Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
As part of our record £10.5 billion flood defences programme, the largest in history, the Environment Agency is progressing multiple schemes to improve resilience to flooding locally. These include natural flood management projects for Blue Lagoon, Buckingham and Leckhampstead, a property flood resilience study for Buckingham and the Tingewick flood alleviation scheme.
Callum Anderson
I thank the Minister for her response. Last winter’s floods exposed how years of under-investment by the previous Conservative Government had left Buckingham’s flood defences inadequate, which impacted many businesses and residents in our town. I have had the pleasure of working with the Flood Action 4 Buckingham group and others to ensure that local voices are heard and to identify ways we can act together to ensure we are resilient in the future. Can the Minister advise me and my constituents on how we can access our fair share of future flood resilience funding so that we are not in this position again?
Emma Hardy
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. I recognise that, at this time of the year, there is anxiety about flooding, and I thank him and the Flood Action 4 Buckingham group for their work. He will be pleased to know that our flood funding policy reforms, announced in October, will make it quicker and easier to deliver the flood defences that he desperately needs, and I would be happy to meet him to discuss this issue in more detail.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The question relates to Buckinghamshire, and I do not think any of the Members standing are from Buckinghamshire, so let us move on.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
I am a Buckinghamshire Member, Mr Speaker, but there we go.
The Government are delivering our manifesto commitments to improve access to nature and deliver three national forests. We recently announced that the second national forest will be in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor. Milton Keynes is the beating economic heart of that corridor, and we will deliver economic opportunities and even better access to nature side by side in my hon. Friend’s great city.
Chris Curtis
I welcome the comments about Milton Keynes, the largest economy in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, and we are very excited about the upcoming forest. The Wetland Arc, led by the Parks Trust, is another exciting project that spans the Great Ouse valley in my constituency. It will bring significant benefits for both people and nature, improving biodiversity, strengthening flood resilience and creating new opportunities for recreation and wellbeing across the area. We recently got some funding from the National Lottery Heritage Fund to start the project. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the Government will continue to support strategic initiatives such as this across the country to deliver environmental protection, enhance community wellbeing and expand opportunities for everyone to enjoy and engage with nature?
Emma Reynolds
I commend my hon. Friend for championing the Wetland Arc project in his constituency. Wetlands enhance water quality and biodiversity, and provide effective natural flood defences. As he suggests, we will continue to support initiatives such as these, and I would be delighted to visit his constituency, should he so wish, because it is very near mine.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Over the summer, the renovation of the Centurion Way was extended, and the cycle path now goes all the way from Chichester to West Dean in my constituency. Mr Speaker, you would be more than welcome to come to join me on a bike to cycle the new length. The restoration of this once crucial transport link provides residents and tourists with access to the beautiful Sussex countryside and the South Downs national park. Does the Secretary of State agree that such projects are vital to improving the UK’s health and happiness? What are the Government doing to help local authorities that wish to renovate disused railway lines and improve cycle paths and footpaths?
Emma Reynolds
I am a keen cyclist myself, so I might visit the hon. Lady as well. As we set out in our manifesto, the Government are committed to improving access to nature, and I look forward to working with her to do so.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
The Secretary of State will know that farmers play a key role in enhancing nature and access to it, but that farmers can do so only when it is financially viable and their businesses have certainty from the Government. Yet with the sustainable farming incentive chopped, de-linked payments slashed, capital grants cut, the family farm tax looming and a profitability review completed but deliberately held back from the public until well after the Budget, this Government have created a food and farming emergency, and when our farmers suffer, so does nature. What real, tangible reassurance can the Secretary of State give our farmers right now so that they can stay afloat, produce food, and deliver for nature and the environment?
Emma Reynolds
I am delighted to be at these questions for the first time, but I must say that the Conservatives have some brass neck. Under their Government, they could not even be bothered to spend the farming budget. We have got more Government money into the hands of farmers than ever before, and a record number of farmers are involved in environmental land management schemes. We have a proud record of supporting our farmers; the Conservatives sold them down the river on trade deals.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
We remain firmly committed to maintaining and improving animal welfare, and will work closely with the farming sector to deliver high standards. The use of cages and other close confinement systems for farmed animals is an issue we are currently considering and, as was announced by the Prime Minister, we plan to publish the animal welfare strategy by the end of this year.
Adrian Ramsay
I thank the Minister for her answer. Animal Equality estimates that around 200,000 sows in the UK spend nearly a quarter of their adult life confined in farrowing crates, which are metal barred cages that severely restrict their movement—they cannot even turn around. Some 75% of vets are concerned and research suggests that two thirds of the public oppose their use. When it comes to the animal welfare strategy, will the Minister commit to phasing out the use of all farrowing crates and the equally cruel cages for birds, and what practical steps will be put in place to support farmers with the transition?
Dame Angela Eagle
It is important to remember that 50% of the national sow breeding herd live freely and are not kept in these kinds of cage systems at all, which I think shows the way forward. It is very important that we work with the industry to see how we can move away from the use of farrowing crates and create more flexible alternatives that are available to be introduced in a practical and pragmatic way.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
So often, farmers are the best conservationists. Many want to do even more to support the environment and animal welfare, but profitability and sustainability are key. Will the Minister confirm whether the Department will consider financial support for farmers to move towards more sustainable and strong animal welfare standards?
Dame Angela Eagle
We are always ready to consider how we can bring about the policies that will be set out in the animal welfare strategy when we publish it. We are pragmatic about how we can shift from outdated systems and modernise, and we are proud that we have some of the highest standards of animal welfare in the world.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
The Government will clean up Britain and end the throwaway society. That is why we banned the sale of single-use vapes earlier this year and why our forthcoming deposit return scheme will drastically reduce the littering of single-use cans and bottles. We are also supporting councils by bringing forward new guidance, including on enforcement on littering and fly-tipping.
Catherine Atkinson
In Derby, we are lucky to have fantastic community groups who take real pride in keeping our city clean, such as Friends of Littleover Parks, the New Zealand Community Association, and the Ashbourne Road Methodist church A2C kids club, where even our youngest residents do their bit. But their great work is too often undermined by those who dump waste illegally on our streets, on private land and on our green spaces. Will the Minister outline what the Government are doing to tackle waste crime, so that my constituents can continue to enjoy clean and tidy neighbourhoods?
Mary Creagh
I commend my hon. Friend’s constituents for their important work, particularly Derby city council’s Streetpride champions. Their work is supported by this Government, who are committed to helping councils to do more: seizing and crushing the vehicles of fly-tippers; forcing fly-tippers to clear up their own mess; and bringing in new five-year prison sentences for those transporting waste illegally.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Criminals have dumped a mountain of illegal plastic waste, 20 feet high and weighing hundreds of tonnes, in my constituency on the floodplain adjacent to the River Cherwell. River levels are rising and heat maps show that the waste is heating up, raising the risk of fire. The Environment Agency says that it has limited resources for enforcement, and the estimated cost of removal is greater than the entire annual budget of the local district council. Will the Minister meet me urgently to discuss what support the Government can offer to avoid an environmental disaster?
Mary Creagh
We inherited a whole system failure in the waste industry, from end to end with failures at every level. That is why there has been an epidemic of illegal fly-tipping. It is now the work of serious and organised crime. We have a waste crime unit that has undertaken in the last financial year—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members stop chuntering they might learn something. It has undertaken 21 money laundering investigations, six account-freezing orders and 13 confiscation orders. However, I am aware of this incident and I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss it. I understand that a restriction order was served to prevent further access and tipping at the site.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
This Government are taking action to ensure that coastal towns have access to clean bathing water. The Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 provides the most significant increase in enforcement powers to the regulators in a decade, empowering them to take tougher action against those responsible for water pollution.
Tony Vaughan
Littlestone and Dymchurch are two popular beaches in my constituency, but they are subject to no swim advisories, which are seriously harming local tourism, residents and businesses. What urgent measures will the Minister take to ensure clear accountability for water companies, rapid infrastructure upgrades and a transparent timetable for lifting no swim advisories, and will she meet me to discuss how we can create safer seas for my constituents—and possibly join me for a swim when it is safe to do so?
Emma Hardy
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for the kind offer, although I might not take him up on an outdoor swim in November or December. This is a really important issue. We have pledged to halve sewage pollution by 2030 and bathing water sites are being prioritised for upgrades because we recognise how important they are for health, leisure and tourism. My hon. and learned Friend will be pleased to know that the local Environment Agency area director has agreed to meet him on this matter urgently; of course, I will be happy to meet him too.
Mr Speaker
Now for somebody who will take up the offer of a swim—Sir Roger Gale.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Will the Minister reassure the House that the shocking release of microplastic pellets into the seas off the channel coast is a one-off and that it has not affected and will not affect any of the beaches around the rest of the Kent coast?
Emma Hardy
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising such an important issue. I share his anger at this appalling pollution incident. The studies into exactly where the plastic pellets might end up are ongoing, but I would be more than happy to keep him up to date so that he knows what is expected to happen and when. The immediate priority is to address the environmental damage and to minimise further impacts. I have been speaking with Southern Water and the Environment Agency about this and would be happy to keep the right hon. Gentleman and the House up to date. I reassure him and the rest of the House that we find this incident unacceptable, and we will do everything we can to prevent anything like this from happening again.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
The Government will publish a White Paper later this year outlining our vision for the future of the water sector, making the most fundamental reform of our water system in a generation. We are determined to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas to deliver better outcomes for consumers and the environment.
Sally Jameson
My constituents know the trouble the water industry is in. I have previously raised in this House the matter of bonuses of being given to Yorkshire Water executives in exchange for poor service. What will the Government do to fix the broken regulatory system so that the failures of the past do not happen again?
Emma Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning on this issue. We recognise the scale of the challenge facing our water system and are taking decisive action to reset the sector. We will create a single powerful water regulator, abolishing Ofwat and ending the fragmentation that led to the abuses of the past. As my hon. Friend refers to, we have already banned polluting water bosses from taking bonuses, which we did early in our time in government with the passing of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025.
Alan Strickland
It is crucial that the Government have the powers to crack down on polluting companies, but the Environment Agency’s budget was cut by half by the previous Conservative Government. What will this Government do to make it quicker and easier to fine the companies polluting our rivers with raw sewage?
Emma Reynolds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under this Labour Government, there is nowhere to hide for polluting water companies. We have overseen record fines on water companies and are introducing automatic penalties—like speeding tickets—to ensure that those companies are held to account for every level of offence.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
My constituents are fed up. They are fed up of paying rising bills and adhering to hosepipe bans, and of being told to be mindful of how they use their water while leaks go unfixed and water shortages remain. This autumn, people in Mid Sussex came within three weeks of standpipes being needed, despite paying more and more on their bills. Against this torrent of failure, my constituents want to know how the Government plan to create a water industry that can provide for a growing population, rather than lurching from crisis to crisis.
Emma Reynolds
I share the public’s frustration with what has happened in recent years, but I reassure her that we will take decisive action. We have already passed the Water (Special Measures) Act, but we will also be issuing a White Paper later this year and will legislate to ensure that we have better regulation, a better regulator and a better water system for her constituents and those around the country.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
In West Dorset, overloaded sewers and outdated infrastructure cause repeated sewage spills. Rainwater enters combined systems, overwhelming capacity and causing them to overflow. The Independent Water Commission recommended pre-pipe solutions to reduce storm overflows. Will the Secretary of State introduce a national rainwater management strategy and require rainwater harvesting on all new homes and renovations?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the hon. Member for his question, and I look forward to working with him on this issue. We will look at pre-pipe solutions in the forthcoming White Paper, which I look forward to discussing with him when we publish it.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
Only 0.1% of land is used for solar, and half of the agricultural land used for generating solar power is still producing food. Solar farms are not a risk to food security. Instead, they play an important role in diversifying farm income and decarbonising our economy.
James Wild
I think the Minister’s answer was a bit tone-deaf. North West Norfolk’s farms and farmers play a vital role in our food security. My constituents are concerned about the Droves and High Grove solar farms, which will cover 7,000 acres. Why are the Government, and the Net Zero Secretary in particular, obsessed with putting solar farms on Norfolk’s agricultural land rather than on brownfield land and rooftops?
Dame Angela Eagle
A very small area of land is used by solar farms—as I said before, it is 0.1% of the UK’s total land area. The clean power commitment 2030 will take that up to 0.4%. Our land use framework, which will deal with ensuring that solar farms do not go on prime agricultural land, is due to be published in the early part of next year.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
Food security is national security, and we are in the middle of a food and farming emergency created by this Labour Government’s policies. From their heartless family farm tax to the closure of vital support schemes, they are damaging farming’s ability to thrive and harming rural mental health. That is only being made worse nationwide, including in my constituency of Epping Forest, by plans for excessive solar development that risk prime food-producing land being taken away. When will the Government stop this senseless assault on our green belt and countryside, and start putting solar in the right places, such as on brownfield sites and rooftops? When will they start to reverse these damaging policies so that our fantastic farming sector has a fighting chance of being preserved for future generations?
Dame Angela Eagle
It sounds as though the shadow Minister thinks that the entirety of agricultural land will be covered in solar. I have already said that it will be 0.4% by 2030, and it provides farmers with extra income. We have a national planning policy framework that prioritises using lower-quality land for such things. He says that he wants solar power on rooftops—well, we are doing that too.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
This Government are putting the largest budget ever towards nature restoration, with more than £7 billion announced in the spending review. We have taken targeted action, including licensing the first wild beaver release since their extinction 400 years ago.
Liam Conlon
Fourteen years of Conservative government have left the UK as one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, undermining our economy and food systems. I welcome the Government’s recent actions to reverse this, including the new guidance to protect bees from pesticides and the introduction of legislation to help protect two thirds of the world’s oceans. Does the Minister agree that where the Conservatives have failed, this Government will take action at every level to protect nature and biodiversity for future generations?
Mary Creagh
I do agree. I know that my hon. Friend is a great champion on air quality in his constituency. While the Conservatives have pledged to scrap the Climate Change Act 2008 in the face of protest from business groups, scientists and even their former Prime Minister Theresa May, this Government will tackle the climate and nature crisis. I will be travelling to COP30 in Brazil in a couple of days, where I will discuss how we will embed nature into every element of climate action to tackle global nature loss on land and in the ocean.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
This afternoon, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will return to the Commons. I share the concern of many of my that the Bill seeks to rip up environmental rules to boost growth. Will the Minister urge her colleagues at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to support Lords amendment 113, to ensure that development is balanced with protection for nature?
Mary Creagh
I thank the hon. Lady for campaigning on climate and nature issues, in stark contrast with the Conservatives. I know that she will raise this issue during today’s debate. The nature restoration fund, which is a key plank of the Bill, will improve outcomes for nature, while unlocking the housing and infrastructure that this country urgently needs.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
We are committed to banning the import of hunting trophies from species of conservation concern. My noble friend Baroness Hayman continues to engage with stakeholders to ensure that we can implement a robust ban.
Liz Jarvis
Vulnerable and endangered species, including rhinos, zebras, elephants, cheetahs and leopards, are still being hunted for so-called trophies abroad, and despite promises from the previous Government, it is still legal to bring those items into the UK. Will the Minister give any reassurance that legislation will be brought forward in this Parliament to ban the import of those hunting trophies to the UK?
Mary Creagh
Some 84% of the 44,000 respondents to the 2020 consultation supported a ban on all hunting trophies entering or leaving the UK. Five years later, it will fall to this Government to deliver what the previous Government promised. Timeframes for introducing that legislation will be provided once the parliamentary timetable for future Sessions is determined.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
We are committed to tackling food waste and ensuring that food reaches those in greatest need. We have a new £15 million fund redistributing 19,000 tonnes of surplus food, and our simpler recycling reforms, which will come in from next March, will cut the amount of food waste sent to landfill. We hope that behaviour-change initiatives will also tackle food waste in the home.
Dame Meg Hillier
Too Good To Go and Winnow Solutions are two food waste businesses in my constituency at the heart of tackling food waste. I know that the Government do not want to put more burdens on business, but the companies I mention have proved that tackling food waste can save businesses’ bottom line. Is the Minister considering mandatory reporting of food waste, and promoting companies that help other businesses to tackle food waste?
Mary Creagh
Those are two absolutely brilliant green tech companies at the heart of my hon. Friend’s constituency. We are committed to halving food waste by 2030, and we support both those companies. Digital waste tracking will be in place from April 2026, and will be mandatory from October for waste receivers. That is part of tackling the organised crime end of things. Our circular economy taskforce is considering how we can go further and the potential benefits of a mandatory food waste reporting requirement for large food businesses.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Mr Speaker, you and I—and many others in this House—will remember that when we were younger, nothing was ever thrown out. When the cheese had blue mould, we cut off the edges and ate it. If food was coming near to the end of its time, the dog got it. Nothing was ever wasted. “Best before” dates on fresh food encourage judgment to be exercised before food is thrown out. Has consideration been given to making them law, to ensure that we do not throw away good food for no other reason than the date, which has no relevance to the quality of the food?
Mary Creagh
To be fair, the previous Government did something on food labelling and “best before” dates. There are certain rules around items such as eggs, about which we have to be much more careful. However, I share the hon. Gentleman’s view. We need to remove some of the packaging, so that people do not over-buy. We also need to teach people more about how to tackle food waste in their home, so that they do not buy more than they need, and they understand that they can freeze things like butter and cheese when they want to buy in bulk and save money.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
Under the previous Government, water bosses awarded themselves over £112 million in bonuses. Thanks to this Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, water company bosses who pollute our waterways have been blocked from receiving millions of pounds in unfair bonuses for the past financial year.
Mr Alaba
After 14 years of water bosses profiting while sewage has spilled into our waterways, this Government are finally setting the record straight. In Southend East and Rochford, we have several organisations dedicated to protecting and preserving our coastlines, from Southend Against Sewage to Waterwatch. Southend has not one but two Labour MPs and a Government who are taking decisive action, so I am reassured that the future of our waterways is in safe hands. Will the Secretary of State update the House on progress on the forthcoming water Bill, and will she meet me to discuss how upcoming legislation could address the regulation of wet wipes and their environmental impact?
Emma Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for his doughty campaigning on this issue. We are already taking forward secondary legislation to ban plastic wet wipes, which are a major source of pollution in our waterways. As I have said previously, this Government are taking decisive action to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas. We will publish a White Paper later this year, putting forward proposals for fundamental reform of our water system, so that it delivers better outcomes for consumers and the environment.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
I am delighted to lead the first all-woman ministerial team in a UK Department of State. My focus as the new Secretary of State is delivering the Government’s No. 1 mission of economic growth, while restoring our natural environment. I have four big priorities: cleaning up our rivers, lakes and seas; backing British farmers and our food industry; restoring nature; and delivering a sanitary and phytosanitary deal with the EU.
Pam Cox
Today I am hosting pupils from Colchester academy in Greenstead in my constituency. They and their families want a clean River Colne. Will the Secretary of State set out what the Government are doing to hold Anglian Water to account, and whether she is seeing an improvement in its performance?
Emma Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning on these issues. We have already banned bonuses in six water companies, including Anglian Water, as she will know, for not meeting our high standards. That is a powerful incentive for companies to deliver immediate improvements and rebuild public trust. Together, I hope that we can rebuild public trust in our water system for generations to come.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I welcome the right hon. Lady and the Minister with responsibility for farming to their new roles. We Conservative Members genuinely wish them well in this food and farming emergency. The seriousness of that emergency was made clear to me last night by the agricultural chaplain of Suffolk. He told me about the devastating impact that he sees the family farm tax having: the father of two small children who took his life because of fears about the tax, the 92-year-old grandmother who has told her family calmly that she will not be here in April because she wants to beat the tax deadline, and the teenager who walked in to find his father’s body. The chaplain said to me, “This tax will live with that poor boy for the rest of his life.” All that has happened since the Secretary of State took office, and it is happening across the country. Why does she support this tax?
Emma Reynolds
This is a highly sensitive issue. The reasons for somebody taking their life are often very complex, and my heart goes out to every family devastated by these events. I am not willing to make political points on this issue.
Victoria Atkins
I am not making political points; I am telling the right hon. Lady the reality of her policy. Farmers will have heard no answer, no reason and no understanding. It is shameful. With 13 days to go until the Budget, let me point out that there are enormous economic costs, too. Millions of advisers, businesses and constituents, the 10 largest supermarket chains, multiple food manufacturers, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Welsh Affairs Committee think that this is a bad tax, badly done. The Conservatives will axe this tax. Given that the Secretary of State has admitted this week that Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have “made mistakes” this year, will she finally admit that the family farm and family business taxes are some of those mistakes?
Emma Reynolds
I live in a rural area, represent a semi-rural seat, and have 89 farms in my constituency. I understand the pressures that farmers are under, but the catastrophic mistake made by the previous Government was that they could not even be bothered to spend the farming budget. We have put more Government money in the hands of more farmers than ever before, and we have put a record number of farmers in the environmental land management schemes. We will soon publish the Batters review on farm profitability. We are not keeping that review under wraps, by the way; the House will soon hear more about it. The Conservatives did nothing on the issue when they were in power. We have appointed the nation’s first tenant farming commissioner, and we will set out a 25-year road map for farming next year.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Those were very important opening statements, but these are topical questions. We have about five minutes to go, and some Members will not get in now, so I do not know why they are standing to catch my eye.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. I share his concern about the ability of local businesses to recover from flood events. The Government are investing £10.5 billion to better protect 900,000 properties around the country. The flood resilience taskforce will look into what more can be done to support homes and businesses during the recovery period after flooding.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State, and the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), to their roles. I look forward to working with them both.
Research from the University of Cumbria shows that, by this time next year, the average hill farmer will earn barely half the national minimum wage, yet the Government’s family farm tax means an annual tax bill of £20,000 a year for the typical hill farm. Those farmers will have to stop farming and sell up. To whom? To wealthy landowners and big city corporations. Is this policy not deeply socially unjust, robbing from the poor and giving to the rich, while betraying the people who care for our landscape and provide food for us?
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
We will publish the farming road map and the Batters review, and then talk about a strategy for making farming more productive, profitable and sustainable for the next generation. Upland farmers will play an important part in that review, and we will see what we can do to support them.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for ensuring good air quality for residents of his constituency. We have published strict criteria for incineration projects, and will back only new waste incineration projects that meet strict conditions. I am happy to meet him to talk about the project in his constituency.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Dame Angela Eagle
Again, we understand the pressures that farmers are under. We want to work on creating a productive, profitable and sustainable farming sector, and we will do so.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is an incredible champion for her constituency. I have heard that people visiting the area can pick up fossils and see what an ecological wonder it is. It looks incredibly beautiful. We know that access to water is important to boosting wellbeing and mental health. I look forward to hearing more about those plans as they develop.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Emma Reynolds
Like the hon. Member, I am appalled by this plastic pollution incident, which affects his constituency, nearby constituencies and Camber Sands. We are holding Southern Water to account. There needs to be a thorough investigation of what happened, and as has been said by the Minister with responsibility for water and flooding, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy) —she has been in touch with both the water company and the Environment Agency—the immediate priority is to address the damage caused, but we need to ask questions about why this was not uncovered earlier. The water Minister or I would be happy to meet him.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
Given the Government’s focus on strengthening skills in the agritech food sector, will the Secretary of State join me in visiting Harper Adams University’s new Telford facility at the Quad to see how the industry and higher and further education facilities, including Telford College, are working together to develop and diversify the skills pipeline in the sector?
Dame Angela Eagle
We are fully supportive of collaboration between industry and higher and further education to strengthen skills in the agrifood sector. I will be visiting Harper Adams; that visit is already in the diary, and if my hon. Friend wants to join me, he is more than welcome.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Emma Hardy
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important issue. He will know that there is live enforcement action ongoing, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on specific details, but if he wants to have a private conversation, I would be happy to arrange one.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I thank the water Minister for meeting me recently to talk about the issues on Tapton Terrace and on the River Hipper in my constituency. We are grateful for the money she has found for the plans to look into this, but can she tell us how we can speed this up? There is great impatience about getting people on Tapton Terrace protected.
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue, and I know how deeply felt the loss is in his constituency. I hope he recognises how seriously I am taking this. Of course, I will do everything I can to support him with this.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Dame Angela Eagle
No, it is not the family farm tax. The right hon. Gentleman should be patient and wait to see our plan for the future of farming.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Solicitor General (Ellie Reeves)
Since April 2020, the SFO has recovered over £550 million from criminals for the UK taxpayer, but this Government want to go further and are investing millions in expanding the SFO’s capabilities. Under our plan for change, we will crack down on fraud and ensure that crime does not pay.
Rachel Hopkins
I welcome the Serious Fraud Office’s first use of an unexplained wealth order to return more than £1 million that had been stolen from the public. How will the Solicitor General support efforts to expand the use of unexplained wealth orders to target those criminals who have defrauded innocent victims?
The Solicitor General
On 9 September, the Serious Fraud Office secured £1.1 million from the sale of a Lake district house in an investigation involving its first use of an unexplained wealth order, connected to the assets of the wife of convicted fraudster Timothy Schools. This innovative use of the legislation showcases the SFO’s resolve to pursue criminal assets wherever they are hidden and explore new methods to recover funds for victims and the public purse.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
One way the Serious Fraud Office can be made more effective is through access to more registers of beneficial overseas interests. We know that fraudsters, tax dodgers and crooks are exploiting the financial secrecy in those territories to hide their ill-gotten gains. Does the Solicitor General agree that this would empower the Serious Fraud Office to secure more prosecutions for economic crime, get dodged taxes back to the Treasury and let us invest more in public services in North Norfolk?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful for that question. The Serious Fraud Office is constantly looking at ways to clamp down on fraud and economic crime. For example, the SFO is committed to working more closely with French and Swiss partners through the international anti-corruption prosecutorial taskforce, to ensure that we are robustly tackling cross-border economic crime, and to protect our future prosperity as part of our plan for change.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
The Solicitor General
Rural crime can destroy our landscapes, jeopardise businesses and, over time, break down communities. This Government are committed to cracking down on crime and disorder in rural areas, through tougher powers on antisocial behaviour, farm theft, and fly-tipping. The Crown Prosecution Service has appointed a national rural crime lead, and last month it brought together prosecutors from across the country to ensure a co-ordinated approach to prosecution.
John Whitby
In Derbyshire we have seen a significant increase in reports of agricultural crime; police figures show a 45% increase in the past 12 months. Earlier this year one of my constituents, Jane Bassett, had her farm broken into and a significant amount of specialised equipment was stolen. Such attacks can be traumatic for victims due to how isolated many farms are, and farms are targets for criminals due to their high-value equipment. What steps are being taken to ensure that those who target our hard-working farmers and their equipment and machinery are successfully prosecuted?
The Solicitor General
I am sorry to hear about the terrible experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent, and I recognise the significant impact that the theft of equipment has on farmers, both financially and on their wellbeing. The Government recently announced an £800,000 funding boost for the national rural crime unit and national wildlife crime unit. Those dedicated police units will increase collaboration across police forces, and harness the latest technology and data to target the serious organised crime groups that are involved in farm equipment theft.
John Milne
Earlier this year I carried out a survey among farmers in my constituency, who said that they did not bother to report over a third of rural crimes because they felt that not enough happened when they did so. I would not say that nothing has been done, because we now have a specialist rural crime unit across Sussex, but there is an issue with police call centres and staff who do not appear to understand rural issues. Will the Solicitor General look at improving training at call centres in my constituency and across the country?
The Solicitor General
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important issue. I will certainly pick up the issue of police response with Home Office colleagues. The Government are committed to implementing the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023, which aims to prevent the theft and resale of high-value equipment, particularly for use in an agricultural setting. The National Police Chiefs’ Council wildlife and rural crime strategy provides a framework through which policing and its partners can work together, to tackle the most prevalent threats and emerging issues that predominantly affect rural communities.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
As my right hon. Friend says, these days rural crime is often organised crime. A lot of that is county lines, which by its nature is cross-jurisdictional and involves different parts of the CPS and different police forces. What is she doing to ensure co-ordination to tackle those types of offences, because as far as criminals are concerned, this is a national enterprise?
The Solicitor General
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point about county lines. The CPS has significantly increased its provision of early advice for county lines cases, working with law enforcement to ensure that all cases are as strong as possible. The CPS has prosecution guidance on county lines, which provides an overview of the approach to be taken in criminal investigations and prosecutions, as well as practical advice on decision making in gang-related offences and on building the strongest possible case. The Crime and Policing Bill will introduce two new offences that are relevant in this area: those of child criminal exploitation and cuckooing.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Rural and farm crime is a big problem in my constituency in the Scottish Borders which operates across the border between Scotland and England. What discussions has the Solicitor General had with authorities in Scotland to ensure higher prosecution rates for those operating cross-border?
The Solicitor General
I set out some of the measures that this Government are taking to tackle rural crime, but I am happy to take up that issue with the Secretary of State for Scotland to see what more cross-border work can be done.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
This Government place the experience of victims at the very heart of the justice system and are determined to restore their faith in the system. I want to acknowledge the sad passing of Baroness Newlove, who worked tirelessly for victims. Through its victim transformation programme, the CPS is reshaping its service to victims. I recently visited a rape and serious sexual offences—RASSO—unit in the west midlands and heard first hand about the work that victim liaison officers do to offer crucial support. I am pleased that the service is now being piloted to victims of domestic abuse as well.
Shockat Adam
A constituent contacted me in a severe state of distress, understandably, because she is a victim of sexual abuse. Unfortunately, her distress is compounded by the fact that her criminal trial date has been postponed not once but twice, while her perpetrator is walking free in her neighbourhood. This is causing her immense anxiety and impacting her mental health. Will the Solicitor General outline what support the justice system can give to my constituent and other victims of severe sexual violence, especially given long court delays, and what steps she will take to ensure that no victim is left to feel abandoned by the system again?
The Solicitor General
I am very sorry to hear about the experience of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, and I am sure our thoughts are with them. This Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising Crown court caseload. Next year, we will fund the Crown courts to run at record levels to tackle the outstanding caseload, by funding 110,000 sitting days. The independent review of the criminal courts considered how to improve overall criminal court efficiency to provide swifter justice for victims, including victims of sexual offences. The CPS has introduced victim liaison officers in RASSO units to offer extra support to victims, particularly when they are facing delays to their trials.
Jas Athwal
I welcome the Government’s ambitious mission to reduce violence against women and girls. Many survivors who experience sexual assault will never go to the police or press charges due to appallingly low conviction rates and fears of being retraumatised during court proceedings. Given the alarming statistic that one in four women over the age of 16 have been sexually assaulted, what steps are the Government taking to make reporting and pressing charges a more realistic prospect for survivors?
The Solicitor General
This Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls, and that is my No. 1 priority as Solicitor General. The barriers that victims of rape and serious sexual violence face in this country are unacceptable, and the CPS is committed to improving its performance. These efforts are beginning to have an impact. Referral volumes for adult rape are on a sustained upward trend, and in the last quarter conviction volumes were at their highest level since 2016.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
Given that over recent months we have discovered that the whole country has been a victim of crime from foreign espionage, state aggression and any number of different forms of hostile activity, will the Attorney General be kind enough to give a statement explaining how he is actually representing our interests, rather than preaching to us about how the law does not defend us and we just need to take it?
The Solicitor General
I answered an urgent question in this House a few weeks ago on the China case, which I expect the right hon. Gentleman is referring to. The Government have already made it clear that they are deeply disappointed in the outcome of that case. As has already been confirmed by the CPS and senior Treasury counsel, the decision to offer no evidence in the case was made by the CPS without political influence, including from me or any other Law Officer. As the Attorney General has outlined in some detail in evidence he gave in a recent Committee hearing, where a case can no longer proceed because of evidential reasons, as happened in this case, the requirement is that the CPS informs the Attorney General of the decision as soon as it is taken.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Victims in the criminal justice system deserve to be kept fully informed of developments in their case. Can the Solicitor General set out how she is working with the Crown Prosecution Service to improve those communications for victims? I note again the very valuable work in this space of Baroness Newlove, the former Victims’ Commissioner.
The Solicitor General
The issue of support for victims is particularly fresh in my mind, as I visited one of the CPS’s rape and serious sexual offences units in the west midlands just a few weeks ago. I heard at first hand about the important work that victim liaison officers in the CPS are doing to support victims through their experience of the criminal justice system—on which I have pressed the CPS. It is ensuring that its communications with victims are of the highest possible standard—that letters have empathy and are the best that they possibly can be. I will continue to monitor that closely.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I welcome the Solicitor General to her place. Domestic abuse survivors face serious barriers to accessing legal aid in the family courts. The current legal aid means test takes the abuser’s income into account when assessing a victim’s eligibility, unless the survivor can prove economic abuse, which is extremely difficult, or prove that they no longer live with the abuser. Abusers typically control finances and can withhold documentation, disqualifying victims from receiving the support that they need. Will the Solicitor General consider the recommendation of the Bar Council and make an exemption for domestic abuse survivors from the means test?
The Solicitor General
I know the hon. Gentleman is a big champion on this issue. Victims of economic abuse face real challenges in getting justice, and he is right to draw attention to that issue. Legal aid is a matter for the Ministry of Justice, but I will commit to speaking with my ministerial colleagues on this issue and providing the hon. Gentleman with a full written response.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
Tackling violence against women and girls is a top priority for this Government and for me. With the Crown Prosecution Service, I am utterly determined to drive improvements in performance across the breadth of VAWG offences. On domestic abuse, the CPS launched its joint justice plan with policing in November 2024. Over the last year, that has led to a 10% increase in charge volumes and a 7% increase in conviction volumes. Before the end of the year, the CPS plans externally to launch its own VAWG strategy, which aims to drive similar improvements across other VAWG offences.
Peter Prinsley
In my constituency, I recently visited an inspirational charity called Restore, which provides vital refuge for women fleeing domestic abuse. When I spoke with the dedicated staff there, I was concerned to learn that victims of domestic abuse in rural areas such as parts of my constituency are only half as likely to report their abuse as others. What steps is the CPS taking to ensure that victims in rural communities such as mine are confident to come forward?
The Solicitor General
I thank Restore for its excellent work—the organisation has been diligently supporting victims of domestic abuse for decades now. Under the joint justice plan, CPS areas and police forces have worked together to tailor their response to domestic abuse, addressing local priorities and community needs, including those in rural areas. In the new year, police and CPS will hold a joint knowledge-sharing event on domestic abuse in rural areas, to build improved understanding of the barriers these victims often face.
Joe Morris
In 2024-25, Northumberland domestic abuse services supported 555 adult survivors of domestic abuse and responded to thousands of domestic abuse incidents. Sadly, many of those incidents involved children. Will the Solicitor General meet me and Sharon Brown from NDAS—who is sat in the Public Gallery—to discuss steps for improving support for victims of domestic abuse in rural areas?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend’s question provides another example of the enormously important work that organisations such as NDAS do to support survivors of domestic abuse. I welcome Sharon to the Gallery today, and pay tribute to her and her colleagues. I would be delighted to meet her and my hon. Friend to discuss what more can be done to support victims in rural areas, particularly with our CPS colleagues.
Tristan Osborne
Prosecutions and convictions for domestic abuse dramatically fell under the last Government, which impacted constituents across all of our areas, including in Chatham and Aylesford. What steps are the Government taking to increase the level of prosecutions and convictions for this heinous crime?
The Solicitor General
For several years now, the CPS has maintained a high and steady charge rate of around 80%, and a conviction rate of 75%. This Government are taking radical action to ensure that more cases come into the system and progress through it. We have introduced Raneem’s law, which embeds domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms, and have launched domestic abuse protection orders, which go further than any other order to protect victims.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Will the Solicitor General discuss with the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Secretary how best the Metropolitan police may be encouraged to expedite their inquiry into the crimes of those who aided and abetted Mohamed Fayed, so that—for the sake of those who suffered violence and rape at this hands—they can be brought to book?
The Solicitor General
The right hon. Gentleman raises a really serious and important case; I am sure the thoughts of the House are with the victims. As he is aware, I cannot speak to cases in which there are live criminal investigations, but I am grateful to him for raising this extremely important issue, which I and other ministerial colleagues are following closely.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Prosecution rates in cases of violence against women and girls are harmed by the requirement that the police provide the CPS with redacted evidence under the general data protection regulation. Given the wider delays already affecting our justice system, does the Solicitor General agree that it would be prudent to remove the GDPR-related redaction burden from the police, thereby improving the efficiency of the CPS’s work and reducing the unnecessary workload on policing?
The Solicitor General
That is certainly something that I would be very happy to discuss with CPS colleagues and to provide a full response on.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Today has seen the publication of the safeguarding review into the murder of my 10-year-old constituent Sara Sharif. The findings of that inquiry are what I feared—that the state, especially Surrey county council, could have protected her and saved her life, but did not. Will the Solicitor General please meet me to ensure we can urgently implement the 15 recommendations of that report in order to protect children and girls in future?
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say to the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) that the question was being answered, and as a senior Member, he should know better than walking in at that point?
The Solicitor General
I thank the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for raising an extremely serious and tragic case. It is important that it has been raised in the House. I will certainly look at those recommendations closely and ensure that he gets a meeting with me or the relevant Minister.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
I also welcome the right hon. Lady to her place. She is the third Solicitor General I have sat opposite in the past 12 months, and I look forward to working with her constructively where we can and to having healthy debate in this Chamber in the weeks and months to come.
I associate myself with the right hon. Lady’s remarks on the sad passing of Baroness Newlove. I had the honour of working with her when I was the Victims Minister. She was a great champion of victims and she will be sadly missed.
Violence against women and girls is a scourge. It wrecks families and ruins lives. One of the most sickening aspects of it is cruelty to and abuse of children. There is currently no national mechanism to track down and monitor serious child cruelty offenders after service of their sentences. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), said this of the Sentencing Bill on Report:
“A problem in the system has been identified, and we are determined to fix it. It simply cannot be right that some horrific child abusers can have access to children—to live with children or work with children—at the end of their sentences without any system of monitoring or notification”.—[Official Report, 29 October 2025; Vol. 774, c. 409.]
The Minister went on to welcome the offer of cross-party talks and promised to work “at speed” to establish a child cruelty register. Can the Solicitor General please update the House on what concrete steps have been taken since then?
The Solicitor General
I thank the hon. Member for raising the extremely important issue of child abuse. I will work with the Minister to respond to her in full on the points that she raises today.
Helen Grant
The campaign to introduce a child cruelty register has been led tirelessly by Paula Hudgell, the adoptive mother of 11-year-old Tony Hudgell. Sadly, Paula has now been diagnosed with terminal cancer. Tony was just 41 days old when his birth parents abused him so badly that he had to have both his legs amputated. Tony will live with the consequences of those injuries for the rest of his life. Will the Solicitor General agree to work, and at speed, with her colleagues in the Ministry of Justice? They seem keen to support Paula’s campaign, hopefully with an amendment to the Sentencing Bill in the House of Lords. We must take this opportunity to close this dangerous safeguarding gap so that all our children and families can be protected from repeat abusers.
The Solicitor General
I thank the hon. Member for raising the tragic case of Tony Hudgell. I know that his parents, along with the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who is no longer in his place, have campaigned tirelessly for Tony and his family. I am very sorry to hear about Paula’s diagnosis, and I am sure that the thoughts of the House are with her and the family. I will take this matter away and do everything I can, along with Home Office and Justice Ministers, and we will respond in full to the points raised by the hon. Lady.
Business of the House
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 17 November will include:
Monday 17 November—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill.
Tuesday 18 November—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.
Wednesday 19 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Border Security, Asylum And Immigration Bill, followed by Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Property (Digital Assets) Bill [Lords].
Thursday 20 November—Debate on a motion on the subject of international Men’s day, followed by debate on a motion on an injury in service award. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 21 November—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 24 November includes:
Monday 24 November—Remaining stages of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (day one).
Tuesday 25 November—Remaining stages of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (day two).
Wednesday 26 November—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver her Budget statement.
Thursday 27 November—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Friday 28 November—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 1 December includes:
Monday 1 December—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Tuesday 2 December—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
Jesse Norman
I am sure I speak for many Members when I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the whole of the Speaker’s Office for the work you have put in to make this past week of remembrance so memorable. The gardens of remembrance, the projection of images from the second world war on to the Elizabeth Tower, the wreath laying in Westminster Hall and much else—all these things, I know, took a huge amount of organisation, co-ordination and hard work, so I thank you and your office. I draw colleagues’ attention to the launch of the project to build the remembrance clock at the national arboretum, and hope that they will dig deep to support that.
In the spirit of exchanging news stories that have developed over the past two or three weeks, I will, if I may, set out a raft of intriguing items. Nine former four-star generals have condemned the Government’s treatment of veterans on Remembrance Day. One million more people than a year ago are now claiming universal credit without any requirement to look for a job. The Chancellor gave an unexpected early press conference—apparently to prepare people for major tax rises—and the Prime Minister acknowledged yesterday the rise in national insurance. Junior doctors have announced a five-day strike, starting tomorrow, in pursuit of a 26% pay rise, on top of the woefully inadequate—as they see it—29% received last year. No. 10 Downing Street has insisted that the Prime Minister has full confidence in Morgan McSweeney, and that he—or perhaps Mr McSweeney —will still be Prime Minister at the next election.
It has rightly been said that our country has moved from being post war to being pre-war. In recent weeks, we have seen a marked escalation of the conflict in Ukraine: Russian forces have made gains in and around the city of Pokrovsk, threatening to cut transport routes and displace thousands more civilians, and missile and drone attacks on energy and transport infrastructure have intensified, with serious consequences for Ukraine’s ability to sustain its economy through the winter. These developments follow reports of a significant increase in Russian arms production and continued circumvention of sanctions through covert oil and gas shipments. At the same time, international aid flows have slowed, and Ukrainian forces are facing actual or potential shortages of money, ammunition or equipment.
All that, I suggest, underlines the need for Parliament to take stock. Three years into the conflict, the nature of the war is shifting, and now demands renewed strategic co-ordination among Ukraine’s allies. In that context, I ask the Leader of the House to commit to keeping back 4 December for the Backbench debate on Ukraine requested by my brilliant hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and agreed by the Backbench Business Committee.
By my calculation, we have not had a general debate on Ukraine on the Floor of the House since February this year, and not on a substantive motion since 2023. The debate would allow the House to review the current worrying state of military preparedness and humanitarian situation, the position on frozen Russian financial assets held in Europe, the status of occupied territories that Russia wrongly claims for itself, and the Government’s approach to long-range defensive support and sanctions enforcement. Right hon. and hon. Members could examine the diplomatic context, test Government policy and cross-departmental co-ordination, and bring the diverse range of expertise and knowledge across the House to bear on a crucial issue facing the entire continent of Europe. Above all, it would allow this House of Commons, as an institution, to brief itself in full and demonstrate the strong sense of unity that exists in this country on the vital defence of our sovereign ally, Ukraine. The House has been steadfast in its support for Ukraine, and rightly so, but, as the conflict evolves, we must ensure our response evolves with it. It is possible that the Leader of the House’s genius for prognostication and intelligence-gathering may have already caused him to form a supportive view of this request, but, if not, I ask very much that he have the Government make time on 4 December for that timely and important debate.
Sir Alan Campbell
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, sorry. It is very early in the day.
I thank the shadow Leader of the House for his remarks. I join him in thanking you, Mr Speaker, and indeed all House staff, for this week’s work on remembrance events, which provide an opportunity for us, not just as a House but as a nation, to come together each year to pay collective tribute to those who have served and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. I also join the shadow Leader of the House in drawing the attention of Members to the remembrance clock at the National Memorial Arboretum, which will serve as a permanent memorial to MPs, peers, journalists and staff who died in war, conflict, and because of acts of terrorism. Mr Speaker, I know that you and the Lord Speaker have written to Members regarding this, but I join the shadow Leader of the House in suggesting that, where possible, colleagues may wish to contribute to that fund.
I also draw attention to the fact that the Government have today published their response to the UK Commission on Covid Commemoration, setting out plans to mark that period in our nation’s history. My thoughts, and those of the Government, are with the many families who suffered the devastating loss of a loved one during that time. I know that there are members of Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice in Parliament today, and we thank them for all they do to provide support to others in their grief. The commemorative programme will ensure that, as a country, we do not forget.
This month also marks a number of important awareness campaigns. November is Men’s Mental Health Month, which raises awareness, tackles stigma surrounding men’s mental health and encourages men to seek help and support when they need it. We also recognise Islamophobia Awareness Month. Islamophobia has no place in our society; the Government are clear that we must challenge and eradicate all forms of Islamophobia and ensure that everyone feels safe in their community.
I will come to the shadow Leader of the House’s points in a moment, but I am sure the whole House will join me in welcoming the Transport Secretary’s announcement yesterday about plans aimed at reducing long waiting lists for driving tests and preventing slots being sold on at inflated prices. That is good news as not only do many of our constituents take a keen interest in the issue, but many Members across the House have raised it during business questions and on other parliamentary occasions. It is evidence, if we needed it, that the Government are listening to those concerns and are taking action.
I will turn now to the shadow Leader of the House’s remarks and, to some extent, put aside his knockabout—except to point out, of course, that it is true that more people are moving across to universal credit, because it was always planned that people would move across in the new system. There is no great surprise there.
On the more serious point that the right hon. Gentleman raises, we stand firm in our support for Ukraine and its sovereignty. I am talking not just about this Government but this House: it is important that we get an opportunity to discuss these matters. I will take seriously his reasonable request that we have a debate—certainly before the end of this year—because the Government do stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Ukraine. We have a good record of bringing the matter back to the House, particularly through statements, so that the House is updated on any developments, but I do want to give the House an opportunity to debate the matter more fully.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Two families in High Green in my constituency have now waited two years for a scheme of works to their social houses, which was originally estimated to take just 12 weeks. This is completely unacceptable. I visited them last week and saw that the work that has been completed is substandard, creating damp and mould issues and causing damage to property and personal possessions. This has left families with a horrific impact on their wellbeing and mental health. As the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 has now become law, will the Leader of the House tell me how I can secure a meeting with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to discuss how he can further empower Sheffield city council to hold contractors to account under the new decent homes standard in that Act, to enable the works to finally be completed to a high standard for my constituents in High Green?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a doughty advocate for her constituents. This sounds like an untenable situation for some of her constituents. She is absolutely right to say that the Renters’ Rights Act will transform the experience of private renting, and we have also brought Awaab’s law into force in the social rented sector. I will ensure that she gets a meeting with a Minister, so that she can make her case directly and find out more about what the Government intend.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I join the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House in thanking you and all the staff for playing a role in organising the remembrance events of the past week?
I, too, would like to focus on Ukraine this week. Russia’s war is rumbling on and we are about to enter a long and cold winter, in which it looks like temperatures will drop below minus 20°C. We hear that Vladimir Putin has a vicious plot to attack the energy infrastructure of Ukraine, threatening the heat supply to the very homes in which families are trying to survive. As Russia makes advances, it feels like Britain and its allies have reached a bit of a stalling point. We are standing around worrying whether it is legitimate to seize Russian assets, and we are worried about potential future legal claims by the Russian state. All the while, Putin is pouring petrol into his war machine. I feel that the time for deliberation is surely over. Several legal routes have been proposed, and it is now time to act.
In the meantime, one of the weapons that we have in our armoury is the sanctions regime against Russia. It is important not only to impose these sanctions, but to enforce them. It was quite shocking to learn this week that the Government were unable to explain why over £30 million-worth of Russian planes were imported into the UK. I note that the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation is much smaller than its equivalents in the US and the EU. In the debate that we may have about Ukraine before the end of the year, I wonder whether we could focus on the role of OFSI and determine whether it is adequate, and whether it has the resources to properly deal with the scale and importance of the UK sanctions regime.
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman is right: addressing Ukraine’s financial needs is vital to ensuring that the Ukrainians can continue to defend themselves against Russian aggression. I can confirm that the UK is determined to make progress on this issue at pace, but I am sure he understands that it involves working with other partners in this regard. There is no intention not to move at pace, but other people are involved in this discussion as well. Regardless of whether Russia has a plot for a new stage in the campaign or not, we continue to bolster Ukraine’s armed forces and to increase pressure on Russia to come to the negotiating table, because we all want to see an end to the conflict.
The hon. Gentleman mentions sanctions. We are pleased that the United States has joined the UK in sanctioning Lukoil and Rosneft, which is very important, but as he points out, it is important that we enforce those sanctions. He raises some interesting points about whether the regime is robust enough. If we are to have a debate before the end of the year, this is the very sort of thing that he might want to raise himself.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
Children and adults across Stourbridge and the wider Black Country are being prevented from accessing vital care and support because all new shared care agreements have been stopped since the start of September. The Black Country integrated care board has placed the blame on GP surgeries, but I have since discovered that this was at the instruction of the ICB. With some children out of school and some adults out of work without further support, does the Leader of the House agree that ICBs need to prioritise funding for these patients, not leave them waiting any longer?
Sir Alan Campbell
Yes, I do agree. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that everyone has access to the care and support they need, and we recognise that demand for such support has grown nationally, which is one of the reasons why we have invested over £1 billion in special educational needs and disabilities to create a system that supports every child. However, as the House will know, we intend to take this matter forward with a consultation and ultimately legislation. The ADHD taskforce published its final report last week, and I will ensure that the House is updated on the Government response.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Chairman sends his apologies for his absence today. When we met on Tuesday, the Committee again had great difficulty in allocating time to the many applications that we are receiving. I make the usual plea to the Leader of the House for as much time as possible so that we can accommodate all the various applications. I welcome his acknowledgment of the need for an early debate on Ukraine, which came before the Committee on Tuesday via an application from my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin).
In addition to the debates that the Leader of the House has announced in the Chamber next week, in Westminster Hall there will be a debate on Tuesday 18 November on the 80th anniversary of UNESCO, and debates on Thursday 20 November on inequalities faced by unpaid carers and World COPD—chronic obstructive lung disease—Day. I urge Members who want debates to coincide with specific events to apply early, because we are now looking to allocate time for debates in February and March.
Turning to my own question to the Leader of the House, yesterday—I am sure along with many other Members—I attended the drop-in session organised by Samaritans and the Centre for Countering Digital Hate. I was shown the template letters produced by AI that, in effect, encourage particularly young and vulnerable people to consider suicide, which is an appalling state of affairs. I recognise that Ministers are looking at all aspects of the digital world and so on, but I am sure the whole House agrees that we must take urgent action to combat this. I hope the Leader of the House will arrange a statement by a Minister on how the Government intend approaching it.
Sir Alan Campbell
On the question of Backbench Business, the hon. Member will know that I have committed to making sure that the Committee has the time it needs. He will also know that this is a busy time of the year: there is plenty of legislation, not least the Bills coming back from the other place, and we are approaching Budget season. However, I take very seriously the points he makes because inevitably the issues that Members want to raise are serious matters.
On the hon. Member’s second point, I thank him not just for raising that question, but for the tone in which he raised it. He has done a lot of work on these matters, which are incredibly serious because of their impact on our constituents. I, too, commend Samaritans, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate and all other organisations that support people on these issues. I will ensure that he gets a response from the relevant Minister on what we intend to do to combat this matter, and if it is appropriate, a statement to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. To help the House, I am going to run business questions until 11.45 am, as we have a lot of business today. If we can speed up the questions and answers, I hope we will get nearly everybody in. I call Baggy Shanker to give the best example.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
ASG’s 100-strong Derby workforce show exactly why we are a proud city of makers, but the Jaguar Land Rover cyber-attack has left them on a cliff edge with no certainty of work. Does my right hon. Friend recognise the vital importance of companies such as ASG across the supply chain, and does he agree that we must do as much as we can to help prevent such cyber-attacks?
Sir Alan Campbell
Yes, I do recognise that. Cyber-security is a key priority for the Government. We are working with the National Cyber Security Centre to provide businesses, including the companies my hon. Friend talks about, with the tools, advice and support they need to protect themselves against cyber-attacks. The Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill was introduced to Parliament yesterday. It will ensure that the UK is better protected to face down cyber-criminals and state-backed actors.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House encourage the Health Secretary to break off from his leadership bid to come to the House for a few minutes to explain what progress is being made on ensuring that Knutsford gets the new medical centre that health professionals, the public and I believe is essential?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Health Secretary is no stranger to coming to this House to update it on the excellent work that he and his Department are doing. I do not have knowledge of this specific case and I wonder whether it is one of those centres that was promised by the previous Government when the money did not exist, but I will draw it to the attention of the Health Secretary. Perhaps the right hon. Lady may wish to meet him to make the case herself.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the words from the Leader of the House about the covid memorial response. Last Friday in my constituency, I met some bereaved families, led ably by my constituent Lynn Jones, whose husband Gareth sadly passed away. We are working on a local covid memorial in Stoke-on-Trent. May I encourage the Leader of the House to hold a statement on today’s announcement, so that this House can remember the names and the lives of those who are lost, and explore with the relevant Minister how the aspiration set out today can be translated into memorials up and down the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
I think we should go one stage further and have a debate, perhaps through a Backbench Business debate or an Adjournment debate, so that not only can a Minister go through what has been announced, but, because these issues affect every Member of this House, we are all able to raise relevant constituency cases as the House comes together to remember what were very, very dark days.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Queen Elizabeth’s Foundation for Disabled People, a charity based in my constituency with nationwide partners, has been active for over 90 years. It has gone into administration and is now on day three of a 28-day wind down, causing severe disruption to the 20,000 disabled people a year it supports. One family member told me that she has not slept properly since hearing that the charity will close. The organisation has treated 132 NHS patients in the past year, and there will be an overall loss of 48 NHS beds. The NHS has agreed to buy the building, but it will not be using it immediately. Another offer from a separate charity would allow it to keep operating, but its hands are tied by the Pension Protection Fund. Does the Leader of the House agree that the Government must urgently set out plans to save this essential service for disabled people, rescue 250 jobs and meet urgently in the next week to discuss the situation?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will draw this issue to the attention of the relevant Health Minister to make sure the hon. Lady gets the response she needs.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
Special educational needs families in Bolsover and across Derbyshire are let down by our dire education services that were ripped to ruin by the Tories and are now being failed by Reform. I met families earlier this year and heard heartbreaking stories of how they and their babies are being let down. It was horrendous. They are being ignored by the Reform council: letters are not being responded to and cases are not being progressed. Children are out of education as a result. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that Reform Derbyshire county council must improve its special educational needs services and deliver for children across Derbyshire?
Sir Alan Campbell
Yes, I do. I said in an earlier answer that the Government take SEN reform very seriously indeed, because the system is broken. However, it is even worse where local authorities have a responsibility to do better and they do not do it. Typically of Reform, it over-offers and underachieves. I hope it gets the powerful message that my hon. Friend has delivered today.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House and others for pressing the case for a Backbench Business debate on Ukraine. I also thank the Leader of the House for considering the matter favourably. May I just emphasise the importance of having a motion on the Order Paper for such a debate that raises particular issues such as the missing children, the atrocities, the need for long-range weaponry and the need for increased sanctions? The conflict is at a tipping point and a clear, united statement of solidarity with Ukraine would be an important message to send from this House to Ukraine, to our allies, and to our adversaries.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way he raises this matter. I will give a commitment that if we are able to find time for this debate, I will speak to him and those on his Front Bench to ensure that if the House agrees to the motion in that debate, which I suspect it will, it will be one of unity across the House.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Last week I had the privilege of visiting Hitchin boys’ school to listen to pupils across the year groups debating how we could do more to protect them from online harm, and I think we could probably learn some things from their thoughtful, considerate and informed approach. The debate was informed by some deep and troubling testimony about the risks they have been exposed to online. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the pupils on having such a fantastic discussion on this important topic, and could we have a debate here about what more the Government can do to protect young people right across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating the pupils of Hitchin boys’ school, who were discussing a topic of huge importance. The Online Safety Act 2023 provides stronger protection for children, and we have launched a study into the effects of smartphone and social media use on children. My hon. Friend may wish to seek a debate in order to make those points to the whole House.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
We are in a farming emergency with the family farm tax, the early cutting off of the sustainable farming incentive and the watering down of measures to prevent equipment theft from farms, yet this morning, Members across the House who wanted to question Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs were unable to do so because the Government persist in keeping DEFRA questions at just 40 minutes. Will the Leader of the House look at extending DEFRA questions to a full hour so that rural communities are not left behind?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will look at the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion, but as he knows, if one thing expands, something else is squeezed. I will look at that, but it might not be as easy as he suggests.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
Last week during International Trade Week, my dear and hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and I jointly hosted a regional export trade seminar for businesses from across south Wales. As proud trade envoys, we were delighted to work with the Department for Business and Trade to offer Welsh small and medium-sized enterprises the opportunity to learn more about export opportunities and the support available. Will the Leader of the House join us in thanking DBT colleagues, Ministers and the businesses that attended for their commitment to ensuring that the UK is front and centre of global trade markets?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade for their excellent work and thank the businesses for taking part, because they are the key to growing our economy. I also place on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend and our other trade envoys for their excellent work.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Sixteen years of Conservative mismanagement of Shropshire council combined with successive Governments’ failures to understand the needs of rural local authorities have left Shropshire council with a dire financial emergency and in need of exceptional financial support. The situation is critical. Can the Leader of the House assist me in arranging a meeting with the relevant Secretary of State and MPs for Shropshire so that we can press the Secretary of State to ensure that Shropshire receives that support?
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the appalling environmental pollution incident at Camber Sands in East Sussex last week. A few days later, we also had huge sewage dumps in the seas around my constituency, leaving beaches in Ramsgate and Broadstairs effectively unusable. Not only do these incidents have appalling impacts on nature, but they affect people’s confidence in using the sea for health, wellbeing and enjoyment all year round. Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate in Government time on the economic impact of water quality—poor water quality in particular—on our coastal towns and seaside resorts?
Sir Alan Campbell
As a coastal MP, I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s concern about the state of not just the seas, but our rivers and lakes, and the terrible legacy that we inherited. We are taking action to clean our waterways up through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. My hon. Friend may wish to apply for a debate—perhaps Backbench Business or Adjournment—both to make those points and to allow colleagues to speak about their experiences.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
Residents of Northpoint in Bromley have suffered eight years of disruption and uncertainty due to work to replace cladding on their building. There is a case of serious water ingress, and they have now been waiting four months for a response from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to see if any subsequent work can be funded by the aluminium composite material remediation fund. Can we have a debate on how we can protect leaseholders and ensure that they do not suffer disruption like my residents in Bromley?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will make sure that I draw that to the attention of MHCLG Ministers. If an answer is awaited, I will make sure that residents get the answer, and perhaps Ministers can explain to the hon. Member what further steps we intend to take.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
Women and girls living with endometriosis are waiting on average nine years for a full diagnosis. That is almost a decade of pain, uncertainty and endurance before they receive the targeted support that they need. Would the Leader of the House agree that the soon-to-be-renewed women’s health strategy must get a grip of these appalling wait times and ensure that all women affected are heard and finally prioritised?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do agree. It is a debilitating and life-altering condition. As my hon. Friend said, our renewed women’s health strategy will set out our longer-term vision. Members from across the House will have concerns about this issue, so my hon. Friend may want to seek a Backbench Business or Adjournment debate.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Ella’s law—the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill—will now not get its Second Reading on 21 November, despite wide cross-party support. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Government make time on Fridays or at other times for more of the most vital private Members’ Bills, such as Ella’s law, or could they adopt the measures into their own Bills—for example the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill?
Sir Alan Campbell
The House will know that we have had the allocation of 13 sitting Fridays, but if certain reasons were brought forward—if, for example, amendments might have been made to Bills in the Lords—the Government may have an open mind about what sitting Fridays might look like. I also think there is a debate to be had about how we deal with private Members’ Bills, if I am honest. I cannot comment on whether the measures are appropriate to be incorporated into Government legislation, but the hon. Member may wish to draw that to the attention of the appropriate Department.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
Many of my constituents use the Warburton toll bridge to get to work, visit family and go about their everyday lives. However, residents in Irlam and Cadishead have been arbitrarily excluded from the local resident discount scheme, meaning that they have to pay the full price while many who live further from the bridge receive a 50% discount. To date, Peel Ports has not responded to inquiries I have made on constituents’ behalf. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time on the need to ensure that where essential infrastructure is in private hands, appropriate oversight is in place and local needs are properly considered?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I understand his constituents’ frustration if they rely on the bridge in their daily lives. The Government believe that local infrastructure should work for the community that it serves, and I will ensure that the relevant Minister hears about this issue.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
The Meriden gap is a vital route for migrating wildlife, and it is under huge threat from the Government’s planning agenda and the dubiously vague definition of grey belt. My constituents in villages such as Balsall Common and Berkswell have already made huge sacrifices for projects like HS2. Now villages such as Hockley Heath, Dorridge, Knowle, Marston Green and Meriden are all under significant threat. Will the Leader of the House please write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and try to figure out how we can protect vital routes like the Meriden gap and while not increasing the housing burden when my constituents have already made significant sacrifices?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will draw that to the attention of the Secretary of State, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a balance, which the Government want to achieve, between protecting nature and making sure that we have the houses this country needs.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
During Remembrance Week we rightly honour the service and sacrifice of our armed forces and their families. Children from armed forces families often face unique challenges in education and mobility, yet data on their outcomes and experiences remains limited. There is a need for better recognition of service children in education policy, for improved national data collection and for sustained funding for the professionals supporting them. Will the Leader of the House allocate time for a debate on ensuring that service children receive whole-person, whole-journey support and evidence-based investment to help them thrive?
Sir Alan Campbell
Children of armed forces families do face unique challenges. The Government are aware of this and recognise that we can do better by them than has been done in the past. This would be a good subject for a debate so that Members across the House can share experiences and Ministers can learn more about the way forward.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
In June, I met the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), to press the Government to adopt the measures in my Chalk Streams (Sewerage Investment) Bill. I was delighted by her commitments, namely that she would investigate whether Ministers already had the powers to instruct water companies to prioritise pipe upgrades in chalk streams and, in any event, would write to those water companies and ask them to do so. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Minister to produce a written statement to update the House on that work?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will ensure that the hon. Lady gets the update that she seeks.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
When the last Government allowed the sale of Royal Mail to billionaire Daniel Kretinsky’s company, they maintained a golden share, which I now ask Government to use. Services are less frequent, outsourced workers are handling parcels and postal workers feel devalued, with their traditional Christmas stamps downgraded to second class. Will the Leader of the House ask the Business Secretary to make a statement on Royal Mail, a service that should be renationalised, and ensure that our postal workers get their first-class stamps because they are simply first class?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the work of our postal workers and I join her in paying tribute to the dedication that they show particularly at this time of the year, but also throughout the year. I understand the disappointment that workers will feel at that decision and I will ensure that Ministers hear her concerns.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is in the business statement. Does the Leader of the House accept that that will cause concern for many members of the armed forces and the veterans community, who are worried that in years to come they may be judged by the standards of the day rather than the standards that applied when they were engaged in doing the state’s business? Does he further recognise that there is good evidence now that people are leaving the armed forces, and certain parts of the armed forces in particular, because of those concerns? Will he also ensure that adequate time is provided on Second Reading and in Committee to assure the House that steps are being taken to remove that threat to national security?
Sir Alan Campbell
We are acutely aware of the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman raises. That is why we are bringing forward a Bill to replace legislation that was either illegal or unfit for purpose, or both. May I say that my hon. Friend, the former Veterans Minister who is now the Armed Forces Minister has done an excellent job of raising those matters at the heart of Government and seeking to reassure colleagues on them? As the right hon. Gentleman points out, we are bringing forward the legislation and we will ensure that there is adequate time so those matters can be debated properly.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
It is the time of year when people are saving for Christmas, which is a reminder that, years ago, thousands of savers lost tens of millions of pounds when the Christmas savings scheme Farepak collapsed, highlighting a big gap in consumer protection. May we have an opportunity in this House to highlight how finally, under this Government, new regulations will come in from January 2026 due in no small part to my constituent, the former Farepak agent Deb Harvey, working with the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders)? They have been campaigning for years. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking them for helping to ensure that something like that does not happen again?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am pleased to hear about the successful campaigning by my hon. Friend’s constituent and to thank her for drawing the attention of successive Governments to these issues. I want to repeat what she has said: well done, Deb Harvey.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
May I thank the Leader of the House for what he said about reforms to the driving test booking system? I add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) said about DEFRA questions. I wanted to raise the case of Susan Robinson and Maria La Femina, who asked me about sludge use in agriculture and what had happened with the regulations, but for the second or third DEFRA questions, I was not able to get in. It really would be worth considering whether we can extend DEFRA questions to the full hour, so that all colleagues would have the opportunity to keep trying to catch Mr Speaker’s eye.
Mr Speaker
I think it is important, and it might also help if Front-Bench Members asked quicker questions and gave quicker answers—not on this one, though.
Sir Alan Campbell
I have nothing to add to what I said earlier about the timing and length of questions, but the right hon. Gentleman has raised that concern. If he gives me further details, I will draw the matter to the attention of Ministers now, rather than wait for change.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I am pleased that so many nominations are rolling in for my fifth annual Luton South and South Bedfordshire small business awards. There are two weeks to go—keep nominating. Many of our small businesses are in the retail sector, and retail businesses make up 4.5% of our economy, but too many retail workers face terrible threats and abuse in the workplace. Will the Leader of the House join me in supporting the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers’ Respect for Shop Workers Week this week and its “Freedom from Fear” campaign to ensure that all retail workers feel safe at work?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are committed to supporting small businesses—they are the backbone of our local communities. At the end of this month, we will mark Small Business Saturday, which gives us a further opportunity to celebrate the small businesses in our communities. I join my hon. Friend in supporting and praising USDAW’s powerful campaign over a long period of time, because it is vital that hard-working retail staff are treated with respect. That is one of the reasons why we are taking action through our Crime and Policing Bill to safeguard staff from assault.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Given that the town of Runcorn in my constituency is the 16th most deprived town in the country, does the Leader of the House not agree that investing in education and young people’s futures is key to changing that statistic? Therefore, may we have a debate in Government time on new higher education facilities in areas like mine?
Sir Alan Campbell
Improving educational opportunity, including through further education, is absolutely at the heart of what the Government are about in every constituency, not just the hon. Member’s. She might want not just to raise this issue in Education questions, but to call for a debate of her own so that she can further the case.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Bassetlaw’s Member of the Youth Parliament Cameron Holt had one ambition, and that was for financial literacy to be included in the national curriculum. He has been formidable in lobbying the Government and travelling up and down the country to speak in schools and on regional and national TV. The announcement that the national curriculum review will have a new requirement for financial education is welcome. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Cameron for his persistence and hard work?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Cameron on his hard work—he sounds like a remarkable young man. He is absolutely right to put the effort in. These are crucial skills to master, and we want to reform the curriculum to improve financial literacy, starting from an early age, to help children and young people prepare for the modern world.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I wonder if the Leader of the House could help me. We have heard of the concerns about special education needs from Members across the House. My constituency has them, too—the issue fills my inbox. He mentioned that there will be a consultation and a White Paper; the problem is that there is anxiety because they have been delayed. Will he write to the Department to ask for a timetable to be set out, because in my constituency we are seeing an increase in education, health and care plans owing to people’s concern that they may go. There is real anxiety at the moment, and I urge him to help.
Sir Alan Campbell
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the concern that parents in particular will have, but I gently point out that his Government had 14 years to put this right. Therefore, when this Government are taking the issue head-on, which we are, it does take a little bit of time to get it right. We are absolutely conscious of the need for every child to get the support they need as soon as possible, and we are working on a timetable and on what that means.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
On the matter of remembrance, my constituent Frank Turvey’s brother was Lance Corporal Brian Turvey, nicknamed “Topsy”. He was just 20 years of age when he was killed in a terrorist attack in Famagusta on 4 May 1958 while on military police duties in Cyprus, just one day before he was due to return to the UK on leave. Lance Corporal Cameron also lost his life in the same ambush. Frank remembers his mum making a cake to celebrate his brother’s return when the officer turned up at their family home to inform them of the tragic news. Will the Leader of the House join me in remembering Lance Corporal Brian Turvey and Lance Corporal Cameron and their ultimate sacrifice for this country?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for raising this matter and for remembering Lance Corporal Turvey and Lance Corporal Cameron and, indeed, all those young men and women who have lost their lives defending our country. Remembrance Day is, of course, an opportunity to remember, but for the families concerned, every day will be a day to remember. On how we can commemorate that going forward, I hope Defence Ministers will listen to what he says about what further measures we can take to remember such sacrifice.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I declare an interest: an employee of mine works for the company that I am about to mention, although they have not been affected by the action taken.
That company is video game publisher Rockstar Games, which has fired at least 30 employees across its UK studios, including Rockstar North in Edinburgh. Several of my constituents have been directly affected, and some came to express their concerns to me last week. They claim that they have been sacked because they were trying to unionise and discuss working conditions in private. Rockstar accused them of distributing confidential information and sacked them for gross misconduct. I have written to Rockstar to ask for information on this matter, but I wonder whether I might have a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss what steps can be taken to support the workforce, and to ask what action the Government are taking—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please. Does the hon. Member want to prevent other Members from getting in, because that is what she is doing? These questions finish at 11.45 am. I think the Leader of the House must have got a grip of the question.
Sir Alan Campbell
The sector that the hon. Lady talks about is important to the growth of the economy, but so too are rights at work. Successful companies are those that give decent rights and conditions to the people they employ. I will raise this matter with Ministers and see what action, if any, can be taken to resolve it.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
In the summer, I led a Backbench Business debate to mark the fifth anniversary of the covid pandemic. One of our asks was for a database that properly records all the covid memorials around the country. I am delighted that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has launched today an online interactive map that does exactly that. I join the Leader of the House in congratulating Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK, which has done so much to keep victims’ memories alive. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the data released today is circulated to all hon. Members so that it can be promoted in our constituencies and all our local memorials can be properly recorded?
Sir Alan Campbell
I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Since coming to this place, I have struggled to find out how much money the UK Government are putting into the A75 road, which runs right through my constituency. I was astonished to find that a Labour candidate had said on social media that the figure was £8.5 million. I asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether that figure was correct—it was not. I was also told on social media that Anas Sarwar, the leader of the Labour party in Scotland, was responsible for that figure. Can the Leader of the House help me get to the bottom of this constitutional crisis, in which someone in another Parliament pulls the strings in this one?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am not sure that it is a constitutional crisis, but I will help the hon. Gentleman to get to the bottom of how much is being committed. I am pretty sure that it is a lot more than the previous Government committed.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
This week, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology made the very welcome announcement that animal testing in science is set to be phased out faster, delivering on the Government’s manifesto pledge to strengthen animal welfare. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that, as well as delivering on that pledge, we must now deliver on the related manifesto commitment to end the foxhunting smokescreen and ban trail hunting as soon as possible? To that end, will he help me to secure a meeting with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss the timetable?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the Government’s announcement of our ambitious programme for animal welfare—the most ambitious in a generation. I assure him that we remain committed to banning trail hunting; we will consult on how to deliver the ban in the new year. I will ensure that he gets a meeting with Ministers.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
More than 50 countries have endorsed the tropical forests scheme launched at COP30 in Brazil. It is one of the most significant global initiatives to protect tropical forests. The UK’s decision not to contribute is a shocking failure in emissions reduction, international nature finance and our relationships with South America. Might we have a debate about the important need for the Government to revisit and reverse that decision before the end of COP30?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman can seek either an Adjournment debate—that is probably the best route —or a Backbench Business debate to raise those matters and have a Minister set out why that decision was made, if what he says is accurate.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Today marks the start of Transgender Awareness Week. I express my solidarity with and respect for the trans community in Aylesbury. When I met a local LGBTQ+ group recently, we discussed the urgent need to end the harmful practice of conversion therapy. Labour committed to doing so in our manifesto, so will the Leader of the House update me on when that matter will be given parliamentary time?
Sir Alan Campbell
We are committed to bringing forward legislation to ban these abusive practices. It was, as my hon. Friend says, and is a key manifesto commitment. I cannot give her an exact time, but when the legislation does come forward, there will be plenty of time for debate on the matters that she raises.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
My constituents continue to suffer from the dither, delay and ineptitude of Transport for London and the Mayor, as the rebuilding of the Gallows Corner junction, which was originally meant to be completed in September, is now delayed to the spring. This is causing chaos in Essex and on the eastern side of London. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Transport to take over this project, so that everyone can get on with their life and travel freely through this junction?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will raise the issue with the Transport Secretary, to see how it can be resolved.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
My constituent Michelle would like to move closer to her children, but as a leaseholder, she is trapped in her property. There is only a short term remaining on her lease, and she has tried to extend it, but the freeholder is demanding a sum that is disproportionate to the property value. On top of that, she would have to cover the freeholder’s administrative fees, making the cost entirely unaffordable. For constituents like Michelle, who are essentially subject to the whim of the freeholder, leasehold reform could not be more urgent. Can the Leader of the House ask the relevant Minister to provide an update on the Government’s plans to fix the broken freehold system?
Sir Alan Campbell
We are committed to making commonhold the default tenure for flats, and bringing the feudal leaseholder system to an end. I will ensure that the House is kept updated as we publish the consultation on banning leasehold for new flats and the draft commonhold and leasehold reform Bill later this year.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Coeliac disease impacts one in 100 people, yet ability to access gluten-free food on prescription is a postcode lottery. For Ted and his mother, who live in Redbourn, that means they miss out, and they have seen costs go up by 40%. Can we have time to talk about the postcode lottery for prescriptions, including for those with coeliac disease?
Sir Alan Campbell
I advise the hon. Lady to seek an Adjournment or a Backbench Business debate on that. As a gluten-free person, I assure her that I appreciate the points that she raises.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Like many MPs across the House, I am sure, I have been inundated with correspondence from concerned constituents on the issue of fireworks, be it about their use in antisocial behaviour, the impact on household pets, or the severe distress that they can cause to the vulnerable, including veterans. The status quo is clearly not acceptable. While I support organised firework events, does the Leader of the House agree that it is time to review all the legislation in this area, and will he grant a debate in Government time on this issue?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure every MP has had correspondence on this, particularly in recent weeks—it is a real issue at this time of year. It is important, however, that the debate and any measures brought forward on fireworks are proportionate. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a good time for a debate, and he might wish to seek either a Backbench Business or an Adjournment debate on the subject, so that others can share their experience.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My constituent Evelyn Armstrong, aged 104, has recently been awarded France’s highest military honour, the Légion d’honneur, for the vital role she played as a plotter and flight controller in the second world war, when she served in the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force. She is truly an amazing woman. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Evelyn, and can we have a debate on honouring the service of our wartime heroes?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Evelyn Armstrong, who has been awarded the Légion d’honneur. I also want to acknowledge the way in which the French Government recognise the role of servicemen and women from other countries who helped to liberate France during the second world war. We had an opportunity to discuss that earlier this week, but I am sure there will be further opportunities to talk about that remarkable generation in the months to come.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I was recently contacted by a constituent about Greater Manchester integrated care partnership funding an autism assessment for his son. After waiting eight months, my constituent was informed that his chosen provider’s funding had been cut by the ICP. With his GP’s help, he was able to transfer to a different provider, whose funding has also been cut, and his application is now on hold, with no timetable for a resolution. Given the current NHS waiting times for autism assessment, can we have a debate in Government time on the steps being taken to ensure that children get the reviews they need?
Sir Alan Campbell
As I said earlier, we are acutely aware of this issue, which is why we are bringing forward proposals to fundamentally alter the special educational needs and disabilities system, but I will raise my hon. Friend’s concerns with Ministers to see what further action can be taken to assist his constituent.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House consider setting aside Government time for a debate on regenerating coastal communities, so that we can properly consider issues facing towns like Sandown on the Isle of Wight, including transport connectivity, pressure on tourism, derelict buildings and declining high streets?
Sir Alan Campbell
As a coastal MP, I absolutely endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said, and if people want to see fantastic regeneration in action, they should come to Whitley Bay. That was the result of the previous Labour Government’s funding and commitment, but the hon. Gentleman’s Government continued it, and it is important that this Government continue it too, as we intend to. This is a really good topic. There are lots of coastal MPs in this place, and I am sure that a debate on the issue, if he sought one from the Backbench Business Committee, would be timely.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I was pleased to attend the opening of new mental health facilities at Kingsway hospital in Derby. It marks a huge step forward in the care available for local people, and gives patients greater dignity, privacy, and the support of the surroundings that they need on their journey to recovery. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all those involved in delivering that fantastic project, and will he find time for a debate on how we can continue to improve mental health provision across the country, particularly for adults requiring acute care?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter, which is of absolute importance to the Government in the work that they are doing. I join her in congratulating everyone involved in the project that she mentions, as well as those doing fantastic work in quite difficult circumstances across our country. I am sure that in future there will be a debate in which she can discuss the matter further.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Residents in Chichester living on managed estates have written to me about the exploitative practices of estate management companies, and the service charges that they are charged for work that is funded but never delivered. Fees more than double year on year, and residents have no power to challenge those companies. Will the Leader of the House urgently make time for a debate on the subject, so that we can finally improve outcomes for those residents in Chichester and across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
As the hon. Lady says, this is an issue not just in Chichester, but across the country. She will know that we are looking at a range of measures—on planning, leasehold reform and everything else—to ensure that we do not get the terrible cases that we did in the past of people who move to estates being held to ransom.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I am sure that Members from across the House will want to thank volunteers and members of the Royal British Legion for their exemplary work in recent weeks. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Keith Richardson, and members of the Carlisle and Stanwix branch of the Royal British Legion, for organising an inspiring number of events in my Carlisle constituency, including, frankly, with respect to the Royal Albert Hall, the best festival of remembrance?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in thanking Keith Richardson and everyone involved in the Royal British Legion in her proud and beautiful city. The work that they do is important for the local community, and it is replicated by so many people across this country.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The decision by Liberal Democrats on Somerset council to cancel the Cross Rifles roundabout upgrade in Bridgwater has left residents facing severe congestion. Combined with a new one-way system on Salmon Parade and East Quay, it has left Bridgwater gridlocked, and my constituents now face longer and more costly journeys. One resident, Sadie, told me that because of the one-way system, her weekly taxi fare to the supermarket has risen from £7 to £20. May we have a debate on how we can hold councils to account when they cancel Government-funded infrastructure projects without offering an alternative for local people?
Sir Alan Campbell
Local infrastructure is so important, particularly to rural communities. I will draw this case to the attention of the Department for Transport, but in the business I have announced, and in proceedings on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, there might be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to raise the issue of how local authorities can be held to account for the decisions they make.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Hundreds of my West Dunbartonshire constituents, and thousands more across the country, were served notice of the termination of their family protection funeral plan by CMutual and Maiden Life UK. All are members of credit unions, and they are elderly and vulnerable. They have paid in thousands of pounds over the years, but will be left with absolutely nothing on 30 November. Will the Leader of the House agree to an urgent debate on the subject in Government time, and ask the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to conduct an urgent investigation?
Sir Alan Campbell
This is an important issue and a concerning situation, and I will draw it to the attention of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. My hon. Friend may get an opportunity to raise the issue during the Budget debate, for which there will be a lot of time.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Some of my constituents have had valuable property stolen from their homes during viewings, and have come to discover that the so-called potential buyers or tenants were not who they purported to be. Estate agents usually check the financial readiness and capacity of potential buyers and tenants, but can we have a debate on the need for estate agents to verify the names and addresses of the people they introduce to new properties, regardless of whether they will be accompanied to a viewing by the agent, so we can stop this brass-necked daylight robbery?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are looking at the whole subject of buying and selling houses, and this issue may be an interesting part of that. The hon. Lady may wish to write to the Minister about it.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Minky Homecare’s ironing board factory in Shawclough, in Rochdale, is the only one of its kind in the whole country. It provides high-quality British-made products and lots of vital local jobs. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that making, selling and buying British products is this Government’s priority, as we support our manufacturers across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
British businesses, like Minky Homecare, are vital to boosting the economy and creating jobs in my hon. Friend’s constituency—his home town—and he understands that perfectly. The Government are committed to supporting small businesses, wherever they are, in achieving their potential, and to unlocking investment and driving growth.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Earlier this week, there was a large accidental industrial fire on Pitt Street, in Keighley in my constituency. Nine fire crews attended, some coming from as far away as Mirfield in West Yorkshire. Unfortunately, one person was taken to hospital, and there was a huge amount of damage done to local buildings. My thoughts go out to all those affected by the fire, and I want to personally thank the emergency services for their work, and for acting so professionally. Could we have a debate in Government time about recognising our emergency services, and about what more support the Government can give to businesses that are impacted by such devastating fires?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to our emergency services, and we send our sympathies to those affected. If he seeks a Backbench Business debate or an Adjournment debate on the subject, he will be able to raise those points himself, but I gently point out that for the past 14 years, many services, particularly fire services, have been starved of the funding that they need, so he needs to understand that this is not a recent development.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Children in Need has been supporting disadvantaged young people for decades. This support is made possible by hard-working fundraisers up and down the country. Tomorrow night, 17-year-old Eloise from my constituency of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, one of East Ayrshire’s young carers, is throwing herself into a musical theatre challenge on skates, with the cast of “Starlight Express”. She is a brilliant example of community spirit. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the incredible contribution of East Ayrshire’s young carers, who balance caring responsibilities with school and everyday life?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am pleased to recognise the incredible contribution of East Ayrshire’s young carers, and young carers across the country, whose vital contribution sometimes goes unseen. I wish Eloise skating success with her musical theatre challenge.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Many of my constituents will be disappointed that small modular reactors will be going to Wylfa, not Oldbury, and disappointed too by the Government’s shambolic handling of the announcement. The news was leaked on Tuesday. The promised calls to me—first from the Minister, then from No. 10—failed to materialise yesterday, and the announcement was in the media this morning. There was no opportunity for this House to question Ministers. My constituents deserve to know more about the future of Oldbury, so will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on this process, in which a degree of contempt has been shown to my constituents?
Sir Alan Campbell
If the hon. Lady writes to me, I will look into what has happened in this situation and get an explanation. As she points out, her constituents have a right to know what will happen, and in a timely and organised fashion.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I was recently asked to visit a shop in my constituency that has suffered over 100 reported robberies since opening last November. These incidents not only involve theft, but threats and attacks on staff. This situation is unfolding against the backdrop of a significant reduction in police presence. The Glasgow division of Police Scotland has lost 218 local officers since 2017. Will the Leader of the House allocate time for a debate on the importance of policing in supporting and protecting local businesses?
Sir Alan Campbell
The protecting of local businesses by the police is very important, not just in Scotland but everywhere else. Policing is a matter for the Scottish Government, but what my hon. Friend describes sounds like an untenable situation, particularly for the business to which he referred. Scotland has had the biggest funding settlement for a very long time, so I hope the Scottish Government have heard his words.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Hon. Members who watched “Newsnight” last night will doubtless have been moved by Sir Michael Palin’s interview about his wife Helen’s final days and passing in a hospice. The package reveals what is known to many Members: the hospice crisis of funding, cuts and beds being closed. In the light of that, will the Leader of the House make time for Members to debate the crisis in our hospices, including the urgent need to reverse the Government’s increases in national insurance contributions and to ensure that hospices are finally fairly funded?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady will know that the changes in the Budget last year were to find the money to support public services, so these are not easy decisions by any means. I know that her concern about hospices and the fantastic work they do in our local communities is felt across the House. She may wish to seek a debate on this issue, because the Government will at that point be able to remind the House that we have in fact put in more resources; £100 million has gone into hospices in the last year.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Ahead of the Budget, will the Leader of the House allow a debate during Government time to discuss the potential economic benefits of releasing the British Coal staff superannuation scheme investment reserve in order to increase the pensions of members of the BCSSS?
Sir Alan Campbell
As the House will know, my hon. Friend has been a formidable champion for mineworkers in his constituency and their families, and I pay tribute to him for that. The Government continue to meet with BCSSS trustees, and I will certainly draw his question to the attention of Ministers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am deeply troubled by increasing reports of the Taliban’s crackdown on women’s education: more than 2.2 million Afghan girls have been banned from attending school beyond primary education. Will the Leader of the House urge the Foreign Secretary to outline what concrete actions the Government will take to ensure the reversal of the Taliban’s ban, so that Afghan girls can access their fundamental right to education?
Sir Alan Campbell
We absolutely condemn the appalling erosion of the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan. We have provided £151 million in aid programmes to provide lifesaving support for the most vulnerable people in the country, particularly for women and girls. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a reply from the Foreign Secretary to the very important points that he raises with his usual diligence and excellent tone.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. For those Members who did not get in, we will keep the list for next week.
Police Reform
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on police reform.
Let me begin by expressing my sadness at the passing of Baroness Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner. She was a champion for victims and made a huge difference, holding Government and agencies to account. I extend my sympathies to her family and friends, and I know that she will be a huge loss to the other place.
Last year, the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), informed the House of her intention to bring forward a White Paper on police reform. The White Paper will outline a programme of wide-ranging reforms that will drive quality, consistency and efficiency in policing to ensure that it is set up to deliver for the public. Ahead of publication, we are today announcing the first of those reforms.
In order for any institution or organisation to perform to the highest standards, it must be underpinned by strong, effective governance. That is all the more critical when the service in question is integral to the safe functioning of our society, as policing undoubtedly is. Police and crime commissioners have been in place since November 2012. The model was created to increase accountability and build a greater connection between policing and local communities by having a single public official, directly elected by the public, responsible for holding their chief constable to account, setting the local police budget and agreeing strategic priorities for their force through their local police and crime plan.
However, while the role of PCCs has evolved over time to include responsibility for commissioning services for victims, driving local partnerships and—in some areas—responsibility for fire governance, the model has failed to live up to expectations. It has not delivered what it was set up to achieve. Public understanding of, and engagement with, our police and crime commissioners remains low despite efforts to raise their profile; less than a quarter of voters turned out to vote for them in the 2024 elections, and two in five people are unaware that PCCs even exist. Home Office research conducted during the PCC review in 2020 found that 68% of the public in mayoral areas claimed that they could name their mayor, compared with only 16% of people in PCC areas claiming that they could name their PCC.
On an individual level, PCCs up and down the country have sought to provide strong oversight and drive crime prevention activity locally. I place on record my thanks to the individuals and staff in all the offices of police and crime commissioners and at the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners who have done, and will continue to do, their best to improve policing for their local communities. However, the reality is that the PCC model has weakened local police accountability and has had perverse impacts on the recruitment of chief constables. It has failed to inspire confidence in local people, in stark contrast to the mayoral model, which clearly has ultimately been more successful. The Theresa May model has not worked.
The Government announced in our English devolution White Paper that we will transfer policing functions to elected mayors in England by default wherever geographies allow. Five mayors now hold policing functions, in Greater Manchester, Greater London and across Yorkshire. In those areas, we have seen the benefits of the mayoral model, including greater collaboration, visible leadership and local innovation. We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to create as many strategic authority mayors with policing functions as possible in this Parliament. However, due to the nature of how public services are organised across different areas, the process of establishing mayors across England is a complex one.
I can therefore announce today that we will abolish police and crime commissioners at the end of their current term in 2028 and transfer functions to mayors wherever possible. In areas where plans do not yet allow for a transfer of policing to a mayor this Parliament, we will establish new policing and crime boards to bring council leaders together to oversee the police force in their area until such time as mayors are in place in England. Those boards will replicate the benefits of a mayoralty before the formal transfer can be realised, with in-built, local collaboration, public accountability and a greater ability to join up budgets and local services. They will comprise local authority upper-tier leaders, co-opted members with appropriate skills and experience, and—if they are in the force area—mayors.
Preventing crime is everyone’s business, and giving local leaders these responsibilities will help create thriving town centres, help businesses to succeed and help people to walk without fear in their communities. We are absolutely clear that these boards will not be a return to the bureaucratic and invisible committee-based oversight of policing that existed before the establishment of PCCs. We will ensure that council leaders are empowered to exercise police governance functions. Boards will be supported by a policing and crime lead, akin to a deputy mayor for policing and crime, to carry out day-to-day activities on their behalf. This will mean that every area will have a visible, nominated lead who will be dedicated to the oversight of policing in their area.
Over the coming months, we will work with local government and policing to design new structures that will provide effective oversight of policing. As part of these reforms, we will also work with those in local government and policing to drive down the support costs of policing governance. We will no longer run separate policing elections, and we will also abolish police and crime panels, the current structure that performs scrutiny functions for PCCs. We estimate that at least £100 million will be saved this Parliament by moving to these new arrangements. Once delivered, these changes are expected to achieve savings to the Home Office of around £20 million a year, enough to fund around 320 extra police constables. Further detail will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper, and we will bring forward the necessary legislation as part of our broader police reform proposals as soon as parliamentary time allows.
There are no plans to create mayors in Wales. We wish to harmonise arrangements across England and Wales as far as possible, and we will therefore work with the Welsh Government to ensure new arrangements to replace PCCs provide strong and effective police governance for Wales, recognising the unique nature of Welsh arrangements. I also clarify that these reforms will not affect governance arrangements for the City of London police, which is governed by the City corporation.
Before I conclude, I stress that the decision we are announcing today is based on the shortcomings of the PCC model, not the PCCs themselves. PCCs have done and continue to do important work, and I will engage constructively with all of them until the end of their terms. I specifically thank the chairs of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners past and present for their endeavours: Nick Alston, the late Sir Tony Lloyd, Mark Burns-Williamson, Katy Bourne, Paddy Tipping, Marc Jones, Donna Jones, and the current chair Emily Spurrell. We recognise that this is a significant change, especially for the policing and local government sectors, but it is necessary. As a Government, we have a responsibility to do what is right for our communities. If there are steps we can take to improve outcomes for law-abiding citizens, we must act, because in the end, whatever police reform measures we pursue, our primary motivation is, and will always be, to keep the public safe. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. The Minister mentioned at the beginning the Government’s plans to bring forward a police reform White Paper. That was announced, from memory, about a year ago, but there has not been a single sniff of that White Paper. Can she tell us when we can expect it and why the Government are so bereft of ideas that they have taken a year or more to publish it?
Today’s statement about police and crime commissioners represents tinkering around the edges from a Government who are failing on crime and policing. They are simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. This Government are failing. Police numbers are falling. They fell by 1,300 during Labour’s first year in office on a like-for-like, March-to-March comparison. Police numbers are not only continuing to fall, but will drop even more this year. Crime under this Government is surging: shoplifting is up by 13% in this Government’s first year to record levels, leaving shopkeepers in difficulty, and we have seen theft from the person going up by 5% and sexual offences going up by 9%.
If it were not enough to see all those crime types surging under this Labour Government, senior police officers are warning that they face a funding crisis. Indeed, the chief constables of our four largest forces—Merseyside, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester and the Metropolitan police—all said publicly just a few months ago that they face a funding crisis under this Labour Government.
It is clear that this Government are failing on police and crime, with falling police numbers, increasing crime and a funding crisis, yet the Policing Minister comes to us today with some minor tinkering around the edges. The Government say that they want to transfer PCC powers to mayors where they exist and where the territories are coterminous. Broadly speaking, that is the approach the previous Government took. In fact, I recall transferring one of the Yorkshire forces, I think, into the mayoral model a year or so ago. She asserts that the mayoral model is superior to regular police and crime commissioners, and I wonder what evidence she can produce to support that, because the biggest police and crime commissioner in the country is the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who is also the worst PCC in the country. Knife crime is up 86% under Sadiq Khan, and the Met has the lowest clear-up rate of any force in the country at a lamentable 4.7%. He has closed down half the front counters in London, and police numbers are plummeting. How can the Minister make such an assertion?
For areas outside mayoralties, the Minister proposes essentially to abolish PCCs and replace them with some kind of committee comprised of local councillors. Will those have the same powers as police and crime commissioners? It is implied that they will, and if so, it will not save any money, other than from the election and the police and crime panel, which are very small costs. As far as I can see, this proposal will not save any money, but will remove a directly elected public official—the police and crime commissioner—who is accountable to the public and would certainly be more visible than some faceless committee of local bureaucrats. That is a retrograde step.
In the Government’s announcement today, they are tinkering around the edges. They are rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic while crimes such as shoplifting rocket, police numbers fall and the police face a funding crisis made in the Home Office.
Sarah Jones
I am not sure whether or not the shadow Home Secretary is in favour of this announcement—it is not entirely clear. Perhaps he can come back when he has made up his mind.
The right hon. Gentleman asked several questions that I am happy to reply to. He asked when the White Paper on police reform will come out. It will be this year, I can assure him. We have been working with local police chiefs, police and crime commissioners and the staff associations on what the reform will look like, and we are making the final changes to our reform agenda. As a former Home Office Minister, he will know that we need to make many improvements in respect of performance, accountability, technology, and the structure wherein we have 86 decision makers across the country who, basically, ensure that there are huge inefficiencies in the system while performance and productivity do not rise as fast as they should. Again, I assure him that there will be a significant White Paper that we bring out before the end of the year.
We made the announcement about police and crime commissioners today so that we can continue to work in good faith with the commissioners as we finalise our reform programme. It was right to tell them as soon as we could. I spoke to them at some length this morning, and will speak to them again, not least at their conference next week.
The shadow Home Secretary talks about crime rates. I do not have to remind the House of his and the former Government’s record in office. They cut 20,000 police and recruited 20,000 police, so we now have a police workforce that is very new, large numbers of whom have been in post for only a couple of years. Despite the recruitment done at the end of the Conservatives’ period in government, prosecution rates did not improve. The system is so unproductive, so inefficient and so badly managed that we need to make huge reforms. We have been making progress since we came to power—for example, just a couple of weeks ago, we announced an 18% fall in knife murders, 60,000 knives have been taken off the street, and knife crime has fallen by 5%. We are surging neighbourhood policing capacity, which was decimated under the previous Government, and we will have 3,000 extra police in our neighbourhoods by next April.
The shadow Home Secretary asked about the evidence of mayoral success. I encourage him to talk to the mayors and deputy mayors responsible for police and crime. The ability of a mayoral system, with all the public services beneath it working together more collaboratively and more effectively, is clear to see, so I suggest he has a look for himself.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether powers will be transferred to the new models. They were. The new model will not be a faceless committee of local bureaucrats. Its members will be the leaders of the councils and a senior police and crime lead, who will drive the day-to-day work. Accountability will remain, as will the statutory responsibilities. This is an opportunity for us to work across local government and with other partners to make sure that we drive the best possible system.
A saving of £100 million is, I think, quite substantial, not “tinkering around the edges” as the shadow Home Secretary suggests. If he waits a few more weeks, he will see the reform agenda that the Home Secretary is designing in its totality. It will put policing on a much better footing than he left it.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
What the people of Sunderland want is visible and responsive policing. There is no doubt about the decline in recent years. Northumbria lost 1,100 officers under the previous Government. How will the Minister ensure that the savings resulting from these changes are reinvested in the frontline, to improve neighbourhood policing in places like Sunderland?
Sarah Jones
That is of course the aim of this Government: we want to put policing in our communities, where people expect it to be, and make sure that the police are not, as they currently are, spending hours and hours of their day on bureaucratic, very outdated, very unproductive tasks. Indeed, in many cases police officers are actually doing the job of police staff, which is ludicrous. We need to work with our police chiefs to change that, ensuring that our police officers are doing the roles that we need officers to be doing, while the very important crime fighters of our police staff are doing what they need to be doing. That is not currently the case, but we are working hard to make sure that it will be.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. The Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the news that police and crime commissioners are being scrapped. We have been calling for it for years, and I personally called for this in one of my first contributions in this House, after the PCC election turnout in Cornwall was abysmally low, at just 18%. The model was a failed Tory experiment that has cost taxpayers dearly.
The Minister is right to point out the countless flaws in the overly politicised PCC model, which has diverted much-needed funding away from frontline and community policing. PCCs cost the public millions in council tax every year, yet the impact on their local communities has been negligible. However, transferring the role to mayors is not the answer; it would give even more power to single individuals with dubious democratic mandates and little scrutiny or accountability. The Government must learn the lessons of this expensive and failed experiment.
Instead, the Government should see through their plans for these “temporary” local police and crime boards, but give them the powers on a permanent basis. They should ensure that the money saved from PCCs goes where it is needed most: getting more officers out on our streets and repairing the damage done by years of Conservative mismanagement and underfunding. That is particularly urgent in the light of the slow progress the Home Office has made on its promise to deliver 13,000 new neighbourhood officers; only 200 were added last year, while the number of officers in frontline roles went down.
Will the Minister commit to investing the money saved from these unnecessary PCCs straight into frontline policing and towards proper, effective community policing? Could she outline the safeguards that will be put in place to hold mayors to account with their new-found policing responsibilities? Finally, could she elaborate on her estimated £100 million in savings from scrapping PCCs—has that figure been independently verified, and can she confirm that the funds will be not just transferred to mayors’ budgets but spent on frontline policing?
Sarah Jones
May I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his robust attack on a policy that his own party introduced as part of the coalition Government in 2010?
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that the impact of our police and crime commissioners has been negligible. I do not think that is true. In many cases, they have done a good job in quite difficult circumstances. The innovation we have seen from our PCCs and the partnerships that they have sought to build have been good. It is not the individuals and teams that we are criticising today; it is the structure.
The hon. Gentleman asked about funding. The PCC election savings sadly will not be coming to the Home Office; they will obviously, and rightly, go to the Treasury. The savings that we are making, through police and crime commissioner functions and the efficiencies we want to drive, are significant—at least £20 million—and we want to reinvest that back into policing, as I think everybody would want us to do.
The hon. Gentleman talked about making sure that the right safeguards and the right model are in place. Police and crime commissioners will continue for the next two years in the areas where we do not already have mayoral processes in place, so we have a good amount of time to work with colleagues on how the new structures will work. That said, there is already a process under way of moving police and crime commissioner functions into the mayoral structures; that is already happening.
At the moment, there are 37 police and crime commissioners. Six force areas will move to the mayoral model in 2027, and there will be more in 2028, depending on how the Bill progresses. The idea is that we see this progress, apart from, as I said, in Wales, which has a different system and does not have the mayoral model.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the work that the Minister is doing on reforming how the police can engage with our local communities, because all of us want to see a closer relationship in that regard. May I press her on what lessons she is learning for my part of the world? In London, the challenge is at a borough-wide level. My own borough commander now requires me to submit freedom of information requests to find out about policing in my local community, and will only meet me twice a year. Panels of people are selected to meet the police, and often their presentations are death by PowerPoint to my local community. The Minister makes a very powerful case about police reform. What lessons can we learn from this process—not just in restructuring to work with mayors, but to work at a very localised level so that we can restore people’s confidence in policing?
Sarah Jones
London is different in many ways due to its size and scale, and policing is therefore structured differently. I expect all local leaders to meet their Members of Parliament regularly, because that is how we can hold them to account and work together. Members of Parliament attend surgeries, have public meetings and talk to our communities, so we understand a lot of the issues that police chiefs face, and it is helpful for them to have those conversations and to learn from one another. I encourage all our police chiefs to make sure that they have good relationships with their local Members of Parliament, because those relationships make up a very important part of our structures.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Minister mentions our excellent police and crime commissioner in Lincolnshire, Marc Jones, and perhaps she might pay tribute to him again. The poor man is tearing his hair out. His force is nearing bankruptcy, and our chief constable says that
“Lincolnshire is the lowest funded force in the country”,
with the lowest number of officers and staff per head of population. There is no point in having another reorganisation and just replacing Marc Jones with Andrea Jenkyns unless we get proper fair funding, so will the Minister commit herself now to funding Lincolnshire police properly?
Sarah Jones
I am very happy to pay tribute to Marc Jones. I have met him to talk about these issues, and there are particular challenges in Lincolnshire that we are looking at very closely. The funding settlement will be announced in the usual way before the end of the year, and we are talking very closely. I am very aware of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raises.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
I welcome this decision and think that the abolition of PCCs is sensible. The role was ill defined and poorly understood by the public, as the Minister has mentioned, and it failed to add sufficient tangible value to justify its existence. However, I echo the Minister’s comments about the individuals who have served, particularly Clive Grunshaw, who is the current police and crime commissioner for Lancashire, and indeed the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), who is not in his place but who served as the Conservative police and crime commissioner for Lancashire.
As the Minister mentioned, the introduction of PCCs had an effect on the recruitment of chief constables. Their one-on-one relationships were too fraught, and it meant that a small falling-out could lead to chief constables being fired. Can she talk about how we can get more high-quality candidates to apply to become chief constables, and about how their relationship with the deputy mayors might operate?
Sarah Jones
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to our local police and crime commissioners, including Clive Grunshaw, for their work. He is absolutely right to say that there have been challenges. There has been a reduction in the number of years for which police chiefs serve, from about five to about two and a half—so something is happening there. There are also fewer people applying for such jobs as they become available. We want really healthy competition for these roles, which are very significant and important to us. Where there is a large force and only one applicant for the role, something is not working as it should.
My hon. Friend is right to ask questions on the wider question of leadership; we could have a whole debate about that. The former Home Secretary, David Blunkett, is conducting a review for us on how we improve leadership from top to bottom across the entire policing system. Our reform agenda is looking at performance across the board within policing, and at the welfare, training and support that have to go alongside it. We ask a lot of our police, and we do not always give them the support that they need. Those two things, hand in hand, will form a major part of our reform programme.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
May I first pay tribute to Matthew Scott, Kent’s police and crime commissioner, who, over many years and through working closely with chief constables, has seen a successive increase year on year in the number of police officers in Kent that he has managed to fund. While I am on my feet, and as one of the few Members of this House who have actually held a warrant, may I also pay tribute to Kent constabulary, which continues to do a superb job under the existing system?
The only example that we have of a mayoral system is in London, and it is a disaster. It has failed. I am sorry, but for the Minister to say that the model of the police and crime commissioner is broken, while seeking to praise the police and crime commissioners, is little short of disingenuous. At the moment, Kent has a basket-case county council, but it is likely to have three unitary authorities and no mayor. Who is going to replace our excellent police and crime commissioner, and how will they do the job?
Sarah Jones
To correct the right hon. Gentleman, there are five deputy mayors within the mayoral system that we have already—not just in London, but in Manchester, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and York and North Yorkshire. That model is working really well. I suggest that he talk to someone like Tracy Brabin, who is bringing together all the different agencies under her model, and the system works very well. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has done an excellent job in working with police forces across the capital to keep us safe. I also pay tribute to Kent’s police and crime commissioner, Matthew Scott.
The right hon. Gentleman asks what the arrangements will be where there is not a mayor. The higher-tier authority leaders will provide the board, and there will be a paid person who is the police and crime lead. In some cases, it may be that they are the police and crime commissioner if local authorities make that decision, but it will be for local authorities and leaders on the board to make the decision. That is how the funding model will work where there are not mayors.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I inform Members that I plan to run this statement until no later than 1 o’clock, so we need to have short questions and short answers.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s announcement that she will abolish police and crime commissioners, which is the right move. That said, may I place on the record my thanks to John Tizard, our Bedfordshire PCC? He has always worked constructively with me, and I know he will continue to work constructively until 2028. May I press the Minister on the steps being taken to ensure a smooth transition from PCCs to mayor-led or council-led oversight, particularly in areas such as Luton South and South Bedfordshire, where we do not have elected mayors?
Sarah Jones
I join my hon. Friend in praising John Tizard for the work that he is doing and will continue to do. As I set out, and subject to legislation, the police and crime commissioner model will be abolished at the end of the existing term of office, in May 2028. The transition to the new governance arrangements will be overseen by a small programme team in the Home Office and me, and the legal framework to bring about those changes is expected to be included in a second-Session police reform Bill, subject to parliamentary time. Primary legislation will be needed to make those changes, and we will introduce that as soon as we can. We will be working very closely with existing police and crime commissioners, local authorities and the Ministry of Justice.
One function that our police and crime commissioners fulfil is commissioning victim services, which is incredibly important. When we transition those functions, we need to ensure that we do not drop any balls and that we keep on doing the important work that we need to do, so I am very happy to have more conversations with colleagues about how the model will develop over time. We will ensure not just that we save money and introduce a better system, but that we make people safer in our communities.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
In my constituency of Richmond Park, our policing force has been decimated. We used to have three police stations, and now we have none. The next nearest police station is facing the closure of its front counter, and the Royal Parks police force has been scrapped. People in my constituency have no faith that common crimes such as shoplifting, burglaries or antisocial behaviour will be resolved or that offenders will be apprehended. With this in mind, does the Minister agree that the greatest reform needed to improve policing efficiency is sufficient funding, and what conversations has she had with the Mayor of London about bolstering the resources available to the Metropolitan police?
Sarah Jones
Funding is enormously important, and we are providing our police with a real-terms funding uplift this year. We are going through the allocation process at the moment, and we will make announcements in the usual way before the end of the year. I do stress that money is incredibly important, and we are providing more of it, but if we look at the day-to-day activities of many of our police officers, they are not productive, and they cannot be because of the ancient systems that are in place. As an example, if officers download data from a mobile phone, which they need as part of the evidence for a crime, they will be given it in an Excel spreadsheet and they have to ctrl+F to find the things they need. It is extraordinarily unreformed as a system. There are pockets of great innovation, but it is not the same across the whole system. We have to drive efficiencies, and officers are crying out for us to do that to enable them to do the jobs we expect them to do. Yes, money is important, and the Mayor of London has put more funding—much more money—from his own budget into policing, but we need to ensure the police are doing what we want them to be doing.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
In Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, proposals have been put forward to take our incredibly hard-working police community support officers off the beat during the evenings. I am campaigning against this, alongside my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), and hundreds have signed our petition to save our PCSOs. I therefore welcome today’s announcement to abolish the role of police and crime commissioner. Does the Minister agree with me and my constituents when they tell me that the money would be better reinvested in visible frontline policing?
Sarah Jones
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I think the PCSO model is extraordinarily successful, not just because the model is slightly cheaper and therefore we get more bang for our buck, but because they do an incredibly important role. They do not have the same powers as police officers, but they have the ability to go in and build relationships with their community to reduce tensions, and in building those relationships, they can predict, see, understand and give everybody else the intelligence we need about the crime happening in our local communities. I think they are really powerful, and one of the awfully sad things that happened under the last Government is that that model was completely decimated. I want to see more PCSOs on our streets because, as I say, they play a fantastic role.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The train attack that took place in my Huntingdon constituency on 1 November was mercifully prevented from being far worse by the swift actions of Cambridgeshire constabulary in neutralising the threat and placing the suspect in custody within eight minutes of the 999 call being placed. However, the Government are lucky that that was the outcome. Cambridgeshire is the fourth worst funded police force in England and Wales, and it does not receive the south-east allowance. The current police allocation formula uses data from as far back as 2001. I know that our current PCC, Darryl Preston, and the current mayor, Paul Bristow, share my concern that our police are not adequately resourced, and we went through this last year with the Policing Minister’s predecessor. What commitment can the new Policing Minister offer me that she will completely overhaul the formula as part of the forthcoming police funding settlement, and give Cambridgeshire the fairer funding it needs?
Sarah Jones
I join the hon. Gentleman in praising Cambridgeshire constabulary for the way it responded in incredibly difficult circumstances. The quick wit of many—including, of course, the people working on the train such as the train driver and others—saved lives, and we are all very grateful for that. The hon. Gentleman makes a point about funding, and the funding allocation will be made in the usual way before the end of the year. I appreciate the points he made, but there is more money going into policing this year and we will ensure that it is given to where it is needed. As I say, the police reform programme is designed to transform how we do policing so that we can become much more effective and productive in the future.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I, too, thank John Tizard for his tireless work in securing extra resources for Bedfordshire police. I tend to agree that the mayoral model is the best way forward. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that we redouble our efforts to move at real pace to ensure there is a mayor in every area of England, rather than let one council block the ambitions of the rest of the area?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming this announcement. The transition to the mayoral model is complex, and people will have different views, opinions and fights locally about what comes next. I believe the mayoral model to be a good one. I think most people see the benefits, and on the whole this Government are in favour of ensuring we have the mayoral model where we can. I certainly think it is the best model for policing.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
The last Labour Government forced through the merger of Staffordshire ambulance service with West Midlands ambulance service, and Staffordshire ended up with a poorer service. There will be and is real concern in Staffordshire that these reforms could lead to a merger and the takeover of the Staffordshire police force by the West Midlands police force. Can the Minister assure the House that that will not happen?
Sarah Jones
The announcement today is on police and crime commissioners, which will not change those boundaries.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement. I whole- heartedly agree that the public have not bought into this model, but that does not mean there has not been some excellent work done by PCCs and their staff with great commitment and professionalism. Will she join me in thanking Matt Storey, the Cleveland police and crime commissioner, for the sterling work he has done in engaging with young people. She heard from some of those young people just two weeks ago, and the voice of youngsters is being heard in Cleveland. Could she also say something about the services commissioned by PCCs, especially in the areas of sexual assault, domestic violence and drug rehabilitation? People today will be in shock about this decision, and they will want some reassurance that their good practice will not be lost in the transition,
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that thoughtful question, and I join him in paying tribute to Matt Storey. I met him, and a group of young people he brought to see me, who were also incredibly thoughtful, and he is doing some excellent work. He points to the challenges of transitioning all these services. We are already learning lessons because, where the mayoral model is coming in, we are already transitioning from the police and crime commissioner model to the deputy mayor model, and we are learning as we go. There are statutory responsibilities for commissioning, such as victim services, and he mentioned sexual abuse and serious and domestic violence services as well. We will ensure that those statutory functions are maintained, and we are already talking to local authorities, our PCCs and other Departments to ensure we get that exactly right. I welcome any thoughts from hon. Members on that.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I welcome the Government’s decision, which I think is long overdue. I thank Clare Moody, the PCC for Somerset, who has worked very hard with me over the last 18 months and has visited my constituency three times. She is an inspiration. May I seek some reassurance on behalf of my constituents that extra resources will be put into tackling rural crime? As a result of the austerity under the last Conservative Government, people in my constituency have had bullocks, sheep and, in one incident, an entire flock of 1,500 chickens rustled from their farms.
Sarah Jones
I am very sorry to hear about the incidents of crime that the hon. Lady mentioned, and I am very happy to talk more to her about that. Rural crime is incredibly important, and we are working hard on the rural crime strategy. I join her in praising Clare Moody for the work she has done, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for recognising that the work of our police and crime commissioners has in many ways been excellent.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I welcome the Labour Government’s progress on policing, including Dudley town centre’s new police station, which will open this year, and the new police officers being redeployed to Dudley borough in April. Given the urgent need for police reform, will the Minister go one step further and commit to reviewing the west midlands’ outdated funding formula, which does not align with local crime and deprivation levels?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is right to raise the funding formula. As I said, the allocations will be set in the usual way this year. The White Paper on police reform will introduce some significant changes to how we do policing, making it much more efficient, productive and targeted at the crimes we want our police to be focused on. We will have more on that in due course.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
May I put it on the record, on behalf of my constituents, that both Martyn Underhill, the initial Dorset police and crime commissioner, and the current PCC, David Sidwick, have done sterling work with their teams to protect and look after my constituents over the years that they have served? Following up on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I urge the Minister to use the savings that she believes she has made in making this announcement today to support rural police funding where there is a differential between rural and urban. The early part of her statement noted that the police and crime commissioner model was created to increase accountability. She talks about oversight with the new arrangement in non-mayoral authorities. Will she say a little more about to whom the chief constable would actually be accountable in terms of hiring, firing and delivering on the priorities of local communities?
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and join him in praising Martyn Underhill and David Sidwick for their work. The police and crime commissioners have a very important function to hire and sometimes remove their chief constables. That will be passed on to the policing and crime board and the police and crime lead who will navigate day-to-day working. They will set the proposed budget, agree the policing precept and be responsible for hiring the chief.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I welcome today’s announcement, particularly the savings that have been identified. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can use the savings in the Cleveland area to reverse the disgraceful decision in 2019 to close Hartlepool’s custody suite? So far, there is an unwillingness to look at reopening the suite. Will she meet me to look at options for how we can make it happen?
Sarah Jones
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend. Of course, local decisions will be made locally and there are limits to what I can do in that way, which is absolutely right. The ability of the police to make their own local decisions is sacrosanct, and we need to ensure we maintain that, but I am very interested to hear how we can ensure he has the right services for his constituents.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
In Thames Valley, we are fortunate enough to have a model that is working under the leadership of Matthew Barber, our police and crime commissioner. Police numbers have gone up, and he has led the creation of the country’s best rural crime taskforce and brought in other great initiatives on things such as shoplifting. Instead of throwing the whole system up in the air and scattering it back out across the country with different models for different areas, why not take the police and crime commissioner models that do work and make them the norm for everywhere, and not just in areas that are failing?
Sarah Jones
I join in the praise for the hon. Gentleman’s police and crime commissioner, particularly on the rural crime taskforce. I have been very clear on a number of occasions that I am not criticising the work those individuals have done, but we believe the model has not worked.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement. My constituents want a focus on neighbourhood policing, improving standards and a major police station in the local area. However, after an excellent PCC in Lord Willy Bach, and Sir Clive Loader before that, our current PCC has created an office mired with controversy. Will the Minister confirm that in the council-led model, the focus will get back to policing and public service, as well as improving accountability and partnership?
Sarah Jones
I can absolutely confirm that the focus will be on providing the best possible service to our communities. That means neighbourhood policing and giving the police the powers they need to fight crime, while also holding them to account for everything they do, because their role is incredibly important.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
May I thank Dafydd Llywelyn for his excellent for his excellent work, especially on rural crime and domestic abuse, and take the opportunity to welcome Ysgol Gynradd Nantgaredig to the Gallery today? Today’s statement makes clear the absurd complexity of an England and Wales justice system. The UK Government will look to the Welsh Government to help replace the PCC system in Wales, but they have refused the same Government powers over policing. Does the Secretary of State now concede that the Welsh Government is the best place to control policing in Wales, and that devolving the entire justice system to Wales makes logical sense?
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for the promotion— I am just a Minister, not the Secretary of State. We are very conscious that the system in Wales is different from the system in England, which is why we will take some time talking to stakeholders there, not least because Wales is not having a mayoral model. To be clear, this announcement is not about the devolution of policing, but structural changes to a model that simply was not working.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
I welcome today’s reforms. Across Loughborough, motorbikes have been stolen for years and years; it is a huge scourge. I am really glad that a recent police operation helped to seize some of those bikes, and I really glad that we are getting more police and more powers, but there is clearly a lot more to do. Will the Minister set out how today’s strengthened governance will make my constituents safer and stop their motorbikes being stolen?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point that a lot of his constituents care very deeply about, and he is right to bring it to this place. The savings we will make from the programme will fund up to 320 police constables, or 430 PCSOs, showing the value for money that they bring. We will ensure that the savings go into policing. The particular crime he talks about is pernicious. and we are talking with police chiefs to ensure we can tackle it. I am very happy to have more conversations with him.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the Minister pay tribute to Philip Wilkinson, Wiltshire’s PCC, who has realigned policing in my county with the priorities of my constituents? Will she account for the difference between the £100 million that she says in her statement this measure will save, and the £20 million she cited in response to an earlier question? Will she do all she can to ensure that the new formation is less bureaucratic than that which preceded it? At the moment, it rather looks like it will be much the same but without the PCC.
Sarah Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and I join him in paying tribute to Philip Wilkinson for his work. On the two figures I mentioned, the £100 million and the £20 million, the lion’s share of the £100 million is in the cost of the elections that we hold and the £20 million is what we will make in initial savings from this programme, where we want to drive efficiencies. We believe that the elected model has not worked, which is why are getting rid of it, but we are very mindful that we will have to ensure that important statutory functions are maintained.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I associate myself with the Minister’s comments on recognising the commitment of PCCs across the country. Despite being from different parties, the Dorset PCC David Sidwick and I have always worked constructively together, and he has been a doughty advocate for the funding we need to police the county effectively. On that note about funding, can I ask the Minister to look again at the police funding formula? Not only does it fail on rurality, as the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) says, but it also fails on the summer seasonal pressures facing my constituency, where upwards of 10 million people visit every summer.
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend and join her in paying tribute to the Dorset PCC. There are PCCs who have worked really well across the party political divide, and we should pay tribute to them for their work and for how professional they have been. She raises a point about the police funding formula, which I know many Members are concerned about. As I said, the funding formula allocations will be announced before the end of the year, and we will also be announcing a major programme of reform.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Minister for her statement. In 2021, Thames Valley police closed the front desks at Bicester and Kidlington in my constituency, removing a key means for local residents to report to local officers antisocial behaviour, vandalism, mobile phone theft and other crimes that blight and damage their lives. Does the Minister agree that the money saved from today’s announcement should be put towards reopening the front desks at Bicester, Kidlington and elsewhere?
Sarah Jones
It is for local police areas to decide how they use their funding. Our priority, to be frank, is to get our police officers out on to our streets to police our neighbourhoods and communities, which is why improving neighbourhood policing is a top priority for this Government. Of course, police stations provide an important function, and there needs to be provision for people who cannot get to the police by any other means, but our priority is to get our police on to our streets.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Norfolk, which is already progressing through local government reorganisation and devolution, has several existing partnerships working to protect and support victims of crime. Will the Minister meet me and Sarah Taylor, Norfolk’s police and crime commissioner, to discuss how we can ensure that these arrangements continue to serve the people of Norfolk? There are worrying signs that some partners are withdrawing services because of these reorganisations.
Sarah Jones
I am always happy to meet and talk about these issues. The transition will happen in 2027, and we need to ensure that we learn from previous transitions and that we do not drop any balls with regard to the services we are providing to local people.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her statement, although it will have caused some consternation in my constituency. Spelthorne is in Surrey, which is being carved up into two unitary authorities, and recent so-called clarifications by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have stated that there are no promises as to whether they will get a mayor. I ask the Minister to use her good offices to go to that Department and say, “I’ve taken away their PCC—it’s up to you now to make a decision as to whether or not they are going to get a mayor.”
Sarah Jones
I obviously talk to my colleagues in MHCLG often, but I will leave to them the decisions they make in the areas they are responsible for. I am, however, happy to pass on the hon. Gentleman’s comments.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I welcome today’s announcement. I want to ask about the transfer to council and mayoral oversight in the context of a challenge I have locally. I have an amazing local police force in Hemel police. Officers often encounter instances of individuals and families who are responsible for antisocial behaviour affecting their neighbours where the landlord of the house or site is the district or county council, but those offices—the county council in particular —are not upholding their responsibilities as a landlord to deal with antisocial behaviour, and the police are therefore struggling to deal with some of these issues despite their best efforts. I wonder whether the Minister would outline how the changes today might tackle that specific problem.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is right. Preventing crime is everybody’s problem, and we need to ensure that everybody feels the responsibility of that and works effectively together to tackle crime. Our police cannot arrest their way out of a lot of the challenges that we face. In the example my hon. Friend gave, we rely on the local authorities, which are the landlords of those properties, to ensure that people are behaving as they should. We are endeavouring to ensure that the police, and the local authorities, have the right powers to take action in a speedy fashion. We genuinely believe that if organisations are brought together in the models we are suggesting today, that will improve joint working.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The Government are creating new boards from council leaders, but abolishing, not restocking, the police and crime scrutiny panels. Does the Minister recognise that this risks creating a chasm of scrutiny right when police reform is most urgent on issues like racism, misogyny, police conduct and the ill-governed use of AI? Does she not see a role in better scrutiny for elected local opposition leaders?
Sarah Jones
I think that the accountability that comes with the leaders of our councils, who are of course elected, will be powerful, but I am happy to work with the hon. Lady to ensure that she gets what she wants to see locally. I think that the provision of local authority leaders coming together will be powerful. On her wider points about misogyny, behaviours in policing and AI, we are working on reform through our White Paper to tackle some of those significant challenges. On AI, we will shortly be bringing forward consultation on providing a framework within which it is used.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement. I pay tribute to the West Midlands police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, who has served diligently and ably since 2021. He has always been community focused; he worked with me to secure a police hub in Stourbridge and helped me to negotiate with police estates to retain the old Brierley Hill police station for community use. I am proud to call him not just a colleague, but a friend. He has also reformed victim services, championed youth commissioners and overseen a reduction in all types of crime across the region. Will the Minister join me in thanking Simon for all his work and assure me that good work already established will continue?
Sarah Jones
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in praising Simon Foster and the work he has done. She is absolutely right to say that we need to ensure that where there is good work, we carry on.
I wish to correct what I said in my previous answer: when I talked about AI, I was talking specifically about facial recognition.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
In Suffolk, the police and crime commissioner’s powers will be transferred to a combined mayoralty for Suffolk and Norfolk; the mayor will be responsible for the two police forces. This is only one step away from a full-blown merger of the two forces, which local people are very concerned about. Will the Minister take this opportunity to categorically state that the Government will never allow a police merger between Suffolk and Norfolk?
Sarah Jones
Just to be clear, the arrangements we are announcing today are not changing the 43 models at all. We will bring forward reform, which hopefully the hon. Gentleman will support, and he will have the time to consider it when it comes forward.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Will the Minister join me in thanking our hard-working named neighbourhood police officers across Portsmouth North, PC Jamie Christian, PC Chris Middleton, PC Nicholas Joyce, PC Ben Treend, PC Hannah Kelleher, PC Matt Lamper and PC Susan Smith, for their continued dedication to keeping our community safe? As we look at reforms to police governance, will the Minister ensure that any savings made by abolishing the PCC role are reinvested directly in the frontline? More broadly still, will she meet me to discuss how we can fund our policing more fairly, given Hampshire’s unfair allocation?
Sarah Jones
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and talk about the services that she needs in her local community. We will of course ensure that the money we save is directed to frontline policing, because that is where it needs to be. I join her in praising her local police force for everything it does.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I welcome this statement. I have always been opposed to diverting taxpayers’ money to police and crime commissioners and their offices, and away from officers who can fight rural crime in our area. I have a couple of concerns. First, what will happen if a police force area like mine is split between two mayors? Secondly, could the Minister write to me to confirm the number of police officers that Avon and Somerset force might expect to employ, and to say whether this will happen by the end of the decade? Rumour has it that the previous police and crime commissioner had 28 or 29 staff, which is a lot of money.
Sarah Jones
Police and crime commissioners make their own decisions about how many staff they have; on average, I would say that they have between 20 and 50. Many of those staff do excellent work, and I pay tribute to them. Many carry out functions that we will need to continue; they are commissioning victim services, for example. I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to talk about her area; there are complexities to do with the mayoral model and how it is playing out that I am happy to discuss.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the Conservative police and crime commissioner for my area, John Campion, with whom I have worked well over the past 10 years. In fact, we are meeting the Minister next week to discuss local policing. Can she confirm that the savings that this initiative will provide will go to community policing? That will allow West Mercia police to reverse the 8 pm PCSO cap that it recently imposed; PCSOs have been barred from the streets of Telford and West Mercia after 8 pm.
Sarah Jones
As my hon. Friend says, we are meeting next week, so we can discuss this matter then. I am very happy to join in his praise for his Conservative police and crime commissioner. As I said, we praise PCCs that have worked cross party, and we want that cross-party work replicated in the replacement models. I am happy to have another conversation with my hon. Friend about his local force and the services that his constituents need.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
As a former deputy police and crime commissioner, I know the hard work that police and crime commissioners do, and I know that the Hertfordshire police and crime commissioner, Jonathan Ash-Edwards, does all he can to keep Hertfordshire residents safe. The Government’s English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill bans councils from making decisions by committee and forces them to change to a strong leader model. Can the Minister explain why the Government think it is appropriate to have police governance by committee, but not local authority governance by committee?
Sarah Jones
That is a question for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and I would expect it to answer it with reference to the structures that exist in local authorities. We believe that the mayoral model is the best model when it comes to policing. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work that he did when he was police and crime commissioner. While we believe that the mayoral model is best, where we cannot have that model at this point, we will have a committee, led by leaders of the council, which I think is right.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
In Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, we have a police, fire and crime commissioner. While I welcome the Minister’s statement, I worry about the impact on our fire service. Could she reassure me that we will consider the fire service as well, and how oversight of it will be transitioned in areas that now have a mayor, like my area?
Sarah Jones
In 2017, new powers were introduced to enable police and crime commissioners to have a fire-related role. We have the Minister responsible for fire, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), on the Front Bench right now. The transition to the new structures will relate to fire as well as policing; the role will move to the new police boards.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
While we Reform Members welcome the abolition of police and crime commissioners, will the Minister explain how these reforms will deliver clearer accountability for policing, particularly in areas like my constituency, where a strategic policing board is likely to be necessary, given that the PCC in Cheshire has proved to be one of the starkest examples of failure? He has achieved no meaningful improvement when it comes to crime or policing, and devotes his time to political campaigning.
Sarah Jones
I repeat that I am not here today to criticise the PCCs; I think that they have done a really good job. It is the role and the elected function that is not working. The hon. Member is right to ask about accountability. It is incredibly important we have the right accountability for our police, who have very significant powers and do an incredibly important job keeping people safe. Our expectation is that in the mayoral model, accountability will lie with the mayor; in the board model, the leaders of the council will provide the accountability. We are also looking at how accountability is delivered at national level—this will be in a White Paper that will come out—so that we know exactly what our police are doing and how they are doing it, and so that the inspection regime is beefed up.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
May I place on record my thanks to South Wales police and crime commissioner Emma Wools and her team, and Alun Michael before her, for the great work they have done for my community in Cardiff West? I note what the Minister said about the unique arrangements in Wales, so can I ask that when she consults the Welsh Government, as she is right to do, she also consults Welsh Labour MPs, to ensure that we get the best possible arrangement for Wales? Will she meet me and other Cardiff MPs to talk about a fairer capital city funding deal, and whether some of the money that will be saved through this reform could be ploughed into Cardiff?
Sarah Jones
I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend and other MPs. I appreciate that he supports the approach that we are taking in Wales. I pay tribute to his police and crime commissioner—and of course to Alun Michael, with whom I am in regular correspondence, as I suspect many of us across the House are—for all their work. Alun Michael was a real shining light for the PCC model, and we should thank him for that.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her statement, and for recognising the great work that has been undertaken by many PCCs across the country. I want to take this opportunity to recognise Lisa Townsend, our excellent police and crime commissioner in Surrey, and her deputy Ellie Vesey-Thompson. We need to be aware that there are employees who support all PCCs’ activities who now know that their roles are going in the next few years. It is good to put on record that we thank them for everything they have done. Can the Minister confirm what the announcement means for Surrey, given that we are moving to a unitary model, but that the Government are yet to confirm solidly that we are getting a mayor?
Sarah Jones
I join the hon. Member in praising her local team. She is right to talk about staff. There are about 1,000 staff who support police and crime commissioners. We will work with them to transition—where they need to be transitioned, and where they carry out statutory functions that we need to continue—to local authorities. It is not by any means the case that they are all losing their jobs. It is very important to stress that the function continues as is for the next two years. We will continue to work with staff, and I will be talking to police and crime commissioners about the transition a lot, I suspect.
The hon. Member highlights one of the challenges of the move to the mayoral model: there is legislation going through Parliament, and some decisions are yet to be made. I am very happy to work with her on how things will work going forward, but we are very clear about the model that we want to introduce. Where there are moving parts, we will work as best we can to make sure that we get the right outcomes.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Having sat on a police and crime panel, let me say that I am thrilled to see the abolition of the police and crime commissioner model. This will save £20 million a year, which is the equivalent of an extra 320 special constables. In my area, the Liberal Democrat council is introducing pointless town councils, which raises local taxes. We as a Labour Government will bring down local taxes by abolishing the PCC role, which is very good news.
I want to put on record my thanks to Dave Sidwick, who has been an excellent police and crime commissioner. He is Conservative, and I am Labour, but it does not matter. We work together in service of the public, and that has yielded very good results. I must confess to having regularly experienced difficulties accessing my chief constable in Dorset. Could the Minister please set out what she thinks are reasonable expectations when it comes to a chief constable engaging with local Members of Parliament, particularly on important issues to do with policing and community safety?
Sarah Jones
I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy): it is incredibly important that chiefs have a good relationship with their local Member of Parliament. It is a two-way street; Members of Parliament bring a huge amount of insight, from all their conversations with constituents, about what is important to their local community and what its fears are, and about where crime is occurring. It is very important that police chiefs have that relationship with them, so that we can help each other to deliver better services.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Sarah Taylor, the Minister’s Labour colleague and Norfolk’s police and crime commissioner, has been turning things around in Norfolk, where PCCs have a very chequered history. She is taking real action on road safety. Under the Conservatives, PCCs sacked all the PCSOs, tried and failed to take over the fire service, and had no rural crime unit in a rural county. One decided that the commute was too long and stood down. How can we ensure that, in future, money goes to my residents’ priorities, such as vital safety improvements on the A148?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman raises the important issue of road safety. I am working very closely with colleagues in the Department for Transport on reforms in that space, which we will bring forward soon. I can assure him that we will put the money that we save into the frontline services that the public expect.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her statement. It falls to me, the only Essex MP in the Chamber, to put on record my thanks to Roger Hirst, police, fire and crime commissioner for Essex. I had the pleasure of standing against Roger in two elections, and although our political views may differ, he has always been really dedicated to supporting the police and tackling crime in Essex. I thank him for his service. He would want me to ask the Minister about a fairer funding formula for Essex. Specifically, what difference will the decision make to residents in my constituency, who are concerned about an historical lack of neighbourhood policing?
Sarah Jones
I join my hon. Friend in his praise for Roger Hirst, and indeed all other PCCs, who have done some really good work. This Government are prioritising neighbourhood policing. We are putting thousands more neighbourhood police officers into our communities. That is what the public want, and it is what we were elected to do. This money will help us do it.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The abolition of police and crime commissioners is welcome. My constituents in Chichester are understandably frustrated by how unclear it is what benefit the role brings; they rarely see a PC due to decreased numbers in our area. The policing function will pass to a mayor next year. Can the Minister confirm that the savings made will deliver more frontline policing in areas with low numbers of police officers, such as Chichester, so that they can tackle the growth in antisocial behaviour and rural crime?
Sarah Jones
I appreciate that the hon. Member wants to see more police officers in her communities. It is for the Government to set the priorities, and the funding to enable local police chiefs to make the right decisions, but micromanaging where the police go is not my role. She can be reassured that through the neighbourhood policing policies that we are introducing, and through the wider reform agenda, we intend to make sure that there are more police on our streets and in our communities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her statement and her answers. It is always good to hear how money is being spent, and how policing can be delivered more effectively. She probably has direct contact every month with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, where the problems relating to the moneys available are similar. Will she work alongside that Minister to ensure that what is being done here to ensure effective policing with the moneys available can be done there?
Sarah Jones
As ever, I am happy to meet colleagues in Northern Ireland. We have much to learn from each other about how to make sure that we are policing the streets in the safest and best way.
Point of Order: Rectification Procedure
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Cat Eccles on a point of order in connection with the code of conduct to rectify a failure to declare.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to apologise to the House for failing adequately to declare an interest when speaking in the House on 10 June this year during the debate on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Although I referred to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I inadvertently failed to declare that the visit had been funded by Labour Friends of Israel and that it had not yet been processed to appear on the register. That was in breach of the rules and I wish to apologise to the House for the error.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. There will be no further points of order on this issue.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:08 - The House divided: - Ayes: 254 / Noes: 135 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:22 - The House divided: - Ayes: 264 / Noes: 125 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 255 / Noes: 128 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:46 - The House divided: - Ayes: 268 / Noes: 78 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 257 / Noes: 128 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:08 - The House divided: - Ayes: 254 / Noes: 129 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:19 - The House divided: - Ayes: 252 / Noes: 130 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 250 / Noes: 133 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:41 - The House divided: - Ayes: 244 / Noes: 132 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
We now come to King’s consent. Do we have a Privy Counsellor present?
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
indicated assent.
King’s consent signified.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.
Clause 2
National policy statements: parliamentary requirements
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 2, and Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2.
Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 31, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 32, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 33, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 37, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 38, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 39, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 40, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 4 to 30, 34 to 36, and 41 to 117.
Matthew Pennycook
Sustained economic growth is the only route to delivering the improved prosperity our country needs and the higher living standards working people deserve. That is why it has always been this Government’s No. 1 mission. This landmark Bill, which will speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, is integral to the success of that mission, and it will play a vital part in delivering the Government’s plan for change milestones of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. The Government are therefore determined to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible, and I am pleased that the House has an opportunity today to renew its commitment to this vital legislation and express its firm opposition to attempts to undermine its core principles.
Before I turn to the amendments before us, let me put on record once again my heartfelt thanks to Baroness Taylor for her prodigious efforts in guiding the Bill through the other place, and my gratitude to peers collectively for the comprehensive and rigorous scrutiny to which they subjected it. The Government made a number of important changes to the Bill in the other place, with a view to ensuring that it will work as intended, that its full potential in respect of unlocking economic growth is realised, and to provide further reassurance that a number of its key provisions will achieve the beneficial outcomes that we expect. In the interests of time, I will update the House briefly on the two most significant areas of change.
The first concerns the package of measures we introduced last month to maximise the growth potential of the Bill. As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill’s impact assessment estimates that it could benefit the UK economy by up to £7.5 billion over the next 10 years. That is an assessment, it should be noted, that was made prior to the incorporation into the Bill of several important pro-growth measures, including the removal of the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for nationally significant infrastructure project applications—a change that could result in cost savings of over £1 billion across the pipeline of projects in this Parliament. The package introduced last month further bolsters the growth impact of the Bill. It included provisions that further streamline the consenting of reservoirs, clarify Natural England’s strategic advisory role, and facilitate the deployment of up to three additional gigawatts of onshore wind and secure the billions of pounds’ worth of investment into UK services that come with that.
The second area of change concerns the package of amendments we tabled in July in respect of part 3 of the Bill, which directly addressed a range of issues that were highlighted in the advice the Government received from the Office for Environmental Protection on the new nature restoration fund. They provided for a number of additional safeguards, strengthened and made more explicit those that were already in the Bill on its introduction, and further clarified how the NRF will operate going forward. I emphasise that none of the changes made will affect the process by which house builders interact with an environmental delivery plan, namely by paying a levy to discharge specific environmental obligations through it, and nor do they undermine the strategic approach that underpins the model.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The housing market is absolutely flat and we desperately need to build more housing. What is stopping all this new building, people moving and creating a healthy housing market? It is the appalling stamp duty that everybody acknowledges is the worst tax. The Minister is not the Chancellor, but will he approach his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the autumn statement and see whether she can steal our clothes and promise to abolish stamp duty?
Matthew Pennycook
The Chancellor will set out her decisions on the Budget in fairly short order and the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that. I am going to be quite strict in sticking to the contents of the Bill and what is in scope, rather than ranging more widely, as he tempts me to do.
The amendments we tabled in the summer package provided greater confidence that the NRF delivers the improved outcomes for nature that are at the core of the model. I take the opportunity to thank all the hon. Members who engaged in constructive discussions with the Government about the NRF during Commons stages, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for his thoughtful participation in Committee, which helped shape my thinking about the package of amendments in question.
I should also make clear that the Government tabled further technical amendments in the other place to ensure that the NRF works effectively across borders, as well as ensuring it is able to operate in the marine environment. Those amendments also ensure that the NRF can be used to support the impact of development on Ramsar sites. In addition, the Government supported an amendment tabled by Lord Banner in the other place to ensure that the NRF can accommodate the development processes associated with large strategic housing sites that are phased.
Turning to the amendments made by peers in the other place, I want to make clear that the Government welcomed the scrutiny and challenge provided, and that we are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas. However, I am afraid that most of the amendments sent back to this place seek to undermine the core principles of the Bill, and for that reason we cannot accept them. Let me make clear precisely why, in each instance where that is the case.
Lords amendment 1 would prevent the removal of existing parliamentary requirements that serve to delay material policy amendments to national policy statements. In short, it is a wrecking amendment designed to frustrate the Government’s intention to streamline the process for incorporating into NPSs changes that have already received public and parliamentary scrutiny. Let me emphasise once again that the intent of clause 2 is not to erode parliamentary scrutiny; it is simply about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the four categories of changes the clause covers. That said, I have always recognised the sincere arguments made by various hon. and right hon. Members, as well as by noble Lords, about the importance of transparency and parliamentary scrutiny in respect of NPSs. That is precisely why I provided the Chair of the Liaison Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) with a number of assurances on Report.
For the purposes of clarity, let me repeat those assurances. When the Government of the day intend to make a reflective amendment to an NPS, a statement will be laid before Parliament announcing a review and the relevant Select Committee will be written to. Ministers will make themselves available to speak to that Committee and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period. Importantly, the NPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days, during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. In other words, Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change should be enacted.
To assuage further the concerns that some hon. Members might have about a reduction in scrutiny as a result of the clause, I am happy to provide a further commitment today: when a statement is laid in Parliament announcing a review, it will include how the proposed change or changes fall within the four categories of changes to which clause 2 applies. I cannot, however, accept Lords amendment 1 for the reasons I have set out, and I urge the House to reject it.
Turning next to Lords amendments 2 and 3, Lords amendment 2 enables faster consenting of major water infrastructure projects. Crucially, it allows third party providers, appointed by water undertakers, to apply to deliver such projects through the streamlined development consent order route.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Apologies, but I want to go back to the point the Minister was making about Lords amendment 1. As Chair of the Transport Committee, I am slightly concerned that we will get less opportunity and time to scrutinise major infrastructure projects. Had these proposals been law when High Speed 2 was first being considered, instead of a hybrid Bill, it is likely that HS2 would have come under them, and the third runway at Heathrow, plus the national infrastructure network, will do so. Does he not agree that this House and its Committees should have sufficient chance, not just to wait for the Minister’s convenience—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady will know that that is a very long intervention.
Matthew Pennycook
I recognise the point my hon. Friend makes, but I do not agree that the change will mean Select Committees do not have the opportunity to feed their views into Government. As I said, what we are trying to do with the clause is ensure that the scrutiny provided is proportionate to the changes being made. These are, in most cases, minor and reflective changes. They do not entail the full amendment of a national policy statement; that would have to come via the normal route. I hope my comments on what we expect of Minister’s attendance at Select Committees and in other areas provides her with reassurance.
Matthew Pennycook
No, I will not give way again. I will make some progress on the next set of amendments, which I need to get to, as I know many Members wish to speak.
As I was saying on Lords amendment 2, the Government support the intent of the amendment. However, subsections (7) and (8) of the new clause would require consents for listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeological sites to be obtained separately from the application for development consent for dams or reservoirs. We cannot support those subsections.
Lords amendment 3 is also problematic. It introduces additional notification and representation processes into the nationally significant infrastructure project regime when 20 or more residences are to be demolished in constructing dam or reservoir projects, despite such matters already being addressed by the Planning Act 2008. Both amendments are contrary to the intention of the NSIP regime, which introduced a streamlined “one- stop shop” approach to obtaining consents. It is the Government’s considered view that the regime already provides ample opportunity for those issues to be considered before the relevant Secretary of State makes their decision. Numerous adequate heritage safeguards and opportunities for communities and interested parties to have their say about dam and reservoir projects are already in place.
In respect of heritage concerns in particular, the national policy statement for water resources contains explicit policy on preserving the historical environment. When deciding whether to grant consent, the Secretary of State is under a statutory duty to have regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building, conservation area or scheduled monument where applications affect these assets. In respect of the demolition of homes, again, the Planning Act already provides sufficient safeguards for the compulsory acquisition of land. For those reasons, I urge the House to support an amendment to remove subsections (7) and (8) from Lords amendment 2 and to reject Lords amendment 3 in its entirety.
Turning to Lords amendment 31, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the Government are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas. The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is not in his place, made a strong case on Report for greater accessibility requirements for electric vehicle charge points. As he knows, I made a personal commitment to him to give further consideration to the arguments he made. The objective he sought is echoed in Lords amendment 31, which seeks to amend the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 to enable the mandating of accessibility requirements for public charge points through regulations.
As the House will know, the Government are already working closely with the sector to update the current accessibility standards for public charge points. However, I have been convinced that we should use the Bill to provide further certainty in respect of this matter, and we have therefore tabled an amendment in lieu that is faithful to the original amendment agreed in the other place, with some minor changes designed to ensure that the powers cover all relevant aspects of accessibility for public charge points and that requirements can be placed on all relevant parties that play a role in delivering them. The Government will of course consult before producing and laying the relevant regulations. The Department for Transport looks forward to working with both the Scottish and Welsh Governments on these matters. On that basis, I hope the House will support our amendment in lieu.
Lords amendment 32 would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of current regulation on low-hazard reservoirs and to set out proposals for deregulation of such reservoirs within six months of enactment. An assessment of the impact of current reservoir safety regulation has already been published on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ science search website. Furthermore, the Government already intend to set out proposals for the deregulation of low-hazard reservoirs within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I also commit to clarifying planning practice guidance for the permitted development right that grants planning permission for the development of on-farm reservoirs, giving clarity to farmers about when this permitted development right can be used. Given that the Government have fulfilled one aspect of the amendment already, and I have committed to fulfilling the rest today, we are clear that there is no need to legislate on the matter. I therefore urge the House to reject this amendment.
Lords amendment 33 seeks to make the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not raise concerns about the use of the negative procedure in respect of these regulations. We have already consulted on detailed proposals to help inform the regulations, and the clause itself imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to consult again on the draft regulations before they are brought into force. This consultation duty will apply not only to the first set of regulations, but for any subsequent changes to those regulations. In the light of the two rounds of consultation planned before those regulations are laid, I urge the House to reject this amendment.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
Just this week at the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the new Secretary of State outlined that the Government will not be urging national development management policies to be non-statutory. That almost seems at odds with the Government’s direction of travel, which is towards speeding up the national scheme of delegation. Will the Minister explain why the Government are taking the approach of making the guidance non-statutory?
Matthew Pennycook
I am afraid that my hon. Friend is conflating two entirely separate issues. We are committed to introducing a new suite of national policies for development management. We will consult on those before the end of the year. The Secretary of State provided a bit more detail at the Select Committee the other day. This particular amendment—Lords amendment 33—refers to the powers in the Bill to bring forward a national scheme of delegation, and I am making it clear that the sufficient consultation already built into the system does not require it to be taken forward via the affirmative procedure. I hope that reassures her.
Lords amendment 37 would exempt assets of community value from the permitted development right for demolition under part 11 of the general permitted development order. I have reflected on this amendment and agree with the intention of further protecting these important assets. We are already strengthening the protection given to them through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and we think there are justifiable arguments for removing demolition of ACVs from permitted development rights. However, PDRs are established via secondary legislation, and it would not be appropriate to use this Bill to change particular development rights without consultation. As such, while we cannot support this exact amendment, I am happy to make a commitment today that we will consult on this change to the permitted development right for demolition at the first available opportunity. We hope that with this assurance, and a view to future opportunity for consultation on the matter, the House will reject Lords amendment 37.
Lords amendment 38 would require a spatial development strategy to list chalk streams in the strategy area, outline measures to protect them from environmental harm, and impose responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments. While I appreciate fully the positive intent of the amendment and reiterate the Government’s firm commitment to restoring and improving the nation’s chalk streams, I do not believe that it is a necessary or advisable means of protecting those vital ecosystems.
While strategic planning authorities will be expected to work closely with arm’s length bodies like the Environment Agency, they themselves will not have responsibility for regulatory systems governing water abstraction or pollution in catchment areas. The SDSs that they will be required to produce will be high-level frameworks for housing growth and infrastructure investment; they will not allocate specific sites. Importantly, as locally-led spatial exercises, local nature recovery strategies, drawing on river basin management plans, will be able to map out chalk streams and identify measures to enhance and improve them, and SDSs will already be required to take account of any local nature recovery strategy that relates to the strategy area. SDSs will also obviously be tested by an independent examiner against those requirements.
It remains the Government’s view that the protection and enhancement of chalk streams through the planning system is best achieved through the proper application of national planning policy. As I made clear on Report in the Commons, the measures in the Bill will not weaken existing protections enjoyed by those precious habitats, which are already recognised by decision makers in the planning system as valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity value that should be identified and safeguarded through local plans.
That said, we have been giving this matter careful consideration given the strength of feeling expressed by the Commons on Report, and in the context of ongoing reforms to national planning policy. I am happy to make it clear to the House that I am minded to include explicit recognition of chalk streams in the new suite of national policies for decision making, which I referred to in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi)—and, as I said, we intend to consult on those before the end of this year. On the basis of that assurance, I urge hon. Members to reject Lords amendment 38.
Lords amendment 39 seeks to prioritise development on brownfield land, increase urban densities and minimise travel distances. The Government have a brownfield-first approach to development. Through the revisions made to the NPPF on 12 December 2024, we broadened the definition of brownfield land, set a strengthened expectation that applications on brownfield land will be approved, and made it clear that plans should promote an uplift in density in urban areas.
In September last year, the Government published a brownfield passport working paper, inviting views on how we might further prioritise and fast-track building on previously used urban land. Again, we intend to take forward those proposals in the new suite of national policies for decision making that I referred to a moment ago.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Minister is addressing the brownfield-first approach inherent to the amendment. He opened his remarks by mentioning the Government’s target of building 1.5 million homes. The Campaign to Protect Rural England, a very respected independent charity, has identified enough brownfield land in England alone for 1.4 million homes, so why do the Government persist in rejecting their Lordships’ amendments on this matter, against the advice of the CPRE?
Matthew Pennycook
I will come to why we cannot accept Lords amendment 39. I respectfully disagree with the CPRE on this matter—and on a number of others, as it happens. There is not enough land on brownfield registers—certainly not enough that is in the right location or viable to meet housing need across England. That is why we have a brownfield-first, not brownfield-only, approach to development.
Brownfield land is diverse and may not always be suitable. That is why consideration of brownfield land is more appropriately dealt with at the local level, through policy, where a balance of considerations can be weighed up. A legislative requirement for increasing densities does not allow for the consideration of local issues or circumstances, and would risk opening up the possibility of legal challenges to any or every spatial development strategy, which I am sure was not their noble Lords’ intent. On that basis, I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 39.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. He is talking about local pressures for housing delivery and the brownfield-first approach. As he will know, a number of sports grounds in my constituency are increasingly subject to interest from would-be developers. Can he confirm that these proposals will include protections for much-needed sports grounds so that they are not open to that sort of speculative development?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that question—it is an apt and fair one. Such protections are already in place in the national planning policy framework. I am more than happy to have a conversation with him about the matter he refers to, but nothing in the Bill specifically targets the release of sports fields for development and the protections in national policy still apply.
Finally, Lords amendment 40 seeks to restrict the environmental impacts that could be addressed through an environmental delivery plan. Before I explain why the Government cannot accept the amendment, let me remind the House of why part 3 of the Bill is so important. The current approach to discharging environmental obligations too often delays and deters development, and places unnecessary burdens on house builders and local authorities. It requires house builders to pay for localised and often costly mitigation measures, only to maintain the environmental status quo. By not taking a holistic view across larger geographies, mitigation measures often fail to secure the best outcomes for the environment. In short, as we have consistently argued, when it comes to development and the environment, the status quo too often sees sustainable house building, and nature recovery and restoration, stall.
The nature restoration fund will end that sub-optimal arrangement. By facilitating a more strategic approach to the discharge of environmental obligations, and enabling the use of funding from development to deliver environmental improvements at a scale that will have the greatest impact in driving the recovery of protected sites and species, it will streamline the delivery of new homes and infrastructure, and result in the more efficient delivery of improved environmental outcomes.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
The Minister is a very thoughtful individual, and he has a wide view of what is happening in the country. Housing is imperative, but in my constituency there was a proposal for 3,000 houses on what was effectively virgin land, and we established that the habitat of 32 rare and protected species would be irrevocably damaged. Does he agree that biodiversity has to be a central plank of the Government’s intentions, and will he assure the House that, if Lords amendment 40 is disagreed to, future Governments—who might be less caring about the environment—will not be able to use the law to damage habitats such as those I am describing?
Matthew Pennycook
I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual planning applications, but the Government have been consistently clear that meeting our ambitious development targets need not and should not come at the expense of the environment. Part 3 unlocks a win-win for nature and the economy. Although I cannot commit future Governments to anything, we are confident that the nature restoration fund and environmental delivery plans that part 3 facilitates will result in the delivery of more homes and infrastructure in a more timely manner, as well as improved environmental outcomes.
In respect of Lords amendment 40, I would simply say that there is no convincing rationale for arbitrarily limiting the application of EDPs to strategic landscape matters and thereby preventing their use in supporting the recovery of protected sites and species where appropriate. I remind hon. Members that the Bill is now explicit that the Secretary of State can only approve an EDP where the effect of the conservation measures will materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the conservation status of each identified environmental feature. Moreover, both Natural England and the Secretary of State will have to take account of the best available scientific evidence when preparing, amending or revoking an EDP, and EDPs will be subject to robust scrutiny.
On Third Reading in the other place, we amended the Bill to allow the Government to bring forward regulations setting out how EDPs would prioritise addressing the negative effect of developments. Lords amendment 40 would undermine one of the core principles of the Bill —namely, that the alternative approach provided for by the NRF can apply to both sites and species. For that reason, I urge the House to reject the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not, I am afraid, as I am bringing my remarks to a close, but I am happy to respond to any points when winding up the debate.
I appreciate the leave you have given me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to set out the Government’s position on the large number of amendments before us. I urge the House to support the Government’s position, and I look forward to the remainder of the debate.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Opposition join the Minister in thanking our colleagues in the other place for their sterling work. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), who has been our shadow Minister and contributed enormously to the debate in Committee.
I welcome the Minister back to the Dispatch Box for a further discussion on planning and infrastructure, and congratulate him on being the last man standing from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government team that was appointed in Labour’s golden summer of 2024. As he surveys the bombed-out wreckage of that ministerial team and knows that he is the only one not to have succumbed to friendly fire, I am sure that he shares my sense of disappointment that, after a year of debate and discussion, we have not made the progress that the British people expect from us in the delivery of planning and infrastructure.
The Opposition have three fairly simply tests to apply to the amendments and the Bill as a whole. First, does this deliver the required reform of our administrative state—the planning process, statutory undertakers, decision makers and all those who play a part—to ensure the swift delivery of infrastructure? Secondly, does this create the necessary incentives for host communities to support and embrace the opportunities that development offers? Thirdly—and most critically, we think, having undertaken many planning reforms during our time in office—does this get the market building the 1.5 million new homes that already have planning permission? The entirety of the Government’s target already has consent, with no further loss of green belt or environmental impacts.
Mr Perkins
Many people are concerned about this issue, which the shadow Minister’s party also faced when in government. Why does he think that developments do not get built despite their planning applications getting approval?
David Simmonds
I am going to develop my answer to that, because that is the question we face as a country. We set ourselves a target in the last Parliament of delivering 1 million homes, and we fell just short of that, but when this Government set out their commitment to net zero, I do not think they intended 23 of the 33 London boroughs to have net zero new housing starts, according to a new Bidwells report on the housing market in London. They did not anticipate a 20% reduction in completions of new homes. They did not anticipate a 55.9% drop in the number of new housing starts here in our capital city or a Labour mayor delivering 4.9% of the target set for him by this Government, despite record levels of funding. The context, as we saw today, of growth in our country falling to just 0.1%, is a significant clue to the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question.
When we assess this Bill and these amendments against those tests, it is clear that whatever lofty ambitions some may have, this Bill fails in the eyes of the Office for Budget Responsibility, because it does not generate the level of growth and contribution that the Government promised. That is reflected in the hasty implementation of large-scale amendments in the Lords that were not even contemplated at the Commons stages. It fails in the eyes of homebuyers—the many people who aspire to get on the property ladder for the first time. It fails in the eyes of our farmers, who were hoping it would make it easier to create the infrastructure that would make our farming and food sector more efficient. It fails in the eyes of the developers, who are talking about packing up and taking their investment abroad because the UK market is so poor at the moment. It fails in the eyes of the builders, who see no measures in the Bill to address the shortfalls they all face.
It fails in the eyes of the travelling public, who have watched this Government cancel projects such as the expansion of the A12, which was set to support the delivery of thousands more homes. And it fails in the eyes of lovers of nature, because for all that has been said, there is still a grave lack of clarity about how the measures in the Bill will support the ambitions we all have to balance the delivery of new homes and infra- structure with the needs of a nature-depleted country, to protect the natural environment that we all cherish. The Government signalled before they even embarked on this legislation that their intention was to reduce green-belt protections, which raises the suspicion that this is not a holistic agenda; it is about making it as easy and cheap as possible to build on the green belt, without the strategic underpinning that delivers the homes and infrastructure that our nation needs.
Mr Perkins
The hon. Gentleman has not actually answered my question. He is talking about the policies of the last 15 months, but the problem he is alluding to of developers sitting there with planning permission and not building has been going on for 15 years or more. Can he be realistic about what his solution is to get developers to build the developments they have planning permission for?
David Simmonds
As the Leader of the Opposition said at Prime Minister’s questions, we would not start from here—we would not have made the mistakes this Government have made, which have led to the crash in house building that I outlined.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I would like to assist the hon. Gentleman. Is the answer not a “use it or lose it” planning permission, whereby a developer loses the permission or the land if they do not build on it?
David Simmonds
We spent a good amount of time debating that issue in Committee. “Use it or lose it” planning consent is one option. Application of council tax at different stages of delivery is another. We could also take a different approach to section 106, to the community infrastructure levy or to the way that local authorities interact with the housing market. All those measures that we either considered in government or have been debating—none of which has been taken up —have the potential to ensure that more of the homes that have planning consent get delivered.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Is not the principal difficulty that so many housing developments have now become unprofitable, and that is why they are not being proceeded with? It is the costs that have been loaded on builders in the last 15 months.
David Simmonds
My right hon. Friend tempts me to fast-forward to a point that will arise later on.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at the end of her Budget statement last year that she was wiping the slate clean, and from here on in it was on them, she was absolutely right. If we look at the impact that the measures taken have had on the deliverability of housing and infrastructure, and the rising costs of government driven by the colossal borrowing spree that has been embarked upon by this Chancellor, there is no question. A Government who have borrowed £100 billion this financial year alone are not in a position to talk about a businesslike approach to delivering housing and infrastructure.
The Opposition share the concern that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) set out in her intervention, highlighted in Lords amendment 1. Ongoing accountability is crucial. We know there will be trade-offs, whether it is on Heathrow—an issue that affects her constituents and mine—or High Speed 2, which has been very much debated, the delivery of new cross-Thames infrastructure to the east of London, new ports, new airports or new roads. There is a significant parliamentary interest in all those issues, and that process provides an opportunity to explain to the public where those trade-offs sit.
On heritage sites and reservoirs, the Lords have done some excellent work. I am grateful to the Minister and the Government for their willingness to embrace the debate about electric vehicle charging, and I know noble Lords have been extremely keen to support the work being done to deliver that net zero agenda. However, so many elements of the Bill incorporate a tendency to centralisation. The lack of community-level accountability and lack of ability for local residents to have their say about what is happening in their area—for example, on assets of community value—remains a fundamental concern. If we want those communities to embrace development and new homes, they need to be able to see the benefits and opportunities that a development will bring to their lives.
Another issue covered in the Lords amendments is chalk streams. I declare for the record that the River Colne, which borders my constituency, is a chalk stream, the majority of which are in southern England. Given the work done by my party in government, we are determined to ensure that there is an appropriate level of protection enshrined in legislation. We would choose to develop brownfield first. We seek the swifter redevelopment of brownfield sites, including here in our capital city, rather than intruding on the green belt, which is critical for nature, is important for the health of human beings and for leisure and is often a site of sports facilities and agriculture, supporting the lives of our communities. That is another area where, sadly, this legislation falls far short.
It is clear that this Government have a heavyweight majority. Through the measures that are being implemented, the Government are using that majority to deliver a left hook of reducing community voice and community say in planning applications. They are following that with a right hook of reducing protections on the green belt and building on virgin land—as we heard from the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who is no longer in his place—rather than previously developed land being recycled. That is followed by the uppercut of wholesale top-down council reorganisation, and then a jab demanding that local plans the length and breadth of the country be changed through the national planning policy framework changes, without there being remotely the capacity at the Planning Inspectorate to deal with those in a timely manner.
A number of Members have said, “Why is this happening, and what do you think needs to be done to address it?” The knockout blow to our housing market in the last 12 months has been delivered by the massive hike in national insurance introduced by this Government, which is leading developers, builders, the whole supply chain and local authorities to fear that they will have to throw in the towel, because it is simply not possible, under such a business-unfriendly Government, to deliver homes and infrastructure that require a pro-business environment.
As the Bill proceeds, pummelling our first-time buyers, hammering our homeowners, bashing our builders, and duffing up our developers, on behalf of the Opposition I simply say this to the Minister: there is an opportunity this afternoon to begin to change course, and to signal that he believes, and we believe, that a different course of action is possible that will deliver the homes and infrastructure that the British people expect. I always enjoy meeting the Minister across the Dispatch Box, and I always keep my spare Conservative party membership form handy just in case he should ever need it—his high standards of professionalism suggest that one day he will make the journey to the dark side. Minister, take the opportunity to say to your colleagues that it is time to add to so many poor U-turns, a good U-turn. Let us get on with the job of delivering the homes and infra- structure that the British people need.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to those in the other place for their work in getting us to this stage. I am conscious of time—it is a Thursday, and many Members want to speak—so I will not go into great depth on the amendments. However, I welcome the changes that the Government have made in the other place, and the work of Ministers to reach a compromise to get the Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible. I particularly welcome the series of pragmatic Government amendments on environmental delivery plans. It is critical to ensure that any system to protect our environment is robust, and the measures outlined by the Government will go some way to quelling some of the fears outlined not just in the other place but by Members across this House on Report. I also welcome reforms to address water supply and encourage the building of badly needed reservoirs, as well as measures to ensure that developers have extra time to commence work when a court grants a judicial review. That sensible and proportional approach will ensure that permissions do not expire through no fault of the developer, and avoid any unnecessary repetition of the whole planning process.
As Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I wish to touch on two points that relate to the scrutiny we have in this place for planning and infrastructure. The first relates to Lords amendment 1, which is identical to amendment 83, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) on Report. As the Minister said then, this is
“about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the changes being made,”. —[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 756.]
However, we must be honest and say that even amendments to statements can have a massive impact on our communities up and down the country. Sometimes that impact is even bigger than that of Bills, which are subject to the full weight of parliamentary scrutiny.
I understand the point that the Minister made in Committee, which is that the system has led to unacceptable delays, sometimes for several months. I also know as much as anyone that just because a Committee recommends something to Ministers, it is far from a guarantee that the Government will change their policy. However, it is important that this change is not used to ride through significant changes without Committees having the chance to carry out proper scrutiny into how the measure will impact the lives of people up and down the country. It must also not be used to bypass scrutiny when a statement is amended so much over time as to become a de facto new statement. That is part of the role that we were elected to carry out by this House, and it is something that helps give confidence to the whole House that we have properly considered the statements before us. I heard the Minister indicate earlier that the Government will not accept Lords amendment 1, but I gently ask whether he can assure the House that Committees will still be included in the process of amending statements, and that they will not be sidelined when we engage proactively and in a timely manner with that process.
The introduction of this Bill is long awaited, after years of failing to unblock a broken planning system and to build on the scale that we desperately need. Research from Crisis found that nearly 300,000 families and individuals have ended up without a home of their own, while previous Governments failed to act, and as we know, some children do not even have a room in which to learn to walk or crawl. In reality that will not end overnight; it will end only when we have a system that consistently builds the affordable and social homes that we desperately need.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I am not on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, but I can tell from hon. Friend’s passion that she is an excellent Chair. The use of temporary accommodation, which we have discussed before, costs local councils millions of pounds every year. Does she hope that the Bill, and the fast tracking of social and affordable housing that she talks of, will help to tackle that issue and bring down bills for local councils?
Florence Eshalomi
My hon. Friend is a proud advocate of highlighting that issue, which we constantly raise with the Minister. This is about ensuring that our councils are part of the building process, and the new social and affordable homes package—the £39 billion—will help to ensure that we build those homes. It is good to see that package. The prospectus was announced last week, and bids will be coming in from February 2026—build, baby, build!
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Gideon Amos.
Gideon Amos
The Liberal Democrats welcome a number of the changes made to the Bill in the other place, but it is disappointing that my noble Friend Baroness Pinnock’s proposal, which was aimed at ensuring that all unsafe residential blocks are fully remediated, and my noble Friend Lord Foster’s proposal on curbing the proliferation of betting shops were not adopted in the other place, where unfortunately the Conservatives were unwilling to support them. It is also disappointing that having removed all pre-application regulations for nationally significant infrastructure projects, the Government have not seen fit to plug the gap with a standard requirement to ensure that communities are properly consulted, as we proposed in Committee. Simply sweeping away consultation requirements is not acceptable.
That said, today we are here to debate those amendments that made it through from the other place, and I want first to acknowledge where the Government have listened and made welcome improvements and concessions. Lords amendment 53, a concession secured by my noble Friend Baroness Parminter, imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out how Natural England should prioritise different approaches to addressing the negative impacts of development on environmental features, which we argued for in this House. I hope that when the regulations are brought forward, the Government will see the sense of referring to the mitigation hierarchy as the accepted standard approach. I remain confused as to why those words were not included in the amendments. We will continue to push the Government to recognise the mitigation hierarchy as a key environmental principle and development that should be enshrined in environmental delivery plans.
I am also pleased to see Lords amendment 29, and that the Government have listened to the points by Historic England and Heritage Alliance that I raised in Committee. That means that heritage protections remain in transport and works projects. However, there remain amendments that the Government wish to reject that we strongly believe the House should accept, particularly with regard to nature and environmental protection, and the role of communities and their local councillors. Lords amendment 40 would limit the application of environmental delivery plans to issues where approaches at a strategic landscape scale will be effective. I am sure colleagues have received many emails about that amendment from constituents, and for good reason. Indeed, the amendment is essential because it ensures that EDPs are used where they can deliver environmental benefits and address problems effectively on a strategic scale.
In Somerset and my Taunton and Wellington constituency, we see only too well the massive issues caused by phosphates, and an EDP approach for phosphates would genuinely be welcome. That problem operates at a catchment or regional level, and site-by-site solutions are not enough. Protected species and biodiversity are rooted in their habitats, and in particular place and sites, and a simple strategic approach is not enough. We cannot save a protected species from going extinct in one location by creating a habitat hundreds of miles away and expect the same outcome.
Matthew Pennycook
May I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to district-level licensing schemes for great crested newts, as an example of where a strategic approach can benefit a species population? I am not sure it stands—has he reflected on the situation where the type of intervention that underpins EDPs is already in existence and is having benefits for nature?
Gideon Amos
I accept what the Minister is saying and that elements of species protection may require strategic approaches. However, the fundamental point for the Liberal Democrats is that if the Government made a commitment to stronger protections within EDPs from the outset, in terms of the mitigation hierarchy and the protection of species on site, then we would be more open to supporting their position, but they have not made that commitment, so we cannot give our support and Lords amendment 40 needs to remain.
Lords amendment 38, proposed by the Bishop of Norwich and supported by Liberal Democrat peers, is equally important. It would ensure that the new spatial development strategies include protections for our incredibly rare and valuable chalk streams. Shockingly, there is currently a lack of protection for these rare and incredible habitats. Around 85% of the world’s chalk streams are in England. They are as rare globally as rainforests, and yet they do not have the required designation as irreplaceable habitats. [Interruption.] I do not know where that voice came from, but I am happy to give way.
Edward Morello
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He will know that West Dorset is home to a number of our rare and precious chalk streams, including the Frome and the Wraxall brook. Does he agree with me that a system similar to the Blue Flag status that we have for beaches would be a relatively cheap and easy way for the Government to provide environmental protections for our chalk streams?
Gideon Amos
I agree with my hon. Friend, who does an excellent job championing the chalk streams in his constituency. A public-facing, recognised standard for chalk streams, similar to those that we have for other environmental designations, would be incredibly welcome.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I also have a chalk stream in my constituency, the River Snail. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we give these chalk streams statutory protection through measures such as those set out in Lords amendment 38, rather than relying on national planning frameworks that can be changed without referring back to this place?
Gideon Amos
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Proper statutory protection for the internationally valuable resource that is our chalk streams is long overdue. I welcome the Minister’s words in his opening remarks, but until we see those designations we will continue to advocate for proper statutory protection for chalk streams. We urge the Minister to go further on that.
I now turn to the amendments on democratic and parliamentary accountability. The Bill does not just tinker at the edges but fundamentally concentrates power into the hands of Secretaries of State. Lords amendment 33 would ensure that if and when the Government implement their proposed regulations to remove powers from local planning committees and councillors, they must come to this House under the affirmative resolution procedure.
Clause 51 gives unlimited power to all future Secretaries of State to remove any and all decisions from planning committees—there is no limit imposed on that power. The very least that the Government should be willing to accept is a commitment to meaningful parliamentary oversight when they bring forward the regulations to remove powers from planning committees. No amount of consultation on a national scheme of delegation will change the extraordinary power in clause 51 and what it takes away from local planning committees, locally elected councillors and local communities. Lords amendment 33 offers only a small safeguard against that centralisation. For such powers to not even be affirmed by Parliament would make a mockery of the democratic process.
Similarly, Lords amendment 1 would ensure that the Government continue to be fully accountable to Parliament on their changes to national policy statements. NPSs govern the biggest projects in the land, from Hinkley Point to Sizewell, from rail freight terminals to the largest solar and wind farms in the world, and transmission lines. It is the fact NPSs are approved by Parliament that provides them with the efficacy they have in guiding decisions on such projects. In the Commons, we proposed a compromise that case law could, for example, be reflected without parliamentary processes, but policy changes on matters as significant as future plans for nuclear power stations should remain fully subject to the decisions of Parliament. We therefore oppose the Government’s attempt to remove scrutiny of national policy statements.
Amendments 2 and 3 are about protections for reservoirs, and we oppose the Government’s attempt to remove those provisions. We also oppose the Government’s intention to remove protections for assets of community value. We remain concerned about proposals for badger shooting on building sites, which remain unamended in schedule 4.
The Liberal Democrats have set out our proposals for housing and planning. Our programme for public housing, which is far more ambitious than the Government’s, is for 150,000 publicly-funded and genuinely affordable social and council rent homes per year for local people, not the 20,000 that the Government have established as their target. It is a mistake to pit development against nature and communities. On Second Reading, only the Liberal Democrats voted to stop the damaging effects on nature this Bill could have. The Government have made some changes, which we welcome, but the amendments that remain before us today could be accommodated. They are essential to ensuring that the people and nature affected by building the homes and infrastructure that we need are heard and have their place in shaping that development. We must not give up—the Liberal Democrats will not give up—on ensuring that nature and people are protected in the rush to build the homes that we need.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
This Bill has sparked a keen interest among my constituents. It is important to recognise that people who live in Poole want to protect the environment and the benefits that living in a nature-rich part of the country gives them. I welcome some of the changes made to the Bill in the other place, many of which reflect points raised by me and others on Report, including the need for a stronger overall improvement test to ensure that changes to environmental protections do not hand developers a licence to trash nature.
As we know, Britain is already one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. We have lost half of our biodiversity, one in six species is at risk of extinction and only 14% of our habitats are in good condition. That is why I urge the Government to accept amendment 40 to safeguard vulnerable habitats and species from harmful developments.
The proposed environmental delivery plans would form part of a framework for nature recovery, allowing developers to pay into a restoration fund to offset environmental harm. That may work for nutrient neutrality, water and air quality, but it simply is not suited to the complex realities of natural habitats or declining species. We risk a situation where destruction comes before detection, with new habitats created too late to replace what has been lost. That means species losing their homes, leading to wholesale extinctions. Developers of years gone by might have got their way with a brown envelope or two, but we cannot buy back lost biodiversity.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I am sure that my hon. Friend has considered the results of the Corry review, which recognises that we have such complex nature legislation in the UK that it makes it incredibly difficult to build. Does he agree that Lords amendment 40 makes it even more complicated for people to build the homes that we desperately need?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
As several hon. Members have already mentioned, we have to find the correct balance between building the houses that we so desperately need and protecting our vulnerable nature and the habitats that we want to preserve.
The Wildlife and Countryside Link states that
“some species cannot be traded away for mitigation elsewhere. Once local populations are destroyed, they are unlikely ever to return.”
If we want the Bill to be a genuine win-win for development and for nature, and to keep our manifesto pledge to reverse nature’s decline, environmental delivery plans must be limited to where there is clear evidence they can actually work.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend is right that there are examples of where species should not be able to be moved, but Lords amendment 40 does not relate to some cases but to all cases, and it sets out in statute that species should never be moved. Does he agree that the Government’s approach, which will prevent species from being moved in many cases, is better than setting in statute something that could block so many opportunities?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I was about to come to that very point, and how serious people feel this issue is. The Wildlife Trusts have nearly 1 million members. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has more than 1 million members, and the National Trust has more than 5 million members. There is a massive base of people in this country who care deeply about nature. If we get this wrong, the risk is not just environmental, but political. People will not take it kindly if their local chalk stream is degraded, for example.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
As I am sure the hon. Member knows, chalk streams are among the rarest habitats in the world. This is not the first time I have mentioned them in this Chamber. Only 11 of the more than 200 chalk streams are protected, and even those 11 are in decline. The problems are over-abstraction, significant pollution and inappropriate development caused by poor planning. Does he agree that protecting these habitats through this Bill is essential, not optional?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
Absolutely. Because of the nature of the constituency I represent, I know that chalk streams are extremely important and should be protected. They are our national inheritance, and we are their custodians. I really hope that the Government will take further steps to align this Bill with a fairer and greener future for everyone.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I will speak to Lords amendment 28, which was introduced in the other place but relates specifically to my constituency. The Eskdalemuir seismic array, which is near the village of Eskdalemuir in my constituency, is a seismological monitoring station established to detect seismic signals from nuclear explosions. To a generation that grew up following the end of the cold war, the facility may seem to be little more than a historical curiosity, but it continues to be a vital asset in global monitoring, in scientific research, and, crucially, in helping to keep the United Kingdom compliant with its international obligations under the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.
The Eskdalemuir seismic array has been operating since 1962, making it one of the longest-operating steerable seismic arrays in the world. The facility is geographically remote, in a low seismic noise environment, and highly calibrated and sensitive, enabling the detection of even small seismic signals at a vast distance. Over recent years, its seismometers have picked up the sonic boom from Russian jets in UK airspace, and have detected underground nuclear tests in North Korea. On one occasion, it was able to detect signals generated by the detonation of around 100 tonnes of conventional explosives in Kazakhstan. All that is clear evidence of the unique nature of the site and its capabilities.
Some might wonder what the site has to do with the Bill. What could the Bill’s impact be on the maintenance of this vital scientific facility, which is crucial to our national defence and our undertakings under international treaties? In many rural constituencies in Scotland, the march of large-scale wind farm developments continues, encouraged by the Scottish Government. The forces acting on wind turbines cause vibration in the turbine—vibrations that can travel underground for many kilometres, with obvious consequences for facilities that require seismological quiet for their effective operation.
As some Members may know, the desire of wind farm developers to push the boundaries of where their infrastructure can be located, and the boundaries of the guidance against which their applications are assessed, has led to challenges to the Ministry of Defence. A previous attempt by a developer to site a wind farm at Little Hartfell, which is in the consultation zone of the Eskdalemuir seismological monitoring station, led to judicial review proceedings against the MOD. On that occasion, the challenge did not dispute that the MOD is entitled to devise and enforce a policy to protect the array from interference with its detection capabilities—it concerned the way that proposed developments were prioritised—but the lesson is clear: developers will seek to push the boundaries of where and how their developments may be sited. Ministers must be aware of that, and willing to take measures to protect against that, where issues of national defence are at stake.
The key consideration is this: in a dangerous and difficult world, we must not water down our defence systems or let down our allies to squeeze out what, in a national context, is a small amount of extra electricity. The UK Government should robustly refuse to entertain novel technologies within the 15 km exclusion zone proposed by the Eskdalemuir working group, which would replace the existing 10 km zone. That should also apply to those applications already in the planning system that were submitted by developers who continued to pursue their projects aggressively, with full knowledge that work was ongoing to review the exclusion zone. Our national defence must come first. I am sure that most people would agree that this is an area where an abundance of caution is well justified. It would be concerning if Ministers and the MOD were pressured into going too far in the name of net zero.
I am not necessarily objective, because I am the Member of Parliament with the largest number of wind turbines in their constituency, either consented or built. I believe that industrial-scale wind farms are bad generally for the locality, but there need to be specific rules around them when national security is in question, and we have to protect our credibility with our international partners.
Any loosening of the rules on infrastructure developments around facilities like the Eskdalemuir seismic array, or passing up the opportunity to reinforce existing rules, would send entirely the wrong message, both to potential developers eager to exploit new opportunities to construct even more wind farms, and to our international partners, who rely on our ability to contribute to our own defence and our collective defence. Lords amendment 28 is an opportunity to underscore the protection needed for facilities like the Eskdalemuir seismic array, and I want this Government take those protections forward.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I add my thanks to those in the other place for the work that they have done on this Bill, and particularly on Lords amendment 1, which I will explain my thinking on in more detail.
I stand to speak on this issue because of the importance of scrutiny of Government policy by the Select Committees of this House. While this House has an important scrutiny task, and Bill Committees have their job to do, there is a valuable role for Select Committees in scrutiny because of the depth of knowledge of the Committee teams, which are made up of Members, experienced expert staff, and Clerks. That depth of knowledge can be very helpful to Ministers and Governments, who can get useful input as policy is developed, and Select Committees have a particular role in relation to national policy statements.
More widely, I say to Members on the Treasury Benches that although I massively appreciate the work that the Minister has done to ensure that we lean into this issue —which I will touch on in a moment—Governments of whatever party need to be mindful when they are pushing legislation forward. We get elected with an agenda and, quite rightly, we are impatient to push things through, but we need to be mindful of the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. We diminish that at our peril, because we risk a slippery slope. One day, a mad, bad or dangerous Government—do not tempt me on that, given the past 14 years—could misuse the system. We need to stress-test what is being proposed by the Government of the day in the light of that important fact.
We have 13 national policy statements covering types of national infrastructure. I do not need to go into detail on that, but they include energy, transport, waste water and waste. The normal process has been that these statements are laid before the House, and Select Committees are involved. For time reasons, I will not go through the technical detail of how that works, but basically, Select Committees have an important role to play in scrutinising any changes to national policy statements. The Government are concerned that this can take too long, and have decided, as the Minister has explained, to introduce a new reflective amendment procedure. Under that procedure, the Government would not be subject to the existing statutory obligation to respond to a resolution of either House, or to recommendations from a Committee of either House, regarding the proposed changes.
The key question is: what is proposed to replace the existing procedure? As the Minister has said, there will continue to be a public consultation on reflective amendments —the smaller category of amendments that might be introduced. The Minister will need to write to the relevant Select Committee, and Ministers must make themselves available to appear before the relevant Committee to explain why the proposed changes to the NPS mean that the reflective amendment route is appropriate. The Minister and I have been discussing this for months—I have been speaking on behalf of those on the Committee corridor—and I thank him very much for his time.
On Report, the Minister said at the Dispatch Box that Ministers would appear in front of Select Committees
“as far as is practicable”.—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 757.]
I raised with him the concern that although “practicable” may be a legal term, it does not really work for Select Committees, because there is a question about what it means. The Minister could be on holiday, or could be visiting a constituency somewhere else in the country, and it might not be practicable for them to appear before a Select Committee. I have been a Minister, and it is right that Ministers should be accountable to this House. That should be a priority; it is the job of a Minister to steer legislation through the House, politically and practically. I know that the Minister has been looking closely at whether he can give us a reassurance that Ministers will be expected to appear before a Select Committee if required to do so, not just as far as is practicable.
Under the new approach, an amended national policy statement will be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days—I am glad that the Minister has been clear that it will be sitting days, not days during a recess period; that is critical—and the Government will respond to any Committee reports during that time. However, they no longer have a statutory obligation to respond. I hope that the Minister can reassure me further, at the Dispatch Box, that they would be expected to do so.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee corridor, we are very clear that we would play our part in ensuring that these matters were turned around within a proper timeframe, and there would not be unnecessary delays. There is a great team of people behind our Select Committees. If you were not in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would say that I am privileged to work with probably the best set of Chairs of Select Committees that we have ever had, but that would cut you out, and you did important work that set the tone for us all. You were a leader in this field when you chaired the Women and Equalities Committee; we follow in big footsteps. There is a very talented team of people on the Committee corridor who want to make sure that this process works. We take very seriously our responsibility to scrutinise Government legislation, and our role in getting it through Parliament, although not necessarily without amendment. We will work very closely with the Government when submitting our views.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Those who are watching this debate might think that we are just debating tedious parliamentary processes, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) made clear, national policy statements have impacts. We are about to consider—in some detail, I hope—the national policy statement on airports, which would result in 15,000 people in my constituency losing their home, and whole communities being wiped off the face of the earth. That is why it is so critical that we get this procedure right; otherwise, we will not carry the community with us.
Dame Meg Hillier
I think I can reassure my right hon. Friend that, as the Minister has made clear at the Dispatch Box, very large changes would go through the old process. There is no watering down of that, which is absolutely right and proper; the Government are leaning in the right direction on that. Our concern was about turning smaller amendments into reflective amendments. The Minister outlined four categories of amendment; when he sums up, I would be grateful if he could clarify who decides which of the four categories an amendment would be in, and whether there is any prospect that the process could be misused by a future Government. I cannot imagine that the Minister would misuse it, but in a bad world, could this process be abused by the Government of the day?
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I do not wish to detain the House terribly long; I just want to cover three matters, if I may. The first is Lords amendment 38, which deals with chalk streams. As the Minister knows, because I have told him before, my constituency is chalk stream central—as is yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, as my constituency neighbour. The River Test, the most celebrated of chalk streams, rises in the north of my constituency. We also have the Anton, which flows through Andover, and most famously the Bourne rivulet—about which books have been written, such is its beauty and importance. I know the Minister appreciates the importance of these incredibly rare ecological environments, which are almost unique to southern England.
I heard what the Minister had to say about the appropriateness of spatial development strategies for protecting chalk streams, but he will know that those of us who are concerned about this issue have been disappointed by the seeming reduction of enthusiasm for protection of chalk streams since this Government came to power. Obviously, the chalk stream recovery pack, which had been hard-won in negotiations with the previous Government, was abandoned. In May, amendments to this Bill that sought to protect chalk streams further were voted down. The Minister is a good chap—he and I get on well—and at every stage he has reassured the House that he wants to do more for chalk streams, but we have yet to see the beef. Even today in his opening remarks, he said that he is minded to take further steps elsewhere to protect chalk streams. Given the Government’s record over the past 12 months or so, I am afraid that that is not terribly reassuring, so when he sums up, I would be very grateful if he could be a little more detailed about what exactly he intends to do.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The right hon. Member will know from his own constituency that there are some fantastic campaigners trying to protect chalk streams. In my patch, I have the River Chess Association, the Mend the Misbourne project, and the Chiltern Society. Does he agree that it should not be down to committed campaigners to protect these chalk streams, and that it needs a statutory underpinning?
Kit Malthouse
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. In my constituency, I have groups of volunteers who work very hard, including on the Anton river in Andover, and do a fantastic job. In fact, that river flows through part of the town centre, but gets lost, and it is about to be opened up with a new riverside park running down Western Avenue. I am pleased to say that I played a small part in that scheme obtaining a levelling-up grant from the previous Government.
People in my constituency value these chalk streams almost as if they are members of their family. They are part of the identity of towns such as Whitchurch, Overton, Andover and other villages in my patch and yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. They would take the protection of those chalk streams almost as seriously as the protection of their children. Many Members—not just me—have campaigned for such statutory protection, and I would be interested in what the Minister has to say. I do not entirely accept his argument that spatial development strategies are completely inappropriate. As he knows, they can flag up areas of planning constraint and discuss corridors and green infrastructure. If there is a green infrastructure corridor, it is a chalk stream. Certainly in my part of the world, they are treasured such that a new mayor—if we have one next year—would be required to look at them as protected corridors and say as much in their plan.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member and support everything he has said about chalk streams and nature corridors. Does he think it would be helpful if the Bill went a bit further in trying to reinvigorate the natural world in densely populated urban areas? Since he has an enormous knowledge of London, does he not think that London would be so much improved if some of the unfortunately now underground rivers could be opened up, so as to give people a sense of what their natural world is really like?
Kit Malthouse
I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Interestingly, he may or may not recall that when I was a Westminster councillor, we had a project in Westminster called “Hidden Rivers”, which signposted where those rivers were. If any Members find themselves on the platform at Sloane Square station, for example—just a couple of stops away—and look upwards, they will see a socking great big pipe going across the top of the platforms carrying the River Tyburn. It rises at Marble Arch, where Tyburn convent is, and where the Tyburn tree used to stand for hanging people. It flows down, across the platform and into the Thames. The same is true, I think in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, where the Fleet flows down towards Fleet Street and into the Thames. People value and treasure such rivers, and they should be protected. I want to hear a little more on that from the Minister.
For those of us who would support new settlements, for example, SDSs might be important for the protection of chalk streams, because they can point towards the areas where new settlements should be and protect such things as river catchments. For chalk downland constituencies like mine, that is key. While I accept that the Minister will get his way and get his party to vote for the second time against protection for chalk streams in this Bill, I would like to hear a bit more detail on what he is minded to do—I take him at his word—how firm that mindedness is, and when we can expect some of the protection to come forward, because this is an urgent matter on which many of us have campaigned for many years.
The second thing I lament about the Bill, and ask the Minister to clarify, is its impact on neighbourhood plans. I have asked him this question in the past, particularly in the light of new housing targets. Both my borough councils, Basingstoke and Deane, and Test Valley, have had significant increases to their housing targets. I do not mind that necessarily, but the question is where those houses go. I have encouraged villagers and communities across my constituency to take advantage of neighbourhood plans and to put them in place. The significant alarm now is that some of the local plan implications from the new housing targets that are flowing through are riding roughshod over those neighbourhood plans, some of which took years to put in place.
The Minister has given me an undertaking in the past that extant neighbourhood plans would not have to be varied in the light of those new housing targets, until they came up for refresh, and that constraints, such as protected landscape, would pertain. I would be pleased if he could reassure us on that point when he sums up.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern about the impacts on neighbourhood development plans of the new housing targets. In my constituency, those plans were blown out of the water by the new targets. In the Cotswold district, 80% is protected landscape and of the remaining 20%, half is floodplain. Does he therefore share my disappointment that the Government are opposing Lords amendment 39, which would have forced developers to prioritise brownfield sites and save our countryside?
Kit Malthouse
I sort of agree. We should be pushing developers towards brownfield—that is absolutely right. Brownfield first was the policy of the previous Government, and it makes lots of sense. The key thing, which I am sure the Minister accepts, is that if we are to overcome this problem with the generational contract—that we who are housed will build houses for those who are not—there has to be a compromise. For me, that compromise has always been neighbourhood planning. Far too often in my constituency, villages and towns feel as if planning is something that is done to them. They dread the land promoter showing up to ram some inappropriate planning through. Some of that compromise can be about beauty, and I lament the fact that the design standards were taken out of the NPPF and that that word is not used. [Interruption.] I welcome the Minister’s nodding—that is great.
I have often said that in my constituency—for Members who do not know, it is 220 square miles of beautiful chalk downland—if developers would build thatched cottages, we would have thousands of them. People would be more than happy for developers to build villages such as St Mary Bourne all over the place, if they look beautiful and fit in. Unfortunately, we get the same ersatz development that everybody else gets around the country. We need to crack that. The other thing is putting planning in the hands of local people, and I hope the Minister will try to preserve that principle in the Bill.
My third point, briefly, is about an omission in the Bill that the Minister and I have discussed before, which is the problem of undeveloped consents. My concern is that the Bill will stimulate the land promotion industry and stimulate lots of applications. However, as the shadow Minister pointed out, when the housing market is flat, stamp duty is at penal rates, when interest rates remain stubbornly high because of Government borrowing, and when the development industry is crippled by taxes, we will not get the level of development that the Minister aspires to—certainly not towards the 300,000 a year target and 1.5 million by the end of the Parliament. Instead, we will see a stacking up of consents, as we have seen in some parts of the country already, where there are thousands and thousands of undeveloped consents. The industry will bank them. In the absence of a market into which it can sell, it will occupy itself by banking the land for times when hopefully things will come good.
Similarly, I am afraid that we will see some of the large infrastructure projects going through the process—the Minister and I are keen to see them accelerated—but people waiting for more propitious economic times to bring them forward, notwithstanding the lack, therefore, of the facility to the British public. I urge him to consider, as he looks to the next stage of his planning reforms, what he will do on undeveloped consents. I think I have said to him before that the Government should force local plans to have a 10-year housing supply that also takes into account granted consents. Then, developers can see a 10-year horizon, as can local authorities, but they also can see that if they want a life beyond 10 years, they will have to start developing that which they already have. If we deal with that issue, we will also deal with quite a lot of the resentment people feel when they see particularly large-scale planning applications coming forward. They ask, “We’ve already got 400 down the road that haven’t been built. Why do we have to take another 400?” Of course, the local council has to put huge amounts of work into the local plan, notwithstanding the fact that it might already have a five-year supply that has been consented but does not count toward the future target.
This is a problem that Governments, including my own, have struggled with for some time, and it is one I struggled with when I was Housing Minister, but I hope the Minister will give some thought to at least giving councils the option of having a 10-year supply in which granted consents count. He might well find that he gets a lot more houses built.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
The natural environment in my constituency is fantastic. It is of huge value to my constituents and it underpins Norfolk’s greatest economic driver, tourism, which is fundamental to rural areas like mine. I am especially proud that we have so many beautiful chalk streams and rivers, the most impressive of which, the River Nar, forms the northern boundary of my constituency and lends its name to the villages of Narborough and Narford. Because of its national importance, this river is designated a site of special scientific interest—one of only 11 chalk streams in the UK with that status.
The Nar is well known for its populations of brown trout and the globally threatened European eel, but even this river, protected by its designation since 1992, has a history of damage and ongoing degradation through pollution from farmland, sewage treatment works and road drainage, as well as man-made modification of its channel and floodplain, and abstraction both from the river itself and from the chalk aquifer that supplies the calcium-rich, clean water on which these systems rely. Natural England reports that 50% of the River Nar SSSI is “not healthy” and “not getting better”, which it classifies as “unfavourable—no change”.
Last year, at South Acre in my constituency, I had the pleasure of visiting part of the Nar that has been restored by landowners, with the help of the brilliant Norfolk Rivers Trust. I am so pleased that landowners and this Norfolk charity are working hard to restore the river to better health. Thanks to their efforts, the other 50% of the river is in “unfavourable—recovering” condition, or “unhealthy, but getting better”. Sadly, none of the river is classified as in “favourable condition”. Other chalk streams and rivers in my constituency include the Rivers Wissey and Little Ouse and their tributaries, such as the River Thet, which runs through my home town, Thetford. All are important features of our local natural environment, but none is healthy enough to be considered an SSSI.
Just two weeks ago, I visited the Little Ouse and met the Little Ouse Headwaters Project—another small, local charity that is trying to restore the river and the fens in its catchment. I also visited Blo’ Norton fen. Blo’ Norton is a small village at the southern edge of my constituency, near Garboldisham, which we in Norfolk pronounce “Garbisham”. The story at this location is a familiar one: the Little Ouse has been canalised—straightened, over-deepened and embanked, separating it from its floodplain. It is polluted by phosphates, nitrates, silt and pesticides running off agricultural land, and by sewage treatment works and poultry units adjacent to the river.
Local volunteers have been working hard to restore the catchment for the past 23 years. I pay tribute to the chair of trustees, Dr Rob Robinson, trustees Reg and Rowena Langston, and conservation manager Ellie Beach, all of whom I was pleased to meet recently. They gave me a tour of the fen, for which I sincerely thank them and all the other volunteers involved in the Little Ouse Headwaters Project. We as a nation owe so much to volunteers like them, who safeguard our natural heritage for future generations. It is disgraceful that previous Governments have left small charities like this and others struggling to restore these globally rare habitats, 85% of which are in England, many in my constituency.
This Government are rightly proud of their efforts to improve our rivers by holding water companies and other polluters to account, delivering an ambitious programme of reforms to fix the water system, and managing and resetting the water sector. I am pleased that water companies will invest £2 billion over the next five years to deliver more than 1,000 targeted actions for chalk stream restoration, as part of our plan for change, and that the Government are investing £1.8 million through the water restoration fund and the water environment improvement fund for chalk stream clean-up projects. As a new member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I am keen to see the effect of this Government’s improved funding for environmental land management schemes, including six landscape recovery projects in chalk stream catchments. One of those awaiting a decision on funding from DEFRA is in the headwaters of the Little Ouse. I hope it gets the funding it deserves.
I believe it is time we legislated to put chalk stream protection on a permanent footing, buffered from the vagaries of policies and funding by future Governments, so that we leave a permanent legacy of environmental protection of a globally rare resource. We must do more to protect and restore chalk streams. I urge the Minister, whose opening speech I listened to carefully, and others to take up opportunities now or in future policy considerations to protect precious environments like those in Norfolk. They are irreplaceable, and they are, in their own right, crucial to our local economies and to growth.
Dr Savage
On behalf of many of my constituents, I rise to speak in strong support of Lords amendment 40. Nature unites us in a way that few other things can. Even the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) told me of his love for nature after the Second Reading of my Climate and Nature Bill. Our love for the fields, woods and waterways that shape our lives can cut across deep political divisions, ages and backgrounds. We all want future generations to walk the same landscapes, hear the same birdsong and feel the same sense of belonging to the natural world that so many of us have known.
Lords amendment 40 recognises that truth. It would ensure that nature is treated not as an optional extra but as an essential—something that must be protected and restored alongside meeting our urgent housing need. It would limit environmental delivery plans to areas where a broad, strategic approach genuinely works, as the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) mentioned; examples include nutrient neutrality, and water and air quality.
Without this safeguard, the Bill risks undoing decades of progress in protections for our most vulnerable species. A big-picture approach cannot replace the precise protections that bats, dormice and great crested newts depend on. One cannot ask a dormouse to move house, or offset repeated local losses somewhere else. If we allow that pattern to continue, national extinction becomes a real possibility. This is how nature, the web of life, works. We cannot dismiss small snails simply because they are small. It is the smallest creatures that inhabit our topsoil that form the foundation of the entire ecosystem.
In South Cotswolds, the bond between people and nature is strong, but our area is one of the most environmentally constrained: about 80% of the Cotswolds district lies within the Cotswolds national landscape, and with much of the remainder already developed or at flood risk, we will struggle to meet our target of more than 1,000 new homes every year. Constituents who cherish our wildlife and landscapes have written to me expressing heartfelt concerns about what that level of development will mean for the places that have defined their lives.
The Labour manifesto promised planning reform that “increases climate resilience” and “promotes nature recovery”, yet the Secretary of State recently rejected amendments that would do exactly that. His “Build, baby, build” slogan suggests that we must choose between growth and nature, but that is not true: wildlife protections are not blocking new homes. Councillors and developers alike point to land availability, infrastructure and delivery capacity as the constraining factors. There is no justification for weakening nature protections when it is entirely possible to build in ways that benefit both people and planet.
Lords amendment 40 reflects a real cross-party consensus and is backed by the Wildlife Trusts, the RSPB and the Better Planning Coalition. It would offer clarity, reduce legal risk and support sustainable development while strengthening genuine nature recovery—which, incidentally, will also help in climate change mitigation. Above all, the amendment recognises that we are not, and do not need to be, in conflict with nature; we are part of it. This is our chance to show that good planning can be both responsible and ambitious, and that we can deliver the homes that people so urgently need while safeguarding the natural world that sustains us all.
I urge Members and the Government to support Lords amendment 40. I urge this House to choose clarity over confusion, evidence over ideology, and long-term stewardship over short-term slogans. Today we have the chance to choose a planning system that is efficient and fair, that is good for business and for communities and, above all, that is good for the wildlife and landscapes that define our country. We can choose to honour our responsibility to future generations, who will judge us not so much by how fast we built, but by what we protected and what we passed on.
Mr Perkins
Building 1.5 million homes to tackle the housing crisis at the same time as protecting British wildlife is an issue that the general public are rightly passionate about, and one that Government must get right for people, for nature and for the economy. The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, initiated an inquiry to explore that exact question last November, and we will shortly be able to share our conclusions and recommendations to Government. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is a central plank of the Government’s plan to unlock the planning system in order to deliver the housing and infrastructure that Britain needs.
I was interested in the contribution of the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who rightly identified the issue of developers sitting on land. I have to say, as someone who has been in local and parliamentary politics for 23 years, that that has always been the case, so it was unconvincing that, having identified the issue, he did not seem to have any solutions. He listed a number of things that the Government might consider, without enlightening us as to whether he supported any of them, so it is clear that the Government will have to crack on alone if they wish to address this important issue.
The Bill has been significantly improved during its passage, and my original concerns about part 3—which were shared by many others—have been allayed. I have been through enough debates on legislation in this Chamber where people have accused Ministers of not listening to give credit to my hon. Friend the Housing Minister for having listened to criticisms and skilfully clarified how the Government will respond. I thank him for that.
Unfortunately, the Minister’s work has been made more difficult by briefings that characterise nature as a blocker to development. In fact, research from the Wildlife Trusts found that bats and great crested newts were a factor in just 3% of planning appeal decisions. I think these anti-nature narratives are at best lazy, and often unhelpful; they distract from some of the more significant challenges in the planning system, such as the lack of resources and skills in local authorities to support good planning applications. Tackling those genuine planning barriers, alongside this Bill, will be essential to building the homes that we need.
Lords amendment 40 would limit environmental delivery plans to only certain environmental impacts, including water pollution, water availability and air pollution. Addressing environmental impacts at a strategic level, as enabled by the EDPs introduced by the Bill, has the potential in some circumstances to deliver more benefits for the environment and faster planning outcomes. In some circumstances, this strategic approach would absolutely not be appropriate—for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) alluded to, harm to a site-loyal species would often be impossible to redress in a different location.
I do believe, though, that it is reasonable to steer clear of stipulating on the face of the Bill which environmental issues EDPs could be developed for in future, as Lords amendment 40 would do. If guided by current robust scientific evidence, or evidence that might come to light in future, it is possible to imagine that a strategic approach for addressing environmental impacts could be found to be appropriate for issues beyond only water and air pollution.
John McDonnell
My hon. Friend is making an extremely considered speech. On that point, which was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), we now have concerns being expressed by virtually every environmental organisation we have ever worked with, including SERA—the Socialist Environment and Resources Association—Labour’s own environment campaign.
Could there not be a compromise here? If the Government were really clear on the process for the future, the issues that my hon. Friend has just raised could be considered. Then, we could see that there was a strategic approach on some issues, but that there would be further consideration on others that the Government could come back to. There is potential there for a compromise with the other House as part of this ping-pong process.
Mr Perkins
I thank my right hon. Friend for that contribution. The Lords amendment is sensible and well-intentioned. Even if it is rejected, as the Government are minded to do, he makes an important point: we need to get clarity that, in the majority of cases, the approach would be of this narrower type. The Minister has given us some assurance that, in the event we start seeing certain EDPs misused, we will be able to scrutinise that process, so it will be interesting to hear what he has to say in response to my right hon. Friend’s point.
I welcome the Government’s package of amendments during the Lords stages, including one that specifies that robust scientific evidence must be used by Natural England to develop an EDP. These improvements largely address the original concerns of the Office for Environmental Protection. However, I urge the Minister to consider proactively providing a list of environmental issues that might be considered suitable for EDPs. That would provide reassurance that this new and powerful tool will be directed only towards diffuse pollution issues such as those set out in amendment 40, where EDPs will have environmental benefits and provide the most value for development.
Amendment 39 would embed a brownfield-first approach in the new SDS. Building on brownfield land can help to revitalise towns and cities, as well as avoiding developing greenfield land. However, it can be more expensive: there are often clean-up jobs to be done on site. In large urban centres, brownfield development is often still profitable, but, in smaller towns such as Chesterfield, the additional factors in developing brownfield land can make development unprofitable, so sites sit undeveloped, as the Robinsons site in my constituency has for more than 20 years now. It would therefore be good to hear from the Minister what more the Government can do to promote development on brownfield land.
Both nature and safe, secure housing are enormously important to people, and our constituents deserve both: they deserve to breathe clean air, to live in safe and healthy homes, and for their children to be able to play in a local river, free from pollution, but they also deserve to have affordable housing in the communities in which they live. That is the balance that the Government must strike. Although the EDPs introduced by the Bill are an important tool, they are only part of the answer to solving the housing crisis and to improving our natural environment.
This is an important Bill and is much improved. We need to ensure not only that we get it passed as soon as possible but that the work of protecting nature does not begin or end with this Bill and carries on long after it.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I will focus my comments on Lords amendment 38. I have heard from many constituents who are deeply concerned about the potential environmental impact of this Bill and how it might affect the River Itchen, the precious chalk stream that runs through my constituency of Eastleigh. The River Itchen is a site of special scientific interest and a special area of conservation, but despite these designations, it has been subjected to repeated sewage discharges by Southern Water, threatening its delicate ecosystems and putting species at risk. We have incredible natural habitats that are being destroyed because existing protections have failed. Indeed, in the latest Environment Agency assessment, Southern Water was handed a two-star rating after causing a shocking 269 pollution incidents last year, including 15 classified as serious.
According to the 2024-25 chalk stream annual review, 83% of England’s chalk streams are failing to achieve good ecological status, which is disgraceful. That is why Lords amendment 38 is so important to my constituents and to communities across the country who live alongside these extraordinary habitats. There is no reason why we cannot have a thoughtful planning process that protects our precious natural environment and delivers the social and affordable housing that our communities desperately need, with the infrastructure to support it. We have an opportunity to show that development and environmental responsibility are not competing interests, but shared objectives. By embedding these principles in the Bill, we can address the housing crisis while simultaneously protecting our rivers, habitats and green spaces.
Lords amendment 38 would establish much-needed new protections for chalk streams and impose a responsibility on strategic planning authorities to enhance chalk stream environments. I saw the urgent need to address this issue when I visited with representatives of the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust this summer, when I was able to test the water quality of the River Itchen. With the help of experts, we saw at first hand the very low levels of biodiversity and high nitrate levels. I fully support the proposition that spatial development strategies must list chalk streams in their strategic area, and safeguard them from irreplaceable damage by outlining clear measures to protect from environmental harm.
Greater and appropriate consideration for our chalk streams is long overdue. I welcome the fact that, under Lords amendment 38, local spatial development strategies would vary according to the needs of the particular area, allowing strategies to set different balancing points between local conservation and development needs in different places. It is disappointing that the Government are unwilling to retain the amendment. Will the Minister instead commit to strengthening existing planning mechanisms and ensure that water companies are held to account, so that chalk streams are protected? This is such an important issue for my constituents, and anything less than a cast-iron guarantee is not good enough.
People across the country deeply value and treasure our natural environment. We need to deliver the housing and infrastructure that are vital for our communities, but let us not treat our chalk streams, wildlife and habitats as an afterthought.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the Climate and Nature Crisis Caucus.
At the outset of my contribution to today’s debate on this important legislation, there are a few general points that are probably worth reiterating. There need be no conflict between house building and nature; the real conflict is between greed and the sort of country we want to build. After 20 years of planning deregulation, time and again we see profiteering trumping public need and the protection of the countryside; cost cutting where communities deserve quality; and low-density, high-price housing while families wait for council homes.
Since we last debated the Bill in this place, Key Cities has published a very useful report, which highlights that in a survey of its members, only 6% cited the planning system as the primary obstacle to house building. More than twice that figure pointed to developer delays, so I hope that we will shortly see similarly major Government legislation to tackle the profiteering developers that are blocking the delivery of genuinely affordable housing in this country.
The recent announcement of plans for towns built within a new forest shows that good development and nature recovery can go hand in hand, and we must go further. A democratic programme of mass council house building could easily avoid the clashes that so often mark the developer-led system. What is needed are well-funded councils with the power to assemble land and identify the best sites for new homes—building not grey estates that are shaped by the defeatism of low expectations, but cohesive, thriving communities that are built for life to flourish. That is the solution to the housing crisis and would create a country that puts people and nature before profit.
I welcome the several important amendments tabled by the Government in the other place. In my view, the most important is the stronger overall improvement test for nature recovery, which I campaigned for on Report. It is very good news that these amendments have substantially allayed the concerns of the Office for Environmental Protection. Nevertheless, it is clear that environmental experts and conservationists continue to have some concerns, which the other place has sought to address through Lords amendments 40 and 38 in particular.
Our Labour Government were elected on a clear manifesto promise to reverse the nature crisis in this country, so it is essential we get this right. That is particularly urgent for our endangered species and irreplaceable habitats, including chalk streams such as the Rib, Beane, Ivel and Mimram, which criss-cross North East Hertfordshire and bring joy to so many people’s lives. I genuinely welcome the comments that the Minister has made to allay the concerns of nature experts, and I will dedicate my remaining time to a few short questions that I hope he can address in his wind-up.
First, given the need for legal certainty, can the Minister confirm that the overall improvement test will guarantee that irreplaceable habitats and species cannot be covered by EDPs, and if so, will the Government set out a list of environmental features that they consider would be irreplaceable?
Secondly, can the Minister confirm whether any EDPs are currently under consideration or development by Natural England, or proposed by the Government? If so, will any of them be affected if Lords amendment 40 remained part of the Bill?
Thirdly, will the Minister give confidence to the many constituents of North East Hertfordshire worried about potential impacts on the wildlife we love by once again putting on record that the Government recognise the difference between diffuse landscape issues such as nutrient pollution, where strategic scale action is best suited for nature restoration, and protected sites and species that cannot easily be recreated elsewhere?
Fourthly, given the widespread interest in this Bill shown by many of our constituents and by the wider nature sector, will the Minister consider providing further transparency and accountability through a Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 40 to ensure parliamentary approval of EDPs beyond diffuse issues such as air, water and newts?
Fifthly, given that the “Catchment Based Approach” annual review published this autumn found that a third of chalk streams do not have a healthy flow regime, that over-abstraction due to development pressures is one of the main threats facing these crown jewels of our natural heritage and that there are currently no planning policies specifically protecting chalk streams, can the Minister set out in more detail how the Government foresee planning authorities being able to direct inappropriate development away from struggling chalk streams within the process of setting spatial development strategy plans, and would he consider opportunities for this through regulation, if not through the Bill?
Sixthly, will the Minister provide further certainty from the Dispatch Box about ensuring that chalk streams are specifically added to the national planning policy framework as an irreplaceable habitat, and will he set out when this might happen given that an update of those provisions has been delayed since 2023?
Seventhly, as one reason put forward for Lords amendment 40 is that it would mitigate concerns about the weakening of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, what reassurances can the Minister give my constituents that these iconic animals will not be at risk from widespread licences to kill in EDPs paid for by developers in the absence of Lords amendment 40?
Eighthly, can the Minister confirm whether the Government have assessed the potential impact of proposed biodiversity net gain exemptions on the private finance for nature markets that will be essential for the delivery of EDPs?
Ninthly and finally, can the Minister reassure those who have raised concerns that the current legislation may allow money committed to the natural restoration fund to be redirected to other purposes?
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that I like to start on a positive note and by looking for common ground, so I will begin by recognising and welcoming the fact that the Government have made some concessions in the other place on this Bill, which is a positive step. Unfortunately, I have to disagree with the Minister’s claim that this is a win-win for nature and housing, and express my continued concern that the Bill, especially part 3, has not had the full reconsideration it needs to ensure we have a genuine win-win. The reason, unfortunately, is that the Government seem to be stuck in the view that there is a zero-sum game between nature protection and house building. That is wrong and unhelpful; it is a complete misconception. Despite making some concessions, the Government lost a lot of trust among the general public by claiming at the outset of the Bill’s progress that they would do no harm to nature protection. The Government were forced to reconsider and recognise, not least by their own official adviser, that that was not in fact the case.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I did think that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) was about to slip up in her round-up and say, “Build, baby, build”—we almost had her there.
Every single week at my constituency surgeries, people come and talk to me about housing shortages, whether it is people living in overcrowded or temporary accommodation or people facing homelessness, and tomorrow will be no exception. In fact, the impact of the storms in my constituency this weekend will likely mean that hundreds of people—perhaps up to a thousand—will be temporarily removed from their temporary mobile homes in the Billing aquadrome, putting additional pressure on our housing system. It is right that the Government are stepping forward to try to fix this. I have been quite surprised in some of the debates on this Bill that we are not putting more focus on how we deal with homelessness, and that a debate on planning and infrastructure has instead come down in many cases purely to a discussion of nature.
Dr Chowns
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are many hundreds of thousands of homes sitting empty around the country and that this Bill will not do anything to address that issue, which could go a very long way to addressing the problems of homelessness that he claims to worry about?
Mike Reader
The hon. Lady is completely right that there are lots of empty homes. I am sure that there must have been some amendments tabled by the Greens that I have missed, and that they have been constructive and worked with Government to address that issue through the Bill.
Working cross-party is what I have always tried to do in this place. I am proud to chair the all-party parliamentary group for excellence in the built environment and the all-party parliamentary group on infrastructure and, even though the Minister and I do not always agree with the membership of the group—I have to say, some of the members do take unwarranted and quite grotty shots at the Minister—I am proud to chair the Representative Planning Group with Simon Dudley, the treasurer of the Conservatives.
I am pleased that the Government have recognised a point that I raised on Second Reading that solving the housing crisis will take action from the whole Government. The Bill is part of it, but there are many other things that we need to do to fix the mess that we inherited. I am also reassured that concerns that I and others raised on Second Reading around how EDPs will work have been recognised, particularly in some of the latest amendments, as well as by the Minister’s comments on how brownfield will be dealt with, which is so critical.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the housing issues that we all see in our constituencies, so it is interesting that there are so few advocates for building. Whenever there is a new housing application in Chesterfield, we get people who live nearby saying, “I’m a bit concerned about this.” We get lots of people saying that there are not enough houses around, but they never come to us and say, “Please can you support one of these new applications?” Maybe we should give some thought to how we do more to build for the huge number of people who are inadequately housed. We need more housing developments in order to actually create some movement in favour of these developments.
Mike Reader
My hon. Friend could not be more right. Part of why we set up the cross-party Representative Planning Group was to create an opportunity to bring forward legislation that ensures that all voices are heard in the housing debate, not just the loudest and angriest and those with lots of spare time on their hands.
I am surprised by the position taken by the Conservatives. I was fortunate to sit on the Committee for the devolution Bill. I recognise that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), is an absolute expert on local government, and he made some amazing contributions in Committee. As I am sure many Members did, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition’s speech at the Conservative party conference. She spoke about cutting bureaucracy, making things easier and cutting down on Government waste, but many of the amendments the shadow Minister spoke to do just the opposite. Lords amendment 3 adds layers of process to how planning will work, increasing the risk of judicial review. Lords amendment 33, which the Minister picked up on in his opening remarks, adds more parliamentary processes to trying to fix our housing crisis. I hope when he sums up that the shadow Minister will reflect on whether his position on this Bill reflects the position of his party’s leader and her call to cut regulation and get us building.
A big point here is trust. Unfortunately, the debate on this Bill has focused on trust—trust in Government, trust in those who build our homes and trust in our planning system as well. If Members turn their mind back to May 2024, they will remember a soggy former Prime Minister standing with music playing behind him. I was at the UK Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure Forum to discuss housing and how we get Britain building. I listened to a whole industry that is completely fed up with the Conservatives. One of my engagements over the past couple of days was a discussion on trust in the housing sector. I cannot remember the specific numbers, but I am thinking of figures from a couple of years ago: less than 20% of people had trust in developers, and less than 20% of people had trust in our planning process. It is clear that the whole process is broken, and that is why we are working really hard through this Bill to try to fix it.
We have talked about the big amendments, but I want to turn to EDPs. If any Member wants to come in on that, I am very happy to discuss it. There are other great measures in the Bill that will get lost. Lords amendment 34 seeks to improve how heritage sites are dealt with. That is fantastic for somewhere like Northamptonshire, which has one of the largest volumes of country houses, manors and stately homes in the country. Lords amendment 39 addresses brownfield sites, and Lords amendment 31 addresses the provision of EV charging, which came up a couple of weeks ago when I was on “Politics East” alongside the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) and we were asked for our views.
I am pleased that the Bill is returning to a focus on planning. Some of the amendments show that the Government have listened to those who build and those who want to see homes built across our country, and we are taking positive steps. EDPs have been the topic of a number of speeches. It is a contentious point both for my hon. Friends and Opposition Members. I have worked in the industry for 20 years, starting out fixing houses that were filling with sewage, and ending my career working on mega and giga projects around the world. I have experience of planning, approvals and consenting processes—in the most developed countries and in some developing countries as well—and I can tell Members that our process is so complicated.
I referenced the Corry review in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan). The review, commissioned by DEFRA, found that we have some of the most inefficient, inconsistent and difficult-to-navigate nature legislation in the world, and it is not fit for purpose to drive nature recovery. Those who argue against change argue for the status quo, which has led to our country being one of the most nature-depleted in the world. That is what those who argue against this Bill argue for. They argue for more of the same, more nature destruction and a process that does not deliver homes.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
My hon. Friend intervened on me, mentioning the Corry review, and then he cited it in his own contribution. I am sure that he would like to acknowledge that the review specifically warns about a bonfire of red tape and supports targeted changes. Does he agree that amendment 40 aims to support pragmatic reform, limiting EDPs to where they can make a positive impact, rather than where they will do harm?
Mike Reader
I take the point. The intention behind amendment 40 is well meant: there are situations, as my hon. Friend has said, in which EDPs will not be needed and there are other ways to deal with those situations through existing legislation. Having such a finite definition in the two lines of the amendment, which people have focused on, creates what the Corry review calls the problem: adding more complexity to the process, not simplifying it.
I make no complaints about starting my career as a civil engineer and working in industry, and I am sad to hear that some of my colleagues and some of those across the House have the idea of greedy developers taking all our money and making millions of pounds in profit without ever giving back to society. I am interested to see, through this debate, the very well-funded environmental lobby. I am proud to be an environmentalist and to be on the executive committee of SERA, Labour’s environmental campaign, and I am grateful for the debate that I have had with them through this process to inform my thinking.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) mentioned the 3% stat—that only 3% of planning fails because of nature. The truth is that the assessment would be done long before the planning process, and I am surprised that schemes have got to that point on nature, as I am by the 3%. The chances are that when going for early viability on a project, nature challenges will be looked at. The complexity and difficulty of delivering in this country, because of the way our legislation is set up and the risk entailed, means that many schemes do not go ahead in the first place. I recognise the stat that my hon. Friend has presented, but it is slightly erroneous, because when there are particular nature issues, most projects will never get to the planning stage.
It is really positive, however, to see so much brought forward by the Government—nearly 30 additional amendments—as they listen to the concerns of both Houses, to the environmental lobby and to those who build the homes we desperately need, and improve the way the law will work. There are great opportunities to support that going forward.
I will add a slight observation. Through my career, I coined the three Cs of delivery, whether I was working on the Hudson tunnel connecting New Jersey and New York; on the Peru reconstruction programme, a project that was championed by another former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, as a great example of exporting British expertise to a country and working in partnership to deliver nature restoration, new schools and new hospitals; on airports in places such as Keflavik in Iceland; on regeneration schemes in Greece; or even on the new hospitals and prison programmes and other things that we deliver in our great country. Those three Cs are certainty, commerciality and cost—and that is what it fundamentally comes down to when delivering projects.
I am sure that everyone recognises that cost is critical. If we cannot afford it, we cannot deliver it, so we have to get cost right. At the moment, viability particularly impacts our ability to deliver homes, and this legislation will start to improve that. Commerciality is the one that I like to focus on when talking to industry, because how we deal with apportionment of risk, change and commercial incentivisation is how we get projects working well, such as the Silvertown tunnel in Newham, and how we get projects that run very badly, such as HS2 phase 1, where the commerciality is completely wrong.
The third C is certainty. That is what we have to give the market after 14 years of failure of a Conservative party that flip-flopped on housing policy, with a revolving door of Housing Ministers—we have all heard the tropes, so I will not keep going. We need certainty in the timescales around how planning works. The Bill simplifies that, making it clear how the judicial review process works and how we go through planning to give certainty to the communities that are impacted and which need those homes.
The amendments brought forward by the Lords that the Government are taking forward improve that certainty of the legal process. Even yesterday, in the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, we heard evidence on the planning process for delivering community energy, and I am sure everyone would support more small-scale community energy. We were blown away by the complexity of planning regulation in trying to get, say, solar panels on to a community building or a small-scale district heating scheme delivered in a local community for their benefit. The scale of complexity of our planning process is such a big challenge. As well as improving certainty of the legal process, the Bill improves certainty around nature protection. The engineering design process will help us deliver more homes and protect nature.
Since coming to this House, I have chosen to add a fourth C to my three Cs: the C of courage. What I saw in industry was a Government who did not have courage and that flip-flopped on their decisions, and that meant chaos. As has been said, we have inherited a system that fails to deliver the homes that we desperately need. That political courage to do difficult things, find compromise and drive forward is what the Bill represents, and I am proud to give my backing to my Government in pushing it through and ensuring that we deliver homes for people right across our country.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
There has been great anxiety about the possible negative impacts on the environment of this legislation. Lords amendment 40 seeks to restore site specific protections for most cases where they do not involve wider issues, such as nutrient neutrality, but it has been opposed by the Government, as we have heard. Can we trust the Government to have their heart in the right place when it comes to nature versus development? We can pick up a big clue by looking at what has been happening in my constituency in West Sussex.
For the last four years, Horsham district has been contending with the complications of water neutrality, which is often wrongly confused with nutrient neutrality. It is something that applies only to my district and a couple of neighbouring areas. It concerns possible damage to a unique wetlands habitat on the River Arun, which is home to a rare species of snail and many birds. On a precautionary basis, Natural England has required a halt to any new development that would increase demand on the water supply abstracted at nearby Hardham. Natural England was wrong to impose such a draconian limit. The “not one litre more” rule prevented small businesses from building even the smallest project, and that seriously damaged the local economy.
I do not have any confidence either in the abrupt lifting of all restrictions, as happened a fortnight ago. Southern Water promised to reduce its Hardham abstraction licence by a few million litres a day, but that will not make any difference, because it never used the whole allowance anyway—it was just a notional figure set many decades ago.
The immediate crisis for Horsham is how the changes affect planning and housing development. For the past four years, Horsham has been in the ludicrous position of having to obey two totally contradictory laws. One law says that we have to build circa 1,000 houses a year. The other law says that we cannot build any houses at all if they will use extra water. That is clearly quite a challenge. As a result, we have fallen from being an authority that exceeded our housing targets, even though they were very stiff, to being one of the worst performers in the country, with a land supply of less than one year. It is literally against the law for us to obey the law.
As a result, Horsham district council has been forced to accept a series of applications that contradict its local plan and that make complete nonsense of the strategic plan-led development that the Government always profess to support. Complications around water neutrality have prevented a new local plan from being passed, and that has prevented major new environmental provisions from coming into force.
This legal nonsense has done huge damage to Horsham district and is set to do even more. The sudden lifting of water neutrality today leaves us exposed to wholly unconstrained development, which will do major damage to our environmental ambitions. It is impossible to make meaningful plans for new schools, clinics and community services to support the enormous targets that we will be forced to build when speculative developments keep going through that have none of those attributes.
Do I trust the Government to have their heart in the right place when it comes to environmental protections? No, I do not. Do I believe that they are committed to plan-led development? No, I do not. The Government are content to see holes dug all across our beautiful Horsham countryside in the hope that it might dig the Chancellor out of her own personal fiscal black hole.
I therefore urge the Minister to support Lords amendment 40, and to consider how the legislation is affecting my constituency. I invite him to meet me and Horsham district council so that we can explain that what he is doing will not just sacrifice our local environment but make the delivery of affordable housing—my overall key ambition for Horsham—harder, not easier.
John McDonnell
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for leaving the Chamber for a period. I had to chair a meeting upstairs that had been planned for a number of months.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) mentioned the 4 Cs. I will add a fifth: confidence. One problem that we have as a Government —on this issue and on a number of others—is that we need to instil confidence in the general population that not only are our objectives sound but the methods that we are about to use will be effective. I want to stick to the Bill, but let me use a general example. There has been a trend in Government over the past 17 months of policies being introduced that have not maintained the confidence of the general public or of a number of Members. Having destroyed that confidence, we have then gone through a process of reversing the policies and, as a result, not gaining any benefit from them. We just require a bit more political nous as we consider things, issue by issue.
In this field in particular, I do not think that we have taken people with us. What has undermined confidence for people like me is that when Members honestly expressed their views, concerns and expertise, and moved amendments, they lost the Whip. Then, at a later date—within weeks—the Government adopted those amendments as part of the process in the Lords.
John McDonnell
I am happy to take an intervention if the Minister so wishes.
Matthew Pennycook
I am happy to intervene just to make clear that we did not adopt the amendments that were pressed on Report. There are very crucial differences between the package that we submitted and those amendments.
John McDonnell
The Government did not accept the amendments on Report, but the reality is that they had to negotiate with the other House and introduce amendments that were in the spirit of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff)—it is as simple as that. We need to be honest about that and admit when we make mistakes.
That is why I worry about this. If we introduce legislation of this sort, we need to take people with us. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South referred, in a derogatory tone, to the well-funded environmental groups. I have been working with those groups for nearly 50 years. I have never seen a breadth of unanimity across them on an issue such as this. Some of them cannot be described as anything other than mainstream. What they are asking for, in some of these amendments, is relatively limited, so it behoves us, as a listening Government, to go that one step further and see whether compromises can be reached. I congratulate the Government on doing that for clause 3, in which compromises have been reached. For some reason, however, people are digging their heels in, particularly in relation to Lords amendment 40.
Let me deal with Lords amendment 1 on national policy statements. As I said earlier, confidence must be built when dealing with huge developments. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) has mentioned the third runway at Heathrow. The proposal to build a third runway will never have my constituents’ confidence because, as I said earlier, 15,000 of them will lose their homes, whole villages will be wiped off the face of the earth, and 2 million more people in London will suffer from noise and air pollution —so we will not be able to convince them, to be honest. However, on more general topics, including major infrastructure projects, the role of Select Committees has been critical, as they are able to examine those issues in depth, have Ministers before them and present reports to the House, which we can debate.
In many instances, Select Committee reports and the work those Committees have done has been of such a quality that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) demonstrated in his description of the work his Select Committee does—they have influenced Government, enabled policies to be changed and, as a result, built up confidence in the general public. I am concerned about any lessening of the role of Select Committees in this whole process. The Minister has given us some assurances, and we will see how that works out in practice, but we interfere with that democratic process of this House at our peril when we are in government, because this is how mistakes get made.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I am pleased to speak today in full support of Lords amendments 38 and 40. I would also like to take the opportunity to press the Minister on the Government’s response in the other place to Lords amendment 32, which I will come to shortly.
First, on Lords amendment 40, I am pleased that the Lords altered the uses of environmental delivery plans to better protect species. North Norfolk is proudly biodiverse, and it must be protected. We should all see the shocking decline in our rare swallowtail butterflies—an icon of the Norfolk broads—as an indicator of the nature emergency we face. Protections for wildlife and biodiversity are crucial, and I hope the Government will retain this amendment.
On Lords amendment 38, I welcome the Minister’s statement of future intent, but I am nevertheless in full support of protecting North Norfolk’s chalk streams. I thank my local bishop, the Bishop of Norwich, for tabling that amendment in the other place and for his admirable support for and defence of chalk streams in Norfolk and across the country. He is a great champion for the environment and I thank him for it. Over the summer I went to Letheringsett in my constituency, with volunteers from the River Glaven Conservation Group. The Glaven is a much loved chalk stream locally, and one of many in North Norfolk that we hold dear. As one local councillor told me, in North Norfolk, “we cherish our chalkies.”
I saw the work undertaken to renew and revitalise the river and its floodplain, made as part of the Norfolk Wildlife Trust’s nine chalk rivers project. A 1.2 km man-made channel was dug to reconnect the river to its original path and restore its natural flow after years of human interference. A new wetland near Glandford ford has also been created, generating a vital new habitat for the native crayfish and water vole that can be found there. I also heard of the challenges, from construction silt run-off to sewage discharges. Allowing a unique and precious natural environment to be treated this way in recent years is nothing short of scandalous.
Sadly, this is the situation not only for the Glaven or even Norfolk’s chalk streams; we have heard shameful tales of those historic habitats across the country being trashed and abused by profiteering water companies, without a shred of care for the environment that they are damaging. That is why I believe that Lords amendment 38 is a perfectly sensible and much-needed addition to the Bill. Of course those of us with chalk streams in our local areas want spatial development strategies to take account of them and ensure their ongoing protection. I am yet to hear a convincing argument from the Government as to why this amendment is being so strongly opposed.
Clearly, the status quo is not working, and we cannot embark on a new age of development and infrastructure building without making sure that those aspects of our environment that are already being failed are not damaged beyond saving. There has been a lot of talk in recent months about national pride and the St George’s cross. Well, I am proud that the St George’s cross flies over 85% of the world’s chalk streams. Out of only 200 in the world, the majority are right here in England. We are the custodians and guardians of the vast majority of this special habitat. We have to take that responsibility seriously, and Lords amendment 38 is an important step towards proving that we will.
I have been critical of much of what is included in the Bill, but almost equal amounts of criticism can be levelled against it because of what it lacks. Today we can plug one more gap in it by agreeing with the Lords in their amendment.
I said that I wanted to press the Minister on Lords amendment 32, which may have been unfortunately worded with a slightly predetermined outcome when it was tabled in the other place. In North Norfolk, we have real issues with water abstraction licences. Food processors and farmers need water, and attenuation is the answer. The current permitted development regulation is clearly not working. The Government responded in the other place by saying that they needed to look at PDRs and would return to them. I wonder if I can press the Minister to indicate a few more steps and some timelines.
Steff Aquarone
I am getting an indication that he will not do so, which is a shame.
I support the development of more homes in North Norfolk; there are 2,400 households on our housing waiting list who demand that provision. I am delighted that new residents in Walcott and Bacton will be moving into dozens of new affordable homes in the coming months, supported by our Lib Dem-led council. I want everyone living in North Norfolk, though—in new homes or in old—to be able to cherish our ancient chalk streams for the decades and centuries to come, and I urge colleagues across the House to vote to protect them.
Ruth Cadbury
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), a fellow Transport Committee member. We do not have any chalk streams running through Brentford and Isleworth, but we are beside the Thames, which I know is fed by many chalk streams.
Ruth Cadbury
We do have a canal. We also have the Thames, the River Crane and the Duke of Northumberland river, but I do not think any of them are chalk. The issues for chalk streams, particularly sewage going into them in Oxfordshire, causes us problems in the Thames as it goes past my constituency—I digress.
I welcome the many changes that the Government will make to the planning system as a result of the Bill, and I welcome the amendments that have been made during its passage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) said so eloquently, the most important thing about the Bill is that will it bring more homes. There is high demand for housing in the borough of Hounslow; people desperately need adequate, affordable and good-quality housing but cannot get on to the housing ladder. Some people can afford to rent or buy privately, but I know from door-knocking that all the flats that have been built over the past 20 years are fully occupied.
West London is desperately short of housing, for those already living in the area who want to stay close to their family and for those who want to come to live in the area to take advantage of the many job opportunities in growth sectors. Sadly, some developments that have planning permission have not yet been built, partly because of changes to designs following Grenfell, and partly because other building regulation and industry changes. I hope that those developments get on stream very quickly.
I will focus on Lords amendment 1 to clause 2. In response to my intervention on the Minister earlier, he assured me that despite the significant changes and the new national policy statements, the existing process of parliamentary scrutiny—including a role for this Chamber and the Committees—will continue, and I thank him for that.
The new procedure introduced in clause 2 applies to amendments to national policy statements that reflect policy or legislative changes, or decisions that have been through the courts. The implication is that the provision will enable the quicker implementation of light-touch amendments—those involving less material changes—to national policy statements. That concerns some of us, as the Chair of the Liaison Committee has already covered so eloquently. Some of these changes could be very significant, and they deserve proper scrutiny. As Chair of the Transport Committee, I will come later to some examples specifically relating to transport.
The Government’s changes will give
“Parliament and the relevant select committee forewarning that Government intends to follow the reflective amendment procedure to update an NPS”.
The “reflective amendment procedure” is what I would call “the reduced procedure”, but we will get forewarning—great. The Government will also have to formally announce a review of an NPS by making a statement in Parliament—great. When there is a partial review, the Government will
“informally update the Liaison Committee and the relevant Select Committee”
by writing to the relevant Select Committee at the commencement of the public consultation period on proposed changes to an NPS.
In Committee, the Minister said that
“Ministers will make themselves available to speak at the relevant Select Committee during the consultation period, so far as is practical.”––[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 29 April 2025; c. 105.]
It is the words “so far as is practical” that have concerned the Chairs of the Select Committees.
A letter received by the Liaison Committee also stated that if a Select Committee publishes a report on proposed NPS changes within the public consultation period, then the Government will take those views into account before the updated NPS is laid before Parliament and will seek to respond to the report around the time of laying the updated NPS “wherever feasible”.
When the Minister sums up, I hope he will clarify those two phrases: “so far as is practical”, in relation to the Minister coming to the Select Committee; and “wherever feasible”, in terms of the Government responding to the Committee’s report.
As I have just said, the reflective amendment process is expected to apply to changes to national policy statements that reflect legislative decisions, Government decisions, the publication of Government policy or changes to other documents referred to in the ANPS. I have a question, which I would really like to know the answer to: by what criteria will the new process be used, and who decides? When will the full-fat version, with the involvement of Parliament, be used?
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a really important point about the need to use these planning processes to align our transport infrastructure plans and ensure that they align with our ambitions around housing developments. Nowhere is the lack of public transport infrastructure more important than in rural constituencies such as mine, where we have my thriving town of Shrewsbury. We have 65,000 residents, but we had no buses after 7 pm or on a Sunday, until now. Thanks to a pilot, we will now have a night bus for the month before Christmas that will run hourly between 8 pm and midnight, giving a boost to our local economy. Does she agree that we must not wait 10 years for such excellent news? We must plan ahead to align both our transport policies and our development plans.
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend is an amazing ambassador for Shrewsbury—I have learned so much about Shrewsbury since getting to know her. Although it is possibly beyond the scope of today’s debate, she is absolutely right about the need to align transport policies and networks with our wider growth and development aspirations. I know that the Government are listening, and are working hard on that very issue. The point about new towns is also a very good one, and it has been welcome to see a Transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), sitting alongside the Housing and Planning Minister for quite a lot of this debate—it is a good sign that the important need to break down the silos that built up in Government over the past 15 years is being recognised. We on the Committee corridor really appreciate that.
The Transport Committee considered national networks in 2023, so we do not expect to see that national policy statement again until 2028—we will see what process is followed then, if indeed this change does go through. We published our view on the national policy statement on ports this morning, so it will be 2030 before that is due for revision again. As I said, airports is the only national policy statement that is specific to a particular development, and the Transport Committee expects to address it in the months ahead. Of course, we will be doing so following the Chancellor’s announcement that the Government wish to pursue the development of runway three.
Although we honour the power and role of the Government, I pick up on what the Minister said on Report when he was keen to assure us that the Government’s changes were
“not about eroding parliamentary scrutiny, but about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the changes being made”,
and that the Government
“recognise the value that such scrutiny brings to getting important changes right.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 757.]
Our constituents want to be assured that any changes that have a disproportionate impact on them will be properly scrutinised by this House. I am glad that the Minister has said that the Government will lay a statement in the House, write to the relevant Select Committee and make themselves available, but I want to pick up on the phrase “as far as is practicable”. It is good that he went on to say that
“the Government recognise the importance of Ministers attending Committee to explain the proposed changes”,
and that
“Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change should be enacted”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 757.],
but Parliament needs time, access to Ministers, and assurance that significant changes will be able to be properly and fully scrutinised. Where a proposed change is significant enough—where it is not a relatively minor change—we must be able to use the full process.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. In opening the debate, I set out at some length the reasons why the Government are resisting the bulk of the amendments made in the other place. In the interests of time, I do not intend to reiterate at any great length the points I have made previously. I will instead focus my remarks on expanding the Government’s arguments in key respects, and on addressing any points raised in the debate that I did not cover in my opening remarks.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially so early in his remarks. I apologise to him and to the House for not being here for his opening remarks, which he has just mentioned. In them, he talked a little about Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 31. I am grateful to him for the concession that the Government are making and for the moves they intend to make. However, can I make just two criticisms of Government amendments (a) and (b)? The first is very minor; Government amendment (a) refers to the
“Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2028”.
That should, of course, be 2018. I know that the Minister will be able to correct that error in due course.
The more substantive criticism is about data collection. The Minister will know that is the only substantive difference left between the Government’s proposal and the one that I made on Report in this place and that Lord Borwick made in the other place. When we seek to improve access for people with disabilities to charging infrastructure, we should be able to keep track of progress. If the Minister is not minded to do that in the context of this Bill, will he consider other ways in which we can be sure that progress is being made in the direction that he and I both want to see?
Matthew Pennycook
I will of course pick up the drafting error that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has identified and rectify that. I am more than happy to take the data point away and reflect further. With the amendment in lieu that we have proposed, there is obviously a process around the regulations that come forward with further opportunities to feed in. I very much appreciate his recognition that the amendment in lieu goes a long way to addressing the points that he raised.
I will pick up a number of the points that have been raised in the course of the debate, starting with those relating to Lords amendment 1. For the purposes of clarity, I will lay out again the reassurances I have given to the House, both on Report and today. Where the Government of the day intend to make a reflective amendment to a national policy statement, a statement will be laid in Parliament announcing a review and the relevant Select Committee will be written to. Ministers will make themselves available to speak at that Committee. On Report, I talked about that being wherever practicable to account for the usual scheduling challenges that all Ministers face, but I hope it is noted that I withdrew those comments. We expect Ministers to make themselves available to the relevant Committee in all instances, and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period.
Importantly, the NPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days. That is 21 sitting days, during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change proposed through the reflective route should be enacted.
On who makes the decisions, it is the relevant Secretary of State who will decide whether a change falls into one of the four categories, but the categories are closely defined. They include: relevant published Government policy, a change to legislation and a decision of the court. The intent of the relevant clause is not to evade parliamentary scrutiny, but to address the fact that, on average, the Select Committee inquiry process adds around five months to the process of updating a national policy statement. That is as things stand. We want to ensure that Select Committees are engaged and that we have regular and timely updates. I can happily confirm, as I have made clear, that where a Select Committee returns recommendations during that consultation period, they will be taken into account. However, we need this change to make reflective amendments to the NPS to ensure that things can be kept up to date.
Airports are a good example of where a full NPS review would have to take place. That would not be allowed to take place through the reflective amendment process, and that is not the intention of the Secretary of State for Transport. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State must lay the proposed amended national policy statement in full before Parliament and specify a relevant period. If within that relevant period, either House passes a resolution or a Committee makes recommendations on the proposed amendment, the Secretary of State must respond, and that response must be laid before Parliament. There are two different processes.
Turning to chalk streams, we have to be clear about the intent of Lords amendment 38. It is not a broad blanket statutory protection for chalk streams; it implies specific requirements on chalk streams in spatial development strategies brought forward by the relevant authorities. We think there are important practical reasons why those authorities are not the relevant bodies to bring such protections forward.
In his contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) referenced a number of cases where other legislation or other Government agencies are ultimately responsible for addressing some of the problems in question, not the spatial authorities that will bring forward SDSs. We therefore do not think that Lords amendment 38 is the right way to proceed. National policy is the way to proceed in the Government’s view. While I accept that chalk streams are not currently mentioned explicitly in national policy, the NPPF is clear that planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value, and local plans should:
“Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks”.
In addition, when determining planning applications local planning authorities should apply the principle that if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or, in the last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused. The application of these protections extends beyond strategic plans, to all types of plan and, crucially, to decisions on planning applications. As I said, the Government acknowledge the case for giving explicit recognition to chalk streams in national planning policy, although I cannot go further than the commitment I gave at the Dispatch Box today that we will lay out and consult on proposals to include that explicit recognition and in so doing make clear, unambiguously, our expectations for how plan makers and decision makers should treat chalk streams. That will be part of the consultation.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Minister knows that, across this House and the other place, there is wide recognition of how unique and precious our chalk streams are. He clearly recognises that, as well. Given their importance and the fact that most of them are in the UK, why have the Government not yet brought forward an amendment to reflect the cross-party concerns expressed in both Houses? I know him to be a serious and sincere man, but the Minister is, in effect, asking the House to rely on his good will to do something at some point, and we have no idea what it is.
Matthew Pennycook
I think that is a slightly unfair précis of what I said. I take very seriously the commitments I make from this Dispatch Box. I have committed, in a consultation that will take place before the end of this year, to include in proposed changes to national planning policy explicit recognition of chalk streams and how they will be treated. The full details will be open to consultation. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. We could have a much wider debate about policy versus statute, but we think that in the planning system there are very good reasons to put things in policy, where they can be amended or updated if necessary, rather than in statute. Chalk streams are a good example of where that argument applies.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk made a compelling case for many of the things we are doing outside planning policy to safeguard chalk streams. There are mechanisms to deliver chalk stream conservation, including through our plans to reform the water industry, under which water companies plan to spend more than £2 billion over the next five years to develop targeted actions on chalk streams; through biodiversity net gain, which requires like-for-like compensation or enhancement where development impacts on these areas; and through the system we intend to introduce of environmental outcomes reports, which specifically reference these bodies of water.
Kit Malthouse
I understand the undertaking the Minister is giving, but he will recognise that all of this is guidance; it does not preclude planning decisions that will impact on chalk streams. Given that he is set on his course, which we understand, and his appreciation of the fact that the amendment was proposed in the spirit of addressing the lack of any other sort of protection for chalk streams, will he reassure us that the intention in the planning guidance is to give chalk streams the same sort of protection as was put in place for, for example, veteran trees, which are deemed to be irreplaceable? That is the highest level of protection in planning guidance—I think I introduced this as Planning Minister. In that way, only in very exceptional circumstances could permission be granted for development that would impinge on chalk streams.
Matthew Pennycook
I cannot go beyond what I set out earlier. We will put the proposals out to full consultation before the end of the year. I will address the subject of irreplaceable habitats in this winding-up speech.
In his speech, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of other issues, including the absorption constraint dilemma, viability, housing delivery targets and local plans. Perhaps we should sit down outside the Chamber and have a coffee, as I think I would benefit from his insights, but I shall certainly give further thought to the many points he made.
On neighbourhood plans, they are not referenced in the Bill, other than in relation to an amendment we made specifically in connection with Ramsar sites. Again, I am more than happy to have a wider conversation with him about this Government’s view of the place of neighbourhood plans in the planning system.
On irreplaceable habitats, the national planning policy framework makes it clear that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of such habitats should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. Those protections continue to apply; nothing in the Bill bypasses them. Fundamentally, an EDP that would lead to irreversible harm to or the loss of an irreplaceable environmental feature could not be approved by a Secretary of State, as this would fail to secure overall improvement of the conservation status of the relevant feature.
I want to briefly mention the mitigation hierarchy, which was raised by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). Natural England will always consider the mitigation hierarchy when it develops an EDP. That is an important approach when planning for biodiversity, as it is generally more environmentally effective and cost efficient to protect what is already there than to replace it. The requirements for the environmental principles policy statement include the prevention and rectification-at-source principles, which are key to the mitigation hierarchy. The Secretary of State must have due regard to the EPPS when making policy, and will therefore do so when making an EDP. We recognise, however, that we need to provide further reassurance. On Third Reading in the other place, as the hon. Gentleman referenced, we amended the Bill to allow the Government to bring forward regulations setting out how EDPs would prioritise addressing the negative effect of development, providing greater clarity about how the principles of the existing mitigation hierarchy are expressed through the new system.
I will briefly touch on two further issues. On Lords amendment 40, as I said, we do not believe there is any compelling case for limiting the application of EDPs just to the issues that are covered by the amendment: nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource or air quality. I think the challenge made by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), was that applying EDPs to species will somehow cause harm. That is not the case.
Limiting the environmental impacts that can be covered is unnecessary because the overall improvement test that I have mentioned ensures that an EDP can be made only where it will have an overall positive impact on the environmental feature. I mentioned district-level licensing of great crested newts, which is an example of where a strategic approach can lead to better outcomes for nature, and that is the approach we are taking forward in this Bill.
Lastly, I must reference the constituency issue raised by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) regarding the Eskdalemuir seismic array. We recognise the interference that onshore wind turbines can cause to seismological monitoring stations and the subsequent safeguarding concerns that operators of seismological arrays can have. We are working closely with the Ministry of Defence to bring forward a resolution to this issue via the working group, which I know he is aware of. We are clear that the array is a key piece of defence infrastructure that is part of international monitoring networks, and that any updated approach to managing onshore wind deployment near the array will not compromise its detection capabilities.
Under a new proposed approach, the Ministry of Defence needs onshore wind proposals to submit specific information and comply with the seismic impact limit, and for determining authorities—the decision makers—to be bound not to approve applications if those limits are breached. I hope that provides the right hon. Gentleman with some further reassurance, but, again, I am more than happy to engage with him further.
To conclude, this Government were elected on a promise of change, and we are determined to deliver it. Through the measures introduced by this landmark Bill, we will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. Let me bring the House back to what is at the heart of this Bill: we need new homes and we need new critical infrastructure. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) made that point compellingly. The need for those across the country is pressing. This Bill needs to receive Royal Assent as soon as possible.
To that end, we have shown ourselves more than willing to make sensible changes to the Bill in response to compelling arguments, but we are not prepared to accept amendments that undermine its core principles. I look forward to continuing constructive conversations with peers, alongside Baroness Taylor, to secure agreement across both Houses in the near future. I commend the Government’s position to the House.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. In an earlier Division, six Members behaved in the most disorderly fashion and pushed themselves past Doorkeepers. Those six Members have been identified, and I expect them to come and apologise to me before the evening is out, and to the Doorkeepers to whom they behaved in the most disrespectful way.
Clause 51
Delegation of planning decisions in England
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 33.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The Members who caused the earlier fracas have apologised to the Chair and the Doorkeepers, so that case is closed for now.
Delegated legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With the leave of the House, I will put motions 3 to 5 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Immigration
That the draft Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.
Infrastructure Planning
That the draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.
Contracts
That the draft Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (Permitted Disclosures) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 16 October, be approved.—(Gregor Poynton.)
Question agreed to.
Committees
Madam Deputy Speaker
With the leave of the House, I will bundle together motions 6 to 10.
Ordered,
Backbench Business Committee
That Jess Brown-Fuller be discharged from the Backbench Business Committee and Mr Lee Dillon be added.
Culture, Media and Sport Committee
That Zöe Franklin be discharged from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and Cameron Thomas be added.
Justice Committee
That Josh Babarinde be discharged from the Justice Committee and Vikki Slade be added.
Northern Ireland Affairs Committee
That Dr Al Pinkerton be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr Paul Kohler be added.
Science, Innovation and Technology Committee
That Tom Gordon be discharged from the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and Freddie van Mierlo be added.—(Jessica Morden, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
I start by welcoming the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to his place. We all know that Secretaries of State do not have to answer Adjournment debates. He and I will, of course, have robust differences of view on this, but no one can gainsay either his courtesy or his commitment to the task and so I thank him for being here.
In the coming weeks, we will be asked to consider legislation addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland. We must approach that with the real facts of what happened in Northern Ireland, not the misinformation peddled by the IRA and their sympathisers. We should also remember that the state has a moral obligation to protect brave soldiers who defended our freedoms in the most testing circumstances.
This is not simply a question of policy detail, but a question of principles: the principle that we do not abandon those who acted under our lawful instruction; the principle that we do not risk weakening the effectiveness of our armed forces; and the principle that we do not bend to the demands of terrorists or, indeed, their modern sympathisers. I am afraid that the Government’s proposed legislation does little to show any willingness to defend those principles, to which I will return shortly.
In the Westminster Hall debate in July, we heard Labour MPs—Government-supporting MPs—argue:
“The only thing that grants immunity to former members of the IRA is the Northern Ireland legacy Act as it stands.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2025; Vol. 771, c. 7WH.]
That is, the Conservative Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. That is plain wrong. The truth is that there has long been a de facto amnesty for crimes committed during the troubles.
Blair’s Government created the Good Friday agreement. It is an agreement that, for the purpose of achieving peace—a good aim—drew a line under the atrocities that had been committed without resolving the complex issues of accountability. The Good Friday agreement contained a provision for early release of convicted prisoners. Four hundred and eighty-three terrorists were released from prison early—effectively pardoned—of which 143 had been sentenced to serve life sentences, and they inevitably included many killers. At least 16 terrorists were granted the royal prerogative of mercy—also effectively a pardon. They included hardened terrorists, guilty of extreme violence, such as Gerry Kelly, convicted for the Old Bailey bombings, which killed one person and injured over 200; the three IRA terrorists who murdered SAS Captain Herbert Westmacott; and Fergal Toal, who held down his victim’s arms while two of the victim’s fingers were hacked off with a hammer and chisel. They all received the royal prerogative of mercy.
It was also the Blair Government who authorised the so-called on-the-run administrative scheme—that is its formal title—and the letters of comfort that accompanied it. It was a secret scheme that only came to light properly in 2014, years after terrorists had received their letters. It was kept secret precisely because it was so spectacularly controversial, and was done in response to Gerry Adams saying, “it would be better if there was an invisible process for dealing with OTRs.” The name speaks for itself: those people were on the run from the law.
It was an administrative scheme precisely because attempts to legislate for it were dropped when Sinn Féin opposed them on the grounds that it would have protected soldiers too. Those were their explicit grounds. Of course, there was no risk for them in opposing it; they already had their letters, they already had their de facto immunity. The Government are coy about the exact numbers, but at least 156 people received an individual letter of comfort and many others were listed in Government communications as “not wanted” by the authorities.
Again, we are talking about vicious murderers. Ninety-five of those in receipt of letters of comfort were involved in 295 murder investigations—295 murders. The letters were clear. I quote from the first letter of comfort issued:
“You would not…face prosecution for any such offence should you return to the United Kingdom.”
Those were letters given to murderers.
The Government will, of course, retreat to the refuge of legal technicality. They will tell us that these letters were not, strictly speaking, an amnesty, as they left open the possibility of charges for crimes not yet discovered—as does any amnesty. The Government are hiding behind legalistic language. These letters absolutely did stop prosecutions for terrorist atrocities.
David Davis
My right hon. Friend on the Front Bench mentions the name John Downey. In 2014, John Downey faced prosecution for the Hyde Park bombing. He produced his letter of comfort and his trial collapsed. What the judge said at the trial is important.
He stated there is a
“public interest in holding officials of the state to promises they have made in full understanding of what is involved in the bargain.”
He could not be clearer. He concludes that
“it offends the court’s sense of justice and propriety to be asked to try the defendant.”
It should not have even been brought to trial. In other words, the judge was recognising a de facto amnesty. It was only at the collapse of Downey’s trial that the existence of the administrative scheme became public knowledge.
The Secretary of State will respond with great charm and say, “Ah, but Mr Downey is now facing prosecution.” That is what he will say.
David Davis
I am right—one of my predictions has come right any way. But that prosecution is for alleged involvement in the murder of two Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers in 1972, not his involvement in the Hyde Park bombing, in which he was ruled, by the way, to have been an “active participant” in a civil case, so we know that background. For those 1972 murders, it has been six years since charges were brought, and little or no progress has been made since then.
The Government—quite properly—make much of the rights of victims, as do I. That has been part of my life in Parliament. But what of the rights of Squadron Quartermaster Corporal Roy Bright, Lieutenant Dennis Daly, Trooper Simon Tipper and Lance Corporal Jeffrey Young? All were killed in the Hyde Park bombing. All had their rights explicitly destroyed.
Let us be frank about the collective effect of those Blair-era concessions: 483 terrorists released from prison early, at least 16 granted mercy—granted effective pardons—and at least 156 letters of comfort. Taken together, that is at least 655 people given some form of legal or administrative protection. I say again that it is “at least” 655 because, frankly, successive Governments have been deliberately obtuse in how they publish those numbers. I suspect the number is significantly higher, but 655 is what we know.
Yet one of the primary defences of the Government’s new legislation put up by Government MPs in that Westminster Hall debate was that the “only thing” granting immunity to former members of the IRA is the previous Government’s Northern Ireland legacy Act. It is just ridiculous. Terrorists killed over 3,000 people during the troubles. As far as the House of Commons Library can establish, there were no convictions for troubles-era violent offences after the Good Friday agreement during the entire period of the Blair Government. That is what they tell me—none. I could not find any either.
The vast majority of those 3,000 troubles-era killings remain unresolved, with no one having faced justice. Since those so-called “non-amnesties”, very few people have been convicted. Again, the Secretary of State said in the Westminster Hall debate that five convictions have been obtained for terrorist-related offences connected to the troubles since 2012—presumably under the Conservative or coalition Governments of that time. He did not name the cases, and I would like to see the details of those cases published so we can actually understand what has happened here. Are these dissident republicans? Are they loyalists? What are they? That is just so we know what has actually happened here. In any case, there have been five convictions for 3,000 killings, and the Government are trying to maintain that there is no amnesty—really?
To ensure that no prosecutions could effectively be brought against the IRA, the Blair Government also agreed during the Good Friday agreement that none of the decommissioned IRA weapons could ever be used as forensic evidence in any future trial. Of course, there are not many witnesses in a trial about Northern Ireland terrorism—that is a fast way to the grave—so forensic evidence is critical, and it was all ruled out of order.
For those few successful convictions since 1998 that the Secretary of State referred to, what is their punishment? It is limited to two years because of the Blair-era Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998—two years for mass murder? Instead of seeing terrorists face justice, we see veterans being hauled before inquests decades after the fact.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I take this opportunity to point out something that the Defence Committee discovered in its investigation of these matters in 2016 to 2017? The maximum of two years actually spent in jail, no matter how horrendous or multiple the murders, also applies to British service personnel. The argument is put forward that victims wish to see justice attributed and punishment given out, but everybody involved in the killings receives a disproportionately light sentence, so there is no justice of a retributive sort in any case.
David Davis
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I had forgotten about that report, but I did see it when the Committee published it under his chairmanship.
Instead of seeing terrorists facing justice, we see veterans being hauled before inquests, decades after the fact. That is a problem in part because inquests in Northern Ireland differ in two critical respects from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. The first difference arises from a deliberate decision taken by the Blair Government. Article 3 of the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 changed the definition of “victim”. It ruled anyone affected by the troubles—through loss, trauma, or injury—would be classed as a victim. That means that a proven murderer killed in an attempt to carry out another murder is still classified as a victim. I know of nowhere else in the world where the law treats killers as victims.
That is still relevant. In September, the Democratic Unionist party—sadly none of its Members are present—used a motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly to try to restore some moral clarity by adding the word “innocent” before “victims”. What did Sinn Féin do? It opposed the motion and removed the word “innocent” from before “victims”. Why? Because the word “innocent” exposes the truth; it draws a line between terrorists and their victims. “Veterans” and “victims” are not mutually exclusive terms; “terrorists” and “victims” are.
Let us understand who these so-called victims are. At Loughgall—the greatest single defeat of the IRA by the SAS—eight heavily armed IRA murderers were stopped on their way to kill again. They and their weapons were implicated in at least 40 previous murders—and possibly more than 200, but it is very hard to pin that number down. Yet because of the Government’s proposals, and the Secretary of State’s promise to the sister of one of those IRA murderers, the soldiers who stopped them face being hauled before the courts, 30 years on, over an operation that prevented further bloodshed of innocent Northern Ireland citizens. The 2006 Order means that those dead terrorists are deemed to be victims.
And what do veterans face? A one-sided inquest, weaponised by Sinn Féin in its attempt to rewrite history. Veterans—many of whom are in their advancing years—are dragged to the witness box. They are made to sit opposite the families of IRA killers—men who died while attempting to maim and kill the innocent. The atmosphere is not one of an impartial inquiry.
I have spoken to a number of veterans, including one in particular who voluntarily attended the Coagh inquest to give evidence. He could not answer some factual questions—he did not know the answers—so the coroner put to him a hypothetical question to get him to answer a hypothetical version of the truth. The veteran declined, quite reasonably, to answer hypotheticals—that was not why he was there. In response, the coroner got “very cross”—the veteran’s words—raised his voice and threatened the veteran with contempt of court. The man was, at that point, a voluntary witness—not any more. He was so disgusted by the process that he will now only give evidence under subpoena; he will not volunteer again.
In mainland Britain, inquests exist to establish the facts, and at the first suspicion of unlawful killing, they are required to stop and pass the evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In Northern Ireland, inquests have all too often sought to assign blame—all funded by a legal aid machine putting huge unjustified costs on the taxpayer. Just last month, a judicial review against a soldier who shot one of the terrorists at Coagh was robustly dismissed by the judge, who noted the
“ludicrous nature of this challenge, funded as it is by legal aid.”
I have never heard a judge be so critical of the award of legal aid, but plainly he thought this was ridiculous—ludicrous, in his words.
Under the Government’s new legacy proposals, our veterans will remain subjects of suspicion and victims of this vexatious lawfare machine.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the coroner’s court exists to appease the republicans and that all applications should go through the legacy commission?
David Davis
I agree with the hon. Lady’s conclusion, and I happen to agree, as I will come back to in a moment, with the republicans’ view of the coroner’s inquiry process.
It comes back to the issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) raised as to what the punishment was. For a decent, ordinary, law-abiding soldier, the punishment is in the process—being dragged back, having this hanging over them for decades, the uncertainty they face, the sleepless nights and the stress it brings to them and their wives and children, who are worried in their own right and worried about their husband or father. That, I am afraid, is what the IRA and their sympathisers want. It is one of the reasons the IRA consider the very fact of Loughgall being referred to an inquest as a victory. They see that as a victory—that and the fact that it allows them another chance to rewrite history, to fit their own bogus claims.
That is why, in a letter on Remembrance Day that has been repeated in this Chamber a number of times, nine four-star generals wrote:
“By extending the same protections to those who enforced the law and those who defied it, the bill becomes morally incoherent. It treats those who upheld the peace and those who bombed and murdered…as equivalent actors in a shared tragedy.”
They go on to highlight the immediate effect, because we must bear in mind that this is having an effect right now on our serving armed forces. They said:
“highly trained members of special forces are already leaving the service. These are the men and women who quietly neutralise threats and protect lives every week. Their loss is significant; it is a direct consequence of legal uncertainty and the erosion of trust.”
I can attest to the fact that that is true. These are the reasons that our veterans hate this new legislation and view it as grotesquely unfair.
It also raises the question of who the Government are trying to appease. When the Government announced the policy, it was done not in this House—I think it was on a Friday—but in a joint statement alongside the Irish Tánaiste. The Irish Government are being treated as an independent party to these troubles and brought into the reformed legacy commission established by the new Bill as a party that is assumed to be acting in good faith. Well, I am afraid that is not true. There is overwhelming evidence showing the Republic providing sanctuary to IRA terrorists during the troubles. As the Kingsmill—a terrible tragedy—inquest confirmed, terrorists exploited the porous border ruthlessly. The IRA committed acts of terror in the north and used the Republic as their shield—a base for planning, training, storing weapons and, of course, sanctuary; violence in the north, sanctuary in the south.
Consider the brutal murder of Corporal James Elliott in 1972. IRA members abducted him at the border, dragged him into the Republic, tortured him for two days—two days—and shot him dead. They sent his body back across the border, booby-trapped with 500 lb of explosives and six claymores. What did the authorities in the Republic do? They charged two individuals not with murder, but with possessing explosives.
When SAS Captain Herbert Westmacott was murdered, the killers escaped jail before they could be sentenced. Where did they flee? Straight across the border, aided by their comrades. If hon. Members need a third example, they should look at the Omagh bombing, which was carried out after the Good Friday agreement had been signed. That bombing, which injured more than 200 people and tragically killed 29 innocent civilians, one of whom was pregnant with twins, was both planned and launched from the Republic. Despite this, and notwithstanding the call from a Belfast High Court judge for an investigation on both sides of the border, the Irish Government refused to authorise a separate, parallel inquiry. The pattern is unmistakable, and in some cases, agencies of the Irish Government crossed the line from passive antagonism into active complicity.
Former IRA intelligence officer, Kieran Conway, has admitted how leading members of the IRA were tipped off before Garda raids by Garda special branch. That was more than turning a blind eye; it was agencies of the Irish state actively participating in the subversion of justice. There are countless incidents laid bare before us, each one making this point plain. The most horrible one in my mind is from 1989, when two senior Northern Ireland policemen, Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan, were shot dead in an ambush as they crossed back into Northern Ireland. After almost eight years of detailed investigations, the Smithwick Tribunal determined that the Irish police colluded with the IRA in organising that attack.
Between 1973 and 1999, the Republic of Ireland turned down 102 extradition requests, choosing to view murders in the north as political acts. The Irish state is not a neutral bystander. It was not some impartial observer. It was, in practice, a partisan actor—an actor that for more than 30 years has deliberately turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the IRA. For years, our armed forces have properly faced scrutiny for their actions during the troubles. We have answered that scrutiny with honesty— never to erase the truth, but to confront it. Yet we hear nothing of the de facto amnesties given to terrorists and murderers, nothing of the collusion that allowed that terror to take root, and nothing from the Government about preventing the vexatious pursuit of our soldiers, who are guilty of nothing but bravely serving their country during the dark days of the troubles. Instead, all we see are relentless attacks on those soldiers, with doubt introduced about the legitimacy of their actions, and the weaponisation of the entire legal process.
We had a warning of that in a letter on Remembrance Day, when those generals wrote in The Times of the damaging effects of lawfare, and specifically the risk posed by the Government’s legacy proposals. They said that,
“the Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and the legal activism surrounding it, risk weakening the moral foundations and operational effectiveness of the forces on which this nation depends. Presented as a route to justice and closure, the bill achieves neither…This lawfare is a direct threat to national security.”
The Government would do well to heed those warnings. Failure to do so brings injustice for those who served our country with honour, and threatens the future effectiveness of our armed forces. Every would-be enemy of the United Kingdom is watching how we handle this matter, and looking at plans for retaliation in our law courts as a way to avenge their defeat on the battlefields. As the generals warn in their letter:
“make no mistake, our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before I call the Secretary of State, let me give a short reminder that we should not mention or repeat the names of individuals that are subject to proceedings.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on having secured this debate. The legacy of the troubles cast a long, dark shadow over the lives of so many people in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom, including on some of those the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, and there are many, many others among the 3,500 or so who lost their lives. I would just say to Conservative Members that it is really important that in these debates we acknowledge all of those affected, not just some, even though some are, of course, extremely important. At some point, Conservative Members will need to acknowledge that the last Government’s Legacy Act had no support in Northern Ireland. If we are to move legacy on, there needs to be support for the legislation, and that is why the Government are seeking to change it.
The Government, of course, take the concerns of veterans very seriously. Our commitment to Operation Banner veterans is unshakeable. The Troubles Bill, which we will debate next week, will put in place the strongest possible protections for them, none of which were in the last Government’s Legacy Act.
The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington talked a lot about prosecutions. As he knows full well, decisions on prosecutions are taken independently by the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, and nothing that this Government are doing will change that at all. The system will be exactly as it has been for the past 27 and a half years, since the Good Friday agreement. On Loughgall, the reason there is going to be another inquest is because 10 years ago the Conservative Attorney General ordered that the Loughgall inquest take place—that is a fact.
Since nothing has changed in the past 27 years, why do we not look at some facts about prosecutions? Since 2012, there have been 25 decisions to prosecute individuals for troubles-related offences. Six of those have resulted in convictions: three were republicans, two were loyalists and one was military, with the soldier in question receiving a suspended sentence. If we look at the current, live cases that are before the courts, six are republicans, one is loyalist, one is a former member of the police and one is in the military category. What do the facts show? The vast majority of prosecutions are against former paramilitaries.
At one point in his speech the right hon. Gentleman suggested that there had been five or so prosecutions for all the deaths, but in saying that he ignores the very, very large number of paramilitaries who were sent to prison during the troubles, including many of them for murder. That was a very large number compared with the numbers of military prosecuted, as he well knows.
On the subject of immunity, of course I noticed the letter that was published in The Times. When I said repeatedly that the current Legacy Act would have granted immunity to terrorists, I heard Conservative Members saying from a sedentary position, “Well, that is not true”, so let me quote from clause 19 of the Legacy Act. It says:
“The ICRIR must grant a person immunity from prosecution”
if certain conditions are met, including that the person has asked for immunity from prosecution, that the information describes conduct that formed part of the troubles and is to the best of the person’s knowledge true, and that the commission is satisfied that the conduct would have exposed the person to a criminal investigations. Shouting, “That is not true”, when it is true—[Interruption.] One of the reasons why the Legacy Act had no support in Northern Ireland is because the families of all those who saw their loved ones killed did not want their killers to be granted immunity. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows—
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Modern Day Slavery: Pakistan
(1 day, 6 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
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered modern day slavery in Pakistan.
I thank you, Sir Roger, for coming to stand in as Chair. We appreciate that very much. I also thank right hon. and hon. Members for coming along to participate in the debate, and I thank in particular those in the Public Gallery who have deep interest in this subject matter for attending and for all the hard work they do.
This debate is an opportunity to highlight the issue of slavery in Pakistan, particularly in relation to brick kilns. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Pakistani minorities, and I must speak in particular of Morris Johns, the administrator of the APPG, who is in the Public Gallery. It is through his hard work and the hard work of everyone on the APPG that we are able to highlight the issue in this House and to work freely to ensure that people in Pakistan can gain freedom.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to address the deeply tragic and profoundly urgent issue of the continued existence of modern slavery in various industries of Pakistan. I am going to focus on one of the most entrenched and brutal forms of modern slavery, which occurs in the brick kiln industry. It is a stain on Pakistan’s conscience, a violation of human rights and a barrier to social and economic progress. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to this debate and granting time in Westminster Hall to discuss this vital issue.
I commend the excellent report on modern-day slavery and brick kilns that was published in May 2024 by the APPG for Pakistani minorities. It shed a vital light on the daily suffering endured by so many, particularly those from minority faith communities. Pakistan is the third largest brick producer in south Asia. Estimates suggest that more than 1 million men, women and children work in approximately 10,000 brick kilns in the Punjab region alone, yet despite religious minorities making up around only 5% of the population, the percentage of religious minorities in brick kilns is often as high as 50%, particularly in Punjab and Sindh provinces. Across the brick kilns, marginalised and excluded groups, such as the scheduled caste Hindus, Christians and Muslim Shaikhs, are working in horrific conditions, in bonded labour and without sufficient wages to afford necessities.
I have been to Pakistan twice in my time in Parliament. The last time was to visit some religious minorities, in particular the Ahmadiyya Muslims, and the time before that was with Morris Johns, when I had the chance to see more of what was happening in Pakistan. I would love to be able to report back that things are better, but things are not, and today is an opportunity to highlight one of the things that definitely needs to be addressed.
The history of brick kiln slavery in Pakistan is long and persistent. It is rooted in centuries-old systems of debt bondage and social and religious hierarchy. Landless labourers, often from marginalised communities, have been forced to work in kilns under the peshgi system, where they receive an advance loan from the kiln owners. The debt is then often inflated and manipulated and keeps them trapped for years, sometimes decades, along with their children and families. Employers often take advantage of the workers’ low status in society.
As a result, entire family units are forced to work, with women bringing their new-born children to the brick kilns as well—it starts from the earliest of ages. According to a survey from the Islamabad-based Trust for Democratic Education and Accountability, 72% of brick kiln workers have children working with them in the kilns. It is a stain on our global conscience that the next generation are destined to face the same oppression as their parents. What happens to the parents and grandparents will happen to the children unless the necessary change comes. Despite the passage of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1992, and despite Pakistan’s ratification of international treaties that prohibit forced labour and child labour, the practice persists—indeed, it seems to thrive.
Weak enforcement, a lack of worker registration and the economic leverage of kiln owners have allowed bonded labour to continue unchecked, particularly in Punjab, but also in the Sindh province. The brick kilns are often in remote or suburban areas, so the communities working at the sites frequently face major issues in accessing quality healthcare, water, sanitation and education. One eyewitness account describes the harshness of the workers’ conditions:
“They are barefoot, have no gloves, and work like this from dawn to dusk all day every day”,
seven days a week.
The health hazards of working in such conditions have been widely documented. Hazardous fumes emerge from the black smoke, resulting in higher rates of asthma and other health issues and increasing the risk of contracting tuberculosis. The contaminated water that is used to mix the soil, without any protective equipment, also gives workers at the kilns various skin diseases. When we work in this country, all the health and safety conditions are in place; in Pakistan, there are none of any description.
It is vital also to highlight the horrific nature of child labour and exploitation in the brick kilns. As children grow, they are forced to work gruelling 14-hour days and exposed to toxic fumes. Children as young as four or five years old have been documented in the kilns. They suffer from respiratory problems and severe malnutrition, and there are reports that they also suffer from poor eyesight as a result of their working conditions. Their mortality rate is higher than among children elsewhere. Children are often kept as hostages by the kiln owners to prevent their parents from leaving under the pretext of seeking medical care of shopping for essentials. Children witness their parents being subjected to violence and physical and emotional threats, greatly impacting their ability to develop into normal adults.
Child labour has persisted in Pakistan despite legislative reforms, which unfortunately have not translated into any kind of significant change. Only 12% of the children attend school regularly, so they do not have educational opportunities, and 62% have never been enrolled in a formal or informal education programme. If somebody works here, there is an obligation that their children are in education—in the brick kilns of Pakistan, no. It is utterly unacceptable that this type of treatment has been allowed to persist and to grow. We must protect the dignity and wellbeing of these children.
The conditions at the brick kilns disproportionately affect women and girls. They are excluded from financial decision making and are unable to influence the negotiation of loans, yet they have to bear the consequences through the resulting bondage. Women are also increasingly susceptible to exploitation and abuse by their husbands or fathers. Devastatingly, in a 2019 study carried out on brick kilns, approximately 20% of the females admitted that they were sufferers of mental torture at home. A woman in this situation is stuck in a cycle of abuse; she has no option to escape or get away or to change her life. Women and girls have also faced extensive sexual violence and abuse in the brick kilns. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, about 35% of women workers at brick kilns are abused and harassed by their bosses. Many women in Pakistan’s brick kilns are subjected to severe restrictions, with some forcibly confined to their homes by the kiln owners.
Two women brick kiln workers interviewed by Human Rights Watch’s Asia division had been forced—these things are quite upsetting—to have regular sexual relations with their employer or members of their family as a condition of their stay in the brick kilns. Some women were even raped and abused by jamadars or local police officers, so it goes beyond the brick kilns to those who are supposed to enforce the law but actually abuse their position within it. Christian and Dalit women are particularly vulnerable—marginalised for being women and for belonging to a minority religious group or caste. Owing to a lack of accountability and active investigations, kiln owners act with impunity. Workers who are medically unfit are also physically beaten and verbally abused.
No person, regardless of faith or background, should be subjected to such grievous violations of their personal life in any way. As chair of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, I believe very much that people should be able to worship their God as they wish. Along with that come human rights, but those are often taken away from these workers.
Devastatingly, there have also been reports of—these are quite upsetting circumstances—organ harvesting at brick kilns, where the forced removal of organs is carried out to repay debts that are owed by family units. That is a horrific example of how deep chains of debt trap generations. It is almost unthinkable that, in today’s world, men, women and even small children are treated in such an inhumane way—their very bodies seen as collateral for a debt that should never have existed in the first place. It is as if the brick kiln owners can use them in whatever way they wish.
The illiteracy rates have a powerful impact on how individuals and families remain in debt. A study on one brick kiln demonstrated that 80% of the workers were illiterate, which means that they were easily exploited and taken advantage of. As a result, kiln workers were unable to understand the terms of loans and interest rates and were rendered extremely vulnerable to exploitation by owners because, when the owner sets a paper down in front of them or gives them instructions on what is happening, they accept that as gospel, whatever the facts are. That is just another way of exploiting them. The lack of education is not just a social disadvantage; it is a deliberate tool of control. When people cannot read the contracts that they are bound to or calculate the interest that is consuming all their wages, they become trapped in a cycle of servitude that can last all their lifetime and, indeed, generations.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group, I have seen at first hand how poverty, discrimination and lack of education combine to trap individuals in conditions that amount to modern slavery—the very thing that we are all concerned about.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing this subject to us today. Does he agree that, despite legislation being in place in Pakistan and elsewhere in the world, we still see these problems of the undermining of human rights? Would there be, therefore, an argument for greater multilateral ways of policing these human rights violations and making sure that human rights are upheld?
Jim Shannon
Yes, there are many places in the world where international slavery is rampant. We can think of China and the Uyghurs; probably countries in central America; Africa, of course; and many other places. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that issue.
I welcome the Minister to her place. I know that she is filling in for someone else, but I am always pleased to see her because she and I have been friends for many years. We came to this House at the same time and over the years have struck up a strong friendship that we both cherish.
When we work to ensure that religious minorities do not unjustly face discrimination solely because of their religious beliefs—these slavery issues happen across the world—most importantly we must advocate for a world where every individual has intrinsic worth and dignity. That is the world that you and I, Sir Roger, and everyone here would like to have—a world where people are respected. We can be different but respect each other. In Pakistan, those who work in the brick kilns are not respected by their owners or the Pakistan Government.
Every person, regardless of their caste, religion, gender or social status, is made in the image of God and is entitled to live free from oppression, fear and bondage. However, in Pakistan’s brick kilns we see that that fundamental dignity is trampled upon and disregarded. Men, women and even children are treated as commodities. Their labour is exploited, their bodies and minds abused, and their freedoms stripped away. We must not turn our eyes away from the injustices taking place in Pakistan as we speak at this moment in this debate. In these debates I always use texts from the Holy Bible; the one I think of today is Psalm 82:3-4, which states:
“Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
Those words should be our guideline and incentive to ensure we do what is right. It is our duty to speak out against such cruelty. We must not ever remain passive.
We must ensure greater support from the international community to restore freedom, dignity and justice to workers trapped in slavery and bonded labour in Pakistan’s brick kilns. Collectively, we must act to ensure that human rights frameworks are upheld with concrete accountability and the investigations to end generations of families remaining trapped without hope and support. Someone working in the brick kilns has little or no chance of getting away—no chance of getting out. I know that some of those in the Gallery and those who have a deep interest in Pakistan have organised many escapes from the brick kilns to give people an opportunity of freedom, liberty and the opportunity of a life outside of that. For that we thank them.
This is a country that champions the right to freedom of religion or belief, as this Government do and as we uphold in this Chamber every day. Today I asked a business question about freedom of religion or belief. The Leader of the House always gives us encouragement in the work that he does, as does the work done in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I ask the Minister to take a particular deep interest in this subject matter, as others will do as well, and ensure that we can have a proactive strategy coming out of this debate today to work on behalf of those people across the world.
It is essential that we place UK aid under greater scrutiny and monitoring. If we are going to give aid to Pakistan—as we do and as we should—there has to be a condition for how it is used: is it done fairly? Are there conditions on what they do with it? Yes, there are. It is the law in Pakistan that people have freedom, but that is not the reality. We need to make Pakistan aware of that.
We cannot possibly assist countries while foreign Governments refuse to protect the basic human rights of their citizens, particularly the rights to religious freedom, safety and dignity. When vulnerable communities are exposed to exploitation and persecution on a daily basis and in a deliberate fashion, there must be efforts to establish accountability and repercussions for Governments that continue to turn a blind eye to the realities of injustice and suffering in their own countries. Today is an opportunity to highlight that with the Minister, for all of us to agree collectively and, hopefully, for the Pakistan Government to respond and start to undo the injustice they are involved in.
We must ensure that the United Kingdom’s generosity is not misused to sustain regimes or systems that oppress their own people. With that, I believe we must do a number of things. We must monitor Pakistan’s compliance with international human rights law—are they doing it? At this time they are not, but they should be.
Pakistan is a party to both the universal declaration of human rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights, which both clearly outline:
“No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.”
Despite those commitments, reports continue to surface of bonded labour and systematic exploitation in various sectors across the country—an exploitation that must come to an end.
Pakistan is also party to the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, which ensures an individual’s right to work and the resulting commitment to safeguard that right, and to ensure that if they are working they are protected; that there is health and safety; that they are not exploited; that they are getting paid the right money; and that they are not abused in any way by the people who own the brick kilns, or by others who happen to be there.
The Pakistan Government must fully comply with the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1992, which is part of their law, and with the related provincial legislation that should filter down from Government to the lower levels. It is vital to mention the International Labour Organisation’s requirements on the prevention of slave labour, children’s rights, women’s rights and minority rights. There are binding obligations that exist to uphold the dignity and freedom of every human being. They must be followed to ensure the protection of vulnerable children and women, and indeed any person within that system. The UK must place greater scrutiny on monitoring Pakistan’s adherence to the ILO’s obligations.
If I am asking something from the Minister—and I do, ever knowing that the Minister will come back to give us encouragement, which is important—it is that we need to know what Pakistan has signed up to, what it is obligated to, and that it is actually doing it. We can use our aid to Pakistan to influence the direction that that goes.
We must also make businesses aware of the high risk of modern slavery in Pakistan’s brick kilns and ensure that all UK-funded projects purchase only from certified brick kilns. It goes back to what the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) referred to in his intervention about slavery—we need to control that as well and see the things that are being done right. This will not only help to prevent exploitation, but set a very clear standard for responsible business practices.
There are also some positive developments through the potential progress and modernisation of the brick kiln industry itself, through mechanisation, for instance. Benefits would include reduced reliance on human labour and improved working conditions. However, the use of modern technology, including mechanisation alone, would be insufficient. While we look to what potentially could be the future, we also have to be aware of what is happening today. Without legal enforcement and worker protections, freed labourers may simply be displaced into other forms of exploitation, and that should never be allowed.
The United Kingdom must continue to engage with Pakistan through diplomatic channels, encouraging meaningful reform, stronger enforcement of labour laws and genuine accountability for human rights violations. The dignity of every individual must take precedence over trade and economic interests, or any other considerations. It is through sustained dialogue that we can create change and permanently end the horrific practice of modern slavery and bonded labour in brick kilns.
I conclude with this: we must also work to strengthen civil society and support local advocacy groups. I thank the people in the Public Gallery who work hard to make changes globally in relation to brick kilns, but those who have friends and contacts in Pakistan must ask them to make those changes too. We must hold public and private actors accountable for upholding the human rights standards that we all agree on and adhere to.
Hon. Members in the Chamber will echo what I have said and share some of the evidence and information that they have on the horrendous violations taking place in Pakistan’s brick kilns. We must not let the stories and the individuals be forgotten.
We have a duty to use our position and influence to speak up about the ongoing injustice on behalf of our suffering brothers and sisters in the Lord in Pakistan, and I thank in advance all of those who will take the time today to do that. This is our chance. As a Christian, I obviously believe it is important we do that; other hon. Members clearly think it is important too, and that is why they are here. I look to the Minister for the answers we need. We have a dire, dire situation happening in Pakistan that needs to be addressed, and I seek the Minister’s help to make that happen.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger—without you filling in, we could not have held this important debate, so thank you for your time. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for opening this debate with such clarity and compassion. His tireless advocacy for persecuted communities, particularly Christians and other minorities in Pakistan, is both admirable and necessary. I also pay tribute to the all-party parliamentary group for the Pakistani minorities for its report, published in May last year, which brought essential evidence to the House.
As someone who has consistently stood up for justice, equality and the protection of all faith communities, I rise today with deep concern, but also determination, because we are confronting what is, in all but name, modern-day slavery. Across Pakistan, particularly in Punjab and Sindh, more than 4 million people, many of whom are from religious minority backgrounds, are trapped in bonded labour in the brick kiln industry. Entire families—mothers, fathers and children as young as five—work long hours under scorching heat, breathing in toxic fumes, and still cannot repay debts that often began with a small loan taken out of desperation.
Let me be clear: there has been progress, and it is right that we acknowledge that. Pakistan’s Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1992, as the hon. Member for Strangford outlined earlier, outlawed debt bondage. Provincial measures, such as the Punjab Prohibition of Child Labour at Brick Kilns Act 2016, have banned the employment of children under 14.
We have also seen the launch of the Khidmat cards to support brick kiln families and encourage schooling, alongside efforts to register workers and enforce minimum wage. The introduction of zig-zag kiln technology supported by international partners, including the International Labour Organisation, has not only reduced air pollution, but offered a platform for improving labour monitoring and worker safety.
However, laws mean little without enforcement. A recent report by Pakistan’s own National Commission for Human Rights confirmed what activists have long said: enforcement remains weak, inspections are rare and many of the district-level vigilance committees meant to oversee bonded labour cases are either inactive or non-existent.
Behind every statistic is a human life. Yasmin, a mother of four from rural Punjab, took a small loan to pay her husband’s medical bills. That debt chained her family to a brick kiln. Each day, she and her children work from sunrise to sunset. The smoke makes it hard to breathe. They mould bricks with their hands in temperatures higher than 40°C, and still her debt grows. “Even when we sleep,” she says, “we dream of mud.”
Then there is Qaiser, who is just 11 years old. He wanted to be a doctor, but when his father fell ill he was pulled from school and put to work. He now spends 14 hours a day mixing clay instead of holding books. These stories of crushed dreams and invisible chains are not exceptions; they are the reality for thousands of families across Pakistan’s brick kilns. As a proud Labour MP, I have always believed that every worker deserves fair pay, dignity and safety, but that belief must extend beyond our borders, especially when British aid, diplomacy or trade may touch the same industries that sustain injustice.
This is also a women’s issue, as the hon. Member for Strangford outlined. More than one third of women working in Pakistan’s brick kilns experience harassment or abuse. It is also a child protection issue. The International Labour Organisation estimates that more than 1 million children in Pakistan are involved in brick making, some starting work before the age of 10. They should be in classrooms, not kiln yards.
In my work in the APPG on safeguarding in faith communities, I have seen how easily systems fail the most vulnerable, especially when poverty, gender and faith intersect. We must not allow these women and children to continue falling through the cracks of international policy.
We cannot call ourselves champions of freedom and justice abroad if we stay silent about slavery when it is right in front of us. That is why I am calling for a number of things. I want stronger scrutiny of UK aid to Pakistan to ensure it directly supports the elimination of bonded labour, strengthens independent labour inspections and funds legal aid and education for freed families. Programmes such as Aawaz II and the Asia regional child labour programme must not just exist, but deliver measurable change for those trapped in modern slavery.
I also want mandatory supply chain accountability for UK businesses. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 must go further.
Martin Rhodes
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective ways the UK can combat modern slavery worldwide is by introducing due diligence legislation for imports? In that way, we can ensure that products brought in from Pakistan, China or wherever else are produced in ways that do not include slavery.
Ruth Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope the Minister will touch on that in her winding-up remarks. British firms sourcing bricks, construction materials or kiln-fired products from Pakistan must prove that they are not profiting from coercion. Ethical trade should be a condition, not a courtesy.
Certification and procurement reform is another area that I want to look at. I urge the Minister to support a credible slave-free kiln certificate scheme so that we can distinguish between law-abiding employers and exploitative operators. I ask the Minister to work with her colleagues to commit to excluding slave-made bricks from public procurement, both here in the UK and in projects we support overseas. I appreciate that the Minister is standing in, but it would be great if she could touch on those points when she is winding up.
My final ask is for diplomatic leadership. The UK must raise this issue consistently in dialogue with Pakistan, not as interference but as partnership. If Pakistan is to maintain its enhanced trade access through the European Union’s generalised scheme of preferences plus, it must show tangible progress in implementing the ILO conventions it has already ratified, including those prohibiting forced child labour.
I do not believe in hopeless causes; I believe in the power of collective action, international partnership and moral leadership to transform lives. Earlier this year, 20 bonded labourers, including six children, were freed from a brick kiln in Sindh after a successful court intervention supported by local non-governmental organisations. That is what happens when laws are enforced, when civil society is empowered and when justice is made real. Let us support the Bonded Labour Liberation Front, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and countless grassroots organisations that work every day to free families, educate children and restore dignity.
No brick made through suffering should ever be laid in silence. As parliamentarians, we must not only speak of human rights; we must act to uphold them. If we do not stand with the poor, the exploited and the voiceless—especially those from persecuted faith communities—we will fall short of the values we claim to represent. Let this be the moment when Britain chooses to stand not only as a trading partner, but as a partner for freedom, dignity and change.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing this important debate to the House.
Modern slavery remains one of the greatest violations of human dignity in the world. In Pakistan, an estimated 2.34 million people—more than one in 100—are affected by modern slavery. That figure places the country among the top 20 worst affected globally. Debt bondage, exploitative labour practices and gender-based inequality are driving millions into coercion and abuse. Pakistan’s vulnerability score of 80 out of 100 demonstrates the scale of systemic risk—from the effects of conflict and poverty to weak governance and entrenched inequality.
Although Pakistan has made some progress, its Government response score sits at just 37 out of 100—below the regional average—according to international humanitarian rights groups. Victims continue to be trapped in cycles of exploitation, with women in agriculture and children in bonded labour facing the harshest conditions. Natural disasters, including the devastating 2022 floods, have intensified that vulnerability; they have destroyed livelihoods and forced many into debt bondage simply to survive.
The United Kingdom has a unique and historic relationship with Pakistan. Our two nations share deep ties through trade, and we continue to work with the new Government of Pakistan for the benefit of all Pakistanis. That partnership gives Britain an opportunity but also a responsibility to speak up for those whose voices are silenced. We should be deeply concerned by Pakistan’s lack of action on modern slavery, as well as its lack of action to safeguard human rights, protect religious freedoms and defend minority communities. The UK must use its influence to encourage genuine reform and work with international partners to ensure that all Pakistani citizens enjoy the fundamental freedoms and protections they deserve.
The hon. Member for Strangford laid out the evils of bonded labour in Pakistan. Pakistan has one of the highest numbers of bonded labourers in the world, with over a million workers in brick kilns. Bonded labour is an abuse analogous to slavery. As we have heard, Pakistan’s Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1992 was enacted to outlaw bonded labour, but its implementation has been a significant challenge, perhaps because of a lack of political will or capacity.
What help is the UK giving to Pakistan to implement the 1992 Act by encouraging will and assisting with capacity? What conversations have the Government had with the Government in Pakistan about ending modern slavery, and what support can the Government give to Pakistan, given their own commitment to achieving sustainable development goal 8, which targets modern slavery?
We must also remember, however, that modern slavery is not a tragedy that happens only overseas; it is happening here in the UK, often hidden in plain sight. It is present on our farms, in our care homes, in nail salons and even in drive-through restaurants. Modern slavery is not a crime of the past. Last year alone, more than 19,000 potential victims were identified in Britain. That rise has been fuelled by deepening inequality and increasingly sophisticated criminal networks that exploit vulnerabilities and target victims through online platforms and social media.
The Modern Slavery Act 2015 was rightly hailed as a landmark piece of legislation and demonstrated that the UK could lead the world in confronting this abuse, but nearly a decade on, charge and conviction rates for offences under the Act remain too low. The result is a system where victims slip through the cracks and too many perpetrators escape justice. If we are serious about ending exploitation and working with our partners in other countries, we must strengthen our own enforcement, protect survivors and ensure that the law delivers accountability as promised.
We Liberal Democrats believe that the fight against modern slavery must begin with action, both at home and abroad. Primarily, we would introduce a business, human rights and environment Bill that would establish a clear duty of care on companies, financial institutions and public bodies. The legislation would require businesses to carry out due diligence to prevent human rights abuses, including modern slavery and child labour, across their global supply chains and to report openly on their actions. Will the Minister commit to exploring similar legislation, and will she ensure that UK-linked supply chains in countries like Pakistan are not allowed to rely on vulnerable or exploited labour?
The UK also has a major role to play in demanding fairness in global supply chains. The fast fashion industry, including major sourcing from Pakistan, has long been associated with unethical labour practices. I hope the Minister will set out today what steps the Government will take to ensure that no product entering the UK market is tainted by exploitation.
Beyond supply chains, more can be done nationally. I would welcome a promise from the Government that they will review the modern slavery strategy to help them to address modern and evolving trafficking methods and take a victim-centred approach. They should restore the modern slavery fund to support innovative approaches to tackling modern slavery and back it up with a multi- year funding model.
Our message is simple: Britain must not profit from exploitation. That means holding corporations accountable where they are complicit in abuse abroad and ensuring that our trade and foreign policy reflect the values we hold dear: justice, dignity and human rights for all.
For the Liberal Democrats, human rights and preventing violations of international law such as modern slavery are the centrepiece of foreign policy. We continue to work tirelessly to abolish the death penalty globally and end the use of torture, and we would ban imports from regions complicit in egregious abuses. However, it is not enough to react to abuse; we must build the conditions in which dignity and liberty can thrive—from Pakistan to China and from Ukraine to Sudan.
On Pakistan specifically, I would like to turn to the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. Ahmadis are among the most persistently and brutally persecuted people in Pakistan. Their crime, in the eyes of the law, is simply to call themselves Muslim. Under Pakistan’s constitution, Ahmadis are legally defined as non-Muslims. They are forbidden to use Islamic terminology, barred from voting and denied freedom of worship. Last week, I met the leaders of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in the UK, who described to me the grim reality of state-sponsored persecution. Fourteen Ahmadis are currently imprisoned, some for more than five years, for practising their faith. Their schools have been nationalised, their literature banned and their mosques destroyed. In the past two years alone, there have been over 50 attacks on Ahmadi places of worship and over 420 desecrations of Ahmadi graves.
For the Liberal Democrats, freedom of religion means freedom for all faiths whenever and wherever. I ask the Minister to make this issue a diplomatic priority. The UK must use its close relationship with Pakistan to press for immediate change, to hold perpetrators of mob violence to account, to release prisoners of conscience, to restore Ahmadi voting rights and to return nationalised schools. Britain’s voice matters and it must be used to defend those whose only wish is to live and worship freely.
Modern slavery and persecution thrive where the rule of law is weak and indifference is strong. We will not turn away. We stand for a world in which every person in Pakistan and beyond can live with freedom, dignity and hope. Britain must once again lead with moral clarity and compassion, using its influence to not only condemn exploitation, but confront it, and building a future where human rights are not the privilege of the few but the inheritance of all.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and especially today—thank you for saving the day by turning up to chair this important debate. I commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing another vital debate before the House in the characteristically noble fashion we have grown to expect from him. I also commend the other Members who have contributed to it, including the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), who always speaks with passion and principle. She rightly highlighted examples of the exploitation of children, women and vulnerable people in Pakistan today. She said we cannot stay silent on slavery, and she is absolutely right: Britain needs to have a voice on this issue. She is also right that there should be a link between UK aid to Pakistan and dealing with the atrocious issue we are debating, so that we can get rid of modern-day slavery in that country.
I commend the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), who spoke about the Ahmadi Muslims. I myself have spoken about the way they are treated, and she is absolutely right that that is another area that needs to be highlighted and that we need to support that community. She said that Britain’s voice matters—absolutely it does—and we should use that voice strongly and clearly against the persecution and ill treatment we have been discussing this afternoon. I thank her for her comments.
Modern slavery is one of the greatest moral outrages of our time. More than 50 million people are estimated to be under the yoke of slavery across the world—more than at any point in human history. It is a sobering truth that while we in Britain debate our country’s historic involvement in slavery, millions of men, women and children are being born, sold and trapped into slavery today.
Pakistan is a Commonwealth partner and a friend of the United Kingdom, and only 70 years ago we shared the same head of state, Queen Elizabeth II. It is because of that close connection that Britain can raise, and ultimately assist in eradicating, the concerns we are debating. According to the Global Slavery Index, 2.3 million people are living in modern slavery in Pakistan, making it one of the top 20 worst affected nations in the world, and 10 or 11 people in every 1,000 are enslaved, which is an outrage. To contextualise that, throughout the entire 200 years that Britain was involved in the transatlantic slave trade, 3.4 million people were taken from Africa to the new world. In Pakistan today, 67% of that number are living in modern slavery.
As we have heard this afternoon, the brick kilns of Pakistan are perhaps the clearest example. There are over 20,000 kilns across the country, employing up to 3 million workers, many of whom are trapped in bonded labour, with entire families working 14 to 16 hours a day in suffocating heat and toxic fumes to pay off debts that can never actually be repaid. These are generational debts of forced labour, which are passed from parents to children, binding generation after generation to indentured servitude in many of these kilns. Workers are paid barely enough to survive, let alone escape. Children—some of them as young as five—mould bricks alongside their parents. Women, often from minority faith backgrounds, face harassment, violence and sexual abuse from their employers.
The majority of brick kiln workers are from among Pakistan’s poorest and least educated, and too often from religious minorities, including Christians and Hindus, who are disproportionately affected. Many families are lured into bondage by loans, which they take out as a last resort to pay for food, medical bills and dowries. Illiteracy means they rarely understand the exploitative interest rates or the false records maintained by their employers. Their debts are also recorded informally and arbitrarily, which means they are effectively impossible to contest. Unfortunately, these workers are invisible to the state.
As was referred to, Pakistan passed the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act in 1992, but over three decades later enforcement appears sporadic and ineffective. In the last Parliament, a report from the APPG for the Pakistani minorities, chaired by the hon. Member for Strangford, rightly said that
“successive governments have lacked the political will or capacity to enforce the law.”
The same report recommended that His Majesty’s Government use their aid budget to strengthen monitoring and compliance with International Labour Organisation standards, and even earmark £500,000 to hire inspectors to carry out unannounced inspections of brick kilns.
The aid budget might be a controversial topic at present, but I say to the Minister that if we are going to spend money on development aid, we should surely take up the mantle of our forefathers by taking the fight to slavery. When the Minister replies, will she tell us whether the Government will support the creation of a dedicated UK-funded inspection mechanism for Pakistan’s brick kilns? Will the FCDO consider making aid conditional on measurable progress in tackling bonded labour? Will the Department for Business and Trade issue clearer guidance to UK firms about the risk of slavery in supply chains linked to Pakistan’s construction sector?
Although we are focusing particularly on Pakistan, I am sad to say that it is far from unique. Across Asia, Africa and, shockingly, even Europe, cases of forced labour, human trafficking and child exploitation still persist. The ILO estimates that forced labour generates $236 billion in illegal profits every year, which in state terms is roughly the size of the Portuguese, Czech or Greek economies. It is huge.
As I alluded to, this is also very much a problem for the United Kingdom. British consumers unknowingly buy goods produced through forced labour in a range of areas, such as fashion, electronics, seafood and construction materials. Will the Minister therefore outline what steps are being taken to update, reform and strengthen the Modern Slavery Act? Do the Government agree that development aid must be conditional on the efforts taken by recipients to tackle modern day slavery?
This House must not shy away from the fact that our nation has been the ultimate force for good in the world. We should speak proudly of Britain’s historic role in abolishing the slave trade, not apologise for it. It was this country that led the world—at great cost—in suppressing the slave trade in the 19th century. The Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron rescued tens of thousands of enslaved Africans from ships flying other nations’ flags, and policed the eradication of the slave trade across the seas.
Today, the same voices that denounce our ancestors for slavery’s past—a trade that unfortunately predates civilisation as we know it—too often turn a blind eye to slavery’s present, as we have discussed. They are quick to pull down statues, yet slow to stand up for the children working in brick kilns, mines and sweatshops. It is easy to virtue signal about history; it is harder to confront the uncomfortable truth that slavery continues today in countries we trade with, partner with and fund, let alone in a Commonwealth nation such as Pakistan.
We should not therefore indulge in moral self-flagellation, but lead once again in the cause of abolition. The UK should prioritise anti-slavery measures in all development programmes in Pakistan; support NGOs providing legal aid, education and rehabilitation to bonded labourers; push for the digital registration of all brick kiln workers to bring them within the formal economy; and champion the global partnerships to eradicate slavery by 2030.
I suggest to the Minister that the FCDO publish an annual report on progress made against modern slavery globally. I emphasise that the UK should once again lead internationally, as we did two centuries ago, to ensure that every human can live in freedom.
Shamefully, modern slavery is not a relic of the past; it remains very much a stain on our present. The children in Pakistan’s brick kilns deserve the same rights, the same dignity and the same hope that we take for granted here in these islands. The Britain I know and love stands for freedom and for individual liberty, and is wholesale against oppression, whether that comes in the form of the state or the corporation.
If we are to influence affairs abroad, there is no finer crusade than the moral crusade to unchain children and their mothers and fathers from a life spent in forced labour and exploitation. Britain must lead this cause—just as we did before.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Sir Roger, and to respond to this debate. I am grateful to my good friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for securing the debate, and for his work on the issue through the all-party group and by contributing to the cross-party report that was published last year. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for her contribution, and to the Opposition spokespeople, the hon. Members for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) and for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). I will endeavour to come back on all the points that have been made, and where I am unable to, I am sure we can follow up in conversations afterwards.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Strangford will want to join me as I express my deepest condolences to all affected by the tragic explosion in Islamabad earlier this week. Our thoughts are with the victims and their families, and with everyone on whom that terrible event has had an impact.
I am grateful to those who intervened in the debate, which has highlighted our shared determination to confront another grave injustice—modern slavery. I must also acknowledge the work of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer). He is the Minister for the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and he would normally have responded to this debate, but he is unavoidably unable to be here. He and I speak regularly, and I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on his behalf.
Modern slavery refers to horrific situations in which individuals are exploited through coercion, threats, deception, forced labour and human trafficking. Despite the work that we have done and the abolition of slavery, which is such an important part of our history, so many forms of modern slavery still go on in the UK and across the world. We are determined, collectively, to do all we can to end it.
Bonded labour is a specific form of modern slavery, where a person is trapped working to repay a debt, often under conditions that make escape or repayment impossible. In the debate, we heard how Pakistan has an estimated 2.3 million people in modern slavery, including bonded labour, forced marriage and child labour. We heard about the billions of bricks made annually across the estimated 20,000 kilns, which employ more than 1 million workers. Many of those workers are trapped in debt bondage, because they take loans from kiln operators—sometimes for emergencies or basic needs, but the loans come with exorbitant interest that workers may not even be able to calculate, as well as unlawful deductions and a lack of transparent records. Children and entire families work to repay the debts, which are often passed down through generations. Some 83% of kilns surveyed had children working in them, many during school hours. Religious minorities, especially Christians and Hindus, are disproportionately affected. Up to 50% of kiln workers in Punjab and Sindh are from minority communities.
Let me reaffirm the UK’s clear and unwavering commitment: we are determined to end all forms of modern slavery, forced labour and human trafficking. We are working with partners to protect the most vulnerable, especially women and children, and to help survivors to rebuild their lives. That commitment shapes our engagement with Pakistan, and precisely because of that important relationship, we can engage frankly and constructively, including on human rights.
As we have heard, bonded labour remains a significant risk, particularly for already marginalised religious minority communities, which are disproportionately affected. We have welcomed moves by Pakistan to strengthen its response to forced labour and wider trafficking issues, including through its accession to the UN trafficking protocol in 2022 and the 2025 amendments to the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act and related laws.
As the all-party group identified, and as has been said today, legal enforcement remains a challenge. The UK’s approach has been to combine diplomacy with practical programmes that strengthen laws, data, institutions and community resilience, alongside discreet advocacy in sensitive cases. We know that progress is possible, because when evidence, political will and community action come together, exploitation can be prevented.
Let me say a few words about how the UK is helping, and then I will respond to some of the comments and questions. Through the UK’s £46.5 million Aawaz II programme, we support Pakistan at both policy and community levels. Nationally, the initiative helps to improve laws, policies and systems that protect marginalised groups; locally, it raises awareness, promotes behaviour change and supports people to engage constructively with the state to access rights and services. That has included practical work on bonded and child labour in sectors such as brick kilns. Because we cannot fix what we cannot see, the UK’s support has helped to deliver some of the first child labour surveys in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, giving policymakers the evidence they need to act.
I should also mention our work in Balochistan through our Asia regional child labour programme—the FCDO’s largest modern slavery programme—between 2018 and 2023. We helped to set up a child protection system that is already linking vulnerable children to support services. That is part of a wider preventive approach that puts survivors at its heart, and it sits alongside the UK’s wider development partnership in Pakistan: investing in girls’ education, strengthening health systems and building community resilience.
Jim Shannon
I welcome all the things that the Minister refers to—they are good steps forward, and that is what I would expect—but we have all mentioned that the young children in the brick kilns are not even getting educated. Some 80% of them have no education whatsoever. How will the Government target that issue? The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) referred, as possibilities, to more inspections in the brick kilns and more work with the NGOs. I welcome everything that the Minister has said, but those are the key issues.
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member has raised those issues in the report, and I can come back on a few points.
Our UK aid is delivered in Pakistan via trusted partners with rigorous safeguards. Our programmes focus on systemic change, strengthening child protection systems, improving birth registration and supporting legal reform. Through Aawaz II and the Asia regional child labour programme, which I mentioned, we have helped to register more than 3.4 million children and established referral services that connect vulnerable children to protective services. I will talk a bit more about that work. We are also doing work through some of those programmes to tackle early and forced marriages, which are a problem in this space, and raising these concerns regularly with the Government of Pakistan, including at ministerial level.
The investments that we are making in our work with Pakistan also address the underlying vulnerabilities—poverty, exclusion, lack of documentation and lack of access to justice—that traffickers and exploiters so often prey on; they believe and say that people have no option. We will continue to use our diplomatic network to encourage effective enforcement against those who profit from exploitation and to champion the rights of workers and of children to be safe, to be in school, and to be free.
We know that modern slavery thrives where rights are weak and discrimination goes unchallenged. That is why, in parallel with our work to tackle modern slavery, we consistently raise human rights issues with the Government of Pakistan, publicly and privately. We call for respect, for due process, for the rule of law, and for the upholding of the rights enshrined in Pakistan’s constitution and international obligations. That is why the Minister for the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan has regularly raised these issues with his counterparts, including most recently in a meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Dar in August when he voiced concern about the persecution of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. I know that is a very serious matter of concern to us all.
The British high commission in Islamabad regularly raises the subject of the rights and safety of religious minorities—such as Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and Ahmadis—with the Pakistani authorities at the highest levels. We also support interfaith dialogue; we support efforts to counter hate speech, especially online; and we support sensitive parliamentary engagement on laws that are misused to persecute minorities. We will continue to press for the protection of minorities, for full investigations where violence occurs and for accountability for those who are responsible.
Hon. Members have asked about our approach to modern slavery, and I will make this point about our work and our trade strategy. The Government have launched a review of their approach to responsible business conduct policy. That review will focus on the global supply chain of businesses operating in the UK, and it will be a neutral and objective appraisal of the UK’s current responsible business conduct approach and alternative options that aim to enhance that approach. The review will consider the effectiveness of the UK’s current responsible business conduct measures and alternative policy options to support responsible business practices, including mandatory human rights due diligence and import controls, among other measures. I am sure that hon. Members will want to consider their views in relation to that work.
When it comes to the UK funding more organisations that aim to tackle bonded labour, we recognise that UK resources are finite, as I am sure the shadow Minister does. However, we can prioritise programmes that deliver systemic change, and we can do that alongside our continuing advocacy. It is important that our UK aid is channelled through trusted partners. That requires due diligence and accountability, and we must ensure that it has impact and represents value for money. We welcome the all-party group’s recommendations and share its concerns. Although direct funding for inspectors is not currently in place, I hope that our programmes that focus on systemic reform, and that support legal enforcement, data collection and community empowerment, are having an impact. We keep that work under review.
In conclusion, the UK stands with those in Pakistan who are working to end modern slavery. We will continue to combine evidence-driven programmes with principled diplomacy to help to tackle bonded labour and strengthen the rights that keep people free. That is the measure of a just society, and it is a cause that the United Kingdom will continue to champion.
Jim Shannon
I thank everyone for taking part in the debate. I and my friend and colleague the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) have the same focus, demands and compassion and the same energy for this subject, and I thank her very much. She was right to underline the need for regular inspections, which I think would be instrumental in making the change we wish to see. She mentioned the crushing of young children’s dreams and gave two examples—an example always illustrates a story better than a thousand words, and she certainly did that.
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for his two interventions on modern slavery. He has the same interest in this matter. The Government, and the Minister in particular, have indicated that modern slavery issues have to be addressed at every level. The hon. Gentleman referred to due diligence legislation for imports, and I am quite clear that there is a role for Government to play on that.
I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), for her contribution. She referred to the debts that are imposed on people and to the fact that the UK can and should influence Pakistan. She made the point clearly that we should all be equal in our religious freedom and human rights; unfortunately, the debate illustrated that so often we are not. She also referred to global support for tackling bonded labour and reducing slavery through legislation, and I thank her very much for that.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who is a good friend as well, clearly illustrated the Opposition’s position. He mentioned that slavery across the world is at its highest level, and that Pakistan is a member of the Commonwealth and therefore our influence should be greater—and it should be; I agree with him. He referred to brick kilns as a prime example of what is wrong with the bonded labour system, in which people’s debts just seem to increase continuously. He also referred to Pakistan’s 1992 bonded labour law—something that Pakistan brought in and that Governments should be using to try to influence it. If that is the law that it has, then we should make it work.
I thank the Minister, as ever, for her contribution. I have absolutely no doubt that she wants to see the change that we all want to see. However, as the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn and the shadow Minister both mentioned, we should be making a point of asking the Pakistan Government directly to act on inspections of brick kilns. We should be working closely with the NGOs that work in Pakistan regularly and have evidence and information. I am conscious that this subject is not the Minister’s responsibility, but if we have evidence—and I suspect we do—to show where things went wrong, can we send that evidence on to the responsible Minister to ensure that we can make a change? It is clear that the Government have a plan that they are working on. We want to work with them, through those who are here today, the NGOs and others, to bring about the change that is needed in Pakistan.
Thank you, Sir Roger, for filling in, for your generosity and for the time that you have committed to be here this afternoon when you were asked to—we all appreciate that—and I thank those in the Public Gallery for coming along. I hope that Westminster Hall has done them justice today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered modern day slavery in Pakistan.
Rogue Builders
(1 day, 6 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
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of protecting consumers from rogue builders.
I am conscious that we may have to go off for multiple votes before half-past 4, so I will crack on with what was going to be 45 minutes of the most magnificent speech—I will abridge it to just 42. I am missing out the bit where I was going to be nice about builders—I am afraid I will concentrate on the nastiness of builders.
I start by defining the area that I am keen to concentrate on, which is the smaller end of the market. Known as the repair, maintenance and improvement sector, or RMI, this is the area where we see many appalling stories of people’s lives being ruined by unwittingly taking on so-called dodgy builders.
There are countless stories in the press, and there are TV shows specialising in these types of problems. I could turn to any number of articles in the national and regional press that talk about cowboy builders. A relatively simple search for stories of rogue and cowboy builders reveals 1,500 such stories in the last five years alone, and that is just the stories that made the press. This is a very insidious problem.
Chat to almost anybody who has had any building work done to their home, and they will roll their eyes and admit that they have had trouble of one sort or another. But we do not have to rely on hearsay and the media to understand the problems and the implications. The Federation of Master Builders conducts surveys to see what the effect is on the RMI market, and a recent poll of homeowners discovered that one in three were put off having work done on their home because of the fear of being ripped off. That equates to a possible £10 billion of lost economic activity.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I would like to shine a light on one of those many stories. My constituent in Esher and Walton paid over £16,000 for a kitchen remodelling that was never delivered, and the same company is alleged to have defrauded other constituents, including one this year who lost £20,000. When fraud occurs on this scale, it is theft from honest people, but consumers find that the civil courts are slow, complex and costly. Does the hon. Member agree that the Ministry of Justice should ensure accessible routes to redress, which may be small claims courts or an ombudsman scheme, so that consumers can get justice quickly?
Mark Garnier
I will talk about that in my speech. The fundamental problem is that, at the moment, the only course of redress is through the court system, and it is not good enough.
The FMB does a lot of work in this area, and it is worth looking at some of its statistics. Thirty-seven per cent of customers report unreliability, and many of them cite apparently unqualified operators. Nearly a quarter—that is 25%—of all customers have lost money to rogues, with losses averaging £1,760, but in many cases the amount is far higher. The national loss is horrific. The FMB estimates that, over five years, homeowners have lost an astonishing £14.3 billion to unreliable builders, putting an astonishing burden on the housing market and households. It turns out that young adults are more at risk, with 33% scammed by rogue traders found via social media.
The consumer is not the only victim of rogue or cowboy builders. Within the industry, many find themselves a victim of the same problem. Subcontractors find they are not paid, and it is the same for merchants. Plant hire companies are frequently the victims of theft and abuse of equipment. Alarmingly, health and safety is a low priority among many small and medium-sized building firms operating in the RMI market.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate, and he is absolutely right. In Northern Ireland, consumer protection against rogue builders involves preventive measures, official reporting channels and legal recourse through the Consumerline service, trading standards and the small claims court. The reality is that those protections are difficult to navigate, and they are often off-putting for people who are not used to filling in forms and writing things out. Does the hon. Member agree that there must be a more straightforward approach? People, who are often vulnerable and need support, should not have to jump through hoops.
Mark Garnier
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The current system does not satisfy people in any way, shape or form. Also, there is an inequality of risk, which I will come to in my speech.
Although large firms working on major commercial and civil engineering projects have embraced health and safety legislation, a blitz of small refurbishment sites by Health and Safety Executive inspectors in 2016 found that a stunning 49% of sites fell below the standards set for compliance with health and safety requirements. More alarmingly, that cavalier attitude to health and safety reveals the potential problem of cowboy builders leaving dangerous sites. When someone has an extension built, might they be risking life and limb when they climb those stairs? Poor-quality building results in not just shoddy work, but dangerous and potentially fatal work.
Rogue builders have an effect beyond their own unhappy activities. By undercutting reputable, high-standard builders that make up the majority of the market, they force them to cut their margins. Price competition is fine, but not when a worthwhile and reputable SME builder is competing against someone with no care for safety, honesty or customer satisfaction. Given that the RMI market is dominated by occasional customers—we are not doing this very often—it is quite likely that the key element of choice is price. Unhealthy price competition drives down standards, even if reputable firms are unhappy being forced to cut standards to compete.
In an extreme example of the problem—this is an important point—I recently met Andrew Bennett, who had engaged a local firm in Liverpool to refurbish a six-bedroom property that he owned—a job that was to be worth around £100,000. He checked out the firm and was happy with references and testimonials. He engaged the firm, but it turned out that the work was dangerously below standard. When he started to seek redress, he discovered that the company in question was not what he had been led to believe. It was a rogue builder passing off as a well-known, reputable company. Moreover, this dubious company had nine county court judgments against it and therefore had no money to pay the award to Mr Bennett when he won his case.
That company was passing off as another. It was seeking to take money off an individual customer by deliberately misleading him, and it failed to deliver the work contracted by that customer under the cover of misleading him—fraud, by any other name, or by the actual name. Mr Bennett went to the police, who told him that it was a civil matter. He tried all the avenues available to him to get this individual bang to rights, but to absolutely no avail. The company continues to rip off people, in full knowledge of the local law enforcers, trading standards, the local council and planning department, and multiple victims of its activities.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. One of my constituents was ripped off to the tune of £19,000 when the builder walked off the job part-way through. However, when they went to trading standards and the police, they were told that, because the work had begun, it was a civil and not a criminal matter. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more needs to be done to protect our constituents who are caught by that loophole?
Mark Garnier
Yes. It is shameful how these builders can get away with it—it is absolutely astonishing. By the way, this campaign has been going on for a number of years. It is very good to see, behind the Minister, the official who has worked with me in the past, although we have yet to achieve what we want to achieve.
How do victims of rogue builders seek redress? The answer, as we know, is not simple. They go to trading standards in the first instance but, with a rogue builder being, by definition, a rogue, the sanctions available are weak at best. Ultimately, the homeowner or small business owner who finds themselves a victim has no recourse other than the courts. However, the reality is that contract law simply does not work for people with problems above the small claims limit but below around £1 million.
The reality is that anyone can make up a fictitious bill that they want us to pay, and we have to negotiate. To challenge or defend that type of bill requires a commitment of between £100,000 and £200,000 in legal and court fees to prosecute a court case, and in professional fees to demonstrate the loss. I spoke to any number of friends and colleagues with very senior legal experience, and everyone said that this type of problem has absolutely nothing to do with justice and everything to do with negotiation. One even said that it is like being mugged and then being charged for the knife, with the backing of the law. For many reasons, our legal system is so clogged up that it serves no one properly, allowing it to be abused by rogue traders.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman speaks powerfully of the devastation that can be caused by rogue builders, as families in Altrincham and Sale West have experienced. Many have been ripped off by Frank Deary, a rogue builder who has taken over £1 million for work that he has never finished. He repeatedly liquidates his various building companies, making it extremely difficult for victims to recover any money, before he starts all over again with a different company name popping up. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this case, and so many cases that we all see in our constituencies, shows the need to crack down on rogue builders and improve customer protections?
Mark Garnier
The hon. Gentleman has probably read my speech, as that is the core of it. The legal problem is bigger than just failing to support victims through the court system. Rogue builders know the legal system works in their favour. There are builders who create fictitious bills or charge fictitious costs for work not carried out—I have seen that as a victim myself. I contracted a builder to renovate a much-loved family home, and they failed to do the work in time, which was a breach of contract. They rattled on for far too long, they did not do the whole work and, at the end, they put in a massive, fictitious bill. Our quantity surveyor reckoned there was an outstanding balance to pay of perhaps £6,000, but they put in a bill for £100,000.
In the end, everybody said, “You have to negotiate.” We negotiated a final settlement, which was multiple times in excess. This is a fundamental problem. We do not get redress, and we have to negotiate even if we know the negotiation is bogus.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. There are lots of excellent and reliable builders in Bournemouth East, but I am thinking of my constituents Andrew and Heather, who have really suffered at the hands of a rogue builder whose contact details they were unable to access. They got in touch with me because of their concern about their circumstances. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me, and with them, that the domestic building industry needs strong licensing and regulation? Without that, we will not stop cowboy builders exploiting my constituents.
Mark Garnier
The hon. Gentleman makes exactly the right point. We need a balance of risk, and I will come to that point later.
Consumers of repair, maintenance and improvement building services have no protection whatsoever. There is no practical protection for consumers to avoid the highly risky, unbelievably expensive and emotionally draining prospect of prosecuting contract law. Indeed, subcontractors working on my home were also victims of the rogue builder because they were not paid, either. It is extraordinary that consumers are unprotected. When we think about the whole process of refurbishing a home or building an extension, it looks even more astonishing.
The proud homeowner seeking to improve their home will go to an architect regulated by the Architects Registration Board. They might contract a quantity surveyor regulated by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. They will probably need to borrow money, so they might approach a mortgage broker regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. They will get help with a mortgage provided by a lender—again, regulated by the FCA, and possibly the Prudential Regulation Authority—with advice from a solicitor regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The money will then be deposited in a bank, again regulated by the FCA and the PRA.
The whole process is laden with consumer protection right up to the point where the money is handed over to someone with absolutely no regulation, possibly no qualifications, and no protection mechanism for consumers. As I said before, the problem gets worse, but it is worth repeating. The victim may well prosecute the case in court and win both damages and costs. But at that point the rogue builder goes bust with no assets, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand), and starts a new business the following day to continue the process of ripping off consumers. Meanwhile, the victim’s costs are unpaid and run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. The consumer ends up winning the moral victory but losing an enormous amount of money, while the rogue builder goes on to do the same again without any consequence.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
As well as the financial cost, there is also an emotional cost. A constituent got in touch with me after trying to resolve an issue with leaking roof insulation. When we got involved, it took us eight months and 97 emails to get the builder back out to repair it. There is an emotional impact on the whole family. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is an intolerable burden to put on people, and that we need to do something more?
Mark Garnier
Absolutely. Not only that, but if we think about the consequences, those 97 emails could have been sent for any one of the 100,000 constituents that we each have. We should not be doing this, and there should be a mechanism to sort it out.
The important reality of all this is that there is no disincentive at all for the cowboy builder to present fictitious bills and do bad work. While the consumer must engage in a risky legal process, the rogue builder can game the system with no jeopardy whatever. As we learned from Mr Bennett's story in Merseyside and the many other people who contacted me, the police will not investigate a case with regard to fraud and rogue builders, as they deem it a civil matter.
So what is the solution? How do we protect honest builders, subcontractors, merchants and, importantly, our constituents and consumers? How do we redress the balance of risk so that it does not favour the rogue builder but gives equal weight to both consumer and builder? The builder is not always in the wrong, so the solution must be balanced. Builders may occasionally need to be protected from rogue customers. The answer must lie in a scheme of regulation and licensing. In essence, what I am seeking to do—I have had a couple of presentation Bills on this topic—is get the Government to come up with a scheme of compulsory licensing for SME building firms working in the renovation and domestic improvement space. We do not know what it will be, but we need a system in which there is an equivalence of risk on both sides. There must be something that the builder as an individual can lose if he or she is found not to be doing their job properly.
My experience in this area has been with financial services and regulatory reform. Although I am not proposing anything remotely as complex as the FCA or the PRA to regulate builders, there is more than one important carry-across from financial services regulation. The first is that we do not want regulation to be a burden on the taxpayer. A licensing scheme must be self-financed through licensing fees: the building firms must pay for it.
Rules for having a licence must be straightforward. Importantly, no firm or individual should be allowed to offer services directly to customers without a licence. That in itself would result in the wider building industry policing the market. If a builder knows that somebody else is a dodgy builder, it is in their interest to report them. Mortgage lenders would require evidence that money will be spent on a licensed firm. Architects and surveyors acting as project managers would need to see licences to engage a building firm in the first place, so consumer would know what they are getting. Consumers would be able to check the builder on the regulator’s website, in the same way that they can check their pension adviser on the FCA register. The regulator could be TrustMark, which already offers voluntary regulation. There should a code of conduct covering honesty, safety and quality of work. Failure to comply should have a series of sanctions, with the ultimate sanction of the loss of licence.
An option could be a compensation scheme. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme is an example of how consumers who have lost out as a result of poor practice can be compensated for their loss from a scheme financed by levies placed on licence holders in the relevant sector. The double effect is that the consumer gets their losses covered while the industry as a whole is incentivised to keep an eye on each other. An ombudsman would be able to assess consumer loss without the need to engage expensive and lengthy legal and professional experts to defend against bogus builds or to challenge poor work. These proposals aim to end the decades-long history of consumers who have been ripped off in one way or another by shoddy rogue builders.
I am conscious of time, Ms Furniss, but I want to acknowledge that the Government have started to resolve some of these issues. A New Homes Quality Board has been set up to ensure that new homes are built to a certain standard. That is a welcome development. The fact that it has an ombudsman demonstrates that the Government and I are probably thinking along the same lines in a broad sense, but the New Homes Quality Board is targeted specifically at the new homes market. Given the Government’s target of 1.5 million new homes, it will have its work cut out. Importantly, it is not designed for the RM&I sector, which remains wholly unregulated and unsupervised. That is what the Minister must concentrate on.
Many people agree that this problem in the RM&I sector is beyond redemption. The Federation of Master Builders report on this subject in 2018 said that even construction firms themselves agree that a compulsory licensing scheme is necessary. The industry wants it too: 77% of SME builders and 78% of consumers agree with the FMB’s proposed licensing scheme.
Enough is enough. I have a few more words about my engagement so far. Unfortunately, the Housing Minister is on his feet in the main Chamber talking about the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I was looking forward to beating him up a bit, because he has been less than brilliantly helpful. None the less, it is very good to see the Minister from the Department for Business and Trade in her place. I look forward to hearing her helpful words about how the Government will introduce legislation to ensure our constituents are not ripped off endlessly by these wretched builders.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
I am keen to bring this debate to a conclusion before the first of many expected Divisions is called, with all participants having had a satisfactory opportunity to contribute to it. Mr Garnier and the Front Benchers have graciously agreed to watch the clock, curtail their remarks and be very succinct. I ask all of you to be extremely brief with speeches and interventions.
I expect the first Division at 4.15 pm. To help me to enable all those who wish to contribute to the debate to do so, please stand now that Mr Garnier has moved the motion and made his speech, so that I can calculate accurately the initially informal limit on speeches that I will strongly encourage.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
There will be a limit of four and a half minutes for each speech. I call Sarah Hall.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furness.
I am grateful to colleagues for securing a debate on this issue, because it is something that I am hearing more and more about in Warrington South. When people come to see me about it, they are usually exhausted and upset. Their home is supposed to be the safest place in their life, but instead they are living in chaos. Indeed, this is such a widespread problem that there are now entire TV programmes about cowboy builders, and newspapers and broadcasters regularly produce guides about how to spot and avoid them.
One constituent came to me after doing everything that a sensible person would do. They found a firm on Checkatrade, read the reviews, checked the company’s details and were confident they had found a reputable business. They were not naive; they were careful and did their due diligence. However, once the work started, their home was devastated. The whole roof came off. Rooms that they relied on day to day, including the shower, were in a horrendous state for months. They ended up spending around £60,000 to put things right.
Trading standards officers were helpful and saw the case through the legal process. Eventually, the rogue builders received a suspended sentence for what they had done to three different families. But even then, the system did not come close to putting things right. The company had claimed to have insurance, but it did not. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the judge had to set a limit of £50,000 to be split between all three victims. My constituent will only get back a fraction of what they lost, and frustratingly they still have not received the compensation they are owed. When we talk about consumer protection, we must be honest—it simply did not work for my constituent.
Members from across the House have described similar patterns of behaviour in their own constituencies. When the same individuals take thousands of pounds, leave homes unsafe and move straight on to the next victim, it looks and feels like fraud, yet too many people are still being told that it is a civil matter. If we are serious about protecting consumers, we need clearer lines, so that the police understand when this issue becomes criminal and not just contractual. We need enforcement agencies with the resources to intervene earlier, and we should take a proper look at whether an affordable and proportionate licensing or accreditation scheme for builders would help to stop repeat offenders from slipping through the net. Most of all, we need a system that recognises what is at stake. Rogue builders are ruining homes across the country, yet victims are still being left to fend for themselves.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look closely at the gaps that this case has exposed in enforcement, compensation and basic protection, so that what happened in Warrington South does not keep happening to families across the country.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
This is an issue that is crying out for a solution. In my opinion, there are two principal remedies that need to be applied to the plague of rogue builders: criminalisation of those builders who are shown to have fraudulently fleeced their innocent victims; and a requirement for all builders to be registered with and licensed by a professional body, together with an insurance scheme to remedy failure or harm, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) has already explained in his admirable opening speech.
I have decided, on balance, not to identify the specific rogue builders and their victims to whom I shall refer today; however, I do not rule out doing so in the future. My first case study concerns Graeme, a constituent of mine who paid more than £1,800 to a builder in 2023. Although the same builder had done satisfactory work in the past, on this occasion he gave a succession of excuses for not turning up before ceasing to respond at all. A solicitor advised Graeme that it would cost more than any sum likely to be recovered for lawyers to be involved, and suggested contacting the police.
Graeme writes:
“I was born at the very end of the 1960s and, to me, if someone deprives me of my money, it is theft or even fraud.”
As someone born at the beginning of the 1950s, I heartily endorse that view, but the police responded that stealing £1,800 from Graeme in that way did not meet
“the threshold for theft or fraud”.
Similarly, his bank was not keen to help once it knew that the builder had previously completed satisfactory work for Graeme.
Next, he found that trading standards could be contacted by an aggrieved individual only via a charity such as Citizens Advice, which also came as news to me. His CA recommended the money claims court; Graeme followed its advice and eventually obtained a county court judgment for £1,800 plus costs and interest. Even then, it took action at a higher court level for bailiffs to be appointed. They extracted a few weekly payments of a fraction of the sum stolen before giving up the ghost.
One might say that it could have been particular circumstances or misfortune that led the builder to let down his client—although that is no excuse for keeping his money. However, Graeme managed to establish directly that he had treated another victim in precisely the same way. Indirectly, Graeme heard of several others who had suffered in similar fashion. He was forced to conclude that, irrespective of a pattern of dishonesty towards multiple victims, the police still regard such behaviour as “a civil matter” and a “breach of contract”. Thus, with criminal prosecution closed off, all that remains is the costly, risky and often ineffective civil route. To date, Graeme has received a paltry £260, with more than £2,040 awarded by the court outstanding.
While Graeme rightly feels aggrieved by the injustice of his situation, my second constituent, Malcolm, has had his own and his family’s life totally upended by a truly nightmarish experience—one of the worst cases I have had to deal with in 28 years as a Member of Parliament. After a career of admirable public service in the Royal Navy and as a fireman, he has lost huge sums of money from his life savings and pension schemes at a time when a close relative with stage 4 breast cancer was meant to be benefiting from his support. It was for that purpose, I believe, that he commissioned the alterations—primarily converting a garage into extra ground-floor rooms—to his home in the first place.
Malcolm selected a building firm that he chose from a respectable trade recommendation website, where 5-star ratings for it were recorded. He agreed to pay about £25,000 for, supposedly, three weeks’ work to be undertaken while the family was on holiday in 2022. Despite an extra week’s delay, they returned to a scene of incomplete and utterly shoddy work and, in some respects, dangerous disorder. Indeed, Malcolm injured himself quite badly in a fall at the property that he attributes to this.
In addition to the very large payment made irrecoverably to the rogue builder, it cost Malcolm a horrifying £45,000 more for remedial works, which he had to undertake to make his home safe and inhabitable again. The trade recommendation website, which he thought had validated the rogue builder, offered its maximum level of compensation —a modest £1,000. Later, he discovered that the builder had no gas safety qualification, as he had falsely claimed.
Malcolm succeeded in communicating with trading standards, which indicated that it would be helpful if a pattern of similar construction disasters could be established. Malcolm therefore turned investigator, and discovered several other families in my constituency and in nearby Southampton. He calculated total losses caused by the same rogue builder to be at least £200,000. One victim, a lady living with multiple sclerosis, was left without a functioning toilet.
The police, nevertheless, still insist that the threshold for criminality had not been reached. If so, that threshold needs to be changed, and changed substantially. Despite correspondence from me to Hampshire county council pointing out the multiple victims, the apparent evidence of companies being repeatedly set up and dissolved by the rogue builder—as we have heard from another hon. Member—and his not infrequent changes to his own name, nothing effective has been done to punish or constrain him in any way.
As stated at the outset, there are two fairly obvious remedies. First, if the police are right that the current state of the law prevents such devastating and ruthless misbehaviour reaching the threshold of criminality, that threshold must be repositioned by legislation to include it. Secondly, like other skilled professions, builders must be licensed before being allowed to operate. The good news is that, as we have heard, the Federation of Master Builders is ready and able to undertake this vital role. That must be coupled with an insurance scheme to which builders will contribute to enable redress where appropriate and where standards are breached. Rogue builders can ruin lives; now is the time to banish that evil.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for securing this important debate on protecting consumers from rogue builders—an issue that affects thousands of families, honest tradespeople and small businesses across the country.
In my constituency I have spoken to homeowners left heartbroken and out of pocket after rogue traders walked away leaving unfinished work, and skilled local tradespeople who tell me they are being undercut by those who cut corners, dodge taxes and disappear when something goes wrong. Every year, hard-working homeowners lose an estimated £1.4 billion through rogue traders, not to mention suffering emotional stress, anxiety and shattered trust. At the same time, those rogue operators undermine our legitimate, qualified tradespeople who play by the rules, pay their taxes, insure their work, and uphold professional standards and training. They damage the reputation of the entire construction and home improvement sector, making it harder for honest builders to win work and for consumers to know who to trust.
As in many parts of the country, residents in Portsmouth have been affected by rogue builders who exploit trust and cause real distress. The crimes often target vulnerable people, such as the elderly, or families just trying to improve their homes. In one case in my city, an elderly couple paid thousands of pounds from their pension savings for essential roof and patio repairs, only to be left with unsafe and unfinished work. They were forced to pay even more just to make their home liveable again. In another example, a family hired a builder to renovate their garage; instead of safely removing the asbestos roof, the contractor left open bags of hazardous material in a shared alleyway, putting neighbours and children at risk. The family had to pay for specialist clean-up and repairs, adding more financial strain to their emotional stress and worry.
In Copner, an area of my city, a local family’s home extension turned into a nightmare when the builder abandoned the project halfway through. He was meant to put a new kitchen in, but it became an unsafe shell that failed building inspection after building inspection, leaving the family out of pocket and living with disruption for years. Other residents across the city have been scammed by traders using multiple companies to take deposits for work that they have never finished—or, indeed, never started.
Those cases remind us that rogue builders not only cause financial loss, but damage confidence, safety and peace of mind. They also highlight the importance of checking credentials, avoiding doorstep deals, reporting suspicious activity and gaining our tradies from social media. Concerns have been raised about trade websites, but I commend Checkatrade and other industry bodies that are working to raise standards. Checkatrade, for example, has blocked 850 rogue traders from joining its platform in this year alone. It has also formed a primary authority partnership with trading standards, helping to strengthen consumer advice and set new benchmarks for best practice.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
A constituent of mine recently shared that she hired a builder who took payment for professional services—but everything about the work was fraudulent. She told me that she felt abandoned by a black hole of referrals, despite multiple agencies confirming that it was actually a criminal matter. The work is being investigated by a neighbouring trading standards, but that is taking far too long. Does my hon. Friend agree that the process of reporting and getting resolution has to be speeded up?
Amanda Martin
I absolutely agree. Voluntary measures only go so far, and the Competition and Markets Authority must step up to enforce this work.
The lack of consistent action against non-compliant trade recommendation sites undermines confidence, creates an unlevel playing field and ultimately hurts the very people we are here to protect—both consumers and legitimate businesses.
That brings me to another issue I have been campaigning on: tool theft. Just as rogue builders threaten trade in the industry, tool theft threatens its very foundation. Every van stolen, and every break-in on a building site or driveway, means another tradesperson unable to work, another small business losing its livelihood and another family struggling to make ends meet. More than 1 million tool theft incidents have occurred in the past five years. Tool theft costs the economy hundreds of millions, and fuels the black market and more rogue builders. I have been calling for a national register for stolen tools, mandatory marking and traceability requirements for high-value tools, and stronger police action and sentencing for repeat offenders. Protecting tradespeople from crime goes hand in hand with protecting our consumers from rogue builders: both rely on trust, fairness and accountability.
I urge the Government to take four steps: first, strengthen the enforcement of consumer protection laws and ensure that—
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on securing this debate, and for his record of campaigning on this issue. I also recognise the Federation of Master Builders for its important work in this area. I was proud to be at the launch of its “Licence to Build” report earlier this year.
Like many other hon. Members, I have heard regularly from constituents who have gone through horrendous experiences with rogue builders, and I have seen people in tears in my surgeries after suffering the effects. One couple who came to see me had their home turned into a building site when builders left trenches dug up around their house, having taken £36,000 from them. When the couple were asked to pay double that cost and they refused to do so, the builders disappeared without trace, leaving the work undone and parts of the couple’s home unusable and unsafe. Another constituent’s builder continually demanded further payments for months before abandoning the work unfinished. The mental toll on the victims is hard to explain until we meet some of these people.
These builders, if we can even call them that, are simply allowed to get away with it because there is so little regulation. As we have heard from other hon. Members, rogue builders often close down their companies and re-establish under a different name, which makes it incredibly difficult for trading standards to go after them. Over half of UK homeowners, 55%, have had a bad experience with a builder, so this is not a small or hidden issue—and, as other hon. Members have said, it gives other, excellent builders a poor reputation. It is not fair on the rest of the industry.
Consumers are left with limited options, limited support and limited agency. Our system of redress is overwhelmed, underfunded and extremely complex. The small claims courts, trading standards, the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and the Competition and Markets Authority all have a role to play, but they are all far too weak. When homeowners have spent their savings or borrowed huge sums of money to improve their home, as is their right, they do not have money left over to chase people through the courts. There is no ombudsman, but how could there be when there is no regulation to enforce?
I urge the Minister to take back to her Department the need to be much more ambitious in this area. This problem is not just societal, but economic, given that the public have lost some £14 billion in five years to rogue builders. As the hon. Member for Wyre Forest said, this problem depresses demand because many people are too afraid to do extension or home improvement work. I hope that the Minister will give strong consideration to a licensing scheme that could be administered and regulated by the Building Safety Regulator. If she concludes that that is not feasible, for whatever reason, what other measures are Ministers willing to consider to strengthen the justice system in order to protect consumers and make it much easier for them to get redress from the rogue house builders that cause misery up and down the country?
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on securing this debate. We have heard some harrowing stories from right hon. and hon. Members from across the Chamber. I am pleased that the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) was able to share his story in full; what his constituents went through was utterly outrageous. I want to focus on the other end of the market and highlight a deeply troubling issue that has left families in my constituency and across the north-west region paying the price for the reckless and irresponsible actions of a house builder that failed to meet its most basic obligations.
The collapse of Stewart Milne Homes North West England in January 2024 exposed a glaring loophole in our housing system, which allows developers to sell homes without first securing the legal agreements that guarantee the adoption of essential infrastructure such as roads and sewers. In my constituency, three estates built by Stuart Milne were completed years ago but their infrastructure was never legally adopted. The streets were not adopted by the local authority, nor the sewers by United Utilities. Why? Because the developer failed to secure either the necessary bonded section 38 agreement, the section 104 agreement, or both. The result is that homeowners who purchased their properties in good faith are now told they must foot the bill to bring roads and sewers up to standard: we are talking about thousands of pounds for infrastructure that should have been properly delivered and adopted from the outset.
In Middlewich, residents on one estate had been waiting for a decade for the adoption of their sewers. It has been up to residents themselves to navigate the complex process of securing sewer adoption. After years of persistence, significant personal investment and tireless effort, their determinations have paid off, and the sewers on their development are now fully adopted. I pay particular tribute to Claire Bertram for seeing this through—but this situation is not just unfair; it is unacceptable. People buying a home should not have to become experts in planning law or infrastructure adoption. They should be able to rely on a system that protects them from exactly this kind of exploitation.
We need urgent reform to close those loopholes and prevent that situation from happening again. It must be a legal requirement that no home can be sold unless the infrastructure that it relies on—roads, sewers, drainage—is fully secured through binding adoption agreements. This is not a radical proposal; it is a basic standard of consumer protection. We already have a legislative tool: section 42 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, passed by the previous Government, which provides a mechanism to ensure that sewer adoption is properly regulated. It is time to activate and enforce this provision through secondary legislation. We also need a parallel mechanism for highways—one that ensures that developers cannot shirk their responsibilities and leave communities in limbo.
This is about restoring trust in the housing sector. Families should not be punished for a developer’s failure. We need stronger regulation, better oversight and a clear legal requirement that no home can be sold unless the infrastructure that it relies on is secured, adoptable and protected by law. Only then can we prevent this kind of injustice from happening again.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on securing this important debate.
Over the last year, I have been campaigning on behalf of homeowners affected by faulty spray foam insulation installed under the previous Conservative Government’s green homes grant scheme. The aim was to improve the energy efficiency of homes across our country by offering households help to make their homes warmer, greener and cheaper to run. Many homeowners used the scheme to fund the installation of spray foam insulation. However, in a number of cases the installation was done incorrectly, causing moisture to become trapped, creating structural issues such as roof timber decay.
Under the green homes grant, as with other Government retrofit schemes, homeowners were told that only TrustMark-approved contractors could carry out the work, yet we have seen substandard and unqualified contractors admitted to the scheme, carrying out poor-quality work and then disappearing when problems emerge, leaving homeowners to deal with the consequences. These cases have exposed a growing problem: the rise of rogue builders and traders operating under the banner of Government assurance.
Although spray foam may seem niche, that case is not isolated. It is a symptom of a much deeper failure in oversight and consumer protection. The Government’s own quality assurance mechanism, TrustMark, as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest mentioned, is administered by the Department for Business and Trade, and it has failed in its most basic duty. TrustMark was established to ensure that only qualified and competent contractors were permitted to carry out work under Government-funded schemes, yet here we are with hundreds, if not thousands, of homeowners left with defective installations.
Recent announcements about improper installation under the Great British insulation and ECO4 schemes have further highlighted this failure. To put it simply, TrustMark is not fit for purpose. If the Government are to tackle the issue of rogue builders, they must start with those that they endorse under their own schemes. The Department for Business and Trade must work more closely with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to ensure that future schemes are properly monitored, contractors rigorously vetted, and consumers protected. That must include a thorough evaluation of TrustMark’s capacity to deliver the effective consumer protection that it ought to offer. At present, it is failing to provide meaningful quality assurance or to keep rogue builders out.
What is worse is that these failures have created a second wave of exploitation. Rogue traders are now targeting households that had any form of spray foam insulation and offering to remove it, at great cost, even where the insulation is properly installed and functional. In many cases, these removals, which are completely unnecessary, cause further damage to the property, leaving homeowners with even greater costs.
These vulnerable consumers have been exploited not once, but twice: first by unfit contractors operating under a Government-endorsed quality scheme, and then by opportunistic builders and traders exploiting the chaos that that failure has created. As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned, often the companies are then wound up, leaving people without a mechanism or a person to seek redress through. This is precisely why stronger oversight is needed.
The Department must work with TrustMark to ensure that contractor vetting, auditing and enforcement are properly co-ordinated, leaving no room for unsuitable contractors to operate under the banner of Government assurance. Secondly, there must be clear and accessible routes to redress. Homeowners should not be left to navigate complex complaints systems or take costly legal action against builders who may already have vanished. While TrustMark offers a dispute resolution service, those who have tried it will know how difficult it is to access and how rarely it delivers meaningful outcomes.
I therefore urge the Minister to take up this issue seriously. TrustMark must be reviewed, consumer protections must be strengthened, and we must clamp down on rogue builders who exploit public funds and private households. Rogue builders are not just a nuisance; they are a serious threat to consumer confidence, public spending and the integrity of the housing sector. It is time we treated them as such.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for securing this important debate.
A house builder and social housing provider have treated some of my constituents disgracefully. Three families with children bought shared ownership homes in Wokingham. One family refused to move in due to mould and damp in the house and the other two found mould all over the cupboards. It has been found that the houses were missing a crucial damp-proof membrane and course, both vital to keeping moisture out of the house.
There has been a real lack of communication and empathy from the company and housing provider, and they have ignored the residents’ claims for many months. After my intervention, the social housing provider agreed to decant the residents while remedial work is done to the houses. It is now backtracking on that commitment, and it has taken far too long for the builder and the social housing provider to acknowledge fault, which has had a serious toll on my residents. It is clear that the builder and social housing provider cannot be trusted to build and maintain quality housing going forward.
I have one question for the Minister: does he agree that house builders and social housing providers must be held to account, and that local authorities must be able to end relationships with underperforming house builders and social housing providers to protect residents?
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
I call Ben Maguire. I ask you to be quite swift, because we understand there may be Divisions sooner than we expected.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on securing this important debate and giving an excellent and comprehensive speech.
Many people will be familiar with this topic. In fact, half of all homeowners have had a bad experience with builders at some point. Of course, those cases vary in value and scale, but fundamentally they represent consumers—many of whom are sadly vulnerable or elderly—being taken advantage of by rogue builders and traders.
Those people are all victims, whether they are in desperate need of emergency repairs or have committed to an extension they have saved up for over many years. They can be in a range of difficult situations: financial hardship, poor health or bereavement—some of those harrowing personal stories were outlined by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)—and for them, seeking a fair resolution can seem impossible.
Two months ago, I pressed the Solicitor General on the deeply troubling case of Launceston primary school in my constituency, a brand-new building that had to be demolished just as it was ready to be opened because it failed to meet basic safety and building standards. When the developer went bust, it was us—the taxpayers—who were left carrying the cost of rebuilding the entire school to the tune of around £7 million.
Our communities deserve better safeguards and real accountability. Nationally, those stories are all too familiar, and those problems persist even in our sewage and road infrastructure systems, with many developers going bust before such vital infrastructure is finished. The hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) made a powerful case for mandating infrastructure before the sale of homes.
Many of my constituents near Bude reached out to me to explain how a developer abandoned a site after going into liquidation, leaving unfinished roads and sewage works. The developer directly contravened planning conditions by not paying the bond, and yet the local authority had no power to act or hold it to account.
The Government cannot stand by any longer while those rogue developers fail to fulfil their promises. Those cases are shocking to hear, and the wider implications are clear. In the past five years, it is estimated that rogue builders have cost the public around £14 billion. That demonstrates the necessity of an efficient and effective justice system to resolve such disputes, protecting consumers and discouraging cowboy behaviour from builders.
Concerningly, as we have heard today, too many individuals in those situations find the justice system slow, complex and expensive to navigate. These are people in unexpected situations, without the time or resources to rectify them effectively. The Liberal Democrats believe that justice should be on the side of all consumers, not just those who can afford costly legal battles, as was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon).
The Government should ensure that there are accessible redress routes, such as small claims courts and ombudsman schemes, that work quickly and fairly for everyone. They should also support alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that save consumers time, stress and money, giving them a fair outcome without the burden and cost of going to court. That is important for the victims, and for the hundreds of thousands of honest builders who provide brilliant services for consumers up and down the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) made the point that the reputation of those businesses is damaged by widespread concerns about the trustworthiness of the industry as a whole. They, too, will benefit if we can effectively deter and catch rogue builders.
Since 2019, there have been more than 125,000 official complaints about rogue builders in England alone. The justice system must ensure that those responsible are properly held to account. It is crucial that proactive steps are taken against these traders through the Competition and Markets Authority and local trading standards bodies, to ensure that they are effectively punished and, where necessary, publicly named and shamed.
To that end, what are the Government doing to ensure that investigations by those bodies are properly resourced and supported? Crucially, to the point made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand), how can the Government stop some of these repeat offenders going into liquidation time and again, and then committing the same frauds somewhere else?
How will the Government ensure that victims of rogue builders are provided with accurate and clear information regarding their options? What are the Government doing to support accessible redress routes, as well as out-of-court resolutions for these victims? Finally, will the Minister look into providing greater powers and resources to local authorities so that they can properly hold rogue developers to account and enforce planning permission?
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Furniss, and to see the Minister. This is our second interaction in a week, and, under the direction of the Chair, it will be a lot shorter than the last.
I congratulate my very good and hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), on securing this debate. I commend his commitment to this issue over many years. Many of us turn up to these debates as one-offs, but he is a consistent champion for builders and against rogue builders.
My hon. Friend again raises a very fair and well-intentioned question: how can we in this place best protect our constituents from the scourge of rogue builders? He is right that the issue is caused by a minority of people and organisations in the construction industry, who exploit people’s good nature and certainly do not deliver for their customers. We all know someone who has faced this issue, whether that is homeowners or subcontractors, particularly those in the repair, maintenance and improvement sector, as my hon. Friend pointed out.
We have seen the best of Westminster Hall today. I have been struck by the many excellent examples given by hon. Members from many different parties and from across the country of people who have suffered the consequences of cowboy builders. I genuinely thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate.
This issue is not simply aesthetic or material; it can and often does have very serious consequences. That is why I am pleased that, in recent years, there has been some progress to address some of the problems set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest. For example, there are various competent person schemes that allow builders to self-certify, ensuring that they follow certain rules to comply with building regulations. These schemes ensure that customers are provided with the appropriate financial protection for a minimum of six years to correct work in dwellings that are non-compliant with building regulations.
For our part, the previous Conservative Government passed the Building Safety Act 2022, which introduced competence requirements on anyone doing design or building work. The legislation also brought about the creation of the Building Safety Regulator and the Industry Competence Committee, both of which help to encourage and monitor industry competence. I am nevertheless really looking forward to hearing from the Minister about what specific plans she and her Government have to build on that work to further address the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest and many other Members from both sides of the House.
Another part of what we can do to push out rogue builders must surely be to encourage those builders who follow the law, play by the rules and deliver for customers. I would not be doing my job if I did not reflect the concerns of the builders I spoke to in preparation for the debate by pointing out that, unfortunately, builders feel that that is not happening under this Labour Government. Instead of backing builders who are not rogue and who work hard, the Government are determined to make sure that doing the right thing just does not pay.
I have spoken many times about the impact of the national insurance hike on the construction industry, but I want to use the last moments of my speech to ask the Minister directly, on behalf of the National Federation of Builders, about the builders tax that the Chancellor is proposing in the upcoming Budget. That will add another £28,000 to the cost of building a new home and drive up the cost of critical national infrastructure, including roads, schools, factories and even nuclear power stations. It will add significant costs to construction and the building sector, and I was asked to ask the Minister what is going on with this Government if they are proposing this tax by way of a formal consultation. On behalf of the official Opposition, I want to be clear that this tax cannot go ahead. Builders and construction workers want to hear her response to that specific point. There are so many hard-working builders in this country, and so many people who make something, and we must get behind them.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
I call the Minister to respond to the debate—very briefly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I will do my best, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on securing this debate on an issue that I know he has campaigned on for a long time, beginning when his party were in government.
I really welcome the debate. I am grateful to the many Members who contributed to it for raising their constituents’ concerns and the horrifying cases that they have been dealing with in their constituencies. They set out the serious impacts that incompetent and rogue tradesmen have had on the homes and the physical and mental health of their constituents, who are sometimes elderly or vulnerable in other ways. I know from my own constituents the misery that can be caused and the toll it can take on people, as well as the time and money it takes to remedy problems. I thank Members again for their hard work, through casework and surgeries, to defend their constituents’ consumer rights.
Consumers have a have a right to expect that work undertaken in their homes will be performed competently and that there will be redress if the work does not meet acceptable standards of quality and safety, and I want to take the opportunity to assure the House that the Government are committed to strengthening the system to ensure that that happens. I will try to align my winding-up speech with the winding-up speech in the main Chamber and move quickly to responses to points that Members raised.
The Government’s aim is to improve the market and to support honest and competent tradespeople and firms, working with the industry and with local authority trading standards. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 sets out the standards that consumers can expect in relation to the supply of goods and services, including building work, and the remedies available to them. Under the Act, traders are required to carry out a service with reasonable care and skill, and within a reasonable time. If those requirements are not met, the consumer can ask for the service to be performed again or for a price reduction. If that is not agreed, consumers can seek redress through the courts. The small claims procedure provides the means to pursue a claim of up to £10,000 at an affordable cost and without a solicitor, and consumers have six years to bring a claim against a trader.
Government bodies are also working with the super-sector working groups under the industry competence steering group, collaborating to improve trade and installer competence and to reduce the incidence of poor work. That process brings together over 1,000 individuals across trade bodies, professional organisations and employers to produce and implement competence frameworks across more than 130 occupations.
The Government are committed to strengthening competent person schemes that cover higher-risk occupations such as electricians and gas engineers. Competent person schemes must ensure that consumers are provided with the appropriate protection for a minimum of six years to remediate work that is non-compliant with the building regulations.
Other protections include the TrustMark scheme, which hon. Members have mentioned. That is the only Government-endorsed quality scheme for domestic construction. It covers trades such as fenestration, roofing, and kitchen and bathroom installation, as well as general building work, and it requires participating firms and tradespeople to demonstrate competence and provide for consumer redress. Government-funded schemes for energy and heat efficiency also require installers to hold relevant certifications and to provide consumers with access to redress.
I know that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest has campaigned for a long time on licensing schemes. Licensing or registration schemes exist in the US, Australia and New Zealand and aim to improve quality, protect consumers from incompetent contractors, and provide consumers with redress for poor-quality work. The hon. Member spoke about that in quite a lot of detail. However, few evaluations have been undertaken of the effectiveness of those schemes. The available evidence suggests that they can deliver some benefits, such as increased quality, but that they can also have detrimental effects, including increasing prices for consumers. There is also no clear evidence that the existence of licensing schemes reduces the incidence of poor-quality work. The schemes are reliant on audits and inspections of work to identify incompetent builders, which is similar to the approach of the TrustMark and competent person schemes in the UK.
There are also questions of how licensing schemes would be funded and administered, the implications for existing schemes in the UK, and the resourcing of the organisations responsible for the schemes. Any proposal to introduce a licensing scheme in the UK would have to be based on an assessment of costs and benefits and would have to address those issues.
Hon. Members also mentioned the issue of phoenixing. We are aware of the problem and work is ongoing. In the 2024 autumn Budget, we announced a greater focus between His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Companies House and the Insolvency Service on tackling rogue directors and phoenixing. Key actions include closing loopholes in company registration and dissolution, targeted enforcement to boost compliance, and stronger referrals.
I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest for welcoming our New Homes Quality Board and ombudsman. From a consumer protection perspective, the Government are supportive of alternative routes to recourse outside the courts, such as alternative dispute resolution and the ombudsman. Many similar schemes already exist, and the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 strengthened ADR provision. That is also relevant to his comments and reflections on compensation, for which I thank him.
I am very conscious of the time, Ms Furniss, so I will move to my concluding remarks and just thank hon. Members for raising lots of other issues that I do not have time to go through. I will be working closely with other relevant Departments on the wider infrastructure issues that Members have raised on house building.
Sir Julian Lewis
What about the fact that these people, in some cases, are criminals and their actions ought to be subject to the criminal law?
Kate Dearden
I thank the right hon. Member for raising that point. Lots of Members have mentioned the complexity of determining whether something is a criminal offence or a civil matter under the Consumer Rights Act, whether we are looking at a trading standards matter or a criminal act, and demonstrating intent. It is a very complex area and I would be happy to meet individual Members if they want to talk it through with me.
I am sure that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), does not expect me to speculate or comment on the Budget so close to its announcement. I am sure that his party, during its time in government, had lots of opportunities to address this issue. On his remarks on the licensing scheme, I think he can reflect on similar reflections that his Government worked through.
No one should doubt the human impact that rogue and incompetent tradespeople can have. This issue obviously needs to be addressed, and the best way to achieve that is by improving standards of consumer redress. Although there is no clear evidence on how a licensing scheme would do that, we will keep that under review. In the meantime, we will continue to improve standards of competence and consumer redress in the construction sector. I thank hon. Members again for raising cases on behalf of their constituents. I have run through a lot of them in my concluding remarks, but if Members want to talk to me directly about these issues or ask me to raise them with other Departments, I will be more than happy to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of protecting consumers from rogue builders.
UEFA European Football Championship 2028: Funding and Benefits
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
In 2028, UK and Ireland will host the UEFA European football championship. This will be the largest sporting event ever jointly staged between our nations, spreading benefits across the whole of the UK and Ireland. The impact and legacy of the tournament will start far before the first ball is kicked and extend far beyond the final whistle. It will champion the power of football, including its ability to bring people together in stadiums, fan zones and communities across the UK and build cohesive communities.
To enable a safe and successful tournament, the UK Government have confirmed a funding contribution of up to £557 million for planning and delivery costs. This has been benchmarked against best practice in the delivery of major events to ensure it provides value for money, as well as the necessary funding to maximise the benefits of hosting, support host cities, and deliver on our legal obligations. Funding contributions will also be provided by the devolved Governments and Government of Ireland, host cities, and UEFA, which is are primarily responsible for ensuring successful delivery.
As part of this funding, the UK Government will contribute £23 million towards a wider commitment from Government and football partners to a central legacy and impact fund of around £45 million, which will deliver socioeconomic benefits for communities across the UK and Ireland. Following an updated assessment, hosting the tournament is forecast to generate £3.6 billion in socio- economic benefits across the UK and Ireland, with £3.2 billion expected for the UK alone.
[HCWS1055]
UK Commission on Covid Commemoration Report: Government Response
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Five years ago the world as we knew it stopped. Covid-19 affected everyone in so many different ways, and many continue to feel those impacts.
Today, the Government have published its official response to the report of the UK Commission on Covid Commemoration which sets out a programme of commemorative activity to mark this unique and challenging period in our country’s history. This response has now been presented to both Houses of Parliament.
I want to place on record my thanks to the right hon. the Baroness Morgan of Cotes and all the commissioners for the care and consideration the commission gave to the report and for its ongoing advice as we have carefully reflected on the recommendations. This Government are grateful to the devolved Governments, with whom we have worked closely to ensure that the response to the commission’s reflects the efforts of individuals and groups across the United Kingdom.
The impact of covid-19 on all of our lives will never be forgotten. My thoughts are with the many families who suffered the devastating loss of a loved one during this time. As Secretary of State, I have had the privilege of meeting with a number of covid-19 bereaved family groups that have worked closely with us in developing this programme. I have heard at first hand the traumatic impact of not being able to be with their loved one, to hold their hand, to say goodbye.
I pay tribute to the covid-19 bereaved families groups for their tireless voluntary efforts to provide networks of support to help others feel less alone or isolated in their grief, while carrying their own. I am also grateful for their input to the commission and their ongoing work with my Department in developing this programme. As we remember and honour their loss, we are committed to continuing to work together as this programme is delivered.
The pandemic saw our communities come together in extraordinary ways to help and support each other in the most difficult of times. We saw acts of courage and dedication from the key workers who kept vital services running, and the millions who volunteered to support others in their time of need. We thank all those who worked so hard to keep our country going and these acts of service will be remembered as part of this commemorative programme.
In March, we marked the fifth anniversary of the pandemic with the covid-19 day of reflection, with events held across the country allowing people to remember in a way that was meaningful to them. In contrast to the experiences of isolation and separation we felt during the pandemic, the day of reflection was a chance for us to come together to remember the lives lost, the sacrifices made, and the impacts that many continue to feel. We will come together again on Sunday 8 March 2026 for this important day.
We will create dedicated webpages on gov.uk to provide information on covid-19 commemoration. This will include a repository of oral histories to ensure that the experiences of the pandemic are not forgotten, as well as details on the many covid-19 memorials that have been created across the country. Working in partnership with NHS Charities Together and Forestry England we will create new covid-19 commemorative spaces that reflect the importance of nature and the outdoors throughout the pandemic and provide spaces for contemplative reflection.
This Government are determined to learn the lessons from the covid-19 pandemic and build our national resilience. I have heard movingly from those who lost a loved one that they do not want others to experience their suffering. As the commission recommended, we will launch a new UK-wide fellowship scheme on natural hazards, delivered by UKRI. to support future national resilience as part of the commemorative programme to honour the loss and sacrifice.
In Parliament, we look across the River Thames to the national covid memorial wall. Nearly a quarter of a million hand-painted hearts span the wall as an outpouring of love created by the bereaved, for the bereaved. This memorial matters greatly to the whole country. I want to thank the friends of the wall for their tireless commitment and dedication to care for the wall. As we commemorate the pandemic, we are committed to working with the friends of the wall and the local partners to preserve the wall.
Through this programme of commemoration we will ensure that those we lost are honoured, that we remember the sacrifices and resilience of so many during this unprecedented time in our history, and that as a country we do not forget.
[HCWS1054]
Safeguarding Children
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
The whole country remembers with profound sadness the tragic murder of Sara Sharif by her father and stepmother in August 2023. Aged just 10 years old, the unimaginable cruelty of Sara’s death at the hands of those who should have been her first and brightest source of love and care shocked us all.
Justice has been served, and Sara’s father and stepmother are now serving life sentences. But as a society our response to this appalling case cannot end there. Just as we were a nation united in our grief for that precious little girl, now we must be united in our resolve to do whatever possible to prevent this from happening again.
Child protection professionals work tirelessly to improve the lives of vulnerable children across the country, often under challenging circumstances. I know they will have been just as horrified as the rest of us by what happened to Sara. But as a child protection system—and as a wider society—we must be brave enough to look ourselves in the eye and be open and honest about what went wrong. As the Prime Minister has said, questions must be answered.
Today’s publication of the local child safeguarding practice review into the case by the Surrey Safeguarding Children Partnership is part of that vital process. The review provides an independent reflection on the changes required to protect children like Sara. Across all agencies concerned, it highlights mistakes that were made and opportunities that were missed.
I want to assure the House that this Government are treating the findings of the review with the strongest possible seriousness. We are already acting to close gaps, to strengthen safeguarding and to keep children safe. The first steps are set out in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will sharply improve the clarity of information sharing and help make sure that children not in school (including those in elective home education) are safe.
The introduction of compulsory children not in school registers will empower local authorities to better identify children who need support and protection, as will the accompanying duties on parents of eligible children and out-of-school education providers. The measures will ensure that the most vulnerable children cannot be withdrawn from school until it is confirmed that doing so would be in their best interests. Local authorities will have to assess the home learning environment when determining whether an electively home educated child’s education is suitable or whether it is in the best interests of the most vulnerable children. Where it is not, local authorities will have the power to require these children to attend school.
Local support services matter too. By building on the evidence from programmes like Supporting Families, and more than doubling investment in prevention services, we are giving families and children access to the better services they need in their communities. That is how we will break the cycle of late intervention and help more children and families to stay safely together. The Families First Partnership programme, which started in April this year, will drive the national roll-out of Family Help, multi-agency child protection and family group decision-making reforms contained in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The Bill also includes a new duty for safeguarding partners to create the multi-agency teams in every area. They will bring experts together across social work, police, health and education to identify actual or likely significant harm and take decisive action to protect children. And new Family Help services will mean a single offer of support, delivered by the right people at the right time, reducing the need for multiple handovers between different professionals and unnecessary assessments for families and children.
Co-ordination is key. The review highlights that agencies and practitioners failed to “join the dots” to recognise the dangers faced by Sara once she moved in with her father and stepmother. We want agencies and practitioners to spend less time chasing information and more time acting on the full picture about a child. A new duty in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill clarifies that practitioners must share relevant information where it relates to safeguarding or promoting a child’s welfare. It applies even without parental consent, allows practitioners to request information and covers information about other people around the child. We are also improving case management systems, developing consistent data and introducing a single unique identifier to improve data linking and stop children falling through the cracks of services.
Tackling domestic abuse and violence against women and girls is a priority for this Government. We will improve how courts respond to allegations of domestic abuse within private law children proceedings, including through the introduction of the pathfinder pilot courts, now operational in nine areas. We will put the child’s voice at the heart, adopting a multi-agency approach to boost co-ordination and improve the family court experience for all parties.
We will tackle the causes of abuse too, growing the roots of a safer society for all. That is why we have updated the relationships, sex and health education curriculum to support positive relationships and help children to recognise abusive behaviour from an early age. And we know that to protect women, girls and all our children, we must back our workforces. We are upskilling social workers, investing in national graduate training routes, introducing a new two-year early career training programme for all new children’s social workers, and rolling out new training on advanced child protection. This includes new post qualifying standards to help improve the quality of practice and retention. Domestic abuse, including coercive and controlling behaviour, will feature prominently in the new programme that flows from the PQS.
We are also working with Foundations to generate evidence on what works to prevent domestic abuse and support families. The evidence will target how to consistently measure outcomes across different interventions, and how to support the recovery of babies, children and young people. Looking to the future, the cross-Government VAWG strategy is due to be published shortly. The strategy will set out how we will halve VAWG in a decade—as well as the further measures we will take to support the victims and tackle the perpetrators.
These are the first steps we as a Government are taking. But we know we must go further—as this review of Sara’s case makes plain. We will consider the findings with all the care and consideration they deserve, and we will continue to strengthen the way we protect children in this country. But keeping children safe is a duty that spreads right across society. So, I hope that in the wake of this terrible loss, we will all come together and live up to our shared responsibility.
While the shocking brutality of her murder is impossible to forget, we must do our best not to remember Sara only in that context of cruelty. She deserves to be known for who she was, not just for what she suffered through. Sara was a 10-year-old girl full of personality, blessed with a lovely smile and a loud laugh. She liked to sing and dance. She loved her siblings. It is those precious memories of Sara that must now strengthen our resolve to give every child the full and happy life that she was so tragically denied.
[HCWS1052]
Energy Infrastructure National Policy Statements
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Having considered the responses to the consultation, I am pleased today to be able to present three revised energy national policy statements for parliamentary approval. This represents an important milestone towards achieving the Government’s clean power and net zero ambitions. National policy statements are a crucial part of ensuring the planning system is fit for purpose. These revised NPSs provide greater clarity to developers and decision makers on Government policy concerning specific types of energy infrastructure projects and ensure that decisions are made in an accountable way by Ministers.
Investment in our nation’s infrastructure is key to enable the growth the UK needs. The revised energy NPSs will ensure the UK has diverse sources of electricity generation, and that we remain at the forefront of low- carbon technological development.
The revised NPSs I am laying before Parliament today under section 9(8) of the Planning Act 2008 set out national policy in key energy policy areas:
EN-1 covers the overarching needs case for different types of energy infrastructure.
EN-3 deals with renewable electricity generation.
EN-5 deals with electricity networks.
The supporting appraisal of sustainability and habitats regulations assessment provides detailed environmental assessments of the updated NPSs.
I am today also publishing the Government response to the consultation, to which there were over 180 responses, and providing the Government response to the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, which reviewed the NPS updates.
I will deposit copies of all these documents in the Libraries of both Houses and they are available on gov.uk.
[HCWS1053]
Small Modular Reactor Programme: Site Allocation
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Today I am pleased to inform the House that the Government have selected Wylfa in north Wales as the site to host the Government-backed small modular reactor programme.
Thanks to record investment the Government are making in our nuclear power sector, Britain is entering a golden age of new nuclear. The Government’s SMR programme, led by Great British Energy-Nuclear, is putting the UK at the forefront of nuclear innovation, creating long-term economic benefits and good jobs in local communities, while opening up significant export opportunities. At the spending review the Chancellor committed over £2.5 billion to support the UK’s ambition to lead the global race for SMRs, and announced that following a rigorous selection process GBE-N had identified Rolls-Royce SMR as preferred bidder, subject to final Government approvals and contract signature.
Following careful consideration, Wylfa, on the north coast of Anglesey (Ynys Môn), is the Government’s chosen location for GBE-N’s SMR project.
Wylfa is one of the UK’s best nuclear sites, with a proud legacy and the capacity to host a fleet of SMRs. The initial project will see the construction of up to three Rolls-Royce SMR units, with GBE-N assessing the site to have the potential to host up to eight units, although this would be subject to future policy and funding decisions.
This decision will deliver once-in-a-generation opportunities for both Wales and communities across the country. For communities in Wales, building SMRs at Wylfa will create up to 3,000 new high skilled jobs at peak construction, attracting long-term investment and delivering an essential part of the UK’s energy future—while supporting thousands more jobs across Britain’s world-leading supply chain.
GBE-N looks forward to working with Welsh communities as this exciting project develops, with work set to start at the site in 2026. We will be progressing the SMR project across this Parliament and working towards a final investment decision.
But progress on SMRs alone is not the end of the Government’s ambition. We have taken decisive action by making the biggest investment in new nuclear for a generation at the spending review, with Sizewell C having subsequently reached a final investment decision. On top of this, we have agreed a major expansion of US-UK collaboration, as we progress a new framework so Britain can attract the best nuclear innovation from around the world. We are also spurring the modernisation of nuclear regulation through the ongoing Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce.
Large-scale nuclear power stations will continue to make a vital contribution in our home-grown clean energy mix, complementing SMRs. Therefore, to pursue the option of a further large-scale reactor project beyond the current deployments at Hinkley Point C and the recently confirmed Sizewell C, the Government are announcing that Great British Energy-Nuclear has been tasked with identifying suitable sites that could potentially host such a project. GBE-N will report back by autumn 2026 on potential sites to inform future decisions at SR27 and beyond.
In any study, GBE-N would also be asked to look at site opportunities in Scotland, expanding on its commission to assess Scotland’s capability for new nuclear power stations, including in areas that have benefited from nuclear in the past. This would seek to build on Scotland’s rich nuclear heritage with the Government believing new nuclear could bring significant benefits in communities there.
Finally, I am pleased to confirm to the House that the former nuclear power site at Oldbury in Gloucestershire, which is also owned by GBE-N, remains under active consideration for future projects. GBE-N will continue early work to evaluate the Oldbury site to ensure it is ready for future deployment as part of our broad nuclear programme, including the potential to support any privately-led projects that might be developed by the nuclear industry. Our intent would be to utilise the site as soon as is possible and GBE-N looks forward to ongoing positive engagement with communities around Oldbury.
This Government’s commitment to nuclear energy is unwavering—on SMRs, on advanced reactors and on Sizewell C we are making rapid progress towards delivering long-term energy security for the UK. We will continue to act decisively, invest ambitiously, and work with communities, industry and international partners to deliver this golden era of new nuclear—and with it jobs, investment and growth right across the country.
[HCWS1056]
Police Reform
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
Today I have announced, through an oral statement, proposals to strengthen police governance by abolishing police and crime commissioners at the end of their current term in 2028.
Police governance functions will be transferred either to mayors of strategic authorities or, where this is not possible, to elected council leaders through new police and crime boards. We will work with the Welsh Government to ensure these arrangements reflect the unique circumstances of Wales.
This reform reflects our view that the model of police governance needs to change, and is not a reflection on police and crime commissioners themselves. They and their staff have made a difference across the country to improve policing and keep the public safe.
This is the first in a series of reforms that will be set out in the forthcoming police reform White Paper to drive quality, consistency and efficiency in policing and ensure it is set up to deliver for the public.
[HCWS1058]
AI Growth Zones
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
I am publishing a Command Paper delivering AI growth zones, setting out the Government strategy to ensure the United Kingdom remains a global leader in artificial intelligence by building the infrastructure that underpins AI development and deployment, creates jobs right across the UK and grows the economy.
Artificial intelligence is transforming economies and societies worldwide. Being an AI maker, rather than an AI taker, is a critical goal of our modern industrial strategy and today we set out how we will build out the UK’s AI data centre capacity to underpin this frontier industry and support the growth sectors of the UK. This is a strategic opportunity to drive growth, strengthen national security and improve public services. To seize this opportunity, we must build secure, resilient and sustainable compute capacity here at home.
The AI growth zones programme will accelerate the delivery of large-scale AI data centres by removing barriers to construction and creating the best possible environment for investment, while maximising the benefits for local people. The package announced today sets out:
A new north Wales AI growth zone, creating 3,450 jobs locally and delivering opportunities across both energy and technology sectors.
Reforms to accelerate grid connections, including prioritising connections for AI growth zones and enabling developers to build their own high-voltage infrastructure.
Targeted electricity price support for data centres in locations that strengthen the grid and reduce system costs.
Planning reforms in England to streamline approvals, update national policy guidance, and protect land for AI growth zones.
Measures to maximise local benefits, including an initial £5 million per site to benefit local communities.
A dedicated AI growth zone delivery unit, acting as a single front door for investors and co-ordinating delivery across Government.
Taken together, these measures have the potential to unlock up to £100 billion in private investment and create over 10,000 jobs.
Over the past 12 months we have secured over 70 billion of investment in AI infrastructure. Now, this ambitious programme will go further to secure our economic future and drive investment into parts of the country that have long been overlooked, securing the future of AI for local areas through new industries, skilled jobs and lasting economic growth.
[HCWS1057]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and return in 10 minutes.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hoey
“Regulations made under Part 1: Windsor Framework(1) Before making any regulations under this Part, the Secretary of State must—(a) commission an independent legal opinion assessing—(i) the extent to which the implementation of this Act in Northern Ireland complies with the Windsor Framework;(ii) the likelihood of any increase in the illicit trade in tobacco products if regulations under this Act are made in relation to Northern Ireland otherwise than in England, Wales and Scotland;(b) publish that legal opinion;(c) consult any person they consider appropriate.(2) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under this Part unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the legal opinion under subsection (1) demonstrates that the implementation of Part 3 of this Act (sale and distribution: Northern Ireland) is fully compliant with the Windsor Framework and consistent with the Tobacco Products Directive of the European Union (2014/40/EU).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations about the sale and distribution of tobacco in England and Wales until they have considered and demonstrated that to do the same in Northern Ireland would be fully compatible with the Windsor Framework and the Tobacco Products Directive.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 138A, 200 and 201A. Before I go into them, I want to remind people that if this Bill goes through in its entirety as it is now, starting in February 2028, adults under the age of 21 in the Republic of Ireland will be barred from buying tobacco at home but will still be able to nip across the border to stock up in Northern Ireland. If the generational ban comes in, the cross-border relay will reverse, with 22 year-olds banned from buying tobacco in Belfast still free to nip over the border to Dublin. As the years go by, the legal uncertainty will get worse: 43 year-olds will not be able to buy a packet of cigarettes in Enniskillen legally, but a 44 year-old will; while just down the road in Donegal, both will be able to do so freely. It may sound amusing, but smugglers and so on will be absolutely delighted at being able to make such a lot of profit.
These amendments deal with issues that I sometimes think can be summed up as those that “dare not speak their name”, or, at least, those the Government seem to be putting their head in sand over. They all deal with the question of whether, because of the EU tobacco directive, the Bill can or cannot apply to Northern Ireland. According to that directive, states cannot limit the placing on the market of tobacco products. It was that which caused the Governments in Denmark and the Irish Republic to withdraw proposals to do more or less what this Bill is doing, because they would breach the European Union tobacco directive.
Before noble Lords say that Parliament is supreme and if it says that Northern Ireland is included, of course it will be, I remind them that under the Windsor Framework/protocol, Parliament no longer reigns supreme over one part of the UK: Northern Ireland,
“because Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 overcomes every other provision in any other statute, whenever enacted, that stands or would stand in its way.”
Those are not my words but those of John Larkin, KC, the former Attorney-General of Northern Ireland, who has provided a legal opinion on this Bill and Part 3’s compatibility with the Northern Ireland protocol of the withdrawal agreement made between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
I should declare an interest. John Larkin acted for myself, the honourable Member for North Antrim, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and others in the case which brought about the Supreme Court judgment stating that the Acts of Union had been suspended because of the protocol. Noble Lords will know that the legacy Act has also been affected by this ruling, as was the Rwanda Act. The Government gave brave assurances in respect of those Bills that they were content that this would apply to Northern Ireland, only for the courts to rule otherwise, as many of us predicted they would.
At Second Reading of this Bill in the other place, the honourable Member for North Antrim raised this question, as did I and other noble Lords at Second Reading in your Lordships House. When I referred earlier to the Government hiding their head in the sand, I was referring to the varying answers we get from Ministers on the Bill’s compatibility with the Windsor Framework/protocol. The word “intention” is used too often, and there is clearly confusion, if not downright silence.
The Minister said at Second Reading, at the very end of the long debate:
“I assure noble Lords that we are content that the measures intended to apply to Northern Ireland are consistent with the obligations in the Windsor framework”.—[Official Report, 23/4/25; col. 744.]
What I find very concerning is the way in which the UK’s Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, reacted. I wrote to him on 16 October enclosing the legal opinion of John Larkin and summarising the key conclusions of all the legal advice. I said that he and others had said that Parliament is simply not free to legislate effectively in those policy areas in which EU law still prevails through the Windsor Framework agreement in Northern Ireland. I mentioned the idea of the generational ban in both those other EU states where the common obstacle was the 2014 directive, and said that
“the 2014 Directive, taking effect through the WF and section 7A of the 2018 Act, is an insuperable obstacle to the effective enactment of Part 3 of the Bill”.
That was on 16 October. On 2 November, I got an email back, signed not by the Attorney-General but by “Vicky”, who I think is the diary secretary to the law officers. It said: “Dear Baroness Hoey, apologies for the delay in getting back to you and thank you for the email and letter below. The Attorney is grateful for your letter; however, please can we politely suggest that you contact the Bill Ministers, the Secretary of State, Wes Streeting, and Baroness Merron. They will be better placed to discuss the topics raised in your letter”. I find that quite astonishing and my admiration for the Minister has risen so much, because she is clearly now going to be able to speak on behalf of the Attorney-General and his legal team. I am absolutely surprised at that answer.
My Amendments 114B, 138A and 201A seek to ensure that these parts of the Bill will not come into force until the Secretary of State commissions and publishes the findings of an independent legal opinion showing that these parts are fully compatible with the Windsor Framework and consistent with the EU’s tobacco products directive. Amendment 200 provides a route to allow the Bill to apply in Northern Ireland, and this would be to exempt the tobacco directive from passing through the conduit that delivers EU law to Northern Ireland: namely, Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Only then can we be confident that our Parliament decides the law for the whole of the United Kingdom and not just Great Britain. It is quite outrageous that our sovereign Parliament, despite the majority of the country voting to leave the European Union, cannot produce a Bill these days applying to the whole of the UK that we can be certain will do so. We will see legal action after legal action, and we see on other Bills that this is already happening.
This Bill, which is fundamentally about health in our country, may have some flaws, but surely it is not too much to expect that citizens in my part of the United Kingdom should be treated as equal citizens when it comes to such an important issue as health. John Larkin ended by saying:
“The Bill serves almost as a textbook example of how a measure advanced by a Government commanding a large majority in the House of Commons can run aground, as respects its Northern Ireland component, on provisions contained in the WF. Parliament is simply not free to legislate effectively in those policy areas in which EU law still prevails through the WF in Northern Ireland”.
That is an absolute disgrace, and I hope that more and more noble Lords are beginning to realise the actual, perhaps unforeseen consequences—although warned about at the time—of signing up under EU diktat to what is going to happen in part of our United Kingdom.
I hope that clarifies matters, and I greatly look forward to the response from the person standing in for the Attorney-General—I was going to say the “mini” Attorney-General, but that is the wrong word—on these legally very important issues that really affect the Bill. We could all be sitting here wasting our time, because this could end up, as so many other Bills will, in the Supreme Court. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of my Amendment 216, which proposes a new clause that would provide accountability and oversight. In my submission, it would balance flexibility with constraint and ensure the approval of the next Parliament for this policy. It would also provide a check on ministerial power, encourage inclusivity in the process and provide transparency as to how the policy evolves. In doing so, it aligns with the better regulation principles so fluently outlined by my noble friend Lord Johnson in his speech to the Committee in our previous debate. The better regulation principles emphasise the regular review of laws, avoid unnecessary burdens in respect of outdated legislation and help to maintain proportional public policy.
Amendment 216 would ensure that the significant regulatory powers in the Bill do not continue indefinitely without political scrutiny. It would create a five-year period for a formal review and allow the consideration, after that period, of any new evidence about public health outcomes, compliance levels, market behaviour or unintended consequences. I refer to my remarks to the Committee in our first debate, when we discussed the impact of the Bill on the growth of the black market for tobacco products, particularly cigarettes.
The provision would also encourage policy flexibility and development, ensuring that it remains fit for purpose. As the Committee can see, it requires an impact assessment before a potential renewal of the policy, to ensure that it remains data driven. The impact assessment would require a full consultation, with two months to respond, on the draft regulations that would result from the consultation process. That would ensure that a decision to proceed or not takes into account the views of all stakeholders, including manufacturers and retailers.
The provision is flexible in that it gives the Secretary of State power to extend the life of the provisions by regulation to six years, or to shorten it to four years if necessary. That is a measure of proportional consideration that has been included in my amendment. Requiring the renewal of the regulations related to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill to be subject to the affirmative procedure would allow Parliament to debate and approve the provisions and to determine whether they should remain in place. This measure requiring parliamentary approval to proceed would mean that this policy would then have political legitimacy in the next Parliament.
As noble Lords can see, proposed new subclause (2) in the amendment concerns the provisions of Part 3 of the Bill relating to sales in Northern Ireland. I draw the Committee’s attention to the answer given by the Minister to a question I raised on the first day in Committee. I asked her the following:
“The Minister has not yet touched on the issue of Northern Ireland. Is it right that the Windsor Framework precludes the generational smoking ban coming into effect in Northern Ireland?”
She replied:
“The Bill is UK-wide, as the noble Lord will be aware. It has been developed in partnership with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, and the intention is that the measures in the Bill will apply across the UK. I assure him that, in preparing the Bill, the Government considered all their domestic and international obligations and the Bill does comply”.—[Official Report, 27/10/25; col. GC 166.]
Given what we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, on the careful and considered opinion of John Larkin, KC, the former Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, it appears that the Minister’s position was misplaced. Given what we have just heard about the correspondence that the noble Baroness has had with the Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, it seems that he is keen to wash his hands of the issue and refer to the experience of the Minister.
That is perhaps slightly unusual, given that there is a position called the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland—it was provided for in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 and created upon devolution—but that senior Northern Irish legal post is held by one noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer. Can the Minister give us a clear answer on whether the intention really is to apply these provisions to Northern Ireland? If it is not, is not the whole generational ban in some difficulty?
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 195 and 196 on reviews and compliance; I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for adding her name in support of them.
We support this Bill and its core intention of creating a smoke-free generation. More than that, we support the fact that this Bill is making progressive changes with the aim of having lasting impacts. However, it is often these very forward-thinking ideas that require further reviews and guidance because they are, by their very nature, new and different. It is surprising to me that the Bill as drafted does not contain any form of formal review mechanism. We think that a review mechanism is fundamentally necessary and useful, the intention being to support the aims of the Bill and not to detract from them in any way. It is in this spirit that I speak to my amendments.
Amendment 195 would require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review of the Tobacco and Vapes Act within six months of 1 July 2030, when those born on or after 1 January 2009 will have reached the age of 21. This review would evaluate how effective the Act has been, including whether the legislation has reduced the use of tobacco and nicotine in the first affected generation and whether it has achieved its intended objectives and public health outcomes. It would also examine any unintended effects, such as challenges with enforcement, widening health inequalities or any growth of illicit or unregulated markets. This early-stage review process would ensure that Parliament can assess the policy’s impact on young adults and make timely adjustments if any are required.
My Amendment 196 would mandate a further, more comprehensive review of the Act’s implementation when the same cohort reaches the age of 25, four years later, to be published within six months of 1 July 2034. This second review is designed to assess the longer-term success of the legislation, including changes in smoking and vaping prevalence; impact on public health outcomes; and the role of cessation programmes. It would also explore any emerging social or economic consequences, offering a deeper understanding of the Act’s sustained effectiveness. This later review would provide Parliament with a robust evidence base to determine whether further legislation or policy adjustment is needed.
Together, these two amendments seek to ensure that future Governments do what this Bill sets out to do: to protect the next generation from the harms of tobacco and nicotine, and to do so through measures grounded in evidence, transparency and sound policy-making. My amendments are designed to strengthen the Bill’s core purpose as it is advanced over time. They would help to ensure that the Bill’s stated outcomes are reviewed and assessed, and that any further amendments are considered. They would ensure that evidence is examined at each critical stage of implementation. They would ensure that, where adjustments may be needed—whether in enforcement, cessation support or tackling unintended consequences—Parliament would be properly informed and, therefore, able to act.
The age of 21 is the first major milestone when we can meaningfully assess the outcomes. It is of foremost importance that the impact of the legislation be considered in relation to rates of vaping in the UK. It is vital that unintended consequences be examined if they emerge, particularly in relation to rates of vaping. This later phrase is vital. Every public policy and piece of health legislation brings with it the possibility of unintended consequences and side-effects, whether they concern enforcement, equity or the rise of illegal markets.
I believe it is important that these matters be reviewed. It is also essential that the review be based on adequate data which is used to re-examine the policy and check that it is effective. If policies emerge, it is important that this legislation be reviewed. These amendments are about ensuring delivery and that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, does what it sets out to do. I want to see a feedback loop between policy ambition, lived experience and data. These questions of enforcement and of rising age restrictions are important, as is the issue of black markets, so the Government need to review this legislation to see that it does what is intended. My hope is very much that the Minister will at least agree to take the principles of regular, evidence-based reviews back to the department, because this is a genuine offer to try to make sure that the Bill is effective over time.
Turning briefly to the other amendments in this group, Amendment 189 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is also about implementing a review of the Act. The review proposed in their amendment would come after five years and include laying a copy of that review before Parliament. In a different vein from my review, it would also include a review of the impact on small and micro-businesses. I am tempted to support their amendment, too. The central focus of the Bill is a smoke-free generation. That should not be at the expense of small businesses, but the most important element here is that we get a smoke-free generation, so I am minded to lend my personal support to Amendment 189.
Amendment 216, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, again seeks to put forward a review. Where I part company on his amendment is its expiring nature. While we support reviews of the legislation, the review needs to happen and the consequences come afterwards. To put the expiry in the Bill sets up the possibility that a future Government of a different persuasion could use it as an opportunity to remove important elements of what will then be an Act, which we would not want to see happen.
I will leave it to the Minister to respond to the other amendments in this group on the Windsor Framework.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I support the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and of course Amendment 200, which stands in her name and my own. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this debate, because she is now expected to deliver not just political answers but legal judgments. I note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, is not usually so reticent in making his opinions known, but he seems incredibly bashful when it comes to the Windsor Framework. He has of course been known to have an involvement in Northern Ireland affairs in the past, so I look forward to what the Minister has to say on that.
The legislation before us in the latest in a whole series of measures, both primary and secondary, which are affected by the Windsor Framework or protocol. “Windsor Framework” is of course just a new name for what is substantially the Northern Ireland protocol. A few minor amendments were made but it is substantially that protocol, as agreed by the previous Government with the European Union. Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, outlined, the conduit or means by which European law takes precedence over any UK legislation, primary or secondary, in over 300 areas covering vast swathes of the economy of Northern Ireland. Let that sink in: when we talk about Brexit and sovereignty, part of the United Kingdom is subject to European law in over 300 areas.
Just this past month, we have been debating various issues, including the supply of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland, some of which may be discontinued because they do not conform to EU standards, causing major problems for animal health. The Government are showing no urgency in addressing this. The Select Committee on which I have the privilege to serve looked at this matter yesterday; I hope that we will get some action. We also looked at the issue of dental amalgam, and now we have this tobacco Bill. In all these issues affecting Northern Ireland, UK legislation is disapplied or cannot apply because of the Windsor Framework/Northern Ireland protocol.
Northern Ireland is bound in this area by the tobacco products directive—directive 2014/40/EU—because it is listed in annexe 2 of the protocol. That is where we get the figure of 300 areas of law. Of course, although we can debate all these issues, and Northern Ireland representatives, and others, in the House of Commons and in this place can give their views, at the end of the day the decisions are made by the European Commission. The European Union will decide what happens in part of the United Kingdom, regardless of the views of anyone elected in the UK Parliament or the Stormont Northern Ireland Assembly, of whatever party, or anyone in this House.
That should perturb us all. It is not just a unionist concern; it is a concern for any self-respecting elected politician of whatever party that they are not able to make laws for the people they represent. Ultimately, unless this matter is addressed overall, it will have grave ramifications after the 2027 Assembly elections.
Article 24 of directive 2014/40/EU states:
“Member States may not … prohibit or restrict the placing on the market of tobacco or related products”.
It seems to me that, on any reasonable reading of the Bill—as backed up by the former Northern Ireland Attorney-General, Mr Larkin, who has been referred to—it does indeed fall foul of the tobacco products directive.
The Government say that they intend it to apply across the four nations of the UK, that they are confident that this is the case and that we should all be assured by that. But they have given previous such assurances, as has been referred to. They told us in very clear terms that the Rwanda Bill, for instance, would apply throughout the United Kingdom and that there would be no loophole in Northern Ireland, but the Northern Ireland courts inevitably struck that down. They judged not only that it was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights but that it was disapplied in Northern Ireland. It was not just a declaration of incompatibility but a disapplication of the law in Northern Ireland, because it fell foul of Article 2 of the protocol. The protocol reigns supreme. It is the same in other immigration cases and in the legacy legislation.
There should be no doubt about the importance and width that the Northern Ireland courts are giving to this legislation. It is very clear: the European Union (Withdrawal) Act makes it absolutely explicit. I ask the Minister to outline exactly what the basis is for the Government’s confidence and assurances—and not just to reassert that they are confident or assured that it complies. What is the basis for these assertions and what will they do if, ultimately, the courts strike the legislation down as far as Northern Ireland is concerned?
Will the Minister and the Government give a commitment today that, if, at the end of the day, the courts agree with the judgments or opinions that have been given by learned former Attorney-Generals, they will come back to this House and legislate to override the disapplication? Why do they not adopt the amendments suggested here in this place to reassure everybody that there can be no question or doubt about the legislation’s application across the four countries of the United Kingdom?
Why not remove any prospect of litigation or any disapplication in Northern Ireland? This would give some reassurance that the Government are serious about the matter. A few weeks ago in the House of Commons, Secretary of State Hilary Benn said in response to a question that it was Labour’s aspiration to impose the Bill in full in Northern Ireland. What is the position—aspiration, intention, expectation? What about a guarantee through adopting these amendments?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry, but we will have to wait a few more moments for the noble Baroness’s excellent speech, which I know is coming filled with logic and reason.
I want briefly to speak in favour of many of these amendments. I echo the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, on the importance of the validity of the evidence relating to the TPD. Does the Minister feel that this legislation is in the spirit of the Windsor Framework? It may be technically in line with it, but is it in the spirit of it to have two totally different trading environments on the island of Ireland? I am not sure whether information relating to the potential objections from member states to this is published and can be accessed. What can the Government tell us about the objections and the information that we can gather around that? If the Government will not accept these clear, simple and reasonable amendments, why not?
Creating a smoke-free generation is extremely groundbreaking and novel, fundamentally trampling on the human rights of an adult to make a free decision. This is seismic, though I disagree entirely with it. Many in the Committee believe in this and I have the greatest respect for the Minister, but it is a significant move away from all the liberties that this Parliament and Parliaments over many centuries before us have tried to protect. If we go down that path, it is important that there is true validity, that every option has been explored and that all the legal issues have been thoroughly explored. If not, you will lose the cultural change, which is what this is about. This is not just a technicality, about trying to change the law to reduce some act. It is a huge cultural change, changing the activities of people in this country. If it is done in a nefarious or opaque way and there are further complexities with endless legal challenges, it will lose its impact. It is important that we are open as to where the problems are and that we understand them better. Simply being told that everything is okay is not good enough.
I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray and will follow on from the well-made points from the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The Better Regulation Framework is an important component of how government functions. I challenge any Minister to explain to me what the Better Regulation Framework actually contains; I am afraid that I have never seen an example of it being properly followed. The key component is not just the nature of proportionality, which many laws simply do not fulfil, but the principle around a review of the effectiveness of regulations, their costs and impact. I have never seen a post-implementation review of any regulations; I am sure that they must exist somewhere, but I do not know how useful they are. In this instance, a review must go into the legislation in a very clear way. We must ask how we will assess whether this has been a success and we must establish now what that means. We should also make sure that we have some type of sunset, to ensure that there is a sense of focus.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned the costs of implementation. To that I would add—forgive me if I misheard him—the effects on crime; whether the illegitimate marketplace has increased significantly, which we would expect; and whether it has actually worked. The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray has great logic, because if we were to create a smoke-free generation, surely all these excessive regulations, checks and so on will not be required, as no one will be engaging in tobacco usage of any sort.
I am aware that some of the amendments that we have put down challenge the principle of creating a smoke-free generation. We believe in them but, in this instance, we are looking at pieces of additional legislation that will make the Bill better. If the Government truly believe in their ambitions, our amendments will make them more likely to succeed.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lord Russell’s Amendments 195 and 196. As he said, they intend to support the core principles of the Bill and ensure effective delivery. It is one thing to legislate; it is quite another to deliver and even to implement. I am currently involved in following measures that were put into legislation through the Health and Care Act 2022, which have still not been implemented. We must make sure that things like that are properly implemented.
Whatever the Government’s intentions are now, when the facts change a sensible person changes appropriately, albeit along the same core principles. A number of potential barriers along the way have been suggested by noble Lords as we have debated the Bill, including today, such as an expansion of the illicit market; the possible clever responses of the tobacco industry to get round the intention of the Bill to protect young people and achieve a smoke-free generation; and technical issues such as age-gating, age verification and so on.
Although the Bill gives the Government wide powers to act, my noble friend’s points about having two reviews, to which his amendments would mandate the Government to adhere, would give naysayers confidence that any unintended consequences would be dealt with either by the Government using the powers in the Bill or by introducing further legislation if necessary after the reviews.
I particularly support my noble friend’s inclusion of nicotine use in his request for reviews. Although the use of vapes as a quitting tool has already been shown to be effective, we all know that they have been taken up by large numbers of young people who have never smoked tobacco. However, the industry is still very young and there is still little evidence about the effect of both the flavour additives and the long-term use of nicotine on the young brain and lungs. Over the coming years, that evidence will emerge one way or another. We already know how addictive nicotine is and that it can make people feel stressed, restless, irritable and unable to concentrate. That is problematic for children in school, which is the very reason why sales of nicotine vapes are banned for under-18s, although illicit sales to younger people are really problematic for teachers.
We also know that nicotine leads to short-term increases in heart rate and systolic blood pressure; as I understand it, that is why tobacco pouches are endemic among professional footballers before a match. Unfortunately, this habit is being copied by many of their young fans. Some use several of them, resulting in dizziness, nausea and, in a few extreme cases, fainting. We do not know about the long-term effects of the use of nicotine by very young people, as the research focuses on users of legal age; this is the sort of thing that may emerge over the next few years. As to the future, we will see how well vapes and other nicotine replacement therapies work as quitting tools. We need to be sure that the legislation will respond to this and other evidence.
These two age points are significant since they have been suggested as an alternative by some opponents of the generational escalator in the Bill. Why not, they suggest, simply raise the legal age of sale to 21 or 25? A promise of reviews at these age points will help encourage those people to support the Bill as it stands, so I hope that the Minister will accept these two amendments; I prefer them to the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, except that I certainly support his reference to small businesses. I am sure that noble Lords will know about these matters from previous debates, but perhaps we could put our heads together before Report.
On the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, regarding the EU’s Technical Regulation Information System and the standstill period that now impacts on the Bill, it is important to note that several EU countries, such as Greece, Romania and Italy, object pretty routinely to all tobacco control legislation in the EU. There is no new information today that is cause for concern regarding this Bill.
On the legal opinion to which the noble Baroness referred, it appears to have been shared with only the Daily Mail—it certainly has not been published—so I am unable to take a view on it; besides, doing so is probably beyond my skill set and pay grade anyway. I just hope that the Minister has good legal advice.
There is a point to be made here, however, about how the UK seems to have found itself in the worst of both worlds, with EU states being able to object to legislation that we wish to bring in to protect the health of our nation but with us having none of the benefits of being a member. That is a point for another debate, though. I hope that the Minister can confirm that any such objections will not be binding on the UK; and that this sovereign Parliament will be able to push ahead with this important legislation.
I turn to Amendment 216 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth. He appears to be expecting a different Administration in the next Parliament; I will leave it to the Minister to reply to the noble Lord’s comments.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group of amendments, which centre on three linked themes: the need for careful, joined-up policy-making; the need for proper review; and the need for clear accountability on how this Bill will work in practice once it becomes law.
In her Amendment 114B, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, directs the Committee’s attention once again to the issue of the Bill’s compatibility with the provisions of the Windsor Framework. I am glad that she has done so because I agree with my noble friend Lord Johnson; with no disrespect to the Minister, I felt that her reassurance on that question in our earlier debate was more of an assertion than a reasoned explanation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, are quite right that there is still considerable uncertainty and anxiety around the Windsor Framework issue. The noble Baroness quoted the opinion of the former Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, John Larkin KC; I will not repeat it, although I have those words in front of me. Like the noble Baroness, I am very concerned by his unequivocal statements on this question. Surely it is imperative that the Government can clarify exactly how the Bill will work in practice. It is not good enough to say merely that it will work; we need to know how it will work and how the concerns raised by legal experts such as Mr Larkin will be addressed.
An authoritative, independent legal opinion would give us much greater confidence on this point. Indeed, the question of legal compatibility has a direct bearing on the other amendments in this group, which pertain to Northern Ireland; we will listen very carefully to what the Minister says in response to those.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the discussion that we have had today on this group of amendments.
Let me start by turning to Amendment 189 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a review; it picks up on the points that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, just made. I can say, as I have said on previous days in Committee, that the Government will assess the implementation of the Act. This is completely consistent with best practice for primary legislation and for measures implemented by secondary legislation; the department will, of course, publish post-implementation reviews as appropriate.
Similarly, I turn to Amendments 195 and 196 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which would require the Secretary of State to publish two reviews on the operational impact of the Bill. These would need to be published when the first group of individuals impacted by the smoke-free generation policy turned 21, then 25. I hope that the noble Earl will be pleased to hear that I am glad to agree with at least the principles behind the amendments. It is crucial that the Government review the impact of any legislation—we are keen to do so—but we need adequate time for policies to be implemented and for their impact to be realised before undertaking a review. As I have said, we have discussed this matter at some length previously.
I agree with noble Lords that we must monitor the effectiveness of our policies in reducing smoking rates and narrowing health inequalities. We have good data on smoking prevalence and differences between groups through sources such as the ONS annual population survey. Also, the department actively monitors uptake and outcomes of our smoking cessation programmes through NHS England data. This allows us to adapt and target our interventions. It also demonstrates how these services can contribute significantly to reducing smoking and addressing health inequalities. We will continue to monitor this data closely as measures are brought in by the Bill. I refer the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to HMRC estimates on the size of the illicit market. These estimates are made through tobacco duty gap estimates. We will continue to monitor data on the illicit market following the introduction of new policies in this Bill.
Amendment 216, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, would mean that large parts of the Bill, including age-of-sale and sponsorship provisions, would expire after five years. Also, to avoid the expiry of provisions, it would require the Secretary of State to consult on and lay new regulations each year, and that any regulations made under the Bill regarding packaging and displays would also expire after five years. We had a long debate on the very important matter of impact assessment earlier in Committee. I will not repeat the points that I made there.
However, as noble Lords have heard throughout this debate, smoking is the number one preventable cause of death, disability and ill-health, costing our society some £21.3 billion every year in England alone. I also remind the Committee that this landmark legislation will be the biggest public health intervention in a generation. Our intention is to protect children from harm and break the cycle of addiction and disadvantage. The amendment would mean that large parts of the legislation would automatically cease after five years, and at one-year intervals following that. That could result in gaps in the law, creating legal uncertainty for businesses and consumers alike, and leading to harmful and highly addictive products becoming widely accessible.
Turning to Amendment 200, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, unfortunately I will disappoint her by repeating what I said at Second Reading—which she faithfully quoted—and which I have also said on previous days in Committee. The Government are content that measures in the Bill which apply to Northern Ireland are consistent with the obligations under the Windsor Framework. On the broader sovereignty points raised by the noble Baroness, the noble Lords, Lord Johnson and Lord Dodds, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I undertake to write to them about these important matters. However, we are concerned that this amendment would put us in breach of international law. Although I am repeating myself, it is important to say that the Government’s position remains that the Bill will apply across the United Kingdom. It has been developed in partnership with the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, also tabled Amendments 114B, 138A and 201A. While I am sure that I do not need to reiterate this to noble Lords present, I hope the Committee will forgive me for reminding us all about the harms of tobacco. In Northern Ireland, the Department of Health reports that tobacco claims around 2,100 deaths per year. That is why all four nations are committed to creating a smoke-free generation, so that anyone born on or after 1 January 2009 will never be legally sold tobacco products. As others have done earlier in the Committee, the noble Baroness raised the point about countries having different age restrictions in respect of sale. It is the case that all countries, not just those making up the United Kingdom, have different age restrictions. As I have outlined, our aim in the Bill is to protect future generations and, specifically, to have a complete change of culture in how smoking is regarded, while breaking that cycle of disadvantage and addiction.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, again, I am aware that I am repeating myself, but it is important to do so. The Government consider that in drafting the Bill, they have considered all their domestic and international obligations. We know the tobacco industry has a history of arguing that EU law prevents the adoption of tobacco control measures. That is a very common tactic in disrupting tobacco control legislation.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for the point she made about legal opinions. Legal opinions indeed abound, and I understand why noble Lords are raising them, but it is not for me to engage in discussion about their merits or otherwise.
I can confirm that we expect the Bill to complete its passage within this parliamentary Session. There has been reference to the TRIS system, and I should emphasise that it is not an approval process, but I can confirm the point about the progress of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for her response. I am not sure that I got a reply on the legal aspects. This is not about how terrible smoking is in Northern Ireland; it is about whether we can have the Bill in Northern Ireland. The Minister, while being very gentle, attempted to answer some of the points about the legal situation. It is absolutely clear that we need an official government legal opinion. If we cannot even get the Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, to respond to a letter and say something, what is the point?
I am really grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for reminding me that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, has the position of Advocate-General for Northern Ireland. I looked up what his role is, and it says he is the chief legal adviser to the Government of the United Kingdom on Northern Ireland law, yet he seems not to want to talk about this. I genuinely find it amazing. I just hope that the Minister will take this issue back. I presume that she has seen the legal opinion by the noble John Larkin, KC—he should be noble but he is not. Has she read his legal opinion?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I have not taken a legal eye to it because I do not have a legal eye to do so. I would not wish to inflate my legal expertise in this regard; it is a matter for my colleagues to do that.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I fully understand that the Minister does not want to do that. However, I would have thought that, if the Attorney-General is telling me that I have to refer to her on this, he would at least have sent her the document.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. To reiterate what I said at the beginning, I am very pleased to write to noble Lords about the broader points being raised. I will of course attend to the points that the noble Baroness has raised.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I will not push that any further; it speaks for itself.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, and I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lords, Lord Johnson and Lord Dodds, for their support. It is important that we get to the crux of this very soon, because it will end up in the Supreme Court if something is not sorted out quickly. I appreciate that the Minister has said the strongest words yet, saying, “It will apply”; I do not think anyone else has said that before. I hope that she will be able to get us a proper opinion as to why the Government think it will apply when everyone else—most legal experts—seems to think that it will not. Then, we can look at this again on Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Udny-Lister
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes the mechanism by which the Secretary of State may make provisions to guidance.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to all the amendments in this group—Amendments 140AA, 140C, 140D, 140E, 147A and 147B—I seek your Lordships’ support to ensure that the Bill is both proportionate and evidence-led and that we do not undermine the considerable effort made over the past few decades to help adult smokers quit.
In tabling these amendments, I seek to ensure that the Bill has the ability to protect young people without abandoning support for adult smokers who are trying to quit. The quiet success of British public health policy over the past decades has been the principle of harm reduction through individual choice, and central to this has been how this country has led the world in promoting alternatives to traditional smoking.
As a result of this multiagency and industry approach to tackling smoking, from nicotine replacement therapies to the state-sponsored rollout of e-cigarettes, smoking rates have fallen faster here than in almost any other country. The data speaks for itself: in 2023, just 11.9% of UK citizens smoked, which is down from 20.2% in 2011. I fear that this progress risks being undermined if we allow our regulatory processes to become too rigid and too slow to adapt to innovation and behavioural trends. Currently, this Bill fails to distinguish adequately between combustible tobacco and less harmful alternatives. I worry that, unless these amendments are agreed, we will unintentionally create perverse incentives that could drive consumers back to smoking cigarettes—the very outcome that I believe the Government wish to prevent.
In summary, through Amendment 140AA, I seek your Lordships’ support in replacing rigid regulation with flexible guidance. In doing so, the aim of this amendment is to set conditions under which the Government have the ability to set informed expectations without overregulating legitimate harm reduction tools, which have so far proven themselves invaluable in supporting adult smokers to quit. Furthermore, I hope that, through this amendment, we can reduce any future bureaucratic delays that could stump the rollout of fast-evolving vape technologies. I put it to the Committee that this amendment would support proportionate state oversight while safeguarding consumer choice and innovation.
Continuing on this theme, Amendments 140C and 140D seek to achieve the same while reinforcing that, in this technical policy space, Ministers should guide rather than dictate. Both amendments would offer businesses clarity while ensuring that there is space for the Government to guide and advise. In Amendment 140C, I seek the Committee’s support in preventing overreach through secondary legislation that would, I believe, stifle the vaping and heated tobacco sectors.
In Amendment 140E, I seek to strengthen public confidence in this Bill by showing that there is fair and balanced consultation. Legislation of this scope should not be passed without adequate consultation. Through this amendment, I am seeking to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult manufacturers, retailers, adult users and other stakeholders. Given how this Bill intends to curb individual liberties, the only way in which the Government can seek to get the public onside is through co-design and properly understanding the views and the practical challenges. Unless this amendment is agreed, there will remain a blurred line between smoking and harm reduction. I put it to the Committee that the Government have a duty to prevent a one-size-fits-all approach that would, I fear, push people back towards smoking.
Amendment 147A seeks, in a similar way to Amendment 140AA, to replace rigid regulation with flexible guidance. I tabled this amendment as it would allow the Government to act swiftly, as trends change, through allowing for agility in the setting of advertising and presentation standards.
Finally, I shall speak to the last amendment in this group: Amendment 147B. In it, I again call for consultation. I am seeking to balance responsible marketing with adult consumer freedoms. Through this amendment, I seek to send a clear message that the target of harm reduction products is smokers seeking to quit and that, therefore, advertising should be limited and controlled in order to protect children.
Collectively, these amendments balance agility with accountability by providing proportionate oversight as opposed to overly prescriptive control. I hope that the Government will recognise the constructive nature of these amendments, especially as they seek to ensure transparency and engagement with the most affected and to provide a clear differentiation between cigarettes and safer alternatives. I beg to move.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group draw attention to a practice that rightly causes outrage—the inclusion of images on vapes that are used to market them to particular groups, most often children. There are images of vapes that feature, for example, characters from “The Simpsons” and other popular TV shows. Vapes should be tools for smoking cessation. My noble friend Lady Walmsley referred to that earlier and noble Lords appear to agree. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, commends the public health progress that we have made in combating smoking. Vapes should not be children’s toys. However, as my noble friend Lady Walmsley has pointed out, vapes cannot yet be regarded as risk-free.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, through these amendments my noble friend has issued a challenge to the Government which I think is extremely welcome. The challenge is to explain why the objectives the Government are seeking to achieve through Clauses 89 and 93 are achievable only via the heavy hand of prescriptive regulation rather than by less burdensome means. Is there a role for guidance as a substitute for regulation, and might there be merit in challenging manufacturers and others in the supply chain to take direct responsibility for the design of their packaging within certain parameters?
The Minister will probably say when it comes to the tobacco giants—whose ways, alas, we know from of old—that that kind of aspiration is a somewhat forlorn hope. But what if regulation, instead of being enacted willy-nilly, were used by the Government as a sword of Damocles hanging over the various arms of industry? Has anyone actually spoken to manufacturers of nicotine products or vapes to see whether they would entertain the idea of avoiding regulation by agreeing a responsibility deal with the Government whereby, in designing their packaging, they did so ethically, in a way that avoided including imagery of obvious appeal to young people, or colours and fonts that serve to glamourise the product contained inside? That idea sounds a whole lot less complicated than drafting regulations in inevitably minute detail, which could easily become quite a difficult exercise. A certain amount of commercial freedom would thereby be retained by manufacturers, along with some scope for market competition, which would be another incentive for playing by the agreed rules.
My noble friend’s amendments return us to themes we have touched on already during Committee: questions of proportionality, consultation and the need to ensure that the framework we create is both evidence-based and appropriately targeted. I am particularly supportive of Amendment 140E, which again highlights the importance of engaging with retailers and manufacturers before new provisions are introduced. It is an amendment which reminds us that we are not dealing with a single homogenous group of products. There is a wide spectrum here, from combustible cigarettes through to heated tobacco, vapes and other nicotine products, and as each of them carries a different level of relative harm, those differences should be recognised, both in consultation and in how the law ultimately treats each one of those products.
I therefore hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the intent behind these amendments, and that the Minister can set out how the Government are meeting the challenge my noble friend has issued: the need to explore whether we can achieve a set of desired ends by the least burdensome route, by proper engagement with stakeholders and by recognising the distinctions between products that the Bill has chosen—rather too often, I am afraid—to lump together.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for bringing these amendments forward, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today.
I should start by providing clarification that I hope will be helpful to the Committee. The Secretary of State is already able to issue guidance in these areas. However—I particularly make this point to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who I listened to closely—here is the problem. Guidance is not enforceable, as he is aware. Instead, we would have a voluntary system that industry could choose whether to comply with. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for her support in the arguments I am about to make.
The reality is that industry is already able to choose to package its products in a way that does not appeal to children; it could already be doing that now. There are some companies that are to be credited for following this line of not appealing to children, but the fact is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, that we see far too many vapes marketed alongside cartoons and other imagery that can only be described as focused on young people. It is therefore appropriate and necessary for the power to make regulations to remain.
The noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, referred to heated tobacco. We had an extensive debate on the tobacco products in scope, including heated tobacco, on a previous day in Committee, so I will not take up any more of the Committee’s time on that.
As for consultation, Clause 109 already requires the Secretary of State to consult before making any regulations in Part 5. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that we intend to consult on introducing restrictions on tobacco, vaping, which she spoke of, and nicotine product packaging as soon as possible next year. The consultation will be open to all, and we will listen very carefully to the views and evidence put forward by stakeholders.
Amendment 147B is also not needed. Clause 93, on non-compliant images, is intended to stop images being published of products that do not meet the packaging and product design requirements that could be specified under Clauses 89 and 90 respectively. Those clauses already allow the Secretary of State to restrict the use of imagery such as cartoons and images that would appeal to young people. There is therefore no need to amend Clause 93, on non-compliant images. I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate. I shall return to this argument in a later group, so I will leave it at that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Udny-Lister
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment empowers ministers to regulate the design and interoperability of products in order to prohibit the sale of very high puff count vaping devices.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mott is unfortunately ill, so with the permission of the Committee I shall move this amendment for him. I have made a few notes of my own, so this is my speech, not his, but I feel there should be a debate on the amendment, which I fully support, as Ministers should be afforded the powers, through the Bill, to regulate the design and interoperability of products, in order to prohibit the sale of very high puff count vaping devices.
The Committee should note that this amendment is entirely necessary to prevent the proliferation of the very high puff count vapes that are currently flooding the UK market and causing a lot of concern for enforcement bodies, teachers, parents and health professionals, a point that has been made previously. There are documented cases of children being hospitalised because of illicit high puff count vapes, and according to one trading standards report that I read, officers seized a vape that was seven times the legal limit, containing over 9,000 puffs. The scale of the challenge is stark. Of the 13.5 million vapes purchased each week, it is estimated that some 3 million are big-puff devices, and nearly half of all 16 to 34 year-olds who vape are using these devices.
What concerns me is that, often, these devices are deliberately engineered to circumvent regulation. Often, they present the superficial appearance of being reusable, yet they rely on the same non-replaceable mesh coils that lead to their disposal once the coil burns out. I note that Defra has already issued guidelines on what constitutes a genuinely reusable vape but, every day, irresponsible manufacturers are ignoring this advice, and it is therefore time that we put this on to a statutory footing.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 144 in this group. Before I do so, I express my support for the argument made so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mott. The amendments in this group should be relatively uncontroversial because we are all, I think, pushing in the same direction, and one of the key features of where we are going is the protection of children, on which we are all united.
My amendment relates to an area where the Government have misfired slightly in drafting the Bill. They seek to regulate the flavours of vapes. There is a most intriguing further amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which seeks to tease out what the Government mean by the “flavour” of a vape. Both he and I are trying, I think, to come at the question of flavour as distinct from the description applied to that flavour. My amendment would substitute the word “descriptors” for the word “flavour”.
I speak as a vaper. I have vaped—not smoked—vapes that are described on the packet as “blueberry ice”, “mango ice”, and things of that sort. I can say immediately from my experience that none of them tastes like what they say. I can assure the Committee that the vape called “mango ice” does not bear any resemblance to anything that you could describe as a mango, and very much the same can be said of blueberries and so forth. I like eating blueberries—they are very good if you keep them in the fridge—so I know what they taste like. I like mangoes as well, but they do not taste like these vapes.
I think it fair to say that what we really want to control is the description applied. I will take this in two parts: first in relation to children and then in relation to adults. It is obviously the case that a descriptor can be applied to a vape that is designed to induce—if not seduce—a child to smoke a vape. If I saw something on the shelf described as “bubblegum mango”—I am not a marketing man, so I may not have chosen the best example—I would think that that descriptor was designed to appeal to a child. The Government should be able to regulate the descriptor on those vapes so as to eliminate descriptions which are designed to—or may inadvertently—appeal to a child. But that is not the power taken in this clause; it is a power to regulate the flavour, which, as I say, is both subjective and often at some distance from the descriptor that is applied.
The Minister may say, “I take your point on that, but I still want the power to regulate flavours because I am thinking now about adults”. Adults can, of course, see past descriptors. Most adults are not likely to find much appeal in something describing itself as bubblegum ice, bubblegum mango or whatever; none the less, there might be flavours that adults who do not like the taste of tobacco are seduced by, in the same way as menthol cigarettes were used to appeal to adults who did not like tobacco, and so on. I can see that.
However, it is also important to remember that vapes are a very important smoking cessation tool. It is clear from evidence from the industry that having a range of different flavours available makes them attractive to adults—not in a way that seduces them into wickedness, but that makes it easier for them to use vapes to give up smoking. I am trying to be helpful, and I am sure that the noble Earl is seeking to be helpful as well. We both agree on the protection of children, but we think that the Government have—rather lazily, perhaps—aimed at the wrong thing here with regard to flavours. It is about the marketing. It is the descriptor, rather than the flavour, at which the Government should be aiming.
I hope the Minister will accept my amendment in the spirit in which it is intended: that of being helpful. I also hope that she will agree to look more closely at this matter and perhaps come back with a more subtle and nuanced amendment on Report.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 146 on vaping devices, and I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for adding their names in support of it. I have been slightly outed already but, to be clear, this is a probing amendment. However, it touches on an important and genuine issue: regulation and the Government’s intention to define “flavour” in a vaping product.
Before I speak to my amendment, I want to be clear: I fully recognise the need to prevent young people vaping. I support age restrictions; changing names; making sure that vaping products are not appealing; ensuring that such products are not marketed; ensuring that they are hidden in shops and counter displays; descriptors; and every other tool in the toolbox to make sure that every trick big tobacco can come up with to put these products in the hands of young people is restricted. However, I firmly believe that, if this Government or a future one used these powers to ban or severely restrict vape flavours, it would be a retrograde step in the fight to stop smoking. As the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, it is the flavour in vapes that reminds ex-smokers just how nasty cigarettes really are when they lapse—and ex-smokers surely do lapse.
As we have heard throughout the passage of this Bill, there are strong and legitimate concerns about the rise of vaping among young people. We have just passed a crossover point whereby more young people are now vaping than smoking, so I absolutely share those concerns. Nobody in this Room wants to see young people taking up vaping; nor do they want big tobacco to be able to start a whole new industry for a whole new generation, through which vaping is marketed at our young people.
However, if the Government are genuinely serious about taking this problem on, they need to do so through effective regulation, and that must start with clear definitions. My amendment is tongue-in-cheek in its approach, but it highlights a serious issue: the Government have created a bit of a heffalump trap for themselves here. I remind noble Lords that, as drafted, the legislation says that the Secretary of State may, through regulations, make provisions about the flavour of relevant products, and that the regulations may make
“provision for a determination to be made by a person authorised”.
My proposed new clause does not prejudge what those definitions should be. It simply asks a very reasonable question: by what criteria will the Government determine that a vaping product has a flavour? Once we start looking at this, the situation becomes absurdly complicated. This might be the philosophical background in my ancestry, but many vapes on the market today use a combination of chemicals that exist not to add fruit or sweet flavours but to mask the harsh taste of nicotine. Some add traces of methanol or cooling agents that are technically flavourless, but they change the sensory experience of those who vape. I do not know whether those will count as flavours. Under what threshold would they be counted? Which chemical compositions or flavours in these products would not be? Then there is the question of packaging, as we have heard, which brings up the descriptor point. Flavour is as much about perception as what might be contained in the product. If a vape has “mango ice” or “blueberry ice” on the package, but has no flavour, is that a flavour?
These are major complications, and I believe fundamentally that the route the Government are going down will end up in poorly drafted law, which will be hard to enforce. It will not work or do what the Government set out to do. It will lead to legal complication and challenges, and that is not good for the aims of the Bill, which I support. There really could be practical consequences and they go quite far. Concerning manufacturers, how will they comply with this when the Government are not clear? How will small retailers ensure that they are compliant with the terms of the legislation? Trading standard officers who have to enforce this stuff will find it complicated to do so.
I say again that for many adult smokers who turn to vapes to give up, as I think we have heard, the flavour element in the vapes is the thing that keeps them from going back to tobacco. There is strong evidence on this point, from Public Health England and numerous international studies, that it is about the wide availability of these flavours so that people can make a personal choice. None of them taste like their descriptor, but people can find a flavour that works for them personally. I just do not want the Government to act too harshly and crudely in this area and end up by creating perverse consequences, which are completely contrary to the stated intentions of the Bill.
I absolutely want to keep this stuff out of children’s hands. I support every other measure that the Government are taking in the Bill, but I come out strongly against this issue of controlling and restricting flavour. My amendment is really a tongue-in-cheek way of asking the Government to think again on it.
Turning briefly to the other amendments, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mott, for his Amendment 142. I now understand what his amendment is about: that despite the ban, it is still basically a disposable vape. It is used once and chucked away but it has 1,600 puffs in it. These things are cheap; again, they are marketed at children and disposable, so they are e-waste. I had an amendment earlier about creating minimum pricing for vapes but I think that, fundamentally, the Minister misunderstood what I was doing in that amendment. She said that it would make vaping more expensive than smoking, whereas that is fundamentally not true, because it is about buying a base unit that might last for three or four years. Although you would be paying £25, that base unit would stay with you for a long time and by doing it in that way, you are not needlessly generating e-waste. I would like to revisit that with the Minister prior to Report, but I basically support that amendment. These devices should not be in the hands of our children; they are absolutely designed to get children addicted to nicotine. They are not good for the environment, so let us get rid of them.
I absolutely agree with Amendment 144 on descriptors; I think we are on the same page and speaking about the same thing. My amendment might be a bit nuanced and tongue in cheek but we share an opinion.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I shall speak in defence of flavours, especially regarding Amendments 144 and 146. Over the last five years, 21% of adult smokers have quit smoking. Nearly half of them used vapes as part of that successful quit journey. I am one of those people. I started with single-use vapes, but they got banned, so I now use the replacements, which are used as much as single-use vapes. They have been crucial to millions of adults who have done the same. Their attractions are ease of use, convenience, prevalence in a wide range of retail outlets and, yes, flavours. They made the distinction from smoking clear for me. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, explained, that becomes important. I was able to switch to suit my taste. I was trying to move away from the taste of tobacco—that was the point.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I wanted to intervene just to say one or two words in support of my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment. In a sense, it challenges the Government to explain what they are trying to achieve, and if that is to regulate flavour descriptors, that is exactly what we should put into the Bill. I think the industry is very aware of the need to control flavour descriptors, because certain descriptors can be intentionally directly attractive to youth vapers and children, and the industry knows it needs to act on that. I will talk about that a bit more later.
We should use this amendment and this debate to find out what the Government are trying to achieve, and I hope the Minister will give an explanation. If the intention is to go down the path of, for example, the Australians or the New Zealanders, with a very narrow control of vape flavours, we run exactly the risk that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was just talking about. As she said, the academic research on restricting vape flavours shows that that leads to vapes not being as effective at smoking cessation as we want them to be. That is an important consideration.
I could not explain it to anybody in detail, but I remember how the uncle of a good friend of mine when I was a boy was a flavour scientist at Bush Boake Allen, now part of International Flavors & Fragrances, and there is a very precise relationship between the chemical additives that can be added to products. Of course, there were no vapes in those days; he was working on crisps. On one occasion we went to their house, and they provided for us the very first occasion on which anybody ever tasted prawn cocktail-flavoured crisps. That was a remarkable moment in one’s early life, never to be revisited.
The point is that the relationship is modulated by these companies extremely carefully. So, it is possible to regulate it, but it is quite an intrusion into an industry to think that we should need to do this. I suspect that my noble friend is on to exactly the right issue in saying that, if we regulate the descriptors, we will have done the thing that it is most important for us to achieve.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Russell’s Amendment 146. It seems to me both sensible and essential to set the groundwork, as he put it, for further work on defining vape flavours—keeping in mind at all times the Government’s intention, which we support: to allow vapes as an effective, proven tool in quitting smoking tobacco while at the same time addressing the egregious activities of the tobacco industry vis-à-vis young people. It has used colours, flavours, images, packaging and marketing to encourage young people who have never smoked to take up vaping. We know that, once hooked on the nicotine in these products, it will be very difficult for these young people to wean themselves off them when they want to. We also know that evidence of real and lasting harm will continue to emerge over the next few years, and that is why the work to define flavours is so important and why I support this probing amendment.
I am one of those nerdy people who, when they go shopping at the supermarket, takes a little magnifying glass with them. I strongly suspect that the “banana ice” vape of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the “mango ice” vape of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, have never been within five miles of a banana or a mango, and that anything called “raspberry fizz” will never have been within five miles of a raspberry. These things are put together. They do not contain any raspberry, mango or banana; instead, they contain a whole mix of chemicals. It might be more honest to label them with, “This vape tastes a bit like banana, but it contains the following 15 chemicals”, but you cannot do that, can you? Hence the Government’s problem.
As with the other amendments in this group, Amendment 142 would open the way for the Government to include big-puff vapes and other technical measures in regulation—perhaps things such as age-gating at some future point—but it would not mandate them to do so. So, I would certainly not oppose it, although the Minister might tell us that the Government can do all this without the amendment.
Amendment 144 could inadvertently restrict the Government’s opportunity to limit the number of flavours. I would not want to do that, so I do not support this amendment, but I would like to see the Government allow a reasonable range of flavours to help people who use vapes or who are quitting smoking, for the very reason indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox: smokers like the fruity flavours, which certainly help them. That would be a very good thing. I really do think that allowing only a tobacco flavour would be a bad idea, because tobacco is the very thing that smokers want to get away from.
I very much look forward to the Government’s response, particularly to my noble friend’s amendment.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I need to start with some apologies to my noble friends Lord Mott and Lord Udny-Lister because I have to express a measure of caution on Amendment 142, which would increase the power of Ministers to make regulations on the sorts of products that can be banned by extending the scope of Clause 90 to include design and interoperability.
Although I recognise the intent behind the proposal, the problem here is nailing down exactly where the truth lies. One hears from a number of people that so-called high puff count vapes are inherently harmful and are, therefore, to be regulated or prohibited. My noble friend Lord Udny-Lister certainly indicated that that was his view, but it is nevertheless striking that the briefing I received from ASH regards this amendment as unnecessary. If the Committee will forgive me, I will just read out a section of it:
“Concerns regarding larger big puff products may be unfounded. There is no current evidence to suggest that these might increase harms or pose additional risks from products containing less liquid. It is possible that larger-volume products could have benefits in terms of satisfying consumer demand for longer-lasting products, reducing environmental impact and increasing the price point of initial purchase without unduly raising the price per puff for those using them to quit smoking”.
I find that a little baffling, and it would be very helpful if we could hear from the Minister the official view of these high puff count devices.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who tabled amendments in this group. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate.
I am sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Mott, is unwell, and I am sure we all wish him well. On his Amendment 142, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, restrictions currently set a 2-millilitre tank size limit, and a 10-milliletre refill tank size limit for vaping products. Over recent years, manufacturers have developed devices where multiple refill tanks are attached to the device itself. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and other noble Lords that the Bill already contains powers that allow us to regulate the nature and amount of substance that may be released into the body of a person using a relevant product, which includes vaping devices and the emissions released by such products. This includes restricting not only the nicotine in the tank but the nicotine that can be emitted in the vapour.
My next point is key to a number of points made in the helpful debate today: on 8 October we launched a call for evidence, which runs until 3 December. That, to me, is crucial in informing the development of future regulations under the Bill, which noble Lords are correctly asking for. We are seeking evidence to ensure that all nicotine-containing products have safe and appropriate levels of nicotine.
I understand the spirit in which Amendment 144, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and Amendment 146, spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have been tabled and the points that were made. I also heard clearly the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. We agree that descriptions of flavours are part of the appeal of vapes to children. The Bill allows us to regulate flavour descriptors. However, evidence suggests that children are attracted to the fruit and sweet flavours of vapes, both in their taste and smell, as well as how they are described.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Can the Minister tell me exactly where in the Bill the power to regulate flavour descriptors is to be found?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am sure that I will be able to do that, if the noble Lord will allow me to continue in the meantime.
What we do not yet know is the long-term harms of certain ingredients or flavours. This is why we need to be able to limit the flavours themselves, with the ability to respond to emerging evidence or scientific advances in the future, as well as how flavours are described. I can refer the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on the point that he raised to Clause 91, which says:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—”
et cetera. I hope that will be helpful to him.
I understand the concerns that were raised about how restrictions on flavours can impact former smokers who have switched to vaping. We absolutely recognise that vape flavours are an important consideration for adult smokers, and we will carefully consider restrictions to avoid any unintended consequences for those who seek to quit smoking. Our aims for future regulations on vape flavours, as well as for the wider regulations on vapes, are to reduce the appeal of vapes to young people while ensuring that they remain a viable quit aid for adult smokers. I heard the concern of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about ensuring that the legislation is right. I am sure that all noble Lords share that view.
The published call for evidence includes flavours of tobacco, vape and nicotine products, to ensure that we are considering the best available evidence. We will also review the approaches taken by other countries, to learn the lessons and to consider whether they are appropriate for the UK. I give an assurance, as I have done before, that we will then consult on specific proposals before making regulations.
On the point about international comparisons—the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised a certain aspect of them—there are varied determinations on what a flavour is. For example, in the Netherlands, there is a specified list, and, in Finland, there is a restriction on all characterising flavours. That is why the call for evidence and the subsequent consultation are so important.
Lord Moylan (Con)
The Minister refers to “characterising flavours” in Finland. That sounds to me like a descriptor, rather than anything about the composition. I know that these appear to be subtle distinctions but they are not—how something tastes and how it is described are two very different things. The question of characterisation seems to fall into the same confusion that the Government are in.
Perhaps this is an appropriate moment, so that I do not interrupt again later, to add that the confusion is evidenced by what my noble friend Lord Lansley and I have found in reviewing Clause 91; I am not very good at these things, but my noble friend is a former Secretary of State for Health and, as I have seen on many occasions since joining your Lordships’ House, a consummate legal draftsman. I suggest that the Minister’s support team does the same, because there is absolutely nothing in the clause that does what the Minister thinks it does. There is no reference to the description of flavours. There is reference to the flavour itself and to determining what the flavour is, but there is nothing about descriptors in that clause. I would have felt rather foolish tabling an amendment to the clause if the content of my amendment was already there.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Perhaps I might assist by referring noble Lords to Clause 89, which obviously precedes Clause 91 and covers descriptors. I am very happy to review the points made by noble Lords in this regard; I will of course write to them in order to provide clarity.
Lord Lansley (Con)
May I make a suggestion? It seems that we are trying to find out whether it is the Government’s intention to regulate flavours—that is, to determine which chemical additives can or cannot be added to vapes, which would end up determining what flavours are allowed—or whether it is the Government’s intention to regulate the description of flavours, meaning which flavours are to be “described”, “characterised” or any such word. We do not yet know what the Government’s intention is. If the Government want to retain the power to do both, I submit that they need to specify in Clause 91 that they will have the power to do both.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
Before the Minister answers that, may I ask her another question? Which agency regulates and licenses the various flavours used in vapes? Is it the Food Standards Agency or some other agency?
Earl Russell (LD)
I apologise but I, too, want to make a brief point. I welcome the fact that the Government are conducting a review and collecting evidence; that is good. I hope that those things will be used to make fundamental, good policy. However, there is a tension here because we could have a situation where flavours are appealing both to children, whom we do not want to take up vaping, and to ex-smokers, whom we do not want to go back to smoking because we have taken flavours away. What I have not heard the Minister say is that there will be an examination of price in that gathering of evidence. Doing more to raise the price of vapes, keeping them out of the territory of pocket money, is important in making sure that young children do not get access to these products. I encourage the Government to include that in their call for evidence.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank noble Lords. On that last point, made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, respectfully, I feel that we have covered that area at considerable length. I understand how strongly he feels about it.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, currently, it is the MHRA that regulates vapes.
More broadly, I reiterate that I will be pleased to write to noble Lords to clarify still further what I have said. Overall, I emphasise that what noble Lords are raising in general are the exact reasons why we have a call for evidence and why we will consult. It is not the right moment to be categoric, but I take the point about noble Lords being concerned about what is permitted in the Bill. On that point, I will be very pleased to write.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I say again that my noble friend Lord Lansley and I have scanned Clause 89 as far as we can. It appears to give the power to regulate almost anything to do with the packaging of vapes other than the description of what is inside it. Brand differentiators, but not flavour differentiators, are covered—that is,
“the markings on packaging (including the use of branding, trademarks or logos)”—
but a mango is not a brand, trademark or logo. The Minister is doughtily defending the text that has been given to her, but it deserves more careful thought before Report. I am grateful that she will write.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree that it needs more careful thought, which is exactly why, rather than discussing the merits of a mango, a raspberry or any other matter, I will be pleased to look at the points about which noble Lords are concerned; I want to assist in this regard. I am grateful for the reflections of noble Lords in looking at the Bill, as I have done. However, the best thing at this stage would be to commit this to writing.
I hope that noble Lords feel able to withdraw or not move their amendments.
Lord Moylan
“(5) The Secretary of State may, through guidelines, make provision about the nature and amount of the substances that may be released into the body of a person using government funded stop smoking services which entail—(a) vaping products;(b) nicotine products.”
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I want to dispose of this very quickly. I must start with an apology because I am trespassing greatly on the indulgence of the Committee; I must also declare a non-interest by making clear that I do not have an interest.
This amendment is very awkwardly and almost misleadingly worded, as it is limited by scope and reasons; I am perhaps trespassing beyond the scope of the Bill in raising this matter at all. That is the first thing I have to say. The second is that I am advancing this argument on behalf of a firm, Allen Carr’s Easyway, which is deeply involved in the smoking cessation business. I have no financial or other interest in the firm; in fact, apart from email exchanges, I have never met the people involved, as far as I am aware.
I wish my noble friend Lord Bethell were here—he does apologise. As a former Health Minister, his experience is that Allen Carr’s Easyway is a firm that does tremendous work in the field of smoking cessation. It produces books and booklets that encourage and inspire people and facilitate them, psychologically, to stop smoking. It also runs seminars and other in-person group sessions. When I gave up smoking three years ago, it was partly with the help of a copy of one of its books, which was given to me as a present by my sister.
It is also—this is perhaps the crucial factor—one of the four different smoking cessation methods recommended by NICE. It is not only recommended: the guidelines for local smoking cessation services which receive government funding say that there are four different smoking cessation methods that local stop smoking services must ensure are accessible to adults who smoke. They are behavioural interventions; medicinally licensed products, including nicotine replacements; nicotine-containing e-cigarettes; and Allen Carr’s Easyway in-person group seminars. However, it is the case that, throughout the country, most stop smoking services do not offer Allen Carr’s support as one of those options; they go for the easy options, if you like, of nicotine replacements and e-cigarettes.
The crucial difference is that, if one stops smoking in the old-fashioned way, one gives up not only cigarettes but nicotine. If, as some of us have found, you move from cigarettes to vapes or other nicotine-replacement devices, you may give up smoking, which may be very good for you, but you do not break the habit or the addiction to nicotine. It is much easier for the local stop smoking services to encourage that path, and so very often they do not follow the NICE guidelines, despite the fact that they are required to.
The Government provide, I believe, about £150 million a year in grant funding for local smoking cessation services. My request is that the Government make it a condition of those grants that all the NICE-recommended methods be supplied by the local smoking cessation service before it receives a grant. I do not expect the Minister to give that commitment at the Dispatch Box today, because of a lack of preparation—I have given her no warning of what I was going to say—but I hope she will be able to write to me and say that that will be a course that the Government will want to follow. If necessary, I am very happy to facilitate a meeting between her and the people from Allen Carr’s Easyway, so that they can describe the good work they do and explain the difficulty they have in reaching smokers through local smoking cessation services, despite the requirement placed on them to facilitate that. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I shall say a few words in support of Amendment 147 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I think his intention is quite correct for the following reason. Many of those who wish to stop smoking want to be released from the addiction to nicotine altogether, as they did in the old-fashioned way, as he has just said. They do not just want a less harmful nicotine hit. It is an expensive and harmful addiction, particularly for the developing young brain, yet we are told that many young people are becoming addicted to nicotine through vapes and tobacco pouches, and there is no help for them to quit in many places. As the noble Lord said, NICE guidelines list four services that should be available, including behavioural interventions and in-person group sessions, to help people quit, as well as nicotine-containing replacements for tobacco, which are available in most local stop smoking services. I have received a briefing from Allen Carr’s Easyway, although I have never come across the company before.
There is some evidence that some people who manage to stop smoking tobacco by using a nicotine replacement go back to smoking tobacco in the end. Quitting nicotine altogether has been shown to be more sustainable; people go back to smoking less often when they have managed to kick the nicotine habit as well. I assume that that is why NICE has recommended that services to get off nicotine addiction must be offered as well as vapes and patches. I note that, in its guidelines, NICE does not say “should” or “could”; it says “must”.
The ultimate role of NICE is to ensure that people across the UK have access to the most effective and cost-effective treatments and services; that is why it says that all four methods of quitting should be available. It may be much easier, quicker and even cheaper just to hand out patches and vapes—it is certainly much more difficult to arrange behavioural therapies and group therapies—but, for some people who want to quit smoking, it is more effective for them to have behavioural therapy, group therapy and the help of Allen Carr’s Easyway. That company must be good, authentic and of a high quality if it is recommended by NICE.
I certainly support the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in his amendment.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I cannot put it better than the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has just done in relation to the recommendations about Allen Carr’s Easyway, which has been warmly endorsed by NICE in its guidelines. This is one of the four interventions that NICE recommends. The content of those guidelines should now be underlined for NHS smoking cessation clinics, to ensure that, exactly as the noble Baroness said, there is an option for those who do not want to remain addicted to nicotine when they elect to stop smoking.
I hope that the Minister will take this amendment away with her; I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for raising this issue. I say to him that there is probably another dimension to his amendment, if one takes literally the wording around what constitutes an appropriate level of nicotine in vapes. We have heard from the Minister that there is a power to regulate this in the Bill. However, again, we have a tension here: on the one hand, there are obvious arguments in favour of limiting the strength of nicotine in vapes that are used recreationally; on the other hand, we want vape dosages of nicotine to be strong enough to satisfy the addictive craving of someone who is hooked on smoking tobacco and who does not wish to go down the Allen Carr route. If you make the dosage too weak, the patient will simply revert to their former harmful habits.
My noble friend’s amendment is also useful in the sense that it would enable us to hear from the Minister how the Government propose to reconcile those dual objectives and the potential difficulties that face policymakers in attempting to regulate nicotine strengths. This short debate has brought us to an interesting point in the smoking cessation arguments. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for bringing forward Amendment 147 and thank noble Lords for their reflections on this amendment.
I start by giving the reassurance that the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to continue making provisions about the amount and nature of substances that may be released into the body by vaping and nicotine products. Regulations made under this power will apply to products sold on the market and to those provided through stop smoking services. We will consult before making regulations and will consider restrictions carefully to avoid any unintended consequences on smoking cessation, which I know is of great concern to noble Lords.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the support for my amendment from all parties. I am grateful for the sympathetic tone expressed by the Minister as well. Obviously I was not expecting a very full answer at this stage, having sprung it on her to some extent in the way that I did. I just remind her that, although there may be commercial advantage—I do not know about that—she could meet Allen Carr in its capacity as a NICE-recommended service. She also has considerable power over the local stop smoking services, not simply through regulation but also through the conditions that she can attach to funding. I think I heard her say that she will reflect a little bit further on this and possibly write, but, in the meantime, I am grateful for what she says.
I do not think the subject will necessarily stop today, but I think we could take it out of the Bill if she wanted to or we could possibly bring it back later. I think it would be helpful if she was given the space now to give some further thought to it and see whether the department felt that there was an opportunity here for it to do something. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Udny-Lister
“(3A) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must publish a list of approved providers to undertake a study for a manufacturer.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will provide clarity to manufacturers by publishing an approved list of potential providers who can assist in the undertaking of studies relating to a relevant product or ingredient.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, in moving this amendment I will also speak to Amendments 148B to 148E and 149A. They follow a very similar theme to an earlier grouping that I spoke on. They seek to support the Government’s ambitions for a smoke-free generation, while ensuring that the legislation is both practical and proportionate. In passing legislation, we must ensure that we are responsive to science and inclusive of expertise and that transparency is not replaced by the opaqueness of ministerial discretion. This grouping therefore should be seen as a constructive route to getting the framework right, ensuring that regulation by the Bill is guided by science, informed by consultation and subject to practical and proper parliamentary oversight.
Through Amendment 148A, I seek to make a very simple yet important improvement to the practical worth of Clause 96. I seek a requirement to be placed on the Secretary of State to publish an approved list of providers who are qualified to undertake the scientific studies that manufacturers are obliged to commission under this part of the Bill. If the Government are serious in their desire to safeguard consumers through this provision, this amendment would provide a mechanism to strengthen this aim, while further bringing transparency and fairness to the process. I further put it to the Committee that such a move would support smaller British firms that are developing lower-risk nicotine products, by giving them the confidence that the laboratories they engage with meet the Government’s regulatory standards.
In pursuing this modest change to the Bill, we are following the established best practice of the global regulatory agencies, from the US FDA to the European Chemicals Agency, both of which maintain formal lists of approved testing bodies precisely to guarantee the integrity and compatibility of data. I therefore hope that this amendment would help streamline compliance and practically support smaller British businesses.
With Amendments 148B and 148D I again seek to ensure that the Bill does not inadvertently drive adult smokers back to cigarettes. These amendments seek to reinforce the principle that regulation should correspond to risk and that we should encourage innovation in safer nicotine products, not penalise them.
Through Amendment 148C, and as a theme that cross-references Amendments 148B and 148E, I ask the Government to accept consultation with manufacturers, retailers, scientists and adult consumers before regulations are made. If the Bill is to succeed in delivering what I believe are the Government’s intended outcomes, we must ensure that there is public trust by demonstrating that any regulations imposed are technically informed. I have tabled these amendments as I am keen to prevent poorly evidenced secondary legislation arising that might have unintended consequences.
Tobacco control policy must be driven by scientific evidence, not ideology, and that is the basis of Amendment 148E. It would ensure that when future regulations are made about the composition or ingredients of nicotine products, they are assessed in a way that is relative to the harm caused by smoking. I put it to the Committee that comparative assessments are already standard across medicine, toxicology and food regulation and that the same principle ought to guide nicotine policy. Amendment 148E would encourage smarter, targeted regulation in a way that focuses efforts where harm is greatest. It would ensure that we continue to distinguish between products that kill and those that help people.
Finally, in this grouping I have tabled Amendment 149A, as we need to ensure more adequate parliamentary oversight and accountability for the ministerial powers proposed in the Bill. One of my overriding concerns with the Bill is that its provisions are wide and, in many cases, open-ended. Through Amendment 149A I seek to preserve the constitutional norm that Parliament grants powers and departments exercise them. Through this amendment the Secretary of State would be required publish the rationale for any discretionary decisions. Beyond maintaining transparency in regulation, I believe that this is needed to protect both industry and consumers from uncertainty and ensure that there is fairness across the UK market. I beg to move.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, this group contains a number of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which relate to what he identifies as burdens that are potentially being placed on the industry when assessing the harms of products. There is much here that can and should be explored through consultation on this legislation. For example, it is important that clear standards are set for appropriate facilities to undertake testing, but it does not feel appropriate or proportionate to have a set list of providers who can undertake this. That feels like locking manufacturers into a bit of a closed market, although I hear what the noble Lord says his intention is behind this.
I also caution against amendments that seek to compare nicotine products as benign, when compared with tobacco. We have had quite a debate about that this afternoon. Obviously, it can be helpful in assessing whether a particular nicotine product should be used for smoking cessation purposes, but defining it as simply less harmful than tobacco does not mean it would be a good public health standard, as we have heard. Not all users of these products will be smokers, as we have also heard, and we already know that the route to smoking for young people is now often via vapes. We have had quite a discussion of that, and the fact that nicotine is addictive. We have heard how difficult it is to give up nicotine, however much we may wish that not to be the case. It is therefore important to assess the impact on health of nicotine in its own right. The noble Lord may feel that that comparative approach is included in his amendment, but I would be concerned about adding his amendment to the Bill.
Amendment 148C would remove the following provision:
“The regulations must prohibit a producer from nominating an individual without the individual’s consent”.
We feel that should remain part of the Bill.
Amendment 149A refers in effect to delegated powers. I understand the concern about those powers but also why the Government seek wide and flexible powers in the Bill, given what they are dealing with and the fast footwork in this industry. Would it not have been good had the vaping and tobacco industry made sure that nicotine substitutes were targeted only at smokers trying to shed their smoking habits? Who would have thought, as we looked at this a few years back and supported the use of such products for such purposes, that we would be where we are now? But we are—so I hope that the Committee will forgive me for my jaundice on this matter. This ship has sailed; the manufacturers have shown themselves not to be trusted to market them only as smoking cessation tools, and the Bill rightly seeks to protect our children and grandchildren. Waiting for primary legislation to come around again on this, while the industry targets in a new and inventive way so that children get hooked and cannot free themselves from its embrace, is not what a responsible Government should do.
Had the industry proved trustworthy in the past, I would maybe have a different view, as someone who thought nicotine substitution was a useful down ramp for addicted smokers—so I remain unconvinced. Who would have predicted that we would be where we are? This industry is nothing if not inventive, and we should therefore oppose these amendments.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister raises a number of sensible points about proportionality, transparency and evidence within the regulatory framework that the Bill will establish. Amendments 148A and 148C speak to the question of clarity and accountability, both in research and in representation. They would ensure that everyone—manufacturers, the Government and members of the public—can have sight of who exactly is responsible for carrying out studies on products and who is representing a manufacturer’s interests.
I listened to what the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said about a closed list. It seems to me that the besetting problem in this entire area is that the general public do not know what information they can rely on. There is an awful lot of myth and misinformation out there, as well as suspicion. By requiring that studies are undertaken by approved providers and that the nominated responsible person has a genuine connection to the UK, these amendments would bring about welcome transparency and help to provide confidence—to consumers and the industry alike—that those undertaking research and providing information are properly qualified and within reach of UK oversight. That principle seems very sensible. I would appreciate hearing the Minister’s thoughts on it.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for bringing forward these amendments in Committee. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for observing that the industry has failed to self-regulate—a view that I share.
Amendments 148B, 148D and 148E seek to impose specific requirements so that regulations pertaining to the testing, study and standard of products and their ingredients take into account the potential to reduce harms, relative to smoking. I am sympathetic to the need to ensure that regulations recognise that vapes and nicotine products are less harmful than tobacco products. As we have discussed a number of times, ensuring that vapes remain an accessible smoking cessation tool has been, and absolutely continues to be, a key consideration in the development of this Bill and future regulations. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, that the use of powers under Part 5 of the Bill is subject to consultation, to which the industry is of course welcome to respond.
However, the purpose of the powers in relation to product standards, testing and studies pertains to compliance with product standards and safety. As I believe the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, it is critical that the public can trust that the products on the market are what they say they are and do not pose a risk to health—and that quick action can be taken if they do. I am sure the noble Lord would agree that, for example, vapes on the market must not contain faulty or illicit elements and that if they do, whether they are safer than cigarettes is not the critical issue.
Amendments 148A to 148E speak to the ongoing call for evidence that we launched in October to support the policy development of regulations to be laid under the Bill. This includes seeking evidence on elements of the new product registration scheme, as I have referred to, including on the role of the responsible person and who that responsible person might be. The future registration system will play an important part in enforcing our rules on product requirements to ensure the consumer safety that noble Lords seek, while improving retailer confidence in the products that they are selling, which is also important. We want to hear the views of respondents and consider those carefully before bringing forward more detailed policy proposals. I hope the Committee understands that I do not want to pre-empt the call for evidence and how future consultation might pan out before deciding on the right approach. We need that call for evidence to be met and for the consultation to take place.
On Amendment 149A, I understand the noble Lord’s intention. I can reassure him that any sub-delegation to persons must be set out in regulations. As I mentioned, there is a statutory duty to consult on any regulations made under Part 5 of the Bill. I also remind noble Lords that regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that Parliament will have an opportunity to consider any sub-delegation before the regulations take legal effect.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about the Government’s stance on whether research on the harms of products is sufficiently robust. We obviously seek that robustness and continue to monitor the evidence before us. Perhaps most importantly, our commitment to research on harms is crucial. For example, the department has commissioned significant pieces of research into vaping and nicotine products through NIHR. Notably, this includes a living evidence map bringing together international evidence on vapes and nicotine products, including their health harms, trends in use and emerging evidence on cessation. However, I share his interest in ensuring that research keeps up with what we seek to achieve, and we are committed to doing so.
With that, I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lansley
“Industry self-regulationInsofar as the Secretary of State makes regulation under this Part relating to vaping products or nicotine products, they may have regard to the availability of relevant codes of practice, guidance or standards made by independent self-regulatory bodies which are supported by representative industry bodies and may provide for a self-regulatory body to exercise functions relating to provisions under these regulations.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause seeks to enable the Secretary of State to take advantage of self-regulatory initiatives relating to vaping & nicotine products in implementing part 5 of the Act.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, in this group we are, in a way, returning to an issue that we discussed earlier in relation to my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister’s amendment on the nature of the regulatory regime and how it will be deployed. I freely admit that mine is by way of a probing amendment, because we want to establish how this regime will work.
I will briefly establish my way of thinking on this matter. We have a tobacco control regime; I was responsible for it once. I think that we had about the toughest tobacco control regime anywhere in the world in those days, and I do not want in any way to do other than to strengthen it. We are debating the vaping industry alongside the tobacco industry, but I contend that we need to examine the regime of regulation for the vaping industry in its own terms and not by reference to the tobacco industry, despite the fact they are in the same Bill. These products are substantially different in terms of their possible harm—I will not dwell on that point; we will have a later group on that in relation to my Amendment 197. Picking up a point made by the Minister, the importance of research and of understanding the relative harms of a long-term use of vaping products both need to be established over time. I also contend that that should be independently interpreted in relation to how the regulatory regime will be managed.
A better analogy, although not an exact one, for the regime that we are looking to establish for the vaping industry is with that for the alcohol industry. We are discussing products that if used inappropriately, or if used by young people or used to excess, can do significantly greater harm. However, as I think we generally acknowledge, we want the products to be accessible to adults. We principally want them to be accessible for the reasons of smoking cessation, but we do not intend to prohibit access to them for other purposes; it is all part of a general proposition that they should be accessible to adults. There is therefore, to an extent, an analogy with the alcohol industry but not with tobacco.
In this group, my noble friend Lord Moylan has Amendment 198, which I think is complementary to my own amendment in the sense that what I am proposing is about an independent industry body. I will go on to describe what I have in mind by analogy with the Portman Group, which works in relation to the drinks industry—noble Lords may well be familiar with it through its work over quite a number of years. What my noble friend’s Amendment 198 is talking about is a forum representative of the industry for discussions with the Government about the application of the Government’s powers in relation to the industry.
Lord Lansley
Lord Lansley (Con)
I hope noble Lords will forgive me: I have tabled an amendment to my own amendment, just for the purpose of making it clear that it became apparent that, in relation to brand sharing, for example, it might be appropriate for this to apply in Part 6 as well as Part 5. All the arguments similarly apply.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I think I am correct in saying that all of the amendments I have proposed so far have generally been met with a buoyant response and a good level of engagement. I suspect that Amendment 198 will be less welcome; I will speak to it briefly, partly because my noble friend Lord Lansley has already explained what the amendment says and made a comment with which I do not, in essence, disagree.
The amendment seeks to establish a vaping and nicotine industry forum so that the Government can engage with the industry properly. It would disapply the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which Ministers treat as if it were binding but which has not been the subject of a parliamentary statute imposing it on Ministers. My noble friend Lord Lansley says that this should not be necessary—I rather agree with him—but, in fact, it is necessary in practice because Ministers are treating the framework convention as binding. They are, therefore, excluding from their consultation vaping industry firms that are part of tobacco groups. They will engage with those firms that are involved exclusively in producing vapes—or are at least involved in producing vapes without being tobacco firms—but they will not engage with the others. Obviously, that leads to a very fragmented level of engagement with the industry.
We must be practical and realistic about this. As the tobacco companies transition—they clearly are transitioning—away from cigarettes and into vaping and e-cigarette products, the Government should start to engage with them differently as to their background. That is what Amendment 198 proposes; I do not have to say very much more about it.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 198. This vaping and nicotine industry forum is very important; I am also very sympathetic to exploring different kinds of self-regulation, as is suggested in Amendment 154.
It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, was forced to put down that there would be a disregard of the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control because it speaks to the problem. I have been concerned about, in our discussions in Committee, the conflation of nicotine with tobacco; the conflation of vaping with smoking cigarettes; and, sometimes, the conflation of industries. The industries are distinct. I am pleased whenever I hear that the Government are prepared to acknowledge and meet members of the independent vaping industry and so on; they often represent small SMEs and so on.
I want to mention something that I genuinely do not understand. A lot of tobacco companies have now moved into anti-cigarette mode. It is a bit like how BP went beyond petroleum. If you ever go to an event with anyone from a tobacco company, you will be more likely to get a lecture on the dangers of cigarettes than on anything else. They have been forced, by being treated like pariahs, to adopt a different method and different products. I wonder whether the Government might acknowledge that this is going on; personally, I think that treating even tobacco companies as pariahs is not helpful.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, consultation and the extent to which certain groups are involved has been a key theme of these debates so far. Amendment 154, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raises some interesting points regarding existing codes of practice, guidance and standards. He is quite right that there is a real range when it comes to manufacturers and retailers of vaping products. However, as a general principle, I think he will recall from his time in government that self-regulation has had a lot of problems, as the Minister reminded the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
One relevant example here is the voluntary code that was introduced for tobacco advertising in 1971. I am not aware of a model in the vaping industry that has been effective in regulating products in a way that reduces their appeal to young people, as we have been debating. As the Minister pointed out, it has had that opportunity and it has not taken it. Although I recognise that Amendment 198 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is speaking specifically about vaping policy and products, the fact remains that it is the manufacturer or company that is captured by the WHO treaty. The suggestion in Amendment 198 is, in effect, that the Secretary of State should disregard Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This is part of a global treaty to protect health policy from the pernicious influence of the tobacco industry. I made reference earlier to what I saw when I was a Department for International Development Minister—tobacco companies giving children in developing countries cigarettes and pressurising Governments, who hardly had the resources to push back, to allow them free rein.
Article 5.3 was a necessary reaction to decades of deceit by an industry that knew about, but covered up, the deadly effects of its products on those who are hooked on them. It was, in my view, an astonishing achievement to secure this measure through the WHO; I doubted that it could ever be achieved. In my view, we must do nothing to undermine that global agreement, and I hope we will not, but as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, pointed out, Article 5.3 will not prevent the Government working with parts of the vaping industry that are not owned by the tobacco industry; nor does it exclude all contact. The guidelines are clear: parties should interact with the tobacco industry only when it is strictly necessary in order to enable them to regulate effectively. Tobacco companies have claimed that Article 5.3 should not relate to their non-tobacco products, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, indicated, but the requirements in the treaty are both clear and necessary. The tobacco companies’ profit motives are misaligned with public health goals.
Even with these guidelines and the UK’s strong position on Article 5.3, the tobacco industry continues to try to engage with Ministers. I was extremely concerned to see that, last week, the Trade Minister, Chris Bryant, was at an event sponsored by Philip Morris, Imperial Brands and British American Tobacco: the Asian Trader Awards. Paul Cheema, the retailer who fronts the “Protect Your Store” campaign, which is full of industry-backed misinformation, was awarded the Responsible Retailer of the Year award, sponsored by Imperial Brands, in recognition of his work to campaign against this very Bill. That campaign bears a strong resemblance to the “Save Our Shops” campaign, which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will remember, as, no doubt, will the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. That campaign, launched in 2008, was funded by the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association through the Tobacco Retailers’ Alliance.
I hope the Minister will remind her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade of their responsibilities in this area. The tobacco industry is extremely active in attempting to influence this Bill and other regulations, and it has deep pockets. I am very wary of the approach of these amendments, for the reasons I have given; I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, each amendment in this group constitutes a suggestion to the Government that there is a place for regulation with a lighter touch in what is currently a rather heavy-handed Bill. As our Committee debates move forward, I get the sense that a large number of restrictions, rules and regulations are now being devised centrally and will, in due course, be placed on some very large industries, some of them very responsible, without those industries being brought properly into the loop. I hope that I am wrong on that latter point.
My noble friend Lord Lansley has helpfully drawn attention to the codes of practice and the standards that already exist in the vape and nicotine industries, which are overseen by representative industry bodies. The existence of these standards and codes is a reflection of a desire on the part of those businesses to act responsibly towards consumers—and to be seen to do so because, of course, these industries understand their businesses best and are in the best position to frame rules that are designed to drive out poor practice but nevertheless maintain healthy competition in the marketplace.
My noble friend may correct me if I am wrong but, as I interpret his amendment, he is not saying that there is no room for government regulation on top of what these industries are already doing; as we debated earlier, there may well be further restrictions that, for public health reasons, prove to be appropriate. What he is saying, however, is that the Government need regulate only where there is a patent need to do so; and that there may be less need to regulate if there is a responsible industry body in place. There is a parallel with the Portman Group.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Before my noble friend moves on to that helpful analogy, I would like to say—not least in response to what the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said—that I do not regard what I am putting forward as asking for industry self-regulation. In fact, I am asking for co-regulation in that relationship with government. Making the regulation effective is what I am all about.
Earl Howe (Con)
That is a very helpful clarification; I am grateful to my noble friend. There is a good parallel with the Portman Group, which is recognised, as he said, in statute and has a well-understood relationship with government. That is an appropriate parallel for the Government to consider.
In the same vein, Amendment 198, tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, seeks to establish an industry forum. The bringing together of Ministers, supply chain representatives and officials would ensure that policies are based on not only principle but real-world experience. I return to the theme of evidence-based policy and there is a parallel here too. As the Minister knows, there are already industry forums for pharmaceuticals and for medical technology, each of which I used to chair as a Minister. Each provides a mechanism for government and officials to engage with those who work day-to-day in the vape and nicotine industries. For the vaping and nicotine industries, it would be a very effective way of making sure that the real world was reflected in future policy-making.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Moylan, for tabling these amendments, and other noble Lords for their considerations today.
Turning first to Amendments 154 and 154A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I understand the noble Lord’s intention and the comments that he and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, clarify that he is talking about co-regulation. I understand his intent, but as I have said on a number of occasions—other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, have supported this—the industry has failed to self-regulate. Vapes are branded and advertised to appeal to children and rates have more than doubled in the last five years, with one in five 11 to 17 year-olds having tried vaping.
In addition to Part 5, the requirements set out in regulations are the best way to stop future generations from becoming hooked on nicotine. As I have previously said, we will consult on regulations where they are made under Part 5. The vaping industry and other bodies are welcome to respond to this consultation. We will return to advertising in more detail when we reach a later group, but despite existing restrictions on vape advertisements and the opportunities that the industry has had to self-regulate, evidence shows that vape advertising continues to appeal to young people. It is unacceptable that, in too many cases, vapes are being deliberately promoted and advertised to children.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I keep hearing that the evidence shows that the advertising is appealing to children. Can the Minister send me details of that evidence, because I cannot find it? I have seen lobbying material from organisations that do not like vaping but no evidence as such.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will of course be happy to do that for the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord’s amendment also seeks to allow a self-regulatory body to exercise functions established in regulations under Parts 5 and 6. I point out that Clause 104 already provides for legislative sub-delegation where required. It allows the Secretary of State, when making regulations under Part 5, to delegate functions to other people, which will allow decisions to be made by the most appropriate body. For example, it may be appropriate to delegate functions under Clause 98 on testing, so that a body with specific technical expertise—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to this—can carry out tests on products and determine whether they comply with product requirements.
Lord Moylan (Con)
May I just gently correct the Minister? I did not ask why the Government adhered to their international obligations; I understand why a Government will, in general, want to adhere to their international obligations. The dilemma I raised was why the Government would continue to adhere to international obligations when the practical necessities of engaging with the industry would suggest that there is a case here for not doing so. It would be legal in domestic terms not to do so; indeed, this amendment would give sufficient warrant to anyone who doubted it would be legal not to do so. The question is, in a sense: how long will the Government go on ignoring reality because they prefer to adhere to a non-binding international obligation?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I appreciate the clarification from the noble Lord and am grateful for his question. In my language, it does not give us a problem to abide by these obligations; they chime with our experience, with the evidence and, as the noble Lord is aware, with all previous practice. I will come on to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, about my ministerial colleagues in this regard, but this is also our government approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan—I hope that I am quoting him correctly; I know that he will correct me if not—asked about the treatment of vaping firms with tobacco industry links in respect of the consultation. When responding to the call for evidence, and with regard to any future consultations, we ask that respondents declare any direct or indirect links to, or funding received from, the tobacco industry. Input from those vaping companies that have links to the tobacco industry will be summarised with regard to the requirements of Article 5.3, and responses from those parts of the vaping industry that are independent of the tobacco industry will be considered alongside the contributions and evidence of other regulations.
Turning to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, about the DBT Minister, Sir Chris Bryant, I can tell her that the award ceremony to which she referred followed the historic signing of the UK-India trade deal. It has previously been attended by Ministers to celebrate the small businesses that are, as we have spoken about regularly, the backbone of our high streets and are delivering economic growth. We are acutely conscious of government guidance; I assure the noble Baroness that no bilateral or brush-by meetings with representatives of the tobacco industry were held.
Baroness Northover (LD)
Did the Minister know who was sponsoring that event?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
To my knowledge, he did not. I return to the point about consultation. There is a requirement to consult before making regulations under the majority of the powers in the Bill. At the risk of repeating myself, which I will do, we published a call for evidence on 8 October. The evidence is—I am sorry for pausing, but I have a cough. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would like to take advantage of that.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I will give the Minister a moment to drink a glass of water.
If I may presume to ask a pointed question, I am looking for Ministers not to say, “Well, you didn’t do it in the past, therefore you can’t be expected to do it in future”, but to have a conversation with the industry about what this new regime will be, how it will work and how we can—most effectively, with the least interference in how an industry operates and with the lowest compliance costs—arrive at something that is flexible and effective. This may mean that the industry comes together to do something that it has not done in the past, but I do not think that we should exclude the possibility that the industry is capable of doing that.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand that. I refer to my previous comments about Clause 104 already providing for legislative sub-delegation, although I am aware that the noble Lord has raised a broader point and drawn on the interests of the alcohol industry. I understand the point he is making. However, at the risk of repetition, our concern is very much based on our experience and the evidence of the industry. I realise that the noble Lord does not agree with that.
Lord Lansley (Con)
If I may intervene, since this is Committee and we cannot interrupt each other on Report and have this conversation, the point I am making is very simple: the past is not a necessary guide to the future. The fact that the industry did not do something in the past does not mean that it is not capable of doing it effectively in the future. As the Minister knows, the department’s experience is that, in relation to the alcohol industry, the Portman Group is an effective instrument for coregulation, so we should not exclude that possibility. I acknowledge that it is not simply a question of what powers are in the Bill; it is about how one structures the regime, and that conversation should happen now.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will be very happy to write further to the noble Lord, referring to the points that he raises, but I feel that he and I are at risk of repeating the same points to each other. My concern is that the industry has had much opportunity and not taken it. Indeed, it has been extremely creative—I am being polite—in working its way around legislation. Noble Lords will have heard my resistance to setting up more loopholes, and that is also for this very good reason. Although in theory I can understand the point the noble Lord is making, I am afraid that my reality does not bear it out. But I will gladly write to him. I appreciate that he is seeking to be constructive and draw on good practice elsewhere, which I understand. I thank him for the break that he gave me.
Finally, as I said, we published a call for evidence on 8 October on issues where more evidence is needed before we consult on specific proposals. That allows all stakeholders, including those relevant to Amendments 154, 154A and 198, to contribute their views. I hope that, with this, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I had plenty of opportunities to respond as we went along during the debate, so I simply take this opportunity to beg leave to withdraw Amendment 154A.
Learning Disabilities Mortality Review Reports
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Scriven
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of learning disabilities mortality review (LeDeR) reports in improving life outcomes for people with learning disabilities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, we are committed to reducing the health inequalities faced by people with a learning disability and autistic people. Through our 10-year health plan, we are working to improve access to, and quality of, care, delivering holistic, place-based support. LeDeR annual reports support this aim by compiling insights from local reviews into the deaths of people with a learning disability and autistic people. These insights help ICBs and providers to make improvements to care.
Lord Scriven (LD)
As the Minister will know, the learning disabilities mortality review was commissioned a decade ago, yet people with learning disabilities still die more than 20 years younger than the general population, and 42% of those deaths are avoidable—twice the rate of the general population—so it is evident that the LeDeR process is not creating the systematic changes required. With that in mind, will the Minister commit to meeting me and a small group of people to explore what new enforceable systems are required to end these tragic and unacceptable early deaths?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
These are indeed tragic deaths, and avoidable in a number of cases, as the noble Lord rightly says. I can do better than agree to meet him and his colleagues—I have already got agreement from Minister Zubir Ahmed, who is responsible for this area and will be very pleased to meet them.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, will the Government commit to working further with the National Mental Capacity Forum? One of the leads that comes out in this report is a failure to implement adequately, particularly in giving support to people. Parents are often very important in providing support to a person with learning difficulties, but when that person is an adult they can feel excluded, and they are often very worried as to what will happen after they have died and the person remains alive.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes—it is quite right. We will continue to take account of and work to support parents and those they care for in the way that she describes. Certainly, I will also discuss with the Minister continuing the work with the organisation to which she refers.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, to slightly widen the Question, would the Minister look at the fact that anybody who has a communication problem has historically had very bad results, compared with the rest of the population, when dealing with the National Health Service? Those with a hearing impairment would be a classic example. Will the Government have a good look across the whole spectrum of those who have some form of communication difficulty and try to get those medical professionals briefