are clearly some concerns about the coercion of women. Can the Minister repeat her assurance to the House that telemedical abortion consultations will include robust safeguarding assessments carried out by trained clinicians? Can she assure us that, if there are any concerns about the safety of women, or that women may be being coerced by an abusive partner into seeking an abortion, they are referred to an in-person appointment?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly can confirm that, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for emphasising the point. Two doctors have to certify that in their opinion, the abortion meets the grounds of the Abortion Act. For a telemedical abortion, the doctor must also certify that in their opinion the pregnancy has not exceeded 10 weeks at the time when the first pill is taken. Let me also say that, if there are any concerns, the woman will be asked to attend an in-person appointment.
Baroness Prosser (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister ensure that, whatever the umbrella of this legislation is, it will cover women in a variety of circumstances? We all know that, unfortunately, many women live in situations where they do not have much control over their own lives. There is also, of course, the circumstance where a woman might happily find herself pregnant, only to discover a couple of months later that something else has happened and it is going to be a disaster. We need to ensure that, whatever the different circumstances that women might find themselves in, the legislation will enable them to access whatever is right for them and their families.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I do understand the point my noble friend makes. I can indeed assure your Lordships’ House that, while the Abortion Act is at the heart of this, we have other Acts of Parliament and, as I said at the outset, it is right that Parliament makes that decision. In addition to the groups my noble friend refers to, we commissioned, for example, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health to develop new safeguarding guidance for children and young people under 18 who are accessing medical abortion services, so we understand her concern and are acting on it.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, the extension of the regulations to enable early medical abortion to be provided without requiring in-person medical consultation was a significant change. We have heard about the tragic cases of early medical abortion pills being provided outside the law and women being put at risk as a result. We are now three years on from this change. What data has been collected in that time and what does it tell us about the workability of the new system in providing safe abortions within the law?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The data available does not point to concerns about the provision of telemedicine. I should emphasise that, of course, abortions can take place only in an NHS hospital, in a place approved by the Secretary of State, or via telemedicine at the woman’s usual place of residence. Approval has to be given by the Secretary of State, and there is inspection by the Care Quality Commission, which inspects providers. The data thus far does not flag a difficulty in respect of telemedicine. In fact, all aspects of this are saying that this ensures that this safe procedure is assisting the situation for the women concerned.
Barnett Formula: Wales
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wigley
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to review the Barnett Formula to ensure needs-based funding in Wales.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
The Barnett formula is a key part of the arrangements for pooling and sharing risk and resources across the UK. It is simple and efficient and provides a clear and certain outcome. The inclusion of a needs-based factor in the Barnett formula ensures that it accounts for the high relative needs of the Welsh Government and funds them above Wales’s independently assessed level of need compared with equivalent UK government spending in England.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, when the Barnett formula was first established, more than 100,000 people worked in coal and steel in Wales; that is now down to under 5,000. Does the Minister recall Lord Barnett admitting that his formula was outdated, with the consequent underfunding of Wales hidden by European regional grants, which have now ended? Has the Minister seen Cardiff University’s recent report stating that Wales receives far less than its population share of funding for reserved functions such as justice and railways, calling for the tripling of the Senedd’s borrowing capacity and for full income tax devolution? If the Minister cannot commit to a needs-based formula, will the Government at least now take the opportunity to give the Senedd parity of financial powers with those that the Scottish Parliament now has?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. The Barnett formula does reflect the higher level of needs in Wales. A 5% needs-based factor in the formula ensures that Wales receives fair funding. It is the biggest uplift since 1998, when devolution started. As far as the railways are concerned, the UK Government are responsible for heavy railway infrastructure across England and Wales—it is devolved, I believe, to Scotland—so spend money on railways in Wales, rather than funding the Welsh Government to do so. This is consistent with the funding arrangements for all other policy areas reserved in Wales. Wales continues to benefit from rail investment. At the 2025 spending review, the Chancellor announced an investment in Welsh rail of at least £445 million.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, the UK Government have given the Welsh Government the largest financial settlement in the history of devolution, nearly £5 billion extra to spend on public services in the next three years—not supported in the Senedd by Plaid Cymru. Does the Minister agree that it was most positive to hear the Deputy First Minister telling the Senedd last Tuesday that Ministers had
“secured an agreement with the UK Government”
to further explore the Barnett formula?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. It is true that the UK and devolved Governments have agreed to undertake joint working to look at ways of improving the operation of the Barnett formula, to report at the next meeting of the finance Interministerial Standing Committee, expected in early 2026. Just to reiterate, they have had a 20% uplift in their budgeting from the Barnett formula, which is equivalent to £4 billion this year.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that this is not actually about the amount of funding going to Wales but about fairness? I draw his attention to the 2009 report of this House’s Select Committee on the Barnett Formula, which clearly showed that Wales loses out and that we should move to a funding system based on need. Surely that would be fairer to the people of Wales. Simply citing numbers does not deal with the problem, which is the basic unfairness in the way the Barnett formula has operated towards people in Wales.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I think it is fair to reiterate to the noble Lord what I have already said: Wales is receiving a massive uplift in its budget via the Barnett formula. It is the biggest increase since 1998, and I think we should welcome that. As I said earlier, we are looking at the Barnett formula again, with the devolved Administrations, to find other ways we can improve it and make it work better.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for whom I have a great deal of respect, neglected to mention, when he talked about the report A Decade On: Reforming Wales’ Fiscal Framework, recently published by Cardiff University, that it described tax devolution and the extra needs-based formula that was negotiated by Mark Drakeford as Finance and First Minister as an “unequivocal budgetary success”, because it has added £1 billion by 2027-28 to the Welsh budget. However, while making that point, I also emphasise to my noble friend the Minister the need for extra flexibility on borrowing. I very much hope that will come out of these discussions.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I like to think that all the avenues of approach he has mentioned will be looked at and discussed at the ministerial meeting at the beginning of next year. It is also important to point out that there is direct funding to Wales, which includes 160,000 workers in Wales who have benefited from a direct pay rise due to the increase in the minimum wage and the national living wage.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, each of the four nations operates a different and independent NHS computer system, which means that doctors struggle to get information on cross-border patients in England and Wales. Will the Government now recognise the seriousness of this issue and adapt the Barnett formula, which stands in the way of providing the funding to remedy this situation?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a very important issue, and I hope it is something that the ministerial meeting at the beginning of next year will look at. I like to think that all aspects of the Barnett formula, including the issues that the noble Baroness has raised, will be looked at in the round, because obviously we want to see efficiency in all our public departments.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, Professor Holtham’s independent review, published in June this year, suggested that Northern Ireland’s needs-based factor might be higher than the 124% used in the current formula. We are all aware that the Barnett formula for the three nations and regions is deeply unfair. Therefore, will my noble friend, in talking with the Chancellor and Treasury colleagues, give adequate reflection to the need for a total review of the Barnett formula to reflect the need for needs-based assessment and also for fairness and equity?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I repeat that this is the largest spending review settlement received by the Northern Ireland Executive in real terms since devolution started in 1998. The Northern Ireland Executive are receiving at least 24% more per person than equivalent UK government spending in the rest of the UK, an average of £19.3 billion per year between 2026-27 and 2028-29.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the immediate issue in Wales is not the mechanism by which funds are now allocated but how effectively those funds are spent in Wales? The Welsh Government’s record of waste, inefficiency and misplaced priorities has deprived the Welsh people of value for money and of a really strong NHS, despite the record levels of funding that the Minister has pointed out.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I would dispute what the noble Baroness has just said—I do not recognise that picture of what is going on in Wales. Obviously, the increase in the amount of funding that will go to Wales through the Barnett formula is welcome. As I pointed out, there is more direct funding to Wales as well, such as the £80 million for port investment to support floating offshore wind developments in Port Talbot, and £160 million each over 10 years for investment zones in Cardiff city region and Wrexham and Flintshire. There is a lot going on in Wales, there is a lot to be proud of, and there is a lot for the Welsh Government to boast about.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the noble Baroness.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The strengthened representation and increased democracy we are about to see in Wales with the Senedd elections under the new system surely add further weight to the needs-based argument of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for looking again at improving the Barnett formula for Wales. Should the elected people closest to the voters, truly representing them, not have adequate resources to deliver on their aspirations?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
To repeat what I have said before, Wales and the other devolved authorities have done really well out of the Barnett formula this time around. It is the biggest increase in their funding from the Barnett formula since 1998. The money is there and it is up to the elected Assembly to decide how it is going to spend it, so that democracy is there. All I can say is that the best result we could get at the next election is a Labour Assembly.
Cryptocurrencies: US Regulation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the risks to the finance system in the United Kingdom arising from the loosening of regulation of cryptocurrencies in the United States of America.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK is engaged with the US on crypto asset risks through international fora, and we have created a joint UK-US Transatlantic Taskforce for Markets of the Future, for enhanced collaboration on digital assets. The Government are legislating this year for a crypto assets financial services regulatory regime, with the Financial Conduct Authority as the lead regulator, so consumers are protected and firms have the certainty needed to invest and grow in the UK.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer. The risks normally associated with cryptocurrencies are volatility, fraud, money laundering and access to criminality. Have these risks been assessed by the Government, and if so, with what result?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his question. The Government’s approach to crypto assets seeks to strike the right balance between giving firms regulatory certainty and ensuring the sector has the space and flexibility to innovate. The Government recognise that our financial stability, as well as the other considerations that my noble friend mentioned, are associated with crypto assets, but they need to be balanced against supporting innovation and ensuring the UK positions itself as a competitive global destination for digital assets. Internationally, the UK financial authorities have been working, through the Financial Stability Board, to assess and develop supervisory and regulatory approaches to address the global financial stability risks posed by crypto assets and global stablecoins. We are also currently working to put in place a comprehensive domestic regulatory regime for crypto assets as financial services, to ensure the UK has the necessary protections for crypto asset usage.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the chair of the All-Party Group on Crypto and Digital Assets. The Minister’s remarks are very welcome. Does he agree with me that the risks around crypto are the risks of not regulating it? With one in four people in Britain now trading cryptocurrency —half of them under the age of 35—regulation has never been more needed. In essence, the key issue is time: we need to get on with it.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question and pay tribute to his considerable expertise in this matter. I agree with what he said. Crypto assets have the potential to play a significant role in the financial services sector, and the economy more broadly, including through greater transparency, efficiency and security. We are already seeing the benefits that stablecoin can provide in cross-border payments by reducing costs and improving efficiency. Unlocking the full potential for digital assets and blockchain technologies requires payments that interact with them directly, and stablecoins can play an important role in achieving that. It is therefore important for the UK to harness those opportunities and—I agree with him on this—to bring forward legislation, and we will do so.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, my concern is about the geopolitics. Much of the UK’s trade today is conducted in offshore dollars, which sit beyond the reach of the US Government. As dollar stablecoin replaces traditional dollars, the US Government will get their hands on levers to pressure us and others by threatening to curtail access. Are the Government looking at the key issues of monetary sovereignty? The regulators clearly are not.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. She is not correct to say that the regulators are not looking at that; of course they are taking it into account. She is absolutely right that the US is taking forward US-denominated stablecoin. It is very important that the UK does the same. The Government see stablecoin playing an important role in the diverse and competitive UK payments landscape. We hope that firms will see the advantages of being regulated as stablecoin issuers in the UK and will seek permissions under the new regime for that.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, at the same time that the US is loosening regulation, as the Minister mentioned, the FCA is midway through its multi-year review of a comprehensive crypto asset regulatory regime. Can the Minister confirm that that review is proceeding in accordance with the published crypto road map? Is there any concern that the crypto sector and the UK’s innovation will be hampered by increased regulation at a time when other jurisdictions are loosening their regulations?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am not sure I share the noble Earl’s characterisation of the distinction between the two regimes. The US will legislate for their interests, and we will legislate for ours. The US passed legislation for the regulation of stablecoin in the summer. US regulators will publish their regulatory rules in mid-2026, with a backstop date of January 2027 for the US regime to go live. In the UK, the Government published draft legislation in April, with the final legislation due before the end of the year. Alongside that, the FCA is at an advanced stage in its consultations on the details of its regime, with a view to finalise its detailed rules and requirements in 2026. As I said at the outset, we have also created a joint UK-US Transatlantic Taskforce for Markets of the Future, to enable enhanced collaboration on digital assets.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the comments from the Minister on this topic and note my interest as co-chair of Digital Markets and Digital Money APPG. Two weeks ago, I was in Washington and met members of the US Securities and Exchange Commission—its chair, Paul Atkins, and its commissioner, Hester Peirce—to discuss “Project Crypto”, the road map it announced in August to modernise regulations for the digital asset economy. Its goal is to enable American financial markets to move on-chain and to position the US as a global leader in blockchain and crypto by creating a clearer, more innovative-friendly regulatory framework. While recognising the need to manage risks in financial stability, does the Minister agree that the greater danger to the UK is falling behind jurisdictions such as the US, if they move faster to enable innovation in crypto and digital assets?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question and pay tribute, too, to his expertise in this matter. There is a lot of truth in what he said, which is partly why HM Treasury has jointly established the transatlantic task force with the US Treasury. The purpose of the task force is threefold: first, to identify and explore options for short to medium-term collaboration on digital assets, while legislation and regulatory regimes are still developing; secondly, to identify options to improve links between our capital markets, to enhance the growth and competitiveness of both UK and US markets; and, thirdly, to report, ideally, within 180 days. It is chaired by officials of HM Treasury and the US Treasury, including representatives from the UK and US regulators responsible for capital markets, so that we can share lessons between the two authorities.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, do the Government have in mind any lessons from history when considering the potential consequences on the finances of ordinary people of a regulatory race to the bottom with regard to any kind of financial instrument?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Possibly, but I do not at all share the characterisation made by my noble friend of a regulatory race to the bottom. As I have said, we will regulate in the UK’s national interest. The Government will bring forward the final legislation to create a financial services regulator regime for crypto assets this year. Clearly, we must strike the right balance between giving firms regulatory certainty, protecting consumers and ensuring that the sector has the space and flexibility to innovate.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, these markets are global. Can the Minister tell us what contingency plans the Bank of England and the Treasury have in place should a major crypto company in the US collapse, with consequences for UK savers and markets, now as well as once the legislation has gone through? When we last discussed this subject, the Minister helpfully agreed that the Government might present a discussion paper, which would help us all. When might we expect that, given the pace of change in this important area?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. As she knows, the Bank of England is the independent regulator for systemic stablecoin and will design its regime as necessary to manage the associated risks. On 10 November, just earlier this week, the Bank of England launched a consultation to seek industry feedback on its systemic stablecoin regime, building on the initial proposals set out in its 2023 discussion paper. This includes up to 60% of backing assets to be held in short-term sterling-denominated UK Government debt securities, consistent with emerging regulatory regimes internationally, and the proposed cap of between £10,000 to £20,000 for individuals and £10 million for businesses applying for systemic stablecoins and only after consultation. The Treasury and the Bank of England are maintaining a close and ongoing dialogue on the legal and regulatory treatment of stablecoins in support of the Government’s objective to make the UK a global destination for digital assets. In terms of any wider discussion paper, I am very happy to continue discussing that point.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, my question concerns the Bank of England’s control over money supply. At what point, when the public are adopting cryptocurrencies, does the Bank lose control of the money supply? What calculation has the Treasury done, or has the Treasury done in conjunction with the Bank of England, to maintain national control over our money supply?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. The Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee and the multilateral Financial Stability Board currently agree that crypto asset markets do not currently pose material risk to financial stability in the way the noble Lord describes but that stability risk may grow as connections between the traditional financial services sector and crypto markets increase. International and UK financial authorities have been working through the Financial Stability Board to assess and develop supervisory and regulatory approaches to address global financial stability risks posed by crypto assets and global stablecoins.
Caribbean: US Military Action
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Verdirame
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of US military action in the Caribbean, including airstrikes on vessels and the threat to use force against Venezuela.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, recent US military action in the Caribbean and the Pacific, including strikes against boats allegedly involved in drug trafficking, is a matter for the United States. The depth of our defence relationship with the US remains an essential pillar of our security and we jointly recognise the significant threat that organised crime presents at home and abroad.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the US claims that the boat strikes are justifiable as acts in self-defence, and because it contends that there is an armed conflict with drug cartels. It is fair to say that very few outside the US Administration agree with those views. The Government have repeatedly said that their policies are guided by international law. Can the Government tell us what assessment they have made of the position under intentional law in respect of the boat strikes? Separately, a number of countries with which we have good relations, including Colombia, are being threatened by some of the US’s actions. What steps are we taking to defuse the risks?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for raising an important question. The position of the Government has not changed. We continue to state that the lawfulness of the strikes is a matter for the United States. That is our position and what we believe. The United Kingdom, as far as the Government are concerned, was not involved. We are committed to fighting the scourge of drugs and organised crime, including with our partners in Latin America, such as Colombia, and the Caribbean, in accordance with international law and the UN principles. If we are acting according to UN principles and the principles of international law, the UK Government can be proud of that.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, it seems from all the media reports that the Attorney-General has struck again, now banning the sharing of intelligence with the US on this issue. I am sure that the Minister will not comment on whether the US has retaliated on this. To his credit, he has again today told the House of his commitment to national security and defence. Does he think that putting our crucial Five Eyes intelligence relationship under threat because of a debate over the US use of force against Caribbean drug smugglers is prioritising the security of this country?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The Government of the United Kingdom do prioritise the security of this country. We are acting in accordance with international law and the fundamental principles of the UN charter. That is the guiding principle for the Government. As I have said time and time again from this Dispatch Box, the security relationship between the US and the UK is fundamental for this country, for Europe and for global security. That is the important principle to which this Government adhere. The noble Lord is smiling, but he agrees with that and he will know that that fundamental principle guides the actions of the Government.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister knows well that for many years we have been deeply involved in JIATF-East, the joint intelligence drugs task force in the Caribbean. We work very closely and share intelligence across the board. There is nothing strange in having over the years been selective sometimes in what intelligence is provided. We did that when we worked in Iraq and other places in the Middle East. It is not surprising. Would my noble friend agree that it is very important that we stay involved in stopping that drugs traffic, which is so destabilising, but that we must be very careful over what intelligence we share? That is nothing new. It is something that we have done over many years.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My noble friend makes a really important point. At the end of the day, of course we must act according to the UN charter and international law. The UK Government do that. This is nothing new across the world, let alone between the US and the UK. We are always sensitive about intelligence sharing and about how much we discuss that.
My noble friend has highlighted the fact that the UK, along with our friends in the Caribbean and with the alliance with the US, acting in accordance with those principles of the UN Charter, has stopped hundreds of millions of dollars-worth of drugs coming out of that area of the world and into the US or Europe. Sometimes we should talk about that as much as we talk about other things.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, there is no doubt that the regime in Venezuela is authoritarian, represses dissidents and is probably involved in drug trafficking. Does that justify extrajudicial killing without evidence by our ally? If the Government have withheld intelligence, as the press reports say, we on these Benches welcome that, but can he clarify? Does he not recognise that when an ally loses trust or changes a relationship of trust to one of transaction, transactional decisions can go both ways?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
What I am saying to the noble Lord is a really important point. The lawfulness of the actions of the US is a matter for them. As far as the UK Government are concerned, we act in that region in accordance with international law and the fundamental principles of the UN charter. By doing that, we protect many people’s lives, in the United States, the rest of America and in Europe. That is something we ought to celebrate as well.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, what actual involvement do HMG have at present in Venezuela?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is a very good question. What we have in Venezuela is an embassy in Caracas; we are the only Five Eyes member who has an embassy there. We make our points to the Government in Venezuela, but we also recognise the responsibility of having that embassy there and the importance of keeping it there so that we have a line of communication to all the parties in Venezuela. That embassy is extremely important.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, as chair of the ISC, I do not want to comment on this individual case, but my noble friend also knows that our intelligence sharing is governed by the Fulford principles, which came from a review of the consolidated guidance in 2019, which came out of the report of the ISC in 2018 into rendition and detention.
A principle, implemented by the Conservative Government at the time, is that we do not share intelligence if there is a likelihood that an individual is going to be extrajudicially killed or tortured. That is accepted by our international partners and well known and implemented by the security services. Does that not show that we have the highest regard for international law and that this was something the last Government were right to actually implement?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My noble friend makes a really good point, and he is right to point out that the last Government implemented the particular review and the principles that he is referring to. All I am saying is that the lawfulness of the strikes that the US has conducted is a matter for them. As far as the UK Government are concerned, what we are doing is consistent with international law and consistent with the principles of the UN charter, and that is something I am proud of with respect to our own Government.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister is being uncharacteristically coy in declining to say the Government’s position on whether the extrajudicial killings are a breach of international law. Surely it is not simply a matter for the United States, as the Minister says. This Government have been very vocal in announcing their view of the conduct of other nations under international law, whether in Ukraine or in Gaza. Why not on this occasion?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The Government have not been coy at all in saying that international law should be adhered to. They have not been coy at all in what they have said about adherence to the UN charter and its principles. What I am trying to do, as a responsible Minister in a responsible Government, is deal with a difficult international situation and to say we have to be careful about what we say in terms of intelligence sharing. It is not in anybody’s interest sometimes to discuss these matters in the open, but what is important is for us to lay out the principles that the UK Government operate according to, and that is what I have done.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Government quite properly did not recognise the last Venezuelan election, which was marred by fraud and widespread human rights abuses. I ask the Minister whether, consistent with that decision, His Majesty’s Government have plans to make available the interest from the Venezuelan gold reserves in the Bank of England to the legitimate Government of Edmundo González, and whether they have any plans to evict the Chavista squatters from the Venezuelan embassy on the Cromwell Road.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I do not know the answer to some of what the noble Lord has just said, and I do not think I even understand part of it; I have no idea of the road he has talked about, for example. I will review it and get back to him.
I will just lay out what the UK’s Venezuela policy is, because I think it is important to put this on the record: “Nicolás Maduro’s claim to power is fraudulent. The UK continues to call on the Venezuelan authorities to publish the results of the 2024 presidential election in full. This Government announced sanctions against 15 members of the Maduro regime last year, and the UK will continue to work with our international partners to achieve a negotiated transition in Venezuela. That is the only solution which ensures that the will of all Venezuelans is respected”. That is the position of the Government. I hope that in part explains to the noble Lord what our position is, and more generally informs the House as well.
National Health Service (Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking) Regulations 2025
Baroness Wheeler
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 9 September be approved.
Relevant document: 37th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 November.
BBC Leadership
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we need a trusted, respected and unnewsworthy BBC more than ever. Poll after poll shows that our country feels more divided than it ever has been, not just in terms of party politics but by geography, generation, race and religion. At home, politics seems to reward those who seek to exploit those divisions rather than overcome them. Foreign conflicts seep over into our politics and distressing images from across the globe animate our discussions, along with a preponderance of highly partisan reporting from different media environments.
Algorithms, social media and our own prejudices make it easier than ever to close ourselves off to the news that we do not want to hear or opinions that differ from our own. That is why the BBC’s founding mission—to inform, educate and entertain—which it has performed with such distinction for more than a century, still matters so much, and why it seems to be getting harder. It is also why serious and avoidable errors, such as the ones that have been highlighted in recent days, cause such dismay from across the political spectrum and do such harm to the BBC’s journalistic reputation.
At a time when populists are on the march, when criminal acts seem to be no bar to high office, when facts themselves come under attack and people are encouraged to choose their own truth, the BBC and other news organisations have to be more scrupulous than ever to set out facts clearly and dispassionately, and to own up quickly when mistakes are made. On all those fronts, it has fallen short in recent days.
Not everybody watching the BBC should come away with the same conclusions about the Middle East, the wisdom of the American electorate, or the application of sex-based rights in modern society. But how much more dangerous a society we would be if they turned off the BBC altogether.
Rightly, the BBC remains one of the most trusted sources of news in this country, but each year 750,000 fewer people choose to pay the licence fee. Millions more have grown up, whether here or overseas, without the BBC as their bedrock. Ofcom’s most recent annual report showed that YouTube has already overtaken other broadcasters to become the second most popular media service in the United Kingdom. People are increasingly importing their news and their entertainment from the far reaches of the internet. No wonder the national conversation seems so cacophonous and so confused.
The process that begins shortly—perhaps the Minister will set out some more detail about it—to renew the BBC’s royal charter and to try to anticipate the next decade in our rapidly changing media environment is a crucial moment for public service broadcasting. As well as working out how the BBC can remain a “light on the hill”, as the Secretary of State put it in this Statement, we will need to chart a course for all our public service broadcasters. Does the Minister think we will have the same number of public service broadcasters in a decade’s time as we do today? Channel 5 is owned by the US company Paramount. ITV is in discussion with Sky, itself owned by another American firm, Comcast, about its future. The respected former chairman of ITV, Sir Peter Bazalgette, has said there needs to be consolidation among our public service broadcasters. What are the Government doing to ensure that these cherished British channels remain distinctive, prominent and popular in an increasingly crowded media landscape?
On the BBC itself, what discussions have the Government had with the corporation about the threat of legal action from the President of the United States because of the errors it has made? In the absence of an ambassador in Washington, have the Government raised this matter with the US Administration directly? If the BBC ends up paying millions of dollars, whether as a result of foreign litigation or in a humiliating out-of-court settlement, who will bear the cost: the taxpayer or the licence fee payer? More broadly, what specific actions do the Government want to see from the BBC to demonstrate that it has learned the lessons of this sorry episode and that it is changing in the ways that it needs to in order to avoid a recurrence?
I put on record my thanks and appreciation for Tim Davie, the corporation’s 17th director-general. He has had more than his fair share of crises to contend with, emanating from different parts of the huge and varied organisation that he has led. In his resignation statement, he referred to the
“very intense personal and professional demands of managing this role”,
and I do not underestimate those challenges. As the process begins to appoint a successor, do the Government have a view on whether the role of director-general should be reconsidered? Mr Davie has said that it is not an impossible job, but does the Minister think that its striking breadth—in effect asking somebody to be both chief executive and editor-in-chief—is as practical now as it was in 1922?
In the past week, the BBC has brought me to tears more than once, with its moving coverage of Remembrance Day and with the final of “The Celebrity Traitors”—perhaps I tear up too easily. Today and yesterday, I listened with pride and admiration to Radio 2 as people from across Northumberland and County Durham lined drizzly rural lanes to cheer Sara Cox on as she ran through their villages, raising more than £1 million and counting for Children in Need, a charity the corporation founded 45 years ago. That is the BBC at its best. If we criticise the BBC or express our frustrations in weeks such as this, it is because we care so much about it and what it represents. While respecting its vital independence, I urge the Government —indeed, everybody across this House and another place—to hold its feet to the fire and make sure that it continues to be the best of British, now and long into the future.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the Secretary of State’s Statement and her robust defence of the BBC, but let us not mince words: it is under attack as never before. A free press is the foundation stone of freedom and democracy, and the BBC is the foundation stone of our free press. The highly respected Reuters Institute has just updated its data on news and trust, and its findings should remind us all of the BBC’s importance for not just the UK but the world. In an era of disinformation and social media silos, the BBC stands as a beacon of accuracy. As the Secretary of State says in her Statement:
“It projects British values, creativity and integrity to the world”.
The BBC is not just the news; it is important to remind people of this. It has radio stations, podcasts, orchestras, BBC Bitesize, BBC Online, iPlayer, Sounds and the World Service. It develops and invests in talent in local creative hubs across the UK, not to mention a network of local radio and TV. It plays a hugely important role in promoting the UK around the world—soft power—through the programmes it exports and the World Service, which is ever more important now that President Trump has cut off funds to Voice of America. Through its mission to inform, educate and entertain, the BBC has made culture, news, and other people’s experiences and lives available to all. To quote the words of the man who in so many ways exemplifies the BBC, Sir David Attenborough:
“It is that miraculous advance … that allows a whole society, a whole nation, to see itself and to talk to itself.”
The origin of the word “broadcast” is to sow seeds widely, and that is what the BBC does.
Of course, the BBC is not perfect, and it is right that we hold it to the highest standards. The “Panorama” editing error was a serious mistake and we welcome the BBC’s apology. However, it is obvious that the issue is being weaponised by those who want to undermine the BBC and who would profit from its demise. Without the BBC, we would be more vulnerable to dangerous misinformation and conspiracy theories, so, as the Government navigate President Trump’s latest tantrum, as he threatens to sue the BBC for $1 billion, what are the Government doing to stand up for the BBC—Britain’s BBC?
Speaking of interference by bad actors, serious concerns remain over the conduct of Sir Robbie Gibb during his tenure on the BBC board. We need to have absolute confidence that the BBC can operate free from political influence, factional interests or personal agendas. If the Government truly believe in an independent BBC, will they sack Robbie Gibb, as the BBC charter permits?
The new charter offers an opportunity to rethink the BBC appointments process and end the political grip on the BBC board. Will the Minister listen to calls from this Bench for both the chair and non-executive members of the board to be appointed by an independent body and not, as currently happens, by the Government?
The BBC cannot be allowed to fail. Mistakes will happen and should be dealt with better and more quickly, but it is essential to our democracy, is trusted by its audience, provides much more to the nation than just news and current affairs, and is globally unique. We should remember the words of Joni Mitchell —or perhaps of my noble friend Lord McNally:
“That you don’t know what you’ve got
Till it’s gone”
Please let us not be in that place.
I echo the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in adding my gratitude to Tim Davie for his service as DG.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their points and questions on this matter. I am sure the BBC agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, in his aspiration for it not to be newsworthy.
As the Secretary of State said in the other place yesterday, the BBC has a responsibility to uphold the highest standards. When standards are not met, firm, swift and transparent action must follow. Tim Davie and Deborah Turness have both taken responsibility for the mistakes that they admit the BBC has made. It is right that the Government now continue to support the BBC as an important national institution and support the BBC board in managing the transition.
Before I go further, like the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, I place on record my thanks to the outgoing director-general for his service and his commitment to public service broadcasting over many years, and I thank the CEO of news for leading the BBC News operation through turbulent times. As the Secretary of State made clear, we do not underestimate the challenges that these roles pose and the pressure that they put on those who hold them.
However, I also agree with the noble Baroness that the BBC is about more than news. This Government support a strong, independent BBC. In an age of disinformation, the argument for a robust, impartial British news service is stronger than ever. The BBC is one of the most important institutions in this country, and it has stood at the centre of our democratic and cultural life for over a century. Each of us has our own personal connection to the BBC. We can all point to the programmes that we watched growing up and the deep impact that they had on us. My own addiction to BBC News probably started with “Newsround”. The BBC continues to be an integral part of the life of almost every single person in this country, and undoubtedly every person in your Lordships’ House.
It is not possible to talk about the BBC without acknowledging the people at the heart of it and, particularly in relation to BBC News, the incredible work of BBC journalists across the country and around the world. Their tireless work enables stories to be told that would otherwise not be heard, and many BBC staff put themselves in danger in order to report fearlessly from around the world. In particular, as the Secretary of State said yesterday in the other place and as the noble Lord referenced in his remarks, the World Service is a light on the hill for people in times of darkness. We undervalue the BBC at our peril. That is why this Government will ensure that the BBC remains fiercely independent and is genuinely accountable to the public and people it serves.
I will now endeavour to answer the points raised by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. I start by welcoming the tone of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and his clear commitment to preserving the BBC, but also to holding it to account. In relation to his question about the appointment of the director-general, that is a matter for the board. I am sure it is considering whether it should keep the role as it stands, but this can also be part of the governance consideration that will be looked at in the charter review, which I will come on to in a moment.
With respect to the lawsuit threatened by the President of the United States, the BBC has confirmed that it has received a letter from President Trump’s legal team. Lawyers for the BBC are now dealing with this. It would not be appropriate for me to comment or speculate on this point. The chair’s letter on Monday made it very clear that the “Panorama” edit of President Trump’s speech gave the impression of a direct call for violent action, and it included an apology for that error of judgment. As a Government, our commitment to an independent, impartial and empowered BBC is unwavering.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, raised the potential consolidation of public service broadcasters. It is clear that the TV market is transforming, so we are asking the CMA and Ofcom to look at how that could impact their work. At the heart of our views on this, though, we support public service broadcasters, particularly because we believe that they benefit audiences and their sustainability—however, I cannot read my own writing, as I was scribbling, so apologies if that was a bit garbled.
In relation to other topics, the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, named Robbie Gibb. I have no doubt that noble Lords will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on individuals. The Culture Secretary has been speaking regularly to the chair of the BBC board to ensure that he and the board, as a whole, are in the best possible place to lead the BBC forward. As the Culture Secretary made clear yesterday in the other place, the charter sets a strict legal threshold that must be met before dismissal of a board member, so she is unable to pursue that course of action.
In relation to questions around the timing and content of the charter review, raised by both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, the review will consider how best to ensure that the BBC continues to deliver the high standards of reporting that the public expect, so that it does not just survive but actually thrives for decades to come. As the Secretary of State said yesterday, we will publish a Green Paper and consultation shortly. I am not going to go further than that, as I am sure your Lordships might anticipate, but I understand that “shortly” does indeed mean shortly. I look forward to future debates on this in your Lordships’ House.
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for the points that they have raised this afternoon. I conclude, however, by reiterating the Government’s view on the BBC, which is that it is an institution of national importance and one that we will protect. We fail to protect it at our collective peril.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I have been a journalist for 60 years, leaving aside a rather lively period in which I served with the late Baroness Thatcher. But apart from that, I have been a journalist, and in that time I have also chaired two regional newspaper groups.
Of course, the BBC has made mistakes; we have heard about one this afternoon. I would be the last to deny that and I hope that we will put that right. But in my general experience, the gold standard in fair reporting has consistently been set by the BBC, in reporting both home news and news overseas. We should have a position that maintains and strengthens an independent BBC. That should be our goal and no other. Surely what we do not want is the partisan and none-too-accurate Fox News being put down our throats by some of the people who now seek to imitate it.
Although the BBC has gone through a very difficult stage—incidentally, we have taken a long time in this House to come to this issue—there is very wide public support for the BBC, much wider than people such as the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, obviously feel. There are—
Lord Fowler (CB)
I ask that the noble Baroness should support the gold standard of the BBC in its reports, and in its general reporting duty.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture said in the other place yesterday that if we did not have the BBC, we would have to invent it. It has a proud history of over 100 years, and it can have a proud future, hopefully, of more than 100 years going forward. I concur with the noble Lord’s sentiment. Some 94% of UK adults use BBC services each month. The majority of people still believe that it is effective at providing trustworthy news. In an age of misinformation and disinformation—when we have hostile states attempting to confuse the whole context in which we are operating—it has never been more important. But we want it to be the absolute best it can be: we want that gold standard.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the presenter of a yet-to-be award-winning radio show on Times Radio. My noble friend Lord Parkinson asked the Minister whether it is still the case that one can be director-general and editor-in-chief of the BBC. Is it not time now to consider a fundamental structural reform of the BBC, in which BBC News and the World Service are made completely structurally separate from the rest of the BBC, with their own chief executive, their own board and their own accountability?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I refer the noble Lord to the charter review. As part of the review process, the Government expect to publish the terms of reference and launch a public consultation in due course. In relation to the point around the specific role of the director-general and whether different parts should be distinctly separate, I anticipate that in the first instance that would be a conversation for the board, and then for the board with the Government. It would also be a matter for the charter review in due course.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, the children’s BBC—especially CBeebies—is highly trusted. Parents feel safe and confident for their children to watch it. The content is mostly homegrown and culturally relevant, so that our children grow up understanding their world. We need to do everything in our power to protect this last bastion of high-quality content, as children migrate to unregulated online platforms. I fear for the future of this high-quality children’s content if the BBC is weakened. How are the Government going to ensure that we do not abandon children, and maintain a robust BBC? I declare an interest as a presenter of CBeebies.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I probably need to declare an interest as somebody who, as a child, watched the noble Baroness on the BBC. I have huge respect for her work and for the work of the children’s BBC, but also for the noble Baroness’s campaigning to make sure that children and young people get access to high-quality, accurate content. I know that the noble Baroness has spoken to the Secretary of State about this, but I am happy to follow up with a conversation on this point.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Labour Benches next, then the Cross Benches.
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, as other noble Lords have noted, we must never shy away from discussing and addressing the BBC’s challenges and shortcomings. Charter renewal will be an important milestone in the history of a cherished national institution, and I trust that my noble friend and her ministerial colleagues will ensure steps are taken to strengthen public confidence in the leadership, accountability and performance of the corporation at every level. However, can my noble friend confirm that the Government remain—I think she has already said it, but we like to hear it repeated—fully committed to our main national public service broadcaster, which does so much so very well to inform, educate and entertain? Does she agree that a strong BBC will be central to efforts to tackle misinformation and disinformation nationally and internationally?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am not sure I have anything other than “yes” to say in response to my noble friend. I love the BBC; we want it to be the best it can be. That is everything, as the noble Lord on the Benches opposite said, from coverage of key national moments such as Remembrance Sunday and ceremonial events to general news content and programmes such as “The Traitors”, which three generations of my family enjoyed thoroughly.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the extremely constructive tone from all three Front Benches about the BBC and will make three points. First, the BBC, as some have said already, has been in the making for well over a century—an achievement unmatched in any other country in the world. It is a crucible for our best writers, funniest humourists, scientists, naturalists and historians—for every aspect of our culture. It is the BBC of “Strictly”, “Last Night of the Proms”, “Farming Today” and “The Archers”. Secondly, in my experience, everyone working at the BBC, from the director-general to front-line journalists, works with honest integrity and is utterly dedicated to public service. Thirdly, as with all organisations, mistakes are made. They are mostly innocent, but some are not. Some are the result of inexperience, some are the result of local management laxity and on occasions, including in my 13 years, some are the result of a wider cultural malaise. The critiques of some of the BBC’s journalism by Mr Prescott and others on all sides of the political spectrum need to be calmly considered and, where necessary, addressed. I have no doubts that, under current leadership at the BBC, they will be.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I agree with much of what the noble Lord said, although I am not clear what the question was. I can affirm that I agree whole- heartedly with the noble Lord that we have world-class programme-making and journalism at the BBC. This does not take away from the fact that the BBC also has work to do on some of the issues. We are also confident that the chair of the board is dealing with these issues. I know that the content of the letter to the chair of the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee outlines some of these issues and that it will hold the BBC to account. The Secretary of State is also speaking regularly to the chair of the board and is confident that he is taking this situation extremely seriously, exploring all the relevant issues and taking the necessary action to ensure we can continue to have the gold-standard journalism that everyone in your Lordships’ House would expect.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, we need to have some reality. Why are we having this Statement at all? The Prescott report revealed that the BBC flagship programme, “Panorama”, had faked a video of President Trump, and that Mr Davie and Ms Turness knew about it for six months and did nothing.
The Prescott report also exposed systematic anti-Israel bias, antisemitism at BBC Arabic and impartiality problems on the wider coverage of the Israel-Hamas war. Dr Shah, Mr Davie and Ms Turness knew this for six months, yet BBC executives were sent out to say publicly and privately that there was no systematic problem and to tell the Jewish community that there was no issue. This cover-up is the whole problem; they have been caught out. Does the Minister agree that, to regain the reputation of fairness, transparency and truth, the BBC needs to act fairly, be transparent and tell the truth?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
This Government will not tolerate antisemitism; it has no place in our society. The BBC has rightly acknowledged and admitted mistakes, and the error of judgment was referred to by Dr Shah in his letter to the Commons Select Committee.
Where coverage standards and enforcement of those standards have fallen short, we are anticipating and would expect things to improve, as I have no doubt the noble Lord would understand. The chair has set out actions to address these, which we welcome, and the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee will have the opportunity to scrutinise these in due course.
However, the BBC is an incredibly important institution. It is important that we get the standards right, but it plays a crucial role in ensuring that all communities are heard and feel valued as part of our public life. That is a standard we expect, and we expect that to be driven through in any subsequent actions that the BBC might take.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, I have just returned from a visit to a country in west Africa that I know very well, and which has sadly suffered a number of coups in recent years. However, I can testify first-hand that the role of the BBC in such situations is highly regarded. In a situation where people do not know where to turn to find out what is happening around them, and where there are huge amounts of fear and anxiety, it is to the BBC that they turn to find out what is happening. I believe that remains true today, even in the face of mistakes that have been made. Can the Minister reassure us that the BBC will continue to have the people and resources needed to play this vital role internationally?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The World Service is renowned and revered the world over. I can reassure the right reverend Prelate that this Government believe that it plays an essential role in our global democracy. As the Secretary of State said in her remarks yesterday, which have been repeated in your Lordships’ House, it is a light on the hill for people in places of darkness. This Government strongly support the World Service and will continue to do so.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, I think it is now broadly accepted that the BBC made a serious error in broadcasting the edited clip on “Panorama”, and that it did not act swiftly enough to issue an apology. But it is deeply concerning to hear today from respected BBC journalists Kirsty Lang and Misha Glenny that they are firmly convinced that the BBC is under an unprecedented level of political pressure that threatens its future existence. They rightly say that allowing the BBC to fail would be disastrous for our democracy and Britain’s reputation around the world.
Will my noble friend the Minister work with the Secretary of State to address these deep concerns about political pressures? Will we do whatever we can to improve the governance of the BBC? Will those of us who support the BBC as our most trusted news brand be vocal, as we are mainly in today’s Statement, in our support for our national broadcaster, particularly as it now has to fill those two difficult leadership roles and prepare to go forward to the charter review?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
For any public service broadcaster, accountability and trust are key, including in relation to the board. But what is important here is that the BBC maintains the high standards for which it is rightfully recognised, both nationally and internationally. It is right that the Government continue to support and work with the BBC, as an important national institution, and to manage the leadership transition. A number of the issues that my noble friend raised are likely to be addressed through the charter review, but I would be happy to meet with her to discuss the concerns that have been raised with her directly and to make sure that the Secretary of State is aware of them.
Lord Hall of Birkenhead (CB)
My Lords, there can be no doubt that what happened on “Panorama” was both wrong and damaging, but will the Minister agree with me that there is no institutional bias within the BBC? There are hard-working journalists seeking after the truth and sometimes they get it wrong. We all need a BBC that is confident about its future: a strong BBC at the cornerstone of our public life and creative economy, a powerful purveyor of this country’s soft power and a beacon of impartial news for all. It seems to me that the BBC is now more vulnerable than I have ever known it. Restoring confidence must be the key. Will the Minister look at ways of ensuring that the charter process, which is a defining moment for the BBC, is made available so that the new director-general can come in, take the helm and drive that process on behalf of all of us who believe in a strong BBC?
Will she also agree that one way of strengthening the BBC’s independence is to make this almost the last charter review process? This is used as a way of upsetting, damaging and taking questions about something as important as the BBC each time. Saying that there is a charter that runs on and on would be an amazing legacy from this Government for the BBC.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
On whether this Government believe that the BBC is institutionally biased, I say no, we do not. The BBC provides trusted news and high-quality programming. It is important that it maintains that trust and rebuilds it by correcting mistakes quickly when they occur. I agree that, for any public service broadcaster, accountability is important to maintain trust. Arguably, the charter review process comes at a good point in the BBC’s history, because it will enable us to have a national conversation, including voices from across the political spectrum and across the country, to make sure we get the right outcome both for the BBC and, more importantly, the country.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, following on from what the noble Baroness said about the BBC having voices from across the country, we have heard a lot about the problems occurring at the BBC emanating out of London, but I am sure the noble Baroness knows that BBC Scotland is in crisis at the moment. We have a long-standing presenter who has been suspended, we have our flagship radio news programme under review and we have an election to the Scottish Parliament in May. It is extremely important that BBC Scotland, as a characterful voice that is respected across the different genres, is put in order in time for that election. So what are the Government doing, and what can the noble Baroness do, to ensure that the voices of the nations and regions are heard through our BBC?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Secretary of State said yesterday that she has voiced her concerns about the overwhelming concentration of the media industry being from one background and in one region. The noble Baroness makes a valid point and I will feed it back to the Secretary of State and Minister Murray. However, I highlight the work that the BBC has done over the years in this area—albeit from an English regional perspective—not least in MediaCity in Salford and through its work at Digbeth Loc in Birmingham. We are clear that this is important to make sure that the BBC does not represent the views of just one part of the country or one demographic. We are clear that that will also be part of the charter review, although the issues that the noble Baroness raises need to be addressed before the elections next year.
Sentencing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, it is my pleasure to bring this Bill for its Second Reading. I start by thanking the former Lord Chancellor, David Gauke, and his team for his independent sentencing review; this has informed many measures in the Bill. I thank another former Lord Chancellor, too, the now Home Secretary, for her work in getting us to this point. I also want to thank the many noble Lords who have engaged with me on the Bill. The input I have received has been of great value and generally very positive as we take this legislation forward. Of course, I want to pay tribute to our incredible prison and probation staff, who have worked, often unseen and under-appreciated, through an incredibly difficult time. I see and appreciate what they do every day, and I am proud to call every one of them a colleague.
I also want to pay tribute to Baroness Newlove, whose sad passing I learned of today. As both Victims’ Commissioner and Deputy Speaker of the House of Lords, Baroness Newlove brought unparalleled experience and dedication to her roles. She championed the rights of victims and witnesses and held agencies to account. Her leadership shaped the victims’ code, strengthened victims’ voices in the criminal justice system, and ensured that the Victims and Prisoners Bill progressed with victims’ interests at its heart. She was an extraordinary public servant whom I was fortunate to know well and admired immensely, and whose life’s work and legacy are defined by courage, compassion and an unwavering commitment to justice.
Before I turn to specific measures in the Bill, it is important to understand the context of why it is needed. When the new Government came to power in July last year, we inherited a crisis in our prisons and probation service. We were days away from running out of places entirely; days away from the police having to prioritise which criminals to arrest, the courts having to make impossible decisions, and the criminal justice system buckling under insurmountable pressure; days away from our criminal justice system failing to deliver the one thing it was for—delivering justice.
We took urgent steps to prevent that catastrophe, and we have embarked on the biggest prison building programme since the Victorian era, delivering 14,000 new places by 2031. However, if we do not take further action, it is only a matter of time before we will be back here again. In a few months, we will again be facing prisons on the brink, having to take emergency measures and, again, asking, “How did we get here?” That is why this Bill is vital. It does not kick the can further down the road, and it does not shy away from making tough decisions to keep the public safe. Instead, it will end the cycle of crisis once and for all. It will build a justice system that victims can have confidence in, and it will bring stability and sustainability to our prisons and our justice system. More than that, it will restore purpose to sentencing. It will deliver punishment that works by following the evidence of what works; that works for victims, delivering them the justice they deserve; that works for society—we want better citizens, not better criminals; and that works for the public, delivering safer streets and protection from crime.
Of course, that means that we must always be able to lock up the most dangerous offenders. Prisoners serving extended determinate sentences—those the court has deemed to be dangerous—will not be affected by anything in this Bill. They will still need the approval of the independent Parole Board if they are to be released at the two-thirds point of their custodial term. The IPP sentence is also not included in the new progression model. The Parole Board will continue to review IPP cases at least every two years, and in many cases more regularly. Noble Lords will know that this is an area of incredible importance to me. I am determined to support those in prison to progress towards a safe and sustainable release, but not in a way that undermines public protection. For completeness, nothing in this Bill affects those who receive life sentences, having been convicted of the most horrendous crimes.
But we need to be smarter: we need to follow the evidence. For many offenders sentenced to less than a year, prison sets up a revolving door of repeat offending. Over 60% of those with prison sentences of less than 12 months reoffend within a year. Offenders have limited time to engage in rehabilitation. Instead, they are exposed to hardened criminals and shown a path that can lead to more crime. When they get out, they may have lost their home, their job, their relationships and everything that anchors them to society. They are being asked to make a U-turn on a one-way street. But evidence shows that community orders and suspended sentences can be more effective at reducing reoffending.
Clause 1 of the Bill therefore introduces a presumption to suspend short sentences. We are not abolishing short sentences; judges will still have the power to impose them in particular circumstances. If there is significant risk of harm to an individual, such as a victim of domestic abuse, or if a prolific offender fails to comply with the requirements of a suspended sentence or reoffends, prison will still be available. We will break the cycle of reoffending. That means fewer victims, and more offenders getting their lives back on track. As many noble Lords know, I believe in second chances. Clause 2 widens the scope of suspended sentences, increasing the limit from two years to three.
Of course, for many offenders prison is the right answer, but if we want them to turn their lives around, we must make sure that serving time is not just what they do in between crimes. This Bill introduces a new progression model for standard determinate sentences. Inspired by the Texas reforms that helped to end its capacity crisis, we will ensure that prisoners who do not behave in prison can be kept in for longer; release at the earlier point will be theirs to lose. In Texas, following a settling-in period, crime fell by 30% and it has closed 16 prisons.
Clauses 20 and 21 amend the release points: those serving regular standard determinate sentences must serve at least one-third of their time; for more serious crimes given a standard determinate sentence, offenders must serve at least half. But those are minimums: prisoners who misbehave, are violent, or are caught with illicit mobile phones can stay inside for longer. We will also double the maximum additional days for a single incident from 42 to 84, so that the worst behaved will serve longer in custody. It is the same as in our communities: if you break our rules, you can pay the price with your liberty. Punishment does not end when a spell inside does, nor does release mean an end to rehabilitation. Offenders will therefore enter a period of intensive supervision by the Probation Service. They will still face consequences for their actions.
Clauses 24 and 25 introduce a strengthened licence period. Offenders will be subject to strict conditions tailored to risk and offence. These clauses mean that probation can set new restrictive licence conditions—for example, stopping them going to the pub, banning them from football matches, or preventing them driving. This mirrors the new community requirement set out in Clauses 13 to 15.
We will incentivise better behaviour from offenders. Clauses 36 and 37 allow community orders and the supervision period of suspended sentence orders to be terminated once an offender has completed their sentence plan, including all court-ordered requirements. The Probation Service will be able to incentivise compliance and encourage early engagement and completion of rehabilitative activities, but anyone who does not do this will serve their sentence in full and could face further penalties. We will also expand community payback.
Clause 3 will introduce income reduction orders, so offenders with high incomes are penalised more effectively when serving their suspended sentence in a community setting. We will make sure that crime does not pay. Alongside the changes in the Bill, we will address the root causes of crime by expanding the use of intensive supervision courts, to break the cycles that lead to ever more reoffending. These courts are inspired by their success in Texas, which has seen a 33% fall in arrests compared to those serving prison sentences. They target offenders, often highly prolific offenders, who suffer from addiction or poor mental health, and they impose tough requirements to tackle those drivers. Over three-quarters of offenders meet the conditions the courts set. And we will tag many more offenders, to ensure compliance and restrict their freedom outside prison.
What is more, all offenders released into the community will remain on licence for the duration of their sentence. This goes further than the approach the review recommended. Those at the highest risk will continue to be supervised by probation to the very end. All offenders will be expected to comply with their licence conditions and remain liable for recall to prison at any time. Any further offence, even something that would not normally attract a custodial sentence, will potentially lead to a recall. Offenders will know that any backsliding or regression could land them right back in a cell. They will obey our laws, and there will be punishments if they do not. That is why Clauses 26 to 30 will introduce a standard 56-day recall, replacing the existing 14-day and 28-day terms: these are real consequences for returning to crime and punishment that works.
More punishment in the community, more intensive supervision, more monitoring and restrictions: these will all put more pressure on our already stretched Probation Service. That is why the recent spending review announced up to £700 million extra for probation. That is a 45% uplift by the final year, the largest in history, because we are investing in what makes a difference; investing in what cuts crime and rehabilitates offenders; and investing to support the staff.
We are also making sure that our justice system operates on the principles of putting victims first, fairness and accountability. Clause 4 amends the statutory purposes of sentencing to reference protecting victims as part of public protection. The Bill will also go further than ever before to restrict offenders’ movements to protect victims. Victims of the most serious sexual or violent offenders should not have to worry about who they will run into when they go somewhere new. That is why Clause 24 allows probation to impose new restriction zones on the most serious offenders on licence. Clause 16 will allow courts to impose these new zones on offenders serving community or suspended sentence orders. They will be required to stay in a specific area, so that their victims can move freely elsewhere. The victim should have the freedom, not the perpetrator.
Clause 6 also introduces a new judicial finding of domestic abuse in sentencing. Probation will be able to identify abusers more easily, track patterns of behaviour, and put safeguards in place. This will improve risk management and further protect victims, and it is welcomed by victims’ groups.
These principles are also why we are progressing reforms to the Sentencing Council through the Bill. The council has undertaken valuable work and helped to bring greater consistency and transparency to the sentencing process. It also plays an important constitutional role, balancing interests across Parliament, government and the judiciary in sentencing policy and practice.
We are keen to support the council with its work. Following events in recent months, we are introducing a pair of measures that aim to maintain public confidence in its guidelines. Clause 18 introduces a requirement on the council to obtain the Lord Chancellor’s approval of its annual business plan before it can be published, and Clause 19 requires it to obtain approval from the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice for all sentencing guidelines. My officials will be working closely with their counterparts at the council to agree underpinning detail on the practicalities of both approval processes.
I took this role to help reform a system that I have been passionate about for most of my life. My colleagues and I have looked across the world for what works; these learnings are contained in the Bill. Brought together, these measures will bring stability and sustainability to our justice system. In that regard, there is no alternative. However, they do more than that. The Bill will make sure that we have prisons that work; a probation service that reforms offenders; and fewer victims. It will put our justice system on a footing fit for the future, one that prioritises victims, fairness and accountability and one that prioritises punishment that works. I urge noble Lords to support the Bill and the principles behind it. I beg to move.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I say at the outset how sorry I was to learn of the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. She will be much missed around the House. She was a powerful champion for victims.
I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill, but I must say that it does not live up to the expectations one might have of a Sentencing Bill. It is not a plan for safer streets or a stronger justice system; it is, in essence, a plan to release offenders early because our prisons are full. The Government present this as a reform, but much is, in truth, a knee-jerk reaction to the challenge of managing prison capacity, and it is one that risks public safety.
The centrepiece of the Bill is the presumption that any sentence of 12 months or less will be suspended, so, in practice, short custodial sentences will all but disappear. Figures suggest that around 43,000 offenders will avoid prison altogether. Among them will be repeat burglars, serial shoplifters and sex offenders. This is not sentencing reform; it is surrender. How can any Government who claim to be tough on crime defend that?
The Government say this will apply only to “non-violent, non-sexual” offences, but as any practitioner knows, many assaults, domestic abuse cases and sexual offences fall at or below that 12-month threshold. Those offenders will now walk free. To allow this will be a profound failure of the state’s duty to protect its citizens—unless it has the unintended effect, of course, that courts increase nominal sentences to override the presumption. Will we in fact see an increase in the number of immediate sentences of 15 to 18 months? That would be an unintended and perhaps unfortunate consequence, but we know how human behaviour reacts.
The Bill also reduces the time to be served in custody. For most offenders, automatic release will come after just 33% of the sentence—five months of a 15-month term. The rest will be served in the community, supervised, in theory, by the hard-pressed Probation Service. It has been predicted there will in fact be an immediate 6% rise in crime. As Cicero said: to what good? That is not sentencing reform; it is a policy of early release with rising crime the consequence.
We are told that this is about rehabilitation. Are those who make up the 6% to be treated as rehabilitated? Worse, what new money is to be invested in probation, treatment or community infrastructure? There will simply be a prison system operating at 98% capacity, with Ministers desperate to empty it.
The Probation Service will bear the weight of these changes. As we know, it is already overstretched, under- staffed and struggling to manage risk. The Government’s own impact assessment concedes that an additional 580 officers will be required each year, at a cost of £30 million a year—funding that simply does not exist in the current settlement. As the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, on which I served, has demonstrated, reducing numbers in prison does not mean a saving: the running costs of prisons will remain the same. Will the Minister explain where in the ministry’s budget the money will come from? Will it be from defence legal aid fees or the budget for our crumbling courts? Can we have answers?
Clause 11 goes further still by removing from the courts key aspects of sentencing and transferring them to probation officers. They are not judges, are not judicially trained and already work beyond capacity. They will now bear responsibility for deciding how much rehabilitative activity an offender must complete. That is a big shift of responsibility. Sentencing—the determination of punishment—is, and should remain, a judicial function. It is a matter for judges applying the law in open court.
How can we have a Sentencing Bill that, in effect, removes an important plank of sentencing from the courts and the public eye? How will the public know that punishment is being imposed consistently and in proportion to the offence in question? What safeguards will prevent political or managerial pressure—I emphasise managerial pressure—from influencing those decisions? Policy will be made and put into effect behind closed doors. An important part of a sentence in a given case will not be given in public.
That is not reform; it is the start of the separation of powers being dismantled. It hands quasi-judicial authority to an exhausted service, doing so without additional resources, oversight or accountability. If the Minister believes that probation officers should exercise the functions of judges, he should say so openly to Parliament. To make such a change under the guise of efficiency is constitutionally wrong.
The Bill introduces a host of new community restrictions on offenders, including bans on entering pubs, sporting events or defined geographical areas. On paper that may sound straightforward, but how will it work? Who will be responsible for enforcement? Will it be the licensed trade, the police or venue owners themselves? Who will be told? In a big city pub, who is to know? The Bill gives no clarity, indicates no resourcing and gives no accountability framework; it simply assumes that someone, somehow, will make it happen. Probation officers, who are already overstretched and under- resourced, are expected to monitor compliance, enforce restrictions and manage breaches. The Bill provides no guidance on how that will operate. How will it work?
The Bill was not in the manifesto, which referred only to sentences that
“make sense either to victims or the wider public”.
The proposals in the Bill do neither. They will undermine public confidence in the justice system—confidence that is already eroded by early release schemes, court delays, and prison overcrowding and escapes. Every element of the Bill points in one direction: leniency driven by necessity. We suggest that that is not how to develop important policy. The prisons are indeed overcrowded, and previous Governments have failed to manage that successfully, but the public expect that those who break the law will be dealt with properly and punished, and that those who pose a threat will be detained. However, henceforth, an offender could serve one-third of a sentence, breach licence conditions, be recalled and still be re-released early.
Only yesterday, or the day before, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner sounded the alarm and wrote to the Lord Chancellor. Under Part 2 of the Bill, as the Domestic Abuse Commissioner pointed out, offenders recalled to custody will now be automatically re-released after just 56 days, with no review by the Parole Board. This will include convicted abusers after recall for contacting or stalking their victims, yet they will go back into the community with no fresh assessment of danger. This is complacency. It places victims at avoidable risk.
The Bill requires rigorous scrutiny. It blurs the line between rehabilitation and release. It hands judicial powers to the Probation Service and places public protection second to administrative convenience. We are not told how it will be funded. We are told it is modernisation. In truth, it is a risky experiment with public safety.
We on this side will carefully examine every clause in Committee. Our position is clear: sentencing exists to protect the public, to deter crime and to deliver justice to victims, and it is for judges. The Bill fails on all those counts.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I had hoped that a more favourable reception might have been accorded to the Bill by the Conservative Front Bench, given the respect that many of us have for David Gauke and the work he did on the independent review, and the respect we have for the Minister, with his practical experience in this area. I entirely share the view that there are parts of the Bill that need careful scrutiny in Committee, but it is an attempt to deal with an appalling and farcical situation of releases by an overworked and understaffed Prison and Probation Service trying to deal with overcrowded prisons. The figures demonstrate that we reached the point where we had almost 100% usage of prison cells. There was no scope, therefore, for sensible use of them.
We are in an appalling situation, which has been driven by many years of trying to talk tough on sentencing. What that involved, and I am afraid it came from both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party at different times, was asserting that it was better to spend money badly on imprisoning the wrong people for longer than to spend the money effectively on rehabilitation, to which the Minister has rightly devoted much of his life.
There are good things in the Bill, including the identification of domestic abuse by the court, which, as the Minister pointed out, would be seen only by probation staff and others who have reason to be concerned where this arises. That is very welcome. The presumption against short custodial sentences is very welcome. The direct reference to the protection of victims in “purposes of sentencing” is a welcome inclusion, particularly in the light of the death of Baroness Newlove, who campaigned so vigorously for victims. It is particularly good that it appears in this Bill.
Robust community sentences, which the Bill facilitates by providing more means by which they can be made robust, are extremely important. Unless we achieve wide acceptance by the public of robust community sentences, led by some acceptance in the media that they may be the most sensible solution for some offenders, we will not change the upward drift of the prison population. This is extremely important and I am glad that it is in the Bill.
There are things that are less welcome. Having to release prisoners not as a result of careful judgment of individual cases but because of the need to reduce the numbers, as has been happening for several years now, is something we must get away from. I am pleased to see the earned progression model in the Bill for that very reason.
Let us look at some more controversial aspects of the Bill. This is the second Bill about the Sentencing Council in this Parliament. This is a ridiculous state of affairs. We now have a Sentencing Council that is required to submit a business plan, which the Lord Chancellor may or may not approve of. Who knows what happens if the Lord Chancellor does not approve of the business plan. Does it carry on doing it, or does it just stop work altogether, produce another one and wait until it gets approval for it? There is a veto for the Lord Chancellor —the Secretary of State for Justice—on the sentencing guidelines. Where is the trust? The Sentencing Council is a body of extremely experienced people that is used to dealing independently, and without bias and prejudice, with the issues that come before it. The Government do not trust it at all, creating a series of obstacles to it doing its job properly. I am very unhappy about that.
I am not against the income reduction orders in principle. They are seen as a punitive element in the sentence. However, they involve a fair bit of bureaucracy, to which the Law Society addressed some of its comments, and they could be a disincentive to work. I am sure the Minister would agree that the last thing you want is a disincentive to prisoners working when they are released. Work, having a job and carrying out that job, is well known to be one of the main factors in ensuring that people do not reoffend.
I am doubtful about photos of offenders as a provision in the legislation. All the guidance and all the rules under which that will become possible are the subject of delegated legislation and statutory instruments. We will not know, as we pass that part of the Bill, precisely how this photo opportunity or photo system will work. That has all yet to be settled.
Then there are the things that are missing from the Bill. We are still waiting for a real reform of IPP sentences, as are 2,500 people and their families. The Bill does nothing about that, as the Minister conceded in his opening remarks, except to allow the limited arrangements operating currently to continue.
One would have liked in the Bill the certainty that prison and probation services will have adequate resources to implement the release programme. We have not got it. I hope that the Minister can make further efforts to demonstrate to us that the capacity will be there. Making a success of the reforms in this legislation depends on the Prison and Probation Service being adequate in numbers, adequate in training and adequate in the amount of time it has for the numbers of people that it is dealing with. We need more assurance on that.
Despite the pessimistic picture that I have painted of the state of some of our prisons, which is truly appalling in many cases, there are good things going on. I reference the Oswin Project associated with HMP Northumberland, which involves a café in the prison, a farm shop associated with the prison and a café in Newcastle Cathedral, all involving offenders and much supported, maintained and made possible by volunteers. There is a lot of good work going on in prisons with a lot of people who want to see good things happen so that reoffending is reduced. Any further encouragement that the Government can give to that kind of work is desirable.
Prison is expensive and, if not properly managed and resourced, it sends people out into the community who are very likely to reoffend. When we contemplate what we do with our resources, we should not be deluded by the long-held practice of seeing prison as a free good, something the state must provide in whatever quantity that it decides. We should be looking at how we spend money in the criminal justice system and at what works and what does not work.
I commend Ministers for being prepared to look at what was going on in Texas. We looked at that in the Justice Committee in the House of Commons nearly 20 years ago when they started work on it. It was quite encouraging to hear right-wing Republicans saying, “We have to back this because we are wasting the taxpayer’s dollar”. That was in the days when the Republican Party did not believe in wasting money. Things have changed a bit under President Trump. It was a realistic demonstration of how, when you start to look at what you are using your money for, you must look at whether your measures make the public safer. I commend the Government for doing that and look forward, with my noble friends, to ensuring that the Bill, where it can be improved, is improved.
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
My Lords, I start by declaring some interests. I was on the independent panel chaired by David Gauke which produced a preliminary short review in February, History and Trends in Sentencing. I shall return to that, if I may. It then produced a final report in May, many of the recommendations of which underpinned the proposals in the Bill.
I was also president of the Sentencing Council for six years while serving as Lord Chief Justice. The Bill has two clauses relating to the Sentencing Council. I broadly welcome the proposals relating to sentencing. One or two of them might be tidied up but it will come as no surprise to your Lordships that I regard the clauses relating to the Sentencing Council as misconceived.
As is well known, the impetus for this sentencing legislation flows from our prisons being full. There is no prospect of capacity being expanded sufficiently to cope with the demand in the coming years. Urgent steps must be taken, or the system will fall over.
There are a number of reasons why the prison population has doubled between 1993 and today to now over 87,000 people. At the heart of them has been sentence inflation. In 1993, the average custodial sentence for indictable offences was 16 months; by June 2024, it was 22 and a half months. There have been substantial increases in the minimum terms that those subject to life sentences must serve, driven by legislative change in 2003 by Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act, which governed murder. That pulled up all sentences for violent offending, which in turn fed over into sentences more generally. The number of life sentences has substantially increased, as have sentences over 10 years, despite serious crime having fallen. The detail is in the history and trends report to which I referred.
Parliament has also repeatedly legislated to increase maximum sentences. This has all happened at a time when political and much public discourse has focused on the punitive element of sentencing while marginalising other important purposes of sentencing, which include reducing reoffending and rehabilitating offenders. With respect to my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, we have heard little of that this afternoon.
The impact of sentencing of different types is studied around the world, and thus rich data are available on the impact of different sentences on reducing crime. There is compelling evidence that non-custodial sentencing—of course, with a proper punitive element—reduces reoffending when short prison sentences do not, and that lengthening sentence does not reduce reoffending.
Countries across Europe—as well as Texas, of which we have heard already—have shown that reduced sentences and less use of immediate custody reduce not only prison populations but crime. So I particularly welcome the measures in the Bill to restrict further the use of short, immediate terms of imprisonment—subject, of course, to necessary exceptions—and those to enable sentences to be deferred for 12 rather than six months, and to increase to three years rather than two the period of imprisonment that may be suspended.
It is important that both community sentences and suspended sentences should be seen to include a proper element of punishment. The expansion of the list of requirements that may be imposed as a punishment is a positive step. Perhaps the Government would immediately also consider adding a foreign travel ban to that list. These are steps in the right direction to reduce the unnecessary and, frankly, counterproductive use of custody. They do not tackle sentence inflation, which I earnestly hope but doubt that our political class will have the courage to confront collectively before too long.
The Government have broadly adopted our recommendations for rationalising release dates and introducing incentives to earn release, as well as measures to contain the explosion in the recall population in prisons. They have gone further than we recommended with removing foreign national offenders. All three should reduce the prison population. There may be room for some debate about whether foreign national offenders should be deported immediately or at least serve part of their sentence to ensure that there is a punitive element.
While some may be concerned about allowing release on licence of fixed-term prisoners who have behaved well after serving a third of their sentences, those of your Lordships with a longer memory than mine will recall that the Criminal Justice Act 1967 provided for release after a third, and it was that way for very many years.
It is clear that the changes proposed in the Bill will work only if the Probation Service can undertake the additional work required of it. That will require increased numbers and funding—to that extent, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. But it also depends on technology, especially tagging technology. That must work, and it is necessary that any breaches are enforced. So, there will be much work to be done on delivery: work that the Minister is especially well equipped to oversee as the former chief executive of a substantial business. I wish him well in that task.
In the relatively short time left to me, I will make some observations on the clauses relating to the Sentencing Council, which echo those already made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith. Clause 19 requires the Sentencing Council to seek the consent of the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice before publishing a guideline or publishing amendments to a guideline. If both do not consent, publication is blocked, the guideline will not come into force and amendments to an existing guideline will not take effect. This is no more and no less than a political veto in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. No Lord Chief Justice would want a power of veto, nor, frankly, ever exercise it. This power would enable the Lord Chancellor, and possibly a less benign Lord Chancellor than we have today, to stop some or all of the work of the Sentencing Council. That cannot be right.
Moreover, to fail to consent would be extraordinary given the careful construction of the scheme under which the Sentencing Council operates. Having undertaken deep research and wide consultation, it publishes a draft of its proposals. It calls for comments from anybody who wishes to provide them and consults further, widely. Both the Lord Chancellor and the Justice Committee of the House of Commons are statutory consultees. The Lord Chancellor has a representative who attends all meetings of the Sentencing Council to convey the governmental view. The membership of the council is carefully balanced by statute to reflect a broad range of interests. The DPP is there, and so too is a chief constable and a voice for the victims, for example.
I am puzzled that it is said that there needs to be a political override. There has never been one before in this area, and that is for very good reason. Before the Sentencing Council, there was a non-statutory body that worked as its precursor, and before that, the exclusive jurisdiction for setting guidelines for different offences rested with the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal. So, to the extent that the Sentencing Council and its predecessor, a non-statutory body, which were established at the instigation and with the full consent of the judiciary, impact upon anybody’s constitutional responsibilities, they are those of the judiciary, not the Executive.
I hope noble Lords might bear with me for another 30 seconds or so. I believe that the Bill would be better without Clause 19. If something has to stay, it would be better inverted, so that the Sentencing Council may publish unless both the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice object.
What can one say about Clause 18? Perhaps the Minister can explain what it is all about. It is silent on what happens if the Lord Chancellor does not approve the business plan. This looks to be a controlling mechanism, although how it would work is opaque. The Explanatory Notes are coy on the subject—that might be the best way of putting it—and the Minister only touched on it glancingly in his opening.
I finished on a slightly sour note, but I wish to emphasise that I do not want that to distract from the fact that I support the aspects of the Sentencing Bill that deal with sentencing rather than the Sentencing Council. I apologise for overrunning.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I declare an interest as Anglican bishop to His Majesty’s prisons in England and Wales. I, too, pay tribute to the late Baroness Newlove, not least in her role as Victims’ Commissioner. I want to echo so much of what the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, have just said, which has lifted my spirits.
There is much to welcome in this Bill. For example, as has been said, we know in general that short custodial sentences do more harm than good, so I am delighted that we are now seeing some evidence-based policy-making rather than policy shaped by media headlines. We also need to clarify our long-term vision and aims. As a Christian, I believe that every human being is made in the image of God and is created to live in interdependent relationship, and broken relationship sits at the heart of all brokenness. Strong relationship sits at the heart of all that is good and transformative. I thank the Minister for his introduction, but I am dismayed that we are setting the context of this Bill as overcrowded prisons and a current crisis. Surely our long-term vision and big picture is not simply about more prisons or even decent prisons, but ultimately about strengthening communities so that people flourish in a network of healthy and safe relationships.
I am therefore hugely concerned by the piecemeal selection of David Gauke’s recommendations from his independent sentencing review and our failure to look at that big, long-term picture. For example, including victims in the statutory purpose of sentencing is welcome, but, if we want to respond well to victims and reduce the number of victims in the future, we need to pay attention to where relationship has been broken in people’s lives as well as in their offending. When sentencing, the place of trauma needs to be addressed for offender as well as victim. It is interesting that many people are both, and I wonder where that leaves us when we talk about putting victims first.
There needs to be scope to be attentive to the underlying reasons for people’s behaviour, not least in an endeavour to break the cycle of reoffending and fractured communities which is costly: physically, emotionally and financially. In wider society, there has increasingly been a push, as we have heard, for longer sentences and more punishment. The review found that
“punishment … has been given disproportionate weight and … there has been insufficient focus on reducing crime”,
and it stated that custody should be a “last resort”. The Bill does not address these criticisms. We are failing to ask what will enable a reduction in reoffending in the individual and bring transformation not only for them but for those who are impacted by their choices. We must include reduction of crime in the purpose statement, as recommended by David Gauke.
Creativity with community sentencing could be life-changing, but, sadly, even the proposed changes are set within such a punitive framework and tone. This is pandering to public opinion, not changing it. On that note, measures to name and shame people completing unpaid work as part of their community sentence need greater scrutiny. I am sure that the last thing the Government would intend is harmful consequences for thousands of children and young people whose parents are completing their sentence.
I applaud the skills and professionalism of our probation officers, and I am glad to see the rehabilitation activity requirement replaced by a probation requirement. But, to be effective, resource must continue to be increased, such that money currently wasted on inappropriate prison sentences is redirected to the recruitment, training and retention of dedicated probation staff and, indeed, prison staff. If prison sentences are going to be restorative, the recruitment, training, valuing and retention of prison and probation staff are vital.
All this is set against a backdrop of severe financial challenge. We need to spend financial resources differently, and that brings me back to the need for clarity about vision and aims, and what long-term good looks like. Although HMPPS has mission and purpose statements, I urge us to define in legislation the purpose of imprisonment. That would bring much-needed clarity to all parts of the criminal justice system and wider stakeholders, and would reduce confusion, if we are truly committed to reimagining and building an effective, well-functioning prison system.
I will seek amendments to the Bill to define in legislation the purpose of imprisonment. In recent days, we have seen yet again intense media and political attention on prisons, but we need to reduce the political heat and seek cross-party solutions. I am dismayed by much of what I heard from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. We must shape public opinion rather than follow it. Is the Minister prepared to face down the media on matters of principle and evidence? Sadly, we saw the exact opposite of that earlier this year when we had before us the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill. There was bluster and knee-jerk reaction, and we saw the independence of the Sentencing Council put at risk, as we have heard more about today.
The Government refer to the position of the Sentencing Council as a “democratic deficit”, yet the independent sentencing review makes plain that politics has been a driver of the current misuse of prison. I am deeply disappointed that the Government have not addressed that charge and, notably, have ignored the recommendation to introduce an external advisory body to help Ministers to make sentencing policy, plan prison capacity and invest the money needed wisely. There is nothing in the Bill to give assurance that our planning and management of the overall prison population is going to be significantly better than it is now, or that we have grasped the significant changes needed, because we have failed to articulate the big aim and clarify what good would look like for victims, offenders, families and wider society in the long term.
If we had a well-functioning prison system with good headroom and capacity, low rates of violence and self-harm, and people coming out of prison less likely to offend than when they went in, this Bill might have been sufficient. Instead, it is a long way from the radical and bold thinking that is necessary to reset the appropriate use of prison.
Beyond the doors to the Chamber is a statue of Queen Victoria, positioned between the figures of Justice and Mercy—two key attributes, I believe, of God, who is in the business of reconciliation and transformation. If we allowed mercy and justice to truly dialogue, the Bill could be transformed. We need a joined-up public health approach to the criminal justice system that puts relationship front and centre. The Bill contains some good elements, but I urge the Government to listen more carefully to the Gauke sentencing review in the round, as well as to the many who call for the Minister to go further.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the non-executive chairman of Leicester law centre, and I am privileged to serve on your Lordships’ Justice and Home Affairs Committee.
My first speech in your Lordships’ House was on sentencing. It was a pretty standard maiden speech, I am afraid, although the late Lord Longford was nice enough to say a few kind words. That was 27 years ago. Now, in November 2025, I am speaking on sentencing again.
I have to admit that although there have been many changes to sentencing policy, some good and some not so good, it is not until now that the approach that prevailed in 1998 has really changed. At long last, we now have a Bill that thoughtfully and sensibly tackles the fundamental problems of an almost broken system, one that can fairly be said to have failed. As examples, one fault is that there are just too many people in prison, women as well as men. Another is that they are there for far too long; and a third, even more depressing in some ways than the first two, is that rehabilitation is too often an aspiration rather than a reality. The results are all around us: our prisons are absolutely full, while too many ex-prisoners reoffend and find themselves straight back in jail.
The House will therefore probably not be surprised to hear that I warmly welcome the Bill, the principles behind it and the tone that it sets. I am also proud of the Government who have brought it forward. I want it to become a new chapter in our sentencing policy, one which is of our time and up to date and is not a victim of a long-standing and often phoney war between the political parties, as has already been said in the House today. How much time have we lost in the last 30 years by putting up the ante between Governments and Oppositions, as if to say, “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the toughest of us all”?
The irony is that, until 30 years ago, there was not this battle to be the hard man. There were, of course, different opinions and debates, but basically, and at heart, there was an agreement and understanding that going for the lowest common denominator was not in anybody’s interests. The Bill seems to be a serious attempt to find an approach that can be supported by all people of good will and intelligence. Is that too much to ask? Of course, I accept that the Bill is not perfect. The implementation of its proposals will not come close to success unless it is given the backing, including the financial backing, that it needs. For that success to happen, the Probation Service is absolutely key, as many speakers from around the House have already said.
Probation has been to hell and back again over the last 15 years or so; experiments that Dr Frankenstein would have been proud of have been tried on it. In a way, it is a bit of a miracle that it is still with us—but it is, and its role is essential to the success or failure of the new sentencing policy as set out in the Bill. We are asking the Probation Service to play the leading role in changing people’s lives around, while satisfying the public that they are being protected. The service needs sustaining and strengthening, in numbers and in funding if more is to be maintained. My concern is that the money pledged until 2029, which is generous, will frankly not be enough if we are to make a success of the Bill and the excellent independent review that was its parent. Government must recognise this as early as possible.
Before finishing, I will mention one aspect of the Bill in a tiny bit more detail. I refer here to an amendment tabled in the other place by my honourable friend Linsey Farnsworth, the Member of Parliament for Amber Valley. She argued that as far as the earned model is concerned, there should be reward for positive behaviour by prisoners, as well as reward for behaving yourself in prison and obeying the rules and other criteria. As I understand it, the Texas model contains some reward for positive behaviour in prison, as well as merely neutral behaviour. The Minister’s reply in the other place was not discouraging, and I look forward—if an amendment is tabled on this matter—to the issue being debated and discussed here, and to what the Minister will say.
I end by emphasising once again my support for the Bill. The fact that it is here today, so soon, is a huge compliment to David Gauke and the independent inquiry that he completed so quickly, and of course to the Minister himself, who with his experience and commitment has been responsible for this legislation. I hope it is in order to say that the Minister has been a breath of fresh air in this area and has given us the chance to be proud, once again, of our sentencing system. Let us make sure that we pass this Bill and take that chance.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I hope that I will be forgiven if I concentrate more on what should be in the Bill than what is in it. For the purposes of today’s debate, I intend to focus primarily on sentences of imprisonment for public protection, or IPPs. Before I do so, I would like to make some brief remarks about other aspects that relate to sentencing, and also to the prison system.
We debated deportation orders last week, and voted on them last night. Most people in this country— but not, I think, the majority of this House—favour deportation orders, subject to two important provisos. The first is this: it is highly desirable that a foreign national sentenced to a serious period of imprisonment should be required to serve a substantial part of that sentence in the United Kingdom before deportation. The reason is that there is too great a chance that on deportation, the receiving country—unless there is an appropriate agreement in place—will simply let him walk free. That is what has happened to Mr Hadush Kebatu on his release to Ethiopia. The second proviso is this: in order to satisfy the principle of proportionality, an automatic deportation order should arise only in the event of serious offences, marked by a significant period of imprisonment. The threshold period will be a matter for debate.
My next general point relates to non-custodial sentences, of which I am a very strong supporter. However, in order to reassure the public, the non-custodial sentence must serve the public interest in a very obvious way, and must also be enforced with rigour. That means a properly financed and resourced Probation Service, among other things. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said about the Probation Service, and I welcome the fact that financing has been significantly increased.
My next point is to emphasise the importance of purposeful out-of-cell activity for prisoners in custody. I know the Minister agrees with this. There should be much more concentration on remedial education and training for employment. Far too many prisoners are spending far too long locked up in their cells, and that is quite wrong.
My next general point relates to what happens on discharge. It is essential that there is a proper package of support for discharged prisoners and, most important of all, the prospect of employment. I give credit to the Minister in respect of his pre-ministerial career in this matter. Your Lordships will have noticed that quite a lot of the recently released prisoners were simply shown the door. So far as I could see, they had no proper support, and that is quite wrong. Again, it reverts to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that we require a properly resourced and funded Probation Service.
The last of my general points, before I come to the IPPs, is on independent monitoring boards. I was the Prisons Minister under my noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell many years ago. He was a most distinguished Home Secretary, as he was a most distinguished Foreign Secretary. I served under him and became very familiar with monitoring boards. When I retired from the House of Commons, I became a member of the monitoring board of our local prison. Along with the inspectorate, the monitoring boards are a vital means of scrutinising what goes on in individual establishments. I hope that the Minister will encourage boards to be as candid and as critical as the facts justify, and that he will encourage prison governors to enable the boards to fulfil the functions that I think they should.
I turn now to the IPPs, which are rightly characterised as an enduring stain on our judicial system. I am not going to repeat the relevant facts in any detail. Noble Lords will find all the detail that they require in excellent briefing notes by the Library of the House of Lords. A very helpful report was published in 2022 by the Justice Committee of the House of Commons and, most recently, a very important report was produced in June 2025 by the Howard League for Penal Reform. It is a report in which the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, was intimately involved, as was my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier.
I acknowledge that there has been some progress in the action plan now in place but, alas, the progress has been too slow. On 31 December 2024, there were still 695 unreleased prisoners who had been in prison for more than their tariff and, indeed, for more than 10 years. Unsurprisingly, self-harm and suicide are much higher for this category of prisoner than for any other. As of March 2025, 94 people on IPPs had taken their own lives while in prison, and this is deplorable. One has to ask oneself what we do about this enduring crisis, bearing in mind that there is an action plan already in place. As I have said, the action plan is proceeding too slowly. That is not surprising, as many prisons do not provide the courses that are required to enable a prisoner to proceed towards release. The House of Commons committee in 2022 recommended the resentencing of individual IPP prisoners. That is a proposal that I probably did support, and I certainly would support.
However, that recommendation was refused by the previous Government and, indeed, by the present Government. I do not imagine that a change of mind is going to occur in the near future. Consequently, the Howard League has come forward with seven interlocking and mutually supporting recommendations. The most important of these is the proposal for a two-year conditional release scheme for IPP prisoners. The recommendation is that, in IPP cases,
“the Parole Board should be asked to set a date as to when the person will be released within a two-year window”,
together with what has to be done to achieve public safety. The report quite rightly sets out a range of safeguards, together with a mechanism for setting aside the release date if there is a requirement for that decision.
The recommendation for a conditional release date, together with the other recommendations in the report, seems a very sensible way forward, but I do not want to be unduly prescriptive in this debate. I suggest that early progress is essential to mitigate and, I hope, resolve an undoubted scandal. I hope that, in the context of this Bill, there will be cross-party discussions that result in serious amendments of a kind likely to commend themselves to this Government, and that thereby we can reasonably hope to see an early resolution to a very serious injustice.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, before I make my remarks, I declare two interests. I am a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee of the House of Lords, which is so admirably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Foster. I am also an officeholder of the All-Party Group on Penal Affairs.
The Bill sets out important reforms to reduce the unnecessary use of custodial sentences, tackle over- crowding, reduce offending and protect victims. I welcome all that, but I want to highlight some of my concerns, which I hope we can deal with in Committee.
The Bill quite rightly bolsters suspended sentences. However, we must guard against more use of suspended sentences instead of community orders, because evidence shows that suspended sentences are imposed on those who should have received community orders. Community orders are not a soft option. With the right investment, intensive community sentences can succeed where short sentences fail. We know that community orders are flexible and allow individuals to tackle the root causes of offending by engaging with mental health, alcohol and drug treatment while retaining their work, home and community ties.
We know that the use of community sentences has more than halved in recent years. We need to encourage greater use of community orders, not less. We also know that female offenders in particular benefit from community orders. The committee on which I sit published a report, Cutting Crime: Better Community Sentences, which highlighted a number of best practices in this area—which, given the time, I will not repeat. If we do not use these sentences, it will defeat the Bill’s objective by simply delaying custodial sentences.
While greater use of community orders is desirable, we also know that, as others have said, their full potential will not be maximised until the Probation Service is fully functional. The Government’s commitment to invest £700 million is welcome, but there will be a shortfall of staff and a time lag in getting staff levels and training up to speed to meet the Bill’s expectations. Furthermore, the Probation Service needs community-based voluntary organisations to be effective. When services are provided locally, various agencies can co-operate effectively. In our report, we argue:
“The colocation and co-commissioning of services are the gold standard”.
Investment in the Probation Service and community-based organisations is crucial if we are to maintain public trust in community sentences.
The earned progression model in the Bill differs from that recommended by the independent sentencing review. The Bill does not include incentives to engage in purposeful activity within the prison before release. There are, however, challenges to the implementation of an earned progression framework, particularly while someone is in prison. Issues of concern—some of them have been highlighted—are, of course, the current overcrowding, a lack of purposeful activity, unequal progression within the prison estate, an unfair adjudication system and the problem of added days. These need to be tackled; without doing so, the progression model will be ineffective in easing the prison capacity crisis and reducing offending.
The second part of the progression model will see those released entering intensive supervision and increased use of electronic monitoring or tagging. The Government have confirmed that tagging will be automatically applied to offenders at the point of release into the second part of the progression model. It is estimated that this would double the number of those tagged. Tagging can be an effective part of community supervision, but at present there is no clear strategy, clarity or guidelines on how the expansion of the use of tagging should be monitored and its impact on the Probation Service.
Disproportionate use of tagging can be counter- productive, particularly for women. Furthermore, small technical breaches that do not amount to reoffending could result in incarceration, thus defeating the objective of the Bill. Earlier this month, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee sent a letter to the Ministry of Justice on the use of electronic monitoring, to which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Foster, will refer.
To succeed, this Bill will require investment in the Probation Service, promotion of the benefits of community orders and a clear strategy on tagging. My final concern is, of course, about the Sentencing Council, which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon. I will not go into it; all I will say is that, although I recognise the importance of Parliament’s role in overseeing sentencing policy, forcing accountability and monitoring its effectiveness, this measure risks the Executive curtailing the independence of the Sentencing Council. The reaction to what happened before, when we had the other Bill, was rather over the top and this particular measure is, in my view, unnecessary. We should concentrate on sentencing and supporting the Sentencing Council’s independence in any way we can.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I must add to the tributes to that great, brave and humane soul, Baroness Newlove.
It is, as we have heard, over 30 years since two political pugilists faced off from opposite Dispatch Boxes in the other place and triggered a law and order arms race from which our criminal justice system and the society it is supposed to serve have yet to recover. For decades, this excited expectations that Governments could legislate their way to headlines and re-election by diminished due process and tougher sentencing. They purported to do this even when imposing economic austerity, in the form of cuts to living standards and the justice system in particular, as well as youth, mental health and addiction services. Today, we reap the bitter harvest in both the human and the financial costs of a justice and penal system that is on its knees, in which few members of the public have faith.
By contrast, and with no disrespect to the elected Chamber, my noble friend Lord Timpson is a perfect example of the finest Government Ministers sitting in your Lordships’ House, bringing a wealth of experience, expertise and vocation for genuine reform. Not, perhaps, since the fictional progressive prison warden Henry Brubaker, played by the late Robert Redford in the 1980 Hollywood film, went inside disguised as a convict, has one man attempted such a brave reforming challenge. Of course, my noble friend comes disguised not as an inmate but as a politician. None the less, I pay tribute to him, and indeed to the much respected Conservative Lord Chancellor, David Gauke, whose sentencing review has inspired so much of the Bill before us. In particular, I commend a focus on preventing and reducing crime and diverting people away from prison so far as possible. Such aims are nothing short of a sea change from decades of crime and sentencing legislation drafted, if not quite on the back of a cigarette packet, on the back of rainforests of press releases full of punitive talk and sentence inflation.
Talk is cheap and legislation not much more expensive. The exorbitant cost comes later, in failed sentences and overstuffed prisons where rehabilitation programmes are all but impossible. The continuing cost is of reoffending and the revolving door—and I do not mean the one outside your Lordships’ House. The Bill must, of course, come with sufficient funds to implement it—adequate funds for our crumbling courts and demoralised probation, third sector and prison services—otherwise, this once-in-a-generation possibility of reversing the vicious cycle will be set up to fail.
I wholeheartedly welcome the presumption against short sentences, and the discretion to suspend short custodial sentences in the light of decades of data on reoffending. How hollow were those slogans of yesteryear about a “short, sharp shock” and how “prison works”? However, it is vital that suspended sentences translate into less custody, not fewer community orders, as we heard from the noble Baroness. Investment, training, monitoring and constant evaluation in every part of the system will be key.
By contrast, the new consent process for the Sentencing Council smacks a little more of the press release than sound policy. The will of the people on matters of sentencing is properly expressed by Parliament’s role in scrutinising and enacting sentencing legislation. The Sentencing Council exists to help the independent judiciary achieve consistency within the realm of its discretion. The Lord Chancellor of the day is, in practice, the initiator of sentencing legislation; they need not and should not be co-signing off on the Sentencing Council’s business plan and guidance documents. It is an encroachment on the independent judiciary, worthy of some of the political judge-bashing of the past. If the new process is not to be dropped, at the very least perhaps the Justice Committee rather than the Lord Chancellor should co-sign with the Lady Chief Justice. In any event, that committee is more reflective of Parliament than a senior member of the Executive is.
In the context of standard custodial sentences, the new progression model will need careful consideration. I urge my noble friends in government carefully to read the concerns of both Justice and the Howard League for Penal Reform. I know that many noble Lords are appreciative of their work in general and providing detailed written briefings on this Bill in particular. Only adequate, purposeful activity in prison can ensure progression rather than regression. There must be clear guidance on how the model should be implemented; the prison adjudication system must be reviewed as to fairness and potential discrimination, not least against disabled and otherwise vulnerable prisoners. The increase in the possibility of added days for bad behaviour must be carefully monitored and reviewed. There is a risk of some prisoners not being released until the very end of their sentence, with no subsequent probation requirements in the community.
Greater public faith and government investment in community orders is at the heart of the Bill. Care must be taken over the fairness, proportionality and unintended consequences of intensive supervision, restriction zones and electronic tagging. Offenders must be supported as well as supervised—and not set up to fail.
Clause 35 is of serious concern, with its powers to publish the names and photographs of those serving orders in the community. I am reminded of an informal meeting I had as director of Liberty with a Home Office political adviser around 20 years ago. During the encounter, the adviser’s phone rang; when they realised who the caller was, they turned very pale and left the table for a few minutes. On their return, they asked me what I thought of an idea to force those on community orders to wear striped uniforms while performing unpaid manual work in the community. “What do you think I’ll say?”, I replied. “What do you really think in terms of safety, decency, rehabilitation and public order?” The adviser nodded silently but looked very anxious. The call had come from the editor of a national newspaper, demanding the policy as a story for the next day. As journalism is currently under fire, I shall withhold the name of the editor and paper concerned. I believe that the pillory was abolished in 1837, and the stocks fell out of use in around the 1870s, so let us not revive them in time for the 2030s.
Finally, I welcome the Bill’s amendments to the Bail Act 1976; in particular, adding to courts’ considerations a defendant’s pregnancy, primary care giving or situation as a victim of domestic abuse. I urge the department to go further and build on reforms in the Mental Health Bill to abolish remand in custody of people, including children, for their own welfare or protection, even for non-custodial offences. This is surely one of the most obvious symbols and examples of our criminal justice system being used as a dumping ground for social problems and vulnerable people who would be far better cared for and protected elsewhere, and at far less financial and human cost.
Overall, I congratulate the Government on creating such an opportunity for enlightened and effective reform. Because it is in his nature, I know that my noble friend Lord Timpson will seek to collaborate across the House on ensuring that this opportunity is taken to the best of our shared ability—including, I hope, on IPPs. I wish him well in his task and look forward to playing my own small part.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust, but I add that my points here are mostly my own. I wholeheartedly support the Government’s ambition to rehabilitate more prisoners so that we move away from the endless cycle of successive Governments ramping up the length of sentences so as to be seen to be tough on crime. For far too long, sentencing law has been focused exclusively on punishment, and insufficient attention has been paid to the other statutory purposes of sentencing, especially reduction in crime and rehabilitation. We all know that 80% of offending is reoffending—a really shocking statistic.
I welcome the recommendations of the sentencing review, and there are many good things in the Bill that build on that review. However, the Bill has not implemented all the recommendations, even though the review considered them to be
“a holistic package of measures that will work best in conjunction with each other”.
Many points could be made but, for the purposes of Second Reading, I will focus on what I consider to be the most important area; namely, the way in which the Bill provides for so-called earned early release at the one-third point of the sentence, and the likely consequences of that. My comments will echo points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and indeed just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.
Earned release is a commendable rehabilitative concept, which originated in the Criminal Justice Act 1967. That Act provided for Parole Board release for fixed-term prisoners at the one-third point of the sentence, if they had satisfied the board that they had been sufficiently rehabilitated so as to make it safe to release them—but it was a big if. A prisoner could be released on licence, with a two-thirds reduction in time served in prison, only if they could show they had taken steps to rehabilitate. That is not this Bill.
The Bill provides that a prisoner will earn early release at the one-third point merely by behaviour that avoids additional days for breaches of the prison rules; for example, offences against discipline, threatening, abusive or violent behaviour or possessing unauthorised articles. Immediately, one sees the likely adverse consequences of that approach. First, it will lead to a concentration of vulnerable and challenging prisoners within the prison environment. Individuals who struggle with multiple and complex needs, such as mental health, neurodiversity and substance dependence, are most likely to break prison rules and get placed on report and adjudications. Over time, therefore—and we must look at the long term, since this Bill will probably remain the law for years to come—the prison population will comprise a disproportionate number of people who have not accessed early release due to this factor.
Secondly, who will award additional days and on what basis? This becomes a critical issue if early release at the one-third point is to depend on avoiding such adjudications. If it is prison officers, that could clearly be open to abuse. It could also negatively impact on staff-prisoner relationships.
Thirdly, is avoiding additional days for things such as threatening, abusive or violent behaviour so as to gain early release really “earning it” in a meaningful sense? The 1967 Act experience teaches us that release is only truly “earned” if the offender engages in meaningful purposeful activity and attends any required work, education, treatment and/or training obligation where these are available. Only then can they be said to have taken steps to rehabilitate before their release. In an ideal world, therefore, release at the one-third point should not be automatic merely by avoiding punishment. It should be properly earned—as was recommended by the sentencing review—so as to demonstrate that the prisoner is less likely to reoffend or breach licence conditions when in the community and end up being recalled to prison.
I recognise that Clause 20 is partly an emergency mechanism to alleviate current capacity pressures. To provide that release at the one-third point must depend on engagement in purposeful activity might deprive Clause 20 of its utility, since the state of capacity and staffing crisis in prisons are such that access to such activity is severely limited. However, this means that the burden of rehabilitating prisoners will fall exclusively on the Probation Service, which will already be on its knees with the upsurge in community sentences. There is a massive danger that, in trying to create more prison capacity with release at the one-third point, the measure might in fact diminish it because of the number of recalls.
This is not fanciful. Let us take the number of prisoners who were released early last Autumn under the Government’s emergency release scheme SDS40: MoJ figures published on 30 October show that, between April and June, there were more than 11,500 releases under the SDS40 scheme and over 10,000 recalls, which is 15% higher than in the same quarter in 2024 and is a record high. Although some of these recalls may have been unrelated to the scheme, the department acknowledges that the unprecedented increase was likely driven partly by the implementation of SDS40. If there has been such an increase following release at the 40% point, how much worse might it be if prisoners are released at the one-third point under this Bill? Meaningful purposeful activity in prison before release would surely have reduced the number of such recalls.
But I recognise that the Government are between a rock and a hard place on this: on the one hand, they need to release more prisoners early so as to create more capacity and, on the other, they risk putting so much pressure on the Probation Service that a large number of released prisoners will be recalled to prison, thereby defeating the whole point of Clause 20. I do not know the answer to this in the short term, which must surely depend partly on a vast injection of new probation resources, the like of which we have never seen. Even then, you cannot wave a magic wand to produce overnight significantly more trained probation officers with the experience to deal with the increased burden. Whatever the answer in the short term, it still leaves the long-term problem of how purposeful activity in prison can, at some future point when capacity issues have subsided, be made a requirement before release at the one-third point. Otherwise, prisoners will have no incentive to participate in such activity, since Clause 20 will guarantee their release at the one-third point anyway.
Something needs to be done now, since otherwise Clause 20 will continue, unless amended by a future Bill, to require release at the one-third point irrespective of whether prisoners have taken steps to rehabilitate. The burden of rehabilitating prisoners would then, for the foreseeable future, fall exclusively on the Probation Service. One suggestion, so as to build some flexibility into the system now, would be to insert an enabling power in Clause 20 for regulations to be made which, at a future point, when capacity and resources allow, would enable Clause 20 to be modified so as to incorporate a requirement for purposeful activity. This would give the department the option of modifying Clause 20 in the future without the need for a fresh Bill. It would keep the options open, which is never a bad idea where prisons and probation are concerned.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this is obviously a Bill with good aims: to reduce the prison population and put more resources into probation and rehabilitation. However, the problem is that the prison population is going up in the long term because Governments keep coming up with new reasons to lock people up.
We have had a lot of briefings on this particular Bill, and a recurring theme across them is the issue of resourcing capacity within the probation and rehabilitation system. Several organisations, notably Justice, stress that without significant investment in probation services and community-based interventions, the proposed reforms risk placing unrealistic demands on an already overstretched system. The Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prison Reform Trust caution that, while the Bill may provide short-term relief to the prison estate, it will not be sufficient to address the long-term growth in the prison population, which is driven by sentence inflation and systemic pressures. For example, the Government estimate that the Sentencing Bill will reduce demand for prison places by 7,500 places by 2028. This reduction is achieved through a combination of reforms, including changes to sentencing, release points, recall processes and remand measures. Despite this, the prison population is still projected to increase by 2,000 people by 2029.
Concerns that the proposed earned progression model risk becoming a mechanism that punishes poor behaviour, rather than genuinely rewarding good conduct, are certainly valid. There is the danger that adding additional days through the prison adjudication system would result in a prisoner reaching the end of their sentence without the licence period. In addition, increasing use of fixed-term recourse to prison will not improve the situation for victims or offenders. I have heard from those working with victims of domestic abuse about their fears of offenders being re-released without any assessment at all of the risk they pose to the people they have offended against. Of course, they are being put back on the streets and could commit crimes against other people. This certainly does not improve the lives of those being recalled. Sending somebody back to prison for 56 days does not allow them access to any offending behaviour work or reduce risks but simply holds them in an overcrowded prison before they come back out, often having lost their accommodation and any progress that they made before the recall.
On the probation resources, there is broad support across organisations for the presumption against short custodial sentences of 12 months or less and for extending the courts’ powers to suspend custodial sentences of up to three years. The Justice briefing underlines the need for adequate resourcing of various services, alongside guidance and training for practitioners. The Howard League, Justice and the Prison Reform Trust stress that the implementation of these provisions must ensure a genuine reduction in the use of custody, rather than the reconfiguration of existing penalties. Refuge urges the Government to ensure that domestic abuse offenders are exempted from the presumption against short custodial sentences and that appropriate monitoring arrangements are established.
While I welcome using rehabilitation measures in the community, as opposed to in prisons, a clear theme runs through many of the briefings we have received, which is that without serious investment, the proposed reforms risk collapsing under their own weight. I would be very interested to hear the Minister reassure us on that, because we could spend endless amounts of money, but if it is not spent in the right way, it is a terrible waste.
There are many issues that I wish I could pick up. The Howard League supports amendments to the Bail Act 1976, designed to reduce unnecessary remand, particularly for pregnant women, primary care givers and the victims of domestic abuse. Justice further advocates for the removal of the courts’ powers to remand individuals for their own protection, including children remanded on welfare grounds.
Although it is not included in the Bill, the Law Society highlights the opportunity for the Government to revisit the resentencing of individuals serving indeterminate sentences for public protection, as previously recommended by the Justice Committee in 2022. As the Minister knows well, IPP prisoners have been languishing in prison for petty crimes. On IPP releases, in August, 172 were freed for the first time, while it will take an estimated decade to free 2,544 prisoners still trapped in their sentences.
I would like a commitment from the Government, if they are keen on bringing down the number of prisoners, to please not release men charged with domestic abuse and stalking who repeatedly harass women. Here are three things that the Government could do instead: abolish the draconian anti-protest laws that result in five-year prison sentences for hanging a banner over a bridge; reverse the proscription of Palestine Action, which has led to hundreds of arrests for sitting down peacefully and holding up signs; and, personally, I want the Home Office focused on keeping violent prisoners in prison and letting peaceful protesters out on the streets to try to make the world a better place.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness.
I find myself speaking in the company of very distinguished and knowledgeable noble Lords, with great judicial experience and knowledge of the sentencing system in its widest sense. I am not in that company. I would venture to say, though, that I have considerable sympathy with what the Government are trying to achieve here. I have doubts about the efficacy of ever longer prison sentences, and indeed about their purpose. Listening to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, I allowed myself a measure of doubt about whether we have a clear notion of the purpose of prison. After all, prison as we understand it is a relatively modern idea; it goes back only to Jeremy Bentham. It is a sort of 200-year experiment. If the right reverend Prelate is going to give us an opportunity, in the course of the Bill, to give some consideration to what we are actually trying to achieve and whether we are succeeding, that might be of some general benefit.
However, I want to follow the speech so eloquently made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, when he spoke about IPP prisoners, a subject also referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This scandal continues to fester. At its height, in 2012, there were 6,000 prisoners subject to the IPP regime. According to the latest figures supplied by the Ministry of Justice, 14 years later, that figure has now come down to 2,422 in custody, 1,476 of whom are on recall. Nearly 1,000—946—have never been released, 14 years after the sentence was abolished. Many of them, I think nearly all of them now, are beyond the tariff that they deserved and were given at the time of their original sentencing. Many of them are years, as much as a decade, beyond the tariff that they were given.
One has to acknowledge progress and good will. Undoubtedly, the Minister, but also his predecessors from a previous Government, have come to this task with great good will, a recognition of the injustice and a wish to bring it to an end, but the furthest that they have been able to go when dealing with those prisoners who are in prison is an action plan, which has not materially changed with the change of government. The last Government, as we know, made considerable progress, in the Victims and Prisoners Act, in alleviating the position of prisoners who are out on licence, but my focus is on those who are not out on licence but still in prison for one of the two reasons I have mentioned: either never released or on recall.
The action plan has certainly seen a reduction in numbers—even in the last year, numbers have been reduced—but if one focuses briefly on those who have never been released, one sees that the action plan is losing its effectiveness, because one is getting to that number of prisoners who will always be a challenge for the probation system to approve for release, many of them because of mental health difficulties acquired as a result of their experiences while serving the sentence. The challenge for the Minister is to recognise that there needs to be something over and above the action plan to help deal with those people and find some path back to giving them justice—justice being simply that one serves the sentence that arises as a result of the crime one has committed. We see very little sign of that, but the Bill offers us opportunities to do it.
We have seen ideas. The Justice Committee in the Commons, late in the last Government, had a proposal for resentencing—the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, has a live Private Member’s Bill which would put that into effect. We have great hopes, I think, in the report of the Howard League more recently, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd—who I am glad to see in his place and due to speak later in this debate—the essential effects of which were described by my noble friend Lord Hailsham. The question for the Minister is whether he intends, with vigour, to take up some of the ideas being offered to him; whether he will use the Bill as a means of doing so; and whether he will enter urgent talks. I cannot criticise him for failing to talk to noble Lords. He has been very good about holding cross-party round tables—in fact, his secretary is in the process of organising another one for next month—but will he sit down, as my noble friend suggested, in the course of the Bill and engage in cross-party discussions as to how the Bill can become a vehicle for addressing, in particular, those who have no hope of release, whether through the recommendations of the Howard League or some other means? That would be a huge advance.
I leave those thoughts with noble Lords. It is a huge omission that the Government have so far not included them in the Bill. The Minister began by saying that they were not included, but there are enough of us across the House to see amendments tabled, perhaps with some effect, to bring them back into the Bill. This is the opportunity in this parliamentary session to do that and, if the opportunity passes, more time will be lost and more unjustified suffering will be endured as a result of our lack of dispatch and engagement with this issue.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who makes some very important points.
I begin by joining the tributes that have been made to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who was a doughty supporter for the victims of crime and will be much missed. I pay tribute also to David Gauke for his excellent report, and also to the Minister, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, is a breath of fresh air, and certainly could never be accused of kicking the can down the road.
As my noble friend Lord Beith pointed out, we on these Benches are very supportive of much of the Bill, but we have some concerns. However, rather than addressing the many concerns that others have raised, I will concentrate on a more general concern I have that we will simply not achieve the Bill’s intended ends unless we supply the means to do so. Frankly, I am concerned that this is currently not the case.
I will illustrate this by reference to three recent reports by your Lordships’ Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which I have the great privilege to chair. In particular, all three reports have made it absolutely clear that whatever sentence is imposed on an offender should provide punishment but also measures that reduce reoffending, as a key means of keeping the public safe and reducing the prison population, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, demonstrated very well earlier.
The Bill provides measures to replace short-term prison sentences. This was called for in the committee’s report, Cutting Crime: Better Community Sentences, under the then chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. After all, the reoffending rate of prisoners released from short sentences is a staggering 61.2%—and that is after it has cost over £53,000 for each prisoner, 13 times more expensive than the cost of community sentences.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, made very clear earlier, while community sentences have a much lower reoffending rate, the committee was clear that much needed to change if they are to reach their full potential of turning round the lives of offenders and supporting them to avoid reoffending.
For example, many offenders have a key problem in relation to drug, alcohol or gambling addiction, or with mental health issues, yet the current provision of support for addiction services has fallen and fewer than 2% of those with mental health issues even start treatment. So the Bill can propose an increase in non-custodial sentences, but that will not help reduce reoffending—and so reduce the number of people in prison—unless measures are in place to boost mental health and addiction support services. So I hope that the Minister when he winds up will explain how that is going to be done and funded.
As others have said, the greatest concern is in relation to the Probation Service. The Bill will require the Probation Service to manage many more issues, including a large increase in the number of community orders and a near doubling of the number of people being tagged. Yet the Probation Service is already facing significant shortfalls in staffing and so is unable to do all of what is already being asked of it. A community sentence order is rarely given without a pre-sentence report, yet, because of staff shortages, the number of such reports has fallen dramatically. How can the Bill expect a significant increase in the preparation of such reports if the service cannot even cope with the current demand?
So there is an urgent need to address staffing and retention in the Probation Service to cope with more pre-sentence reports, more supervision of those on community orders and more supervision of those who are going to be tagged. Without it, the Probation Service is being set up to fail.
The Government of course increased staff numbers by 1,000 last year and has promised a further 1,300 this year, but these numbers, even with better use of new technology, are unlikely to meet the demand, which some estimates suggest may be as many as 10,000. As he did in his opening remarks, the Minister may well point to the promised £700 million over four years, but we still have no clarity on how much of that will be spent on additional staff and their training. I hope the Minister will provide that clarity at the end of the debate, but, with much of the money likely to be spent on housing, it is therefore unlikely there will be enough to boost staffing to the level required by the Bill’s proposals.
In that respect, the Bill’s financial impact assessment is deeply worrying. It says:
“Across all the Bill measures, the impact on probation is estimated to lead to a modest increase in average annual costs of £4.5 million”.
Surely that is complete nonsense. It goes on to say that there will be additional costs for increased tagging and supervision of prisoners released early through the progression model. But these costs are not provided. Rather, the assessment says that the costs of this expansion are “being considered” by the department as part of funding allocations. What confidence can we have that the means will be provided to achieve the Bill’s aims?
Additional funding for the Probation Service is not all that is needed for the expansion of tagging, not least to reduce reoffending. As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said, the committee has made a number of recommendations, including the need for a new electronic monitoring strategy. Given the lamentable performance of the current private contractors, we suggested that consideration should be given to bringing the management and operation of EM services under the control of the Probation Service, or at least an increase in the number of private providers to increase competition.
Without these and other recommendations, alongside more funding and many more well-trained probation staff, there will not be a successful electronic monitoring expansion or a successful expansion of truly effective community service sentences, and the Probation Service really will be set up to fail.
The Bill also aims to reduce the size of the prison population, but many offenders will still end up in prison, where, as recent media reports show, the Prison Service is already failing. This is not surprising. As was clear from the committee’s report, Better Prisons: Less Crime, much of the blame must lie with successive Governments, which have increased the level of sentences and failed to provide the service with the staffing numbers and support it needs.
As prisoner numbers have risen, staffing levels have fallen. There are fewer prison officers now than even a year ago. We now know that 13% leave every year, half of them having spent less than a year in the service. Nor has the judiciary been given adequate support: we now have a staggering 20% of the prison population comprising people on remand awaiting trial.
A crucial way to reduce overcrowding is by reducing reoffending. As the committee report reminds us, in addition to overcrowding, prisons are often in bad and unsanitary condition, with a maintenance backlog of nearly £2 billion. They face issues such as a shortage of funds, gangs operating with impunity, drones undermining security, an alarming availability of drugs and overstretched, inexperienced and demoralised staff in a service faced with a severe recruitment and retention crisis.
It is hardly surprising that prison staff have inadequate time and resources to provide prisoners with the support they need for mental health problems and addictions, or to provide them with training and educational opportunities that can prepare them for life outside. In the absence of such support, it is not surprising that the committee pointed out that 80% of offending is reoffending. It is estimated that it costs £18 billion a year, and of course it is a major contribution to the size of the prison population.
One of the best ways to reduce the prison population is through wider prison reforms, not least to reduce reoffending. Such reforms do not feature at all in the Bill but must be implemented alongside it, and the committee report provides many details about the reforms needed. Despite a fairly positive response to those recommendations, it is not entirely clear how well they will be implemented. After all, the Government agreed with the committee’s recommendation that there should be wider access to a more diverse range of educational opportunities in prisons, but then, just a few weeks later, announced plans to cut spending on prison education by 50%.
The Bill contains some controversial but many welcome proposals. However, it will be difficult to support them unless there is evidence that the means to implement them will be in place. At present, I believe that is open to question.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I so want to be able to welcome this Bill; instead, I feel rather despondent. I ask the Minister, of whom I am something of a fan, not to take that personally.
The issue of sentencing matters—to me, to all of us here and to the public—and it has been rightly agitating the public of late. Recent debates have raged over controversial sentencing decisions. Lucy Connolly’s social media posts saw her sentenced to prison for longer than actual rioters who used violence against asylum hotels—is that the right kind of sentencing? Then there are the regular rows about whether some crimes are punished too lightly, whether mitigating circumstances are used too liberally and whether sentencing for serious offences such as sexual assault or child abuse adequately reflects those heinous crimes.
Conversely, many are concerned that some crimes are punished too heavily. Should activists be locked up for protesting? Are too many young people and women being locked up when better alternatives exist? Others worry about all the laws being pushed through Parliament that criminalise ever more activities. Over in the Crime and Policing Bill, we are seeing the creation of a plethora of new offences such as respect orders, the breach of which can lead to two years in prison. So there is plenty for us to discuss and debate in relation to sentencing.
In that spirit, I welcome the Bill’s attempt to clip the wings of the Sentencing Council. Debating sentencing is our responsibility, not a quango’s. I agree with the Justice Secretary’s point that any sentencing framework needs greater democratic oversight and that
“policy must be set by parliamentarians, who answer to the people”.
Let us be frank: the people are tearing their hair out about the mess that parliamentarians are making of sentencing and prisons as we speak. The now-weekly revelations of prisoners being freed from jail by mistake make a mockery of our deliberations here. What is the point of hours and hours pondering sentencing if, once they are sentenced, the system is going to let them go by accident? These are not harmless lags: of the 262 released by accident in the year to March 2025, 87 were convicted of violence against a person and three for sexual offences. Never mind the accidental releases—we have also witnessed the travesty of an emergency release scheme that has seen 38,000 prisoners released early for no other reason than official mismanagement of prisons.
Then there is another anomaly: too many criminals are not being caught to be sentenced, not because they are criminal masterminds but because the forces of criminal justice seem to have abandoned swathes of the country to lawlessness. We will all know friends, family members and colleagues whose stolen phones, laptops and bikes are fitted with tracker devices. When they report that to the police and say, “I know where it is, officer, and who has it”, the police shrug and do nothing. Let us not mention those many instances of mass shoplifting, which is such a scourge in so many communities yet is ignored by the authorities. These are criminals missing from our sentencing consideration because of state negligence, and the public are inevitably frustrated.
With that backdrop, it feels surreal and demoralising to be asked to have a meaningful debate about sentencing policy. But, ever hopeful, I hope that we can try to dig deeper, as this Second Reading debate has done, to consider all sides philosophically. Are ever-longer prison sentences the key to tackling crime, or is prison itself, as the Minister implied, creating more criminals than it is rehabilitating? I am worried that the Bill avoids those proper debates. Despite what the Minister said, the Bill will hem us in, because the Government’s justification for it is hooked on the problem of prison capacity and overcrowding. We are told that
“we cannot … build our way out of this crisis. Without significant reform, demand for places will outstrip supply by … early 2028”.
It is posited as a technical problem.
What is demoralising is that we are basically being told that we have no choice but to reform by reducing sentences. Regardless of what we think, or if we disagree, we are met with the retort, “It’s the overcrowding crisis, stupid”. The proposals in the Bill are all about reducing sentences—not based on principle but for technocratic ends, with a contested evidence base and without the resources, as we have heard.
One of the key proposals is to reduce by a further 10% early releases of fixed-term sentences. The public are already bewildered about why it is so routine to release prisoners after only 50% of their time inside. Then the Government’s recent emergency release scheme lopped off another 10%, which has meant that tens of thousands have been freed after serving 40% of their sentence. This Bill now suggests a further 10% reduction, to 30%. How can that do anything but make a mockery of sentencing? If someone is given a sentence of 15 years and will be out in five, what is the point of the original 15-year sentence in the first place?
Clause 1 introduces a presumption against the use of short custodial sentences of 12 months or less, so you get sentenced to a year in prison but will not go to prison. Meanwhile, suspended sentences will be expanded from two to three years. I am often on the prison reform side of such policies, and there may well be merit in bringing in either of those measures or even the leaked revelations that the majority of women prisoners should not be incarcerated. But the Government’s emphasis on freeing up space in prisons to justify such moves is likely to sideline the need to persuade the public, who might well query whether these policies will weaken deterrence or threaten public safety. Hiding behind the Damocles sword of an overcrowding crisis seems to be an evasion of political accountability and could well fuel public cynicism.
The choice of sentence has a real-world consequence. Take the case of Brahim Kaddour-Cherif, the Algerian sex offender mistakenly released from HMP Wandsworth, who was a repeat offender and visa overstayer when he was convicted in November 2024 for indecent exposure. He was then put on the sex offenders register for five years—fair enough—but his sentence was only an 18-month community order. That non-custodial sentence does not meet the threshold for automatic deportation, so when people ask why he was even in the country to offend, the answer is: sentencing choices. I have some worries that community orders and suspended sentences —forced through not based on efficacy but because we are told there is no room to lock people up—will create even more problems.
The Secretary of State, David Lammy, talks of expanding
“effective sentencing outside of prison”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/9/25; col. 1407.]
What does expanding effective sentencing outside of prison mean? It sounds as though communities are now expected to accommodate a quasi-militarised security and surveillance regime. It seems that convicts in the community can now be banned from certain pubs, attending sports and other public events, and confined to restrictive geographical zones, and, of course, there is more use of electronic monitoring. To me, that sounds more like prison than freedom. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has asked, who is going to monitor all these provisions and supervise a huge influx of prisoners into our communities? It seems delusional to rely on an already overstretched Probation Service, as we have heard so eloquently expressed by so many people, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, who just summed up what the problems were.
The problem of probation gaps is one reason why we should not fool ourselves or the public by saying that using community resources and sentences as an alternative to incarceration is always humane, progressive or effective. This was the presumption of the Mental Health Bill, but as we debated that Bill earlier this year, the review of the Valdo Calocane case was published. Catastrophic errors in his medical treatment in the community led to schizophrenic Mr Calocane stabbing three innocent people to death, so we should not romanticise what punishment in the community means.
Finally, the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I cannot finish this speech without noting that, when sentencing policy goes wrong, it can wreck the lives of so many people, including prisoners, and discredit criminal justice. The imprisonment for public protection—the IPP—was a sentence brought in in 2003. It was so wrong-headed and such a stain on our justice system that it was abolished, and yet here we are, 13 years after that abolition, with, as we have heard, 2,500 prisoners still languishing on a sentence that went wrong. I just finish by stating that even the Prison Officers’ Association has hit out at the Government for clinging on to this grossly unjust sentence. Napo, representing probation officers, has called on the Government to “finish the job”. I really hope that we use this Bill to finish the job when it comes to IPP. “Prison overcrowding”, you say? Surely, the state can let out some obvious candidates: that is, at least some or quite a lot of the IPP prisoners.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I am co-chair of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group, and I very broadly welcome this Bill as a logical and rational response to the serious problems of prison overcrowding and of years, even decades, of sentence inflation. I will focus my remarks on two areas, if I may: on concerns with the Bill expressed to me by the justice unions, especially Napo—formerly the National Association of Probation Officers—and also on something seriously lacking from the Bill, which has already been pointed out, namely a viable way to wipe away the vile stain of IPP sentences.
I echo the concerns raised in the other place on probation capacity, unpaid work and electronic monitoring, following warnings by Napo, which led to three amendments tabled, as the Minister knows, at Committee and Report stages. The first of these gave the chief inspector the power to delay any aspect of the Bill that places extra pressure on probation until the service is indeed ready. The second stopped the private sector profiting from the expansion of unpaid work orders or community sentences, which are only run by the Probation Service, charities, local authorities or other non-profit organisations. The third aimed to bring tagging operations into the public sector Probation Service and out of the hands of the failing and corrupt privateers, such as Serco and G4S. On this point, I note last week’s letter to Ministers from the Justice and Home Affairs Committee warning that probation is being “set up to fail” with electronic monitoring. It also called for an independent review on tagging
“with a view to operating parallel contracts managed by a fully funded and supported Probation Service”—
something staff would very much agree with; I have no doubt about that.
I raise these points today because, unfortunately, none of the concerns was addressed during the debates in the other place, nor has the promised union meeting with Commons Ministers materialised. That is what I believe. I hope that, by my putting all this on record, the Minister will appreciate the depth of feeling among front-line staff on these issues and seek to reassure them appropriately.
Turning to IPP sentences, I have listened to the previous contributions, including from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. He talked about “progress, but”—and it is a big but—and he gave a tremendous overview of IPP and its potential way forward. As always on this subject, the contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, were outstanding, and I thank them on behalf of prisoners and their relatives.
Your Lordships will know that I am currently sponsoring a Private Member’s Bill, as has been mentioned, to resentence everyone still serving these torture sentences. IPP resentencing was debated when this Bill passed through the Commons with different amendments proposed by—wait for it—the Liberal Democrats and the chair of the Justice Select Committee. Although the power of the Whip meant that these initiatives were unsuccessful, it is important to continue to use this Bill to highlight the plight of IPP prisoners, both to pressure the Government and to continue to raise public awareness.
That is why I intend to table my own amendment on IPP resentencing, based on the text of my Bill and incorporating the helpful amendments proposed by Members of the Committee on my Bill. These include the secure-hospital backstop proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, so that anyone whom the resentencing court considered too mentally ill to be released into the community yet could be moved to a secure hospital to receive badly needed therapeutic resources. I wish to table this new amendment, because I want the Government to put their objections to it on the record, for them to be judged fully and fairly in the future by action on IPP—not just warm words and slow actions, which, unfortunately, is still the case at the moment.
It genuinely pains me to say this, but I am starting to lose a little bit of faith that Parliament will fix this appalling injustice that Parliament itself created well over 20 years ago. That does not mean we should give up fighting—no, not at all. We must fight harder, for fairness and, indeed, for justice. But until we see an ITV docudrama made about this scandal, like “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, or until MPs’ mailboxes are full of messages from constituents, our best hope lies with the courts and with them showing the justice and mercy that successive Governments have failed to. That is why it so important for the Minister to explain the Government’s position fully and fairly on why they will not support resentencing with a secure-hospital backstop.
As perverse as it might sound, the more stubborn and unreasonable the Government sound, the more likely it is that the judiciary will side with those of us who are desperate to end this injustice. Indeed, so will the United Nations, which is currently considering a complaint brought by IPP campaigners against our own Government. It is shameful. People imprisoned for public protection and their families know that there are a growing number of us in this House and in the other place that will not give up until this stain is wiped clean. Noble Lords had better believe that.
In finishing, I repeat what my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti said: I give compliments to our Minister, who deserves praise where praise is due. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to a further debate on these issues as the Bill progresses and to our next IPP update on 10 December.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, in this Second Reading debate, I will open by speaking about women who cannot speak for themselves and highlight what I think are two significant omissions. First, may I associate myself with the comments on IPP sentences made by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, whom I have the pleasure to follow, and others. I had never heard of these until I held my first MP surgery and I was visited by a prisoner’s mother. She told me the whole sorry story. I was totally shocked, and I never understood why the last Government, which I served in as a junior Minister, did not fix this. It is a matter of deep regret to me, and I wish we had done something about it while we had the chance.
I pay tribute to the campaigners and families I had the privilege of working alongside while I served as Safeguarding Minister. Poppy Devey Waterhouse was just 24 when she was stabbed more than 100 times by her ex-boyfriend in her own home. Her killer, who had subjected her to coercive and controlling behaviour, received a minimum term of 16 years. Joanna Simpson was bludgeoned to death by her estranged husband in front of their children. He received 13 years. These are not isolated tragedies. They are the visible tip of a system that still treats domestic homicide as less grave than other murders.
The families of these women, particularly Carole Gould and Julie Devey, who lead the Killed Women campaign, have fought for years to expose this injustice. I thank them for briefing me ahead of this debate. Their campaign has attracted support from across the House and the other place and has revealed how many domestic murders involve what forensic experts call overkill —multiple stab wounds, strangulation, bludgeoning, and coercive control. Yet those killings, which are often triggered when the victim tries to end a relationship, attract lower starting points than murders of strangers in the street. For a man who takes a knife out of his house intending to use it in public and commits murder, the penalty starts at 25 years. However, if that same knife is already in his kitchen drawer and he uses it to kill his partner after years of coercive control, the starting point is still just 15 years.
The Killed Women campaign asks that murders following a history of coercive or controlling abuse attract the same 25-year starting point as other aggravated murders and that the justice system collects and publishes data on domestic homicides to track patterns and ensure consistency. We began to look at this issue in the Wade review under the last Government. I understand how many factors are at play in the sentencing framework, as we have heard from many learned Members of your Lordships’ House, but this Bill is precisely the place to act. It is disappointing that the Government have not used the vehicle in front of us now.
While in opposition, I was often opposed by the now Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips. She argued passionately and repeatedly for reforms to toughen sentences for domestic homicide and to close the gap between murders committed in the home and those committed with a knife on the street. She called these measures essential to delivering justice for victims of domestic homicide. Now that she sits in government, she and her ministerial colleagues are noticeable by their silence on this issue. The Killed Women campaign said last December that they were told that the Law Commission review would take at least three years to complete, delayed by a lack of resources. Realistically, we will not see significant change until the next decade— so much for the current Government’s pledge to halve violence against women and girls. I hope that the Government reconsider their approach to this and come back to this in Committee.
The second omission in the Bill is the absence of explicit recognition of the, in my view, egregiously named honour-based abuse in our sentencing regime. To take one example, 20 year-old Somaiya Begum was murdered by her uncle in Bradford. The judge said that it was impossible to identify a motive, even though she had been under a forced marriage protection order. Without honour recognised in law, the very reason for her death was absent from the courtroom. There are many such cases. We usually prefix “honour-based abuse” with “so-called” because there is nothing honourable about such abuse. It is often family-orchestrated, community-endorsed and underpinned by the appalling logic that a woman who asserts her independence has brought shame on her family, shame that must be cleansed through violence.
According to Karma Nirvana, which runs the national helpline, around 80% to 85% of callers identify with a south Asian heritage—Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi —and around 90% are from Muslim, Sikh or Hindu backgrounds combined. Victims also include white British, eastern European, Christian and Traveller women, but data is very scant and patchy. We know that this form of abuse is found wherever patriarchal or collectivist values override individual rights. These are values which are alien to the freedoms that we hold dear in Britain. However, we must not shy away from these facts for fear of offending people. In the context of grooming gangs, we saw how the denial of cultural and communal drivers allowed abuse to persist for years in plain sight. An estimated 12 women a year are murdered in the UK to defend so-called honour, but these cases are too often hidden in wider domestic homicide statistics. I had the privilege of being the Minister who took the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022 through the other place, outlawing forced child marriage. I know that we can legislate when the will exists.
Back in 2024, Labour shadow Ministers proposed new clauses to make honour-based violence an explicit aggravating factor in sentencing for murder, ensuring that courts recognise its motive and the community pressures behind it. Again, Jess Phillips described it as essential to delivering justice and, again, the Government have not acted. Furthermore, the promised violence against women and girls strategy, due in summer or autumn—we are now in November—has still not been published. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner said in September that halving violence against women and girls within a decade was an ambitious and laudable target, yet this strategy is still delayed. No major funding has been announced for specialist domestic abuse services—and I fail to see where the momentum within government is coming from.
I finish by asking the Government: when will they fulfil their commitment to ensuring that honour-based abuse is an aggravated factor in sentencing—if not in this Bill, when? When will they fulfil their commitment to levelling up domestic homicide sentencing—if not in this Bill, when? When will they finally publish the long-promised violence against women and girls strategy, which is not directly in the Sentencing Bill but must include many elements connected to sentencing policy? These reforms are overdue. The women whose names I have mentioned this evening deserve not just to be remembered but to have the law changed.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as the founder and vice-president of Catch22, the largest community preventive agency for those young potential offenders. Before that, I was the chairman and founder of Crime Concern, which I served for 21 years before creating Catch22. As the Minister knows, because he came to see it, I founded My Brother’s Keeper, working in 14 prisons across the UK in the last year, especially HMP Isis, where for the last two and a half years our team has seen a 30% reduction in violence in what was one of the most despairing prisons but is now one of the most positive. I have spent 37 years visiting prisons and intensely over the last 11 years have encountered hundreds of men who have told me their very personal and very deep and serious stories. I do not see in the Bill—yet—any substantial vision of what reform should look like or the value of sentencing to change our culture of fear about crime.
I pay tribute to the Minister for his very engaging efforts with so many of us about issues of concern that we feel very deeply. He is open, he is effective, he communicates with us well and we all realise that he is doing a really good job against what seems to be a lack of government vision on the subject. What we see from his second boss, his new boss, is a lot of excuse-making about what is not working and from his previous boss a crowing enthusiasm for 130,000 prison places. Does the Minister still believe that we need 130,000 prison places and are we proud of that fact? Surely we should be ashamed of wanting to grow our prison estate—unless we are replacing antiquated rat-filled prisons. Why do we want to become the most incarcerating state in the world after the United States? That cannot be a good outcome.
I raise this because after all the hype that the last Government gave us—a royal commission on criminal justice, promised in 2019 in the Conservative manifesto, declared in the Queen's Speech in 2019, repeated six times in Oral Questions in this House but never done—here we are, all these years on, with no royal commission and in this Bill a migraine-making management roll of measures. It is “Add, add, add, add, change, change, change, change, but don’t substantially transform”. Of course it is better to have more effective, shorter sentences and a more brilliant, engaged probation service. No one disputes that this will improve things. However, the real problem, identified by so many already in this debate, is the pressure on repeat offending. That pressure on repeat offending, besides IPP, which I shall come back to, is that we are churning people back into a system where change has not substantially happened.
The Minister rightly cited, and let us be grateful for it, mechanisms in Texas for which we can see good outcomes—let us copy the best of all those mechanisms. But I went, as the Minister knows, to Medellín in Colombia last year, to Pablo Escobar’s former prison, and to many other prisons in Colombia. I saw a major difference between government prisons, with a repeat offending rate at around 70%—slightly higher than our own—and prisons run by the Prison Fellowship network, in Colombia and Brazil, and in Nigeria, where I visited them as well, with a repeat offending rate of 17%.
If charities and organisations recognise that dignity changes people’s outcomes, and that when people are reformed they do not come back, we must ask: why are we building more prison places to keep people in, rather than investing in better second chances processes, as well as relationships, that will lead to an effective culture of reform, rehabilitation and positive, affirmed relationships, and set people free to become citizens again in a positive culture of renewal?
Here I identify so closely with the speech by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester in which she recognised that relationships are what is needed to fulfil that transformation. My own experience in 37 years of prison visiting, and the last intense 10 years of weekly prison engagement, is that I have seen fantastic individuals who were the worst of people completely changed into some of the best of friends, and it is possible, deliverable and cheap to do.
Confidence building does not require millions and billions of pounds, but it does require us and the Government to stop panicking the public constantly about those who come out of prison. Regular prison releases have always been a weekly experience, but when the Government set about releasing larger numbers, it was as though this had never been done before and we were led to believe that this was a crisis measure. Yes, in some ways it was a crisis measure, but what about suggesting that actually we do not need to panic the public severely and we need to build a better process of renewal and reform?
I want to touch on some other areas. Recalls are back and probation, which, as the Bill sets out, is being expanded. We are grateful for that: more money for probation, better training, et cetera. But, as the Minister knows, it is so easy—too easy—for probation officers to press the panic button when they are not coping well, and when they do not feel they are getting compliance from a former offender, and to send them back to court.
Take Jordan—I will not reveal his full name—who finally found out yesterday that, 63 days after being recalled to a prison in Oxford on completely ridiculous, non-verifiable information, having been a category D prisoner and done 16 years of effective change, he will finally be out on Friday, having been banged back up by a probation officer’s bad misjudgment, which was recognised nine weeks later. People such as that are driven back constantly because a probation officer panics, fears and does not engage relationally with the individual.
Overreach is not dealt with in the Bill. I want to urge the Minister to not just consider how to get more probation officers or how to train probation officers, but how to prevent probation officers being the ones who have the absolute control. Many Members have already mentioned that there is a real need for recall to prison to be up to the courts. It should not be up to individuals who, under high stress, see too many back inside.
Remand is an area that is driving our prisons absolutely round the twist. I understand from information that was on Radio 4 yesterday that 40% of the youth estate is entirely based on remand. We used to have the principle in the United Kingdom that we believed that you were innocent until proven guilty. We now have multitudes of young men, largely, who are guilty and possibly may never be seen as innocent—hard trials taking years to arise.
I want to talk next about the possibility mentioned in the Bill of the shaming by photograph and name identification of people on community sentences. That can never be right. Any one of us who has worked with people who have had a community sentence, who are working through it to change and improve their lives and who are doing their duty fairly, know that to shame them in public is to destroy their relationships and community place, to see them at high risk and to put their children at severe risk. That is just bad politics and needs to be taken out of the Bill.
Lastly, on IPP, where so much has been said, we all believe that the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, in an amendment, should be fully supported. We should see a resentencing exercise. It is the worst gross injustice, yes, by the last Labour Government, but not corrected properly by the last Conservative Government, that has now been left as literally a big black hole of fearsome and painful places for individuals. We need a Nightingale courts process. If we could do it for the postmasters, who rightly deserve fairness and justice, let us do it for IPP—the people who are still on the sentence and still in prison.
Based on the calculations given by the Ministry of Justice, it will take eight more years to see everyone out who should be out. That is way beyond this Government’s term. Please, Minister, let us settle it, resolve it, bring it to an end and keep the public safe by admitting, honestly, that not everybody who has been to prison is an awful person—some are great.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, I want to start on the Sentencing Council and I want to say how sad and unfortunate it is that we have lost the Lord Justice Sir William Davis, who sadly died on 7 June. I believe that William Davis was a very fine public servant and, if anybody wants to assess what might be thought about him and his legacy, they should read his five-page letter of 27 March, written to the Lord Chancellor, which sets out the Sentencing Council’s position in relation to the demands which were at that time being made by the Lord Chancellor. It is not any part of my intention to go into the details of that disagreement; I will simply say both how sad it is and what an unfortunate loss it is that Sir William is no longer with us.
In talking about the Sentencing Council, I must say that I admire both the council and the scheme that was set up in the Act of 2009, and the work which has been done subsequent to the setting up of that scheme. I think the Council has done a fine job in its 15-year history. I will not go into my reasons for saying that, because your Lordships need only to read the speech from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, in order to have a full description of why. But I will go on to say that, in the opening speeches, the Minister seemed to be making some sort of move from what I have identified as a sort of panic stations response of the Government to the circumstances that have taken place since last March. I hope I am right, and I will read what he said very carefully and, of course, what he says in his response to the debate.
But I have to say, with some trepidation, that it is difficult for a Back-Bench member of the Conservative Party, who has been a speaking member of the Conservative Party for 75 years, to make a speech when my noble friend on the Front Bench has said nothing whatever about Clauses 18 and 19.
They are the two clauses that have been slipped into the Bill, as the Civil Service can advise Ministers to do, to warn us about what it may intend to do about the status of the Sentencing Council, which is a statutory non-departmental public body. The rest of what I will say is some interpretation of what that intention might be. It might be best if I go straight to the two questions that I was going to ask the Minister and then go back and explain why I am asking them.
My first question is: what is the democratic deficit that Clause 19 seeks to correct, and how has it come about? The second question is: how and when is Clause 19 intended to be implemented while keeping the confidence of the judiciary and the public intact?
I was subject to the National Heritage Act 1983, when a considerable number of non-departmental public bodies were put in place. I became the chairman of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew when it was turned into a non-departmental public body. Any interpretation of the Government’s position that implies that Parliament delegating some authority to a non-departmental body creates a democratic deficit is a very serious accusation. I believe that that, as this Government have said, raises a constitutional issue. I do not think there is any precedent for a non-departmental public body having its purpose reversed, and that is in effect what would happen if the council no longer issued definitive guidance and that guidance was instead, in effect, issued by Ministers.
That seems to me to be a constitutional issue. If there is no precedent, it is very serious. I very much hope that the Constitution Committee of this House, for example, has a look at the implications. That is probably enough about what may indeed be a constitutional issue.
There is a challenge to the council, which has not in fact been criticised for any form of democratic deficit. It has had, as I have seen it, the confidence of the judiciary, and that is very important. It has been responsible for providing information and trying to interpret that information as an assistance to the people who pass sentences. I have no comment to make on sentences as such; I simply say that that is what the council has done—it has provided information.
If noble Lords were to read the letter of 27 March, they would see that Sir William’s argument is: we have never interfered with policy, and it is no part of our purpose to interfere in policy; we are here to provide information as a form of guidance. Of course, nobody has to obey our guidance. It is guidance; it is not in any way enforceable. That is a very important point.
In conclusion, I am puzzled. I do not understand why the Government are taking this position in relation to the Sentencing Council. The Sentencing Council is a fine body and has done a very good job to date, and there is no reason to suppose that it cannot continue. If it is no longer to be responsible and accountable for issuing definitive guidance, I regret to say that that amounts to a death sentence.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I may first pay tribute to Baroness Newlove. She brought to the office of Victims’ Commissioner an enormous energy, and she will be greatly missed.
Secondly, I follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, in declaring my interest as a president of the Sentencing Council. I also declare my interest in having been appointed by the Government of Wales to chair a Commission on Justice in Wales for the people of Wales. I have also contributed to one or two bits of work, as has already been said this evening, in relation to the issues in the Bill.
I welcome the Bill, but we must see it in its context. We really need a reappraisal of our whole sentencing system, as so many people have said, but we cannot get there in one step. So, the Bill should be seen as a step. We need to look at why we are now imposing sentences that are vastly greater than those handed down by the tough old judges I remember 30 years ago. They were thought to be very tough, but these days they would be plastered over the popular newspapers as softies. Why have we done this? That is a question we should ask ourselves. But, more importantly, we should ask ourselves about the consequences, which are that there are not the resources in the prisons to do what they should be doing, and nor are there in the Probation Service, which will now have a great deal more to do. We must see this in context. I welcome it. I pay tribute to the Minister for bringing it forward, and to David Gauke for the tremendous amount of work he has done.
There is much to be welcomed. The provisions in respect of deferred and suspended sentences will enable the Sentencing Council, which I hope will be given its independence to continue, and the judiciary, to develop deferred sentencing and get suspended sentences right. I also welcome the reality of trying to make the public understand that community orders are a punishment. If we do not get that right, there is a real risk that judges and magistrates will suspend sentences of under 12 months. Of course, a suspended sentence increases the risk of incarceration if subsequent offences are committed. This is a very important consideration, which experience has shown we must not overlook.
Having said that, there are one or two observations I will make in more general terms, judged by two principles. The first is that sentencing is part of a system of justice, and we must show that the Bill is a just Bill. Secondly, I want to address the question of practicality and resources.
The first question that relates to the justice of the Bill obviously relates to IPPs. I pay tribute to the Minister for what he has done to try to invigorate the action plan. But the action plan will not achieve justice and remedy an injustice in a period that is just.
There are four short points, in the light of everything that has been said, that I would like to make. First, this sentence has been accepted to be wrong in principle. How can we, as a nation, continue to punish people under a sentence that is wrong in principle? There is no justification for that.
Secondly, there is a misunderstanding about this sentence. People who write about it now simply do not understand what it did and how it worked. It was not a sentence that punished serious violent or serious sexual offending. If we look back at the tariffs that were given, we find that they are of the order, in some cases, of 16 or 18 months. It is absurd to say that these are serious offences—look at the tariff. It is also a misunderstanding of the circumstances in which it came to be imposed.
Thirdly, it is now required that those who are subject to a punishment that we accept is wrong are effectively required to prove that they are not dangerous, but people who committed exactly the same offences before 2005 or who were sentenced after 2012 do not have to prove that. How can that be just? It fails on that score.
Finally, there is the responsibility of the department in continuing this sentence in a means that has made those who languish in prison without knowing when they are to be released more dangerous. That is the responsibility of the Government, and they should acknowledge that. I look forward to and hope we will see cross-party dialogue on this matter, because we must find a solution.
There are three other short points I wish briefly to make on the question of justice. First, the system of earned progression and the way in which punishments are to be added to must be subject to detailed study and detailed dissemination before we pass the Bill. It must be just and be seen to be just. Secondly, it is important that we think again about deporting offenders without them being punished. We do not want this to become a nation where people can shoplift for nothing or, worse still, commit serious crimes and return—courtesy of taxpayer-funded travel, of course—without any consequence.
Thirdly, so much has been said about the Sentencing Council. I do not wish to add anything to that. I was present when it was all negotiated. It was a carefully constructed balance of the power of Parliament, the power of Ministers, and the duties and responsibilities of judges. Getting the constitutional balance right was achieved. We should not upset it because of an unfortunate incident about which least said, soonest mended. Let us just give this up. Those are the points I wanted to make about judging this Bill by reference to justice.
I shall make three other quick points relating to the other principle: does it produce and reflect the realities? First, it seems that we must look at IPPs through the reality of resources. They are taking up room in prison, and probation officer time. We need to adjust and look at the costs of that quite separately from the priceless attributes of justice. Secondly, we must be sure that there is adequate funding for what is to be done. That point has been very strongly made, and there is no point in me repeating it.
Thirdly, I shall say something about Wales. I fear, at times, that we are back in the 19th century and the famous entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica about Wales: “See England”. However, Wales is different, in the form of the way all other home affairs, other than, for example, probation and other aspects of justice, are dealt with. There is a different system. It was the position of the previous Government, and it now appears to be the position of this Government, that they cannot give consideration to what the commission I chaired recommended, which the Welsh Government were happy with, in respect of probation—there were a whole lot of others, but I want to concentrate on probation. Why can they not devolve probation? I want to raise this issue. It seems an important one, and I would like to know why the Government will not give Wales the benefit of what England has. I welcome the Bill, but there are things we must do to put it right.
Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Con)
My Lords, I echo the tributes made to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. Our thoughts are with her family today.
This Bill is important. The UK has one of the highest rates of imprisonment in Europe and one of the highest rates of reoffending. People in our prisons are not typical of people in Britain. They are more likely to have grown up in a family facing financial hardship, more likely to have poor literacy and numeracy skills, and more likely not to have a job. They are more likely to have been homeless or in unstable housing, more likely to have suffered from a mental health issue, more likely to have had a drug or alcohol addiction problem, and more likely to have suffered childhood abuse or trauma. These are the differences before they enter prison.
There are some amazing people and some amazing organisations, some of which have already been mentioned, working to help people address some of these situational factors that increase the likelihood of people offending again. Programmes such as StandOut, Clean Slate Solutions and Recruitment Junction all help transform people’s lives and stand as examples of what can be done. These programmes, although significant for the lives they have turned around, are still the exception rather than the norm.
David Gauke’s review into sentencing rightly made three points that I particularly want to draw out. First, focusing on rehabilitation and moving to greater use of community sentences could, in some instances, be a way of reducing reoffending. There is significant evidence, as has been mentioned, that short custodial sentences in particular often do more to increase the chances of reoffending, for all the obvious reasons, such as cutting people off from social ties, exposing them to more serious offenders and placing a stigma around them. Secondly, efficiency matters, and we should prioritise focusing expensive prison places on those most serious offenders who pose the greatest risk to public safety. Thirdly, importantly, he points out:
“The overwhelming consensus from the evidence the Review has gathered is that rehabilitative support in the community is, in many cases, the most effective way to reduce reoffending. This relates to the services offenders are required to engage with when serving a sentence in the community or released into the community on licence, following a custodial sentence”.
In theory, the Bill seeks to address these points. I am concerned, though, that good intentions are not enough. The Bill’s provisions and the government policies that sit alongside them need to go further in establishing the adequacy of supervision, providing accountability and, crucially, as has been mentioned numerous times, guaranteeing resourcing if they are to make any real difference to reoffending and not simply make the problem worse.
I would be grateful if the Minister could specifically address the following points, which pick up on these themes that have been raised many times now. First, the Bill relies heavily on electronic monitoring working, yet this is an area that historically has been rife with problems. What guarantees can he make that there will be a step change in monitoring to ensure its adequacy? Will he consider what further provisions can be set out in the Bill to address this point?
Secondly, Clinks estimates that there are close to 2,000 community and voluntary organisations operating in the criminal justice sector. Scaling the capacity of these organisations will be crucial to delivering the reduction in reoffending the Bill seeks to address, yet the Bill says nothing about them. Will the Minister consider introducing a suite of policies to sit alongside the Bill to ensure that voluntary and community organisations engaged in the delivery of community rehabilitation services are adequately supported and resourced to perform their functions under it? This could include policies such as: a move away from short-term contracting towards multiyear unrestricted grant funding; as has been mentioned earlier; a rebalancing away from national commissioning to regional commissioning; and greater use of co-commissioning, where funds can be pooled between departments. Will he also consider what measures could be included in the Bill to hold the Government accountable for the adequacy of resourcing to the sector?
Thirdly, on assessment and accountability, sentences are an area that would benefit from a more evidence-based approach, as has been discussed. It is vital that resources are focused on measures that are most effective at reducing reoffending. Will the Minister consider what more can be done, either within the Bill or alongside it, to ensure that robust assessment is made of the effect of different combinations of requirements on reducing reoffending? Will he commit that this assessment and any associated reporting mechanism will then have an impact on how future resources in the system are allocated?
Lastly, on resourcing, the Bill is intended in part to reduce reoffending. To do so, it will need to dramatically transform the level of support that offenders are given to turn their lives around, tackling entrenched and multifaceted practical challenges, from addiction to poor literacy. As the Institute for Government notes, the Bill shifts the weight of responsibility for much more of this into the community. The Minister has committed that, alongside the Bill, £700 million will be deployed into the Probation Service over the spending review period, yet no detailed breakdown of how the £700 million will be spent has been published. What reassurances can he give that that amount will be adequate? Will he commit to publishing a breakdown of how the money will be spent?
To reiterate, the objectives of the Bill as they relate to reducing reoffending are welcome, but neither its specific provisions nor the policy and commitments that sit alongside it go far enough in explaining or guaranteeing how this greater focus on transformation in the community will happen. I urge the Government to consider how they can strengthen the Bill and associated policies to ensure that there is proper accountability, reporting and adequate resourcing to prevent the measures contained in it making a difficult situation worse.
Baroness Longfield (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to Baroness Newlove. I had the privilege of working alongside her when I was the Children’s Commissioner and she was the Victims’ Commissioner. It is a hugely sad loss, and she was a fantastic advocate. My thoughts are with her family.
I welcome and support the Bill, and I thank my noble friend for his leadership in bringing it to us. However, the changes it is making are designed for the adult system; as it stands, children and young people are excluded from these positive changes and will potentially have to spend longer in custody, with poorer results. That is what often seems to happen, and it is an example of the way that the rights of children in custody can often appear to be sidelined in a way that is less likely in the adult secure estate. While not included in the Bill, reform of the youth justice system is urgent for both the young people involved and wider society. My remarks today are about the changes that are not included but are needed.
The starting point is that there have been huge gains in the state of youth justice in this country over recent years. We should be pleased that the number of children in custody has been falling for many years; there are now—although it is of course still too many—fewer than 500 young people in custody. So let us do all that we can to make those numbers continue to come down, and to make sure that children in custody are supported to leave with options and opportunities and do not end up reoffending.
While there are now fewer children in the secure estate than there were, those who receive a custodial sentence are almost always in prison for very serious crimes of violence or harm. We need to look at why they got there, how it came about, what went wrong and whether we could have prevented it—and the answer is almost always yes, we could. When I have met young people in the secure estate, many have told me about the missed opportunities that could have diverted them from becoming involved in crime or serious violence. They talk about the experiences that made them particularly vulnerable to exploitation and put them at a higher risk of harm, and many have similar stories to tell. Over three-quarters of children in youth custody were persistently or severely absent from school, and more than half of those were out of education at least one academic year before moving into the secure estate; one-quarter of children in youth custody had been permanently excluded while at school; and over one-third of all children in custody grew up in the 10 poorest areas of the country. The signs and alarm bells are all there.
Neurodivergent children excluded from mainstream school are disproportionately likely to be in custodial settings. Looked-after children have long been overrepresented in the youth justice system, with more than half of looked-after children born in 1994 receiving a criminal conviction by the age of 24, compared to just 13% for those who had not been in care—that is 52%, a number that we should really take note of. Often, those young people are not getting the advice, support or conditions that can support them to thrive and to rehabilitate. The Covid pandemic revealed a system that is frequently not child centred, with children spending very little time out of their cells and having in-person visits stopped, and children in custody not included on the vulnerable list to be eligible for face-to-face education.
When I was Children’s Commissioner, I saw how the justice system so often focuses on adults, with young people seeming to be bolted on as an afterthought. I found that, at every stage of a child’s journey through the criminal justice system, opportunities were missed to get to the root causes of offending and to put children’s best interests at the heart of the response. We need to improve that significantly, and we should be ambitious and impatient for that reform.
There is much to do on reducing the numbers of children on remand. Nearly half of children held in custody are on remand, a figure that has doubled over the last 10 years, yet almost two-thirds of them do not subsequently go on to receive a custodial sentence. Urgent reform is also needed to the YOI system to rehabilitate, educate and reintegrate. One in three go on to reoffend, with reoffenders committing four further offences on average—the highest rate in 10 years—and the costs to the taxpayer and new victims of crime are of course high. I know that my noble friend, Minister MacAlister at the DfE and Minister Richards at the MoJ want to do everything they can to drive down these numbers, and I will support them however I can.
I hope the fact that young people are not included in the Bill means there will be other opportunities to push forward on the reforms that are urgently needed in the youth justice system across prevention, remand and rehabilitation. Otherwise, there is a risk that children will be placed at an even greater disadvantage. There are parts of the Bill that could provide springboards for reforming the youth justice system if applied. For example, the new progression measures allowing people to be released after serving one-third of their sentence if they refrain from poor behaviour should be applied. There is no reason why a child should serve more of the same sentence than an adult.
Any future measures for the youth justice system should focus on rebalancing resources from crisis to intervention; a clear plan to tackle the cumulative impact of racial inequalities—the problems set out so succinctly by the current Lord Chancellor in the Lammy review still exist and still demand action; a comprehensive, long-term strategy for keeping children safe and ensuring that custody is a last resort and that, when children are in the secure estate, their rights and dignity are not forgotten; and a greater focus on preventing reoffending through boosting skills and education in the secure estate. We cannot expect young people who have committed serious crimes to slot back into society without supporting them to succeed and tackling the root causes of their actions. After all, we are a country that believes in holding people to account for their actions while providing most with a second chance and the possibility to thrive and to be active citizens who contribute to society again. Let us not miss the opportunity to do so for those young people in the youth justice system.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I largely welcome what the Government are attempting with this Bill. I wish the Minister involved all the luck in the world, because this is a tough nut to crack. I believe he approaches it from the right point of view, with real passion, understanding and a focus on rehabilitation. When I come to my comments, I need him to take them in that spirit. I associate myself with the comments made about Baroness Newlove; she will be sorely missed. She was warm and welcoming, and a champion for the victim.
Before I go into my comments, I want to address some sentiments that I am picking up in the Chamber today. I have been in youth and community work for over 35 years now, and there seems to be a notion that criminals are victims. I caution the Minister about talking to communities, particularly poor communities, as if criminals are victims, because a poor community will have had all the challenges that those criminals have had but displayed none of that behaviour. If he is at home asking himself, “Why are the public so mean when it comes to rehabilitation or punishment?”, it is for the poor communities. They have had all those troubles and behaved the way they did—properly—but do not seem to be receiving the same support as criminals. I just want him to bear that in mind; it is very important.
My own youth and community work focused for a long time on gang work, which is why I say that we really need a strategy on tagging or electronic monitoring, whatever you want to call it. When you talk about county lines, tagging could be a vital tool in keeping some young children safe. Many years ago, I joined my local gang to break it up, and I wore a tag to see what that experience was like. I showed it to the young people who I was with, and they scattered. Then one 13 year-old boy came back to me in the morning and said something so profound that I have never forgotten it. He said: “Crime needs privacy; the tag breaks that privacy”. We really should look at using that tactic, but it has to have some kind of meaningful plan behind it. We cannot just give them out like Smarties.
We have talked about the acceptance of community orders et cetera. There are three sets of people who need to accept them: yes, the public and, yes, parliamentarians and the system, but also the criminals. The single biggest driver of crime is the idea that you have got away with it. If community orders are seen as a soft touch, they can be used as a recruitment tool. I can imagine a conversation where my local recruiter—I will not the colloquial term; it is not polite language—says to young people, “You’re only going to get a community sentence, so don’t worry about it”. It is very important to make sure that criminals see it as an imposition, not just to make the luvvies in comfortable parts of the country feel good about it.
Before I go on to some other comments, I want to say one more thing about responsibility. I have worked with children who have done some of the most heinous things possible for a person. I have also worked with children, in larger number by far, who have been involved in what I would call anti-social behaviour. The key thing missing from that conversation, not just for children but particularly for adults, is “responsibility”. In the Minister’s own work, he and his family have given people an opportunity to take responsibility. That has to be part of the conversation we have with people, particularly repeat offenders, about their own behaviour. They are acting irresponsibly, against their own best wishes and against their community. If that is not part of the conversation, we will never convince the public that we are doing the right thing by trying to rehabilitate people and not just punish them.
Regrettably, here in London we have had a huge rise in crime. Overall, the Met Police’s recording of crime has gone up by almost a third. Knife crime, which I have seen blighting communities—black and white, rich and poor—because of the fear it generates, has gone up by 86% in the capital. Something needs to be done about that. Only 5% of robberies were solved in the capital last year, which generates the idea that lawlessness is what is happening on our streets. That must be nipped in the bud.
I want to talk about tool theft. The theft of tools and expensive farm gear is very important because if you come from a community that is striving, when tools are stolen it sends the idea that those who are trying are fools while those who commit crime are on to something. That is why it is important that tool theft, in particular, and farm equipment theft are really drilled down on. It sends a message about striving, because the antidote to poverty is not welfare but work. The idea that people in your community are trying to work is very important.
I want to talk about shoplifting as well. What shoplifting is doing to communities is sending the idea that there is no consequence from it; you will speak to people who will tell you that. Shop owners have no confidence that the police have the resources or the desire to go after shoplifters. Customer theft losses in this country topped £2.2 billion last year, which is a record amount and has a ripple effect not only for our businesses but in communities.
That is compounded by the effective decriminalisation of shoplifting through this imminent Sentencing Bill, in which short sentences will, in effect, be banned. Technically, that might be incorrect, but I tell the House that on the street, that is how it is read. I have great sympathy for what the Minister is trying to do with short sentences. I dealt with many young people who went to prison; it was basically a college of crime, so they came back with a much better idea of it than the one they left with. But what is the consequence for low-level crime and for shoplifting? That really has to be brought home to the public. I go back to my theme: if we are to convince the public that rehabilitation and dealing with crime in the community are worthwhile things to pursue, things such as shoplifting will have to seem as if they have some kind of consequence. I ask the Minister again: what is the consequence? How will we tell the public that there is a consequence for what many people consider a low-level crime?
The release of criminals part-way through their sentences also poses a significant threat to society. After just over a year, this Government have freed 26,000 criminals. Where are they? Whose houses are they living in? What effect are they having on people’s communities? I do not see them in the new place where I live, but what effect are they having where I come from? We cannot just push these people out into communities. They might not be your communities, but they are mine. It sends the notion that crime is something people have got away with, or that they can commit more crime. We have to look at the effect of putting those people into particular communities. If we were releasing them into Belgravia, that would be one thing—but that is not where we are releasing them to.
The Government’s own impact assessment says that the Bill will reduce demand for prison places by only 7,500. I know that is not a big figure, and I welcome any reduction, but if we are to say to the public that the motivation for the Bill is that we want to reduce demand for prison places, we will have lost before we begin. We need to say to them that the motivation for it is to reduce crime on the street, to make them safer and to cut reoffending—not to free up prison places, because that simply does not wash. If you doubt me, go to your local chip shop or pub and have a conversation. When you bring that up, see what the response is.
In response to the Bill the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, my late noble friend Lady Newlove made this statement:
“Continual adjustments to sentences through emergency release schemes have eroded public confidence … any new sentencing framework must deliver … above all, public safety”.
I agree with that analysis and so will the public. Please can the Minister tell us how he will display to the public that this is a worthwhile thing to pursue?
The other problem, of course, is about the confidence of our police services to carry out their job. Many police officers feel that they are under a witch-hunt and that if they use the powers they have, they will end up losing their job. That is devastating for poor communities, who need the police to act with confidence to keep them safe. That is very important. We are about to lose 1,300 officers across the country; here in London, we are about to lose 2,000 police officers and police staff. That could have a detrimental effect on the Metropolitan Police’s ability to police the capital. It is important that the Bill addresses issues around the finances and resources that the police have just to carry this out in the first place.
I end on this notion—I want to go back to it for the Minister. The single biggest driver of crime is the idea that people will get away with it. Whatever we decide in this House, we must send a strong message that they are not getting away with it. We are rehabilitating the system that deals with them, but they are not getting away with it. If the Government miss that trick, we will just be right back to where we were in the beginning.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, and I join others in the House in paying tribute to Baroness Newlove. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I was very taken with my noble and learned friend Lord Burnett of Maldon saying that lengthening sentences does not necessarily improve reoffending. It is quite an interesting thought.
I am not a lawyer, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but I have retained an interest in sentencing and imprisonment following many years as a trustee of the Koestler Trust, which puts arts into prisons. The whole purpose of this is to give prisoners access to self-expression through the arts and music, which in turn enables a degree of hope. Hope is a very important word to which I will return.
There are two matters that I would particularly like to address. The first is IPP—perhaps not surprisingly, given what I have just said. In some cases, this simply precludes hope. Although the Minister is making no changes to IPP in this Bill, I am nevertheless very grateful to him for his attention to this, and I detect a genuine concern and a desire to improve the situation. That is as it should be. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, referred to the late and much-missed Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood; we need to sit up and take note when such a legal expert as he was is moved to declare IPP as the single greatest stain on the British judicial system.
As we have heard, the Howard League recommended a change in Parole Board practice so that it sets a definite date for the release of each prisoner within a two-year window, and then specifies what the prisoner must accomplish, with professional support, to achieve that. The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, convincingly advocated for a resentencing policy to which I was greatly attracted, and still am.
The IPP sentence was introduced by the former Labour Government in 2003, supposedly to protect the public from dangerous offenders. It was, in effect, a life sentence for those who have not committed serious offences, such as murder, that would usually attract a life sentence. The sentence was abolished by the former coalition Government in 2012, but the abolition did not apply to those who were already serving the sentence. Over a decade after its abolition, some 2,422 prisoners are still shamefully languishing in custody under the sentence.
Dr Alice Edwards, the UN special rapporteur on torture, has described the IPP as an “inhumane” punishment that
“often amounts to psychological torture”.
If noble Lords feel that is an overdramatic description, I invite them to imagine themselves in the same position: behind bars, unable to make progress, with no hope of getting out. That is an intolerable situation.
I turn to joint enterprise, which has not really been mentioned in the Bill but which I and many others think should be. There has been growing alarm over Crown Prosecution Service data, from organisations such as Liberty, showing that black people are disproportionately prosecuted under joint enterprise, and that a 2016 Supreme Court ruling that the law had been wrongly implemented for more than 30 years has had “no discernible impact” on the number of prosecutions. In her report, Nisha Waller said:
“Joint enterprise is unjustifiably vague and wide in scope. Law reform will not eradicate institutional racism and broader issues with police and prosecution practice. However, the current law encourages the overcharging of suspects and allows cases to be propelled forward based on poor quality evidence. Prosecutors are then left to fill the gaps with speculative case theories and often racialised narratives from which juries are invited to infer joint responsibility”.
I am sure we can all imagine a young boy, under the influence and maybe in fear of older peers, feeling he must follow his comrades without fully realising the implications of what is happening. I would be very interested to know whether the Minister feels that there is equality proportionate to culpability in cases of joint enterprise. Should this not form part of the Bill?
Finally, I am very sympathetic to those who have argued that prisoners convicted of domestic abuse or stalking, and who have been recalled, will not have thrown off that obsessive behaviour after 56 days. That is a really important point.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I start by expressing my sadness—along with that of so many others in the House—at the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, whose heartfelt commitment to and hard work for victims have been quite outstanding. I also thank the Minister for his opening, and his work on this Bill. It is a tribute to him that—with the enlightened and evidence-based backing of David Gauke and his team—he has had the courage to champion and introduce these reforms to sentencing, aimed at reducing reoffending.
The urgency of this Bill had indeed flowed from the prison-capacity crisis, which this Government inherited from the Conservative Government—whose responsibility, I am bound to say, was surprisingly not acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, in his criticisms of the Bill and his call for severity. The reality is that we imprison far too many people in this country, for far too long: many more than many other western European nations. There is no evidence of a reduction in reoffending rates as a result. As analysed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, we have persisted in increasing sentence lengths by legislating both for longer overall sentences and for longer periods served, but also by a general sentence inflation, possibly in response to political, public and media pressure.
The noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, captured this well in their critique of the regrettable toughness contest between political parties. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, put it into historical context with his story of severe judges of the past now being seen as “softies”. The number of remand prisoners has increased, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, pointed out, and we have recently seen a record number of prisoners recalled for breach-of-release conditions: some 15% higher in the second quarter of this year than in the same quarter last year. The reality is that prison often does far more harm than good, and that is particularly true of short sentences. Where we can, we should be relying instead on effective and well-resourced community sentences, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester argued in her principled speech, supported in large part by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings.
Many of our prisons have been bad at rehabilitation: underresourced, overcrowded and understaffed, with the toxic cocktail of failings rehearsed today and regularly in previous debates in this House, including too many prisoners in cells filled beyond capacity; prisoners locked in their cells, often for 22 to 23 hours per day, with very little purposeful activity. There is a shortage of vocational and educational training, and too few staff to manage the courses there are. An epidemic of drug abuse is fuelled by widespread drug trading often, sadly, involving corrupt staff. Prisoners, adults and young people, with serious mental health and addiction issues—as well as the literacy, educational and social difficulties discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield—find that those issues are all going unaddressed.
There is also appalling violence within our prisons. In June, the MoJ and Prison Service reported increases of 11% in assaults by prisoners on other prisoners and of 13% in assaults on staff over the last year alone, attributed in their report directly to overcrowding. There are persistently squalid conditions in many prisons with inadequate, cancelled or deferred maintenance programmes.
As my noble friend Lord Beith said, the criticisms we make do not apply to all prisons. Many of our prisons are of high quality, innovative and motivational, but a successful Prison Service would ensure that all institutions met those standards. In spite of all this, I accept the Minister’s overall characterisation of the commitment and performance of prison staff as incredible. But against a history and background of low morale, there are still too many who fall badly short of that characterisation, and their wrongdoing needs to be exposed and tackled.
The Bill recognises that reducing reoffending depends crucially on rehabilitation and on the Probation Service. It is worth remembering the massive cost of reoffending, estimated to account for more than half of the overall costs of crime in the UK—an annual cost of between £18 billion and more than £23 billion, even without the costs to the state of housing and social care for the families of offenders.
Central to the success of the Bill and the Government in their aims will be resourcing the Probation Service. The Government plan, as we have heard, to recruit 13,000 more probation officers by March next year and are allocating an additional £700 million to the Probation Service by 2028. However, we are seriously concerned that these figures do not add up, as my noble friend Lord Foster explained in detail—the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and others expressed the same doubts. Do the figures take into account three areas of extra costs arising from this Bill: more tagging; implementation of the presumption against immediate short sentences: and extra supervision of early releases on the earned progression model?
We welcome the presumption against short sentences. We have been calling for this for many years in the light of consistent evidence that such sentences increase rather than reduce reoffending. It is to be hoped that supervision of suspended sentences, together with conditions such as treatment conditions imposed by the courts, will lead to a targeted approach to rehabilitation and to addressing the individual difficulties of offenders in achieving rehabilitation within their communities, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Porter. Suspension of sentences for three years rather than two should assist in this process. However, more suspended sentences should not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, argued, reduce the making of community orders where prison sentences are not warranted.
We also welcome the introduction of the earned progression model recommended by the Gauke review for standard determinate sentences. We recognise the perhaps surprisingly beneficial influence of the Texas model. This represents a logical, sensible and, above all, transparent approach to early release to replace the emergency and indiscriminate SDS40 arrangement. But, for the new system to work well and fairly, training and education in prison must be made more universally available. We would argue that there should be better rehabilitative programmes for prisoners on remand, as well as for sentenced prisoners, and we will introduce an amendment to that effect.
The introduction of a recorded finding of domestic abuse in the sentencing of a relevant offender is a reform for which my honourable friend Josh Babarinde campaigned in the House of Commons. This should enable victims and subsequent partners of domestic abusers to be better protected from past perpetrators. We also applaud the overdue recognition of the interests of victims as a factor in the purposes of sentencing.
On the question of the Sentencing Council, we fully agree with points widely made by my noble friend Lord Beith, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and others. We regard the Sentencing Council as performing a valuable and independent function in providing advice to sentencers. Nor do we see the Sentencing Council’s work as undermining the constitutional role of Parliament in sentencing policy, as the Bill and this debate so clearly demonstrate. We will seek to amend the proposal in Clause 19 to subject sentencing guidelines to a veto by the Lord Chief Justice—or Lady Chief Justice—and the Lord Chancellor, which is an unwarranted restriction on the independence of the Sentencing Council.
We have specific concerns about the recall provisions in Clause 29. Effectively, the Bill would introduce an automatic recall of 56 days for most prisoners recalled to prison. For less serious breaches, 56 days is a long time. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out, such recalls may cost offenders their accommodation or places on treatment programmes or the like. We will seek to amend this.
My noble friend Lord Beith mentioned our regret that the Bill does not commit to a resentencing of IPP prisoners. I agree with the tenor of speeches on IPPs from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble Lords, Lord Moylan, Lord Woodley and Lord Berkeley of Knighton, the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, and others. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, made the point of principle, and he added an important point on the cost of IPPs.
We also reject the notion of publicly shaming offenders undertaking unpaid work with names and photographs. It is vindictive and unhelpful—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings.
Overall, the Bill is overdue in putting rehabilitation and reform first, respecting the evidence on what works in reducing crime. Along with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and others, we reject the Conservative Front Bench’s characterisation of these reforms as likely to increase crime and make the streets less safe. We stress, however, along with all those who have insisted in this debate, that the Bill’s success depends on providing the Probation Service with the support, personnel and resources that it needs. Ultimately, the potential savings to the public purse in reducing the cost of reoffending and the burgeoning costs of the Prison Service could, if realised, bring great net benefit to society, financial as well as social.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I begin by paying my tribute to the late Baroness Newlove, not only for her contribution to this House but for the considerable work she did as Victims’ Commissioner. I also thank the Minister for his introduction of the Bill, and all noble Lords for the detailed, informed and sometimes diverse opinions that they have expressed.
The importance of this debate is underlined by the fact that the Bill received so little scrutiny in the other place. It was in Committee for one day. For a Bill so substantial and with such wide ramifications, that seems wholly inadequate. Indeed, it meant that many of the radical changes proposed in it were never even mentioned in the other place, let alone discussed or debated. It is essential that we have the opportunity to examine the Bill carefully and, in some respects, forensically.
I will make a number of general observations. Is this simply an attempt to tackle overcrowding in our prison estate? I certainly hope not, yet there was no mandate for these reforms in Labour’s manifesto. There was a reference to sentencing:
“Even when criminals are found guilty, the sentences they receive often do not make sense either to victims or the wider public”.
Will this Bill improve the complexity but not the comprehension of sentencing? I fear that might be the case. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, observed, the public must be able to comprehend that disposals such as community sentences are not only effective but a form of punishment. It will be important to explain that early release is in the public interest and not just a fiscal necessity. How is that to be done?
As a matter of generality, I also have a degree of concern about the clarity of the proposed reforms and powers that are to be implemented. I make particular reference to Clauses 13 to 16 and Clause 24, which introduce powers for the courts to forbid offenders to enter drinking establishments and attend sports and other public events, as well as to inhibit them from driving and even from leaving specified geographical areas. It is simply not clear in the Bill how any or all these measures would be implemented or enforced. A number of questions arise. How is that to be done? Where will the funding come from? On whose shoulders will enforcement lie? Will it be the responsibility of public houses and those in control of sporting and other public venues? Will they be required to ensure that their own customers are not under court orders? This will require meaningful and effective reform, and, in turn, it will require a meaningful and effective debate so that we can understand how these provisions will work in practice.
Then there is the role of the courts. The Bill leaves the Government’s stance on this somewhat unclear. Clauses 11 and 12 deal with rehabilitation activity requirements. They provide that probation officers, rather than the sentencing courts, will decide on, for example, the number of days of activity in a community order that someone must complete. That means that probation officers will, in effect, replace the courts in the imposition of sentences on those on community orders. That transfers a crucial power, and indeed an important role, from the courts to the Probation Service—a point to which I will return. Again, we require a degree of clarity on that.
Furthermore, the Bill appears to blur the Government’s stance on the relationship between the courts and the Executive, a point addressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, when he referred to the provision in Clause 19 for a statutory requirement for the Sentencing Council to obtain approval from the Lord Chancellor before sentencing guidelines are issued. This implies that the Government believe there should be a close relationship between the Executive and the judiciary on the issue of sentencing, and yet, when concerns were expressed about sentencing for offences such as fly-tipping, shoplifting and knife crime during a recent debate on the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government’s response was:
“sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent judiciary”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/25; col. 211.]
Is it, and will it be, under the provisions of this Bill? More particularly, how are we to consider the provisions in Clause 18 with respect to the apparent veto? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, again pointed out, it is somewhat opaque in its provisions.
Turning to some more specific issues, we have the end of short-term custodial sentences and the introduction or development of early release. All of these may, in principle, be attractive, but under Clauses 1 and 2, for example, there will be a presumption that custodial sentences of 12 months or less will be suspended except in limited circumstances, such as breaches of protection orders. Does that mean that, for example, where someone pleads guilty at the first opportunity and gets a remission in their sentence, someone who would have received a sentence of 18 months but is to receive a sentence of 12 months will find themselves with a suspended sentence? In other words, does this presumption apply not only in respect of custodial sentences of 12 months but those up to 18 months? I would welcome the Minister’s response on that.
It is estimated that the implementation of these provisions would mean that about 40,000 criminals would avoid prison entirely. But for what? The purpose of sentencing is not purely punitive but to protect the public from repeat and violent offenders. As many noble Lords observed, rehabilitation and community orders are essentially resource-based. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, put the matter very pithily when he said you need the means to achieve the ends. Is the Minister confident that this Bill is going to provide the means to the end? I bear in mind the way in which the Treasury often regards the Ministry of Justice and its role as one of the orphaned children of government; there is a considerable barrier for the Minister to overcome in that respect.
On early release, Clause 20 will reduce it to one-third of the original sentence. I acknowledge that, if we go back to 1967, there were similar provisions in place, albeit that the test was significantly different to the one proposed in this Bill. If we have such early release, how are we going to accommodate the police estimate that this could lead to a 6% increase in overall crime, or approximately an additional 396,000 offences per year, the vast majority of which will involve reoffending by those who have been released from prison?
We are liable to find ourselves in a cycle of release and recall unless we are very careful. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick, made clear why that cycle can be broken only by effective rehabilitation. Again, I repeat the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath: you need the means to achieve the ends. Where are the means? Can that be explained?
I am also concerned that the Government’s messaging may be somewhat inconsistent. The Government recently expressed outrage that criminals such as Hadush Kebatu were at large on the streets, and yet, under this Bill, offenders of his type who received a 12-month sentence would be at large on the streets. Could the Government clarify whether they are genuinely committed to including those convicted of such offences in this scheme? It seems that their position is that the community is capable of accommodating such offenders, but it can possibly accommodate them only if effective probation services are in place. Again, it is a case of requiring the means to achieve the ends.
There is also a risk that this Bill simply sends the wrong message to repeat offenders. The presumption against short custodial sentences may appear to have merit, but it removes a vital deterrent to repeat offending, particularly in low-level crimes, anti-social behaviour, theft—particularly retail theft—domestic violence and other cases of stalking and harassment. Such so-called minor crimes are very often the precursors to more serious offending. So short sentences can play an important role as an intervention and a deterrent against that sort of persistent and repeat offending. Has that been properly taken into account when considering the use of non-custodial or suspended sentences in so many of those cases?
There is a risk that we are sending the wrong message to repeat offenders. Indeed, as one noble Lord observed, we may also be sending the wrong message to very young offenders, who may believe that the future holds no risk of imprisonment if they engage in what is regarded as, or what they are persuaded to believe is, low-level criminality.
I suggest that the Bill might involve potential overreach for the Probation Service itself, and will certainly place considerable burdens on that service. Clauses 1 and 2 deal with short custodial sentences being replaced by non-custodial sentences, and Clauses 20 to 23 deal with early release, all of which will increase the burden on the Probation Service. But then Clauses 11 and 12, with respect to rehabilitation, will require probation officers to sentence offenders to the number of days they must complete. Clause 34 will enable probation officers to reduce the amount of unpaid work that an offender must complete.
I will come back to these provisions in a moment, but all these clauses require officers to manage, supervise and monitor a very large number of offenders, who will have avoided custody or have been released early under the Bill. There are, of course, provisions for the probation reset to help or assist the struggling Probation Service, but, when we look at the financial impact assessment, it could at best be described as opaque. We are told that in some instances there will be a modest increase in the cost of services and that the remainder has not been calculated. But probation officers will be expected to take on these new tasks, and a question arises as to whether they will be equipped financially, apart from anything else, to take them on.
But there is also a perhaps more fundamental constitutional issue to be considered here. If probation officers will take on these judicial-type responsibilities, which are being transferred potentially without corresponding investment in training or supervision, where will that lead us? Unlike sentencing decisions taken in open court, these apparently administrative terminations will occur without transparency, oversight or, it would appear, any form of appeal mechanism. The Government have not provided any mechanism to ensure that these decisions are monitored, audited or even transparently reported. I pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick, about there being room for very material error where you impose these obligations on staff who are potentially underresourced, undertrained and unable to determine with any certainty how they will perform these new functions, which are to be regarded as at least quasi-judicial functions. That represents a major constitutional shift in the balance of responsibility between the judiciary and the Executive. Has the Minister thought that through and considered the operational pressures that this will actually impose on the Probation Service?
Finally, and very briefly—with apologies for being over time—I acknowledge the point about IPP sentences. As a matter of principle, they cannot be maintained. The onus placed on this small cohort is placed on no other prisoner in the prison estate, and they will struggle time and again to overcome it, because we have now reduced that cohort to perhaps the least able to meet the requirements presently placed on them with regard to how they are to be dealt with when they come to seek release. I do not offer a solution to that—I am well aware that the need for a solution has dogged Government after Government—but we cannot wait another eight years to see this play out and I invite the Minister to consider seriously whether this matter should be addressed in the Bill.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, it is my pleasure to close the Second Reading debate on this vital Bill. I thank noble Lords for their contributions and thank those who have spoken to me privately. I will attempt to answer as many questions as possible, but what I do not cover I will follow up in writing. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for his speech. Yes, this Bill is about prison capacity, but it is also about how we can reform the system so it is sustainable, it is affordable and it works, so that we get fewer victims and a real focus on rehabilitation.
I turn first to IPP sentences. I acknowledge that many noble Lords and noble and learned Lords have raised this today, and it is important that their concerns are raised and discussed today. This Government are determined to make further progress towards a safe and sustainable release for those serving IPP sentences—but not in a way that undermines public protection. I put on record my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his work with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, on recall and what we are still learning from that work.
The IPP action plan has contributed to an overall reduction in the IPP population over the last 12 months. As the Prison Reform Trust has said, we are seeing “modest but welcome progress”. For example, the unreleased prison population has reduced by around 14%, to 946 people in September 2025. After three years of quarterly increases, the recalled IPP prison population has fallen in every quarter for the last two years, from 1,652 to 1,476 as of 30 September this year. We have implemented changes to reduce the qualifying period for referral of an IPP sentence to the Parole Board and introduced a provision for automatic licence termination. These changes have reduced the number of people serving IPP sentences in the community by around two-thirds.
The revised action plan, published on 17 July, sets out where we intend to go further, including increasing access to release on temporary licence, expanding the approved premises pilot to improve resettlement support, and enabling swift re-release following recall through risk-assessed recall review when it is safe and appropriate to do so. I am determined to do all we can to support the remaining IPP offenders and their families. I am confident that our efforts will further benefit the IPP cohort. I will continue to engage with noble Lords, and I will continue to focus on developing new ways and improving existing plans to help IPPers have successful parole hearings, and to see fewer IPP recalls. My door is open, and I look forward to our next Peers’ meeting.
I turn to noble Lords’ points on the proposals in the Bill. The earned progression model was raised by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Burnett and Lord Thomas. I must begin by being clear about the context in which the Government have introduced these measures. The prison population is still rising too fast, and we simply cannot build our way out of the capacity crisis. Our new progression model, inspired by Texas and recommended by David Gauke, sets a minimum release point of one-third for those serving standard determinate sentences, which currently have an automatic release of 40% or 50%. For certain sexual and violent offences, the minimum will be 50%. But the most dangerous offenders—those on extended determinate sentences and life sentences—will be unaffected by the measures in the Bill and will remain in prison for as long as they do now. Following the changes in the Bill, there will still be more criminals in prison than ever before.
Under the progression model, if they play by the rules prisoners can earn an early release. If not, they can be locked up for longer—up to the end of their sentence. So if someone receives a six-year standard determinate sentence and they behave badly, they can serve that full six years in prison. Although I have heard the issues raised by noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, it is essential that this model can be implemented quickly and effectively through the established process for punishing bad behaviour and rule breaches in prison.
I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Bach welcome the earned progression model, as well as the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I reassure noble Lords that I have spent a lot of time already discussing how the progression model will work. Although it is not an exact mirror of the Texas model, because of the capacity issues and the complexities that it could create, in the prison environment you essentially go up the hill—for bad behaviour, you stay in prison for longer—whereas in probation you go down the hill, so the quicker you do your community service, the quicker you finish your responsibility. We know that this needs to be tough, which is why we are doubling the maximum punishment of added time from 42 to 84 days per incident. The noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Prashar, rightly brought up the subject of adjudications. Again, that is something that I am looking into; they are right that they need to be absolutely robust and fair.
A number of noble Lords have raised short sentences, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Marks, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and others. It is an important point. We are not abolishing short sentences. Judges will always have the power to send offenders to prison when they have breached a court order, where there is a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to a particular individual, or in exceptional circumstances. However, around 60% of adults sentenced for under a year reoffend within 12 months; a number of noble Lords recited similar facts about the ineffectiveness of short sentences. That is unacceptably high for victims and the public. The evidence shows that those given a community order or suspended sentence reoffend less than similar offenders given a short prison sentence. We are following the evidence to reduce crime, leading to fewer victims and safer communities. I am also following the lead of the previous Government, who introduced this measure in their Sentencing Bill.
I have heard the points raised about the impact of these changes on victims. I reassure noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, that victims are at the heart of this Bill. First and foremost, we fail victims if prisons run out of places entirely and crime goes without punishment. For me, victims must always come first—and we will publish the VAWG strategy shortly. We are imposing tough restriction zones that limit the movement of offenders, instead of limiting the movement of victims, and creating a new domestic abuse flag at sentencing so that domestic abusers are known to prison and probation services and their victims are better protected. We remain steadfast in our commitment to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. In addition to the measures in the Bill, we are continuing the provision of free sentencing remarks to victims of rape and sex offences, and expanding the use of specialist domestic abuse courts, with trained staff to support victims and more co-ordinated management of offenders.
I turn to the points that noble Lords raised about probation capacity and how the reforms in the Bill are being delivered. What is clear from by far the majority of speeches today is that noble Lords are well aware of the pressure on probation but also how powerful it is when you get this right and how fantastic the staff are. That is why I suspect that we will drill deeply in Committee into how the probation proposals work and what we can do to make sure that they are robust. The Probation Service is an indispensable part of the criminal justice system that keeps us safe, but the last decade has been a very challenging time. We have already taken significant steps to focus resources on the highest-risk and prolific offenders, where the evidence shows that probation can have the greatest impact. Earlier this year, we announced a package of measures to rebuild the Probation Service. By the final year of the spending review, our annual £1.6 billion spend on probation and community services will rise by up to £700 million—a 45% increase.
As was clear in the Gauke review, the third sector has a key role to play. We are indebted to so many wonderful organisations that are integral to the work of probation, and I agree that the longer-term funding models are the direction of travel that I would like to see. Although the detailed allocations of that money are to be finalised, I can say that my priorities are clear: more people in post; digital investment that saves time; and tools for probation to use, from increasing tagging to rehabilitation, so that offenders can have a chance to turn their lives around. This will make the job of our probation staff more manageable and more rewarding. I am hopeful for further conversations with noble Lords to give more clarity on probation funding in the days ahead.
Recruitment, retention and training of staff are high priorities for the Probation Service. The right reverend Prelate is clearly aware that we need to ensure that we have sufficient workforce to safely supervise and manage people in the community. This Bill includes several measures, such as welcoming the removal of post-sentence supervision, the introduction of a new probation requirement, and the termination of community orders once an offender has completed their sentence plan. These will streamline processes, enable probation to focus its efforts on those who pose the highest risk, and incentivise offenders to engage with rehabilitation.
The theme of incentivisation is something I feel very passionately about. Having run a business whereby I incentivised colleagues on the front line in shops to serve customers well, I believe—and I see it across the criminal justice system—that not all but many offenders respond to the right incentive at the right time, in their time in prison or on probation. We have gone further since the Bill’s introduction. The Deputy Prime Minister recently announced an expansion of Justice Transcribe, equipping 1,000 more probation officers with the technology that cuts administration and ensures staff can spend more time doing the thing they do best: working with offenders face to face to turn their lives around. We want to go further with this too. Probation staff who have been engaging with Justice Transcribe call it a game-changer and something they have been crying out for for years. It is an important part of our plan to modernise the service. A range of further digital and process improvements will transform the way in which probation staff work, and ensure that they can spend more time doing the things that they love doing.
I am confident that our overall package of investment, continued recruitment and modernisation puts us on a path to ensuring the sustainability of the service for the long term. I will continue to work closely with the Deputy Prime Minister to that end. I would be delighted to meet the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, to talk about a country that is dear to my heart and which I can see from my house: Wales.
I turn to electronic monitoring, which is a crucial means of managing offenders safely in the community. I thank noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Bailey of Paddington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Porter. The noble Lord, Lord Bailey, may not remember but, many years ago, we met at No. 10, and I would be delighted to carry on the conversation that we had then, which followed the very strong theme of his speech today.
The evidence is clear: tagging works. It provides clear and reliable proof of an individual’s whereabouts and behaviour. A recent study found that curfew tags reduce reoffending by 20% as part of a community sentence. Since their introduction in 2020, alcohol monitoring tags show no tamper and no alcohol consumed on 97% of the days worn as part of a community sentence. Currently, there are around 20,000 people on tags. We will increase this by up to 22,000 across court bail, community sentences and prison leavers, with many subject to curfews and exclusion zones.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Beith, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, the noble Baronesses, Lady Prashar and Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, raised the Sentencing Council. Judicial independence in making sentencing decisions is a fundamental constitutional principle. The Government have an important duty to secure public confidence in our criminal justice system, and Ministers are responsible for that. It is that balance that we seek to strike in arrangements for the Sentencing Council. We shall return to this in detail in Committee.
The issue of youth sentencing was raised strongly by my noble friend Lady Longfield. There are, and always should be, substantial differences in how children are treated in law compared with adults. The youth sentencing system must strike a right balance between public protection and the principles of justice, while accounting for children’s lesser maturity and protecting their welfare. This is why we will be reviewing the position on youth sentencing separately in the light of the changes that the Bill introduces.
I turn briefly to other points that were raised in the debate. The removal of remand for someone’s own protection does not form part of the remand measures in the Sentencing Bill. As my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti is aware, the Mental Health Bill proposes to end the use of remand for someone’s own protection, where the primary concern is the defendant’s mental health. I am open to hearing more on the general removal of remand for own protection.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, raised concerns about Clause 11. The clause does not remove the court’s sentencing powers. It is ultimately up to the court to determine whether to include this requirement when making a suspended sentence order or community order. Probation officers assess each individual’s risks and needs after sentencing. They are currently responsible for determining the volume of supervision required and, as such, are best placed to determine how many rehabilitative activities will be most effective. That is why this clause removes the court’s set activity days. This ensures that resources are used where they have the greatest impact in reducing reoffending and protecting the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, raised recall. Recall is, and will remain, an important risk management tool to protect the public and victims. We are going further than the review’s recommendations to introduce important safeguards. To protect the public and victims, certain offenders can receive only a standard recall. These offenders will be re-released by the Secretary of State or the Parole Board before the end of their sentence only if they meet the statutory release test.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Beith, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, raised concerns about Clause 35. I am sure that we can agree that people who commit crimes should show that they are giving back to society. I assure noble Lords that careful consideration has been given to how this is implemented and how wider impacts can be mitigated.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, that I am keen to discuss gambling and how we support addiction generally in the community. It is something that I am very passionate about too.
I would be delighted to meet the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, to discuss joint enterprise with my colleague, Minister Alex Davies-Jones, as it is her area of expertise within the Ministry of Justice.
This has been a wide debate, and I bow to the experience and expertise in the Chamber today. I and my officials will read Hansard carefully and, if I have missed anything in my response, we shall make sure to engage with your Lordships before and after Committee. I look forward to that. I beg to move.
Lord Timpson
That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 9, Schedule 2, Clause 10, Schedule 3, Clauses 11 to 27, Schedule 4, Clauses 28 to 31, Schedule 5, Clauses 32 to 47, Title.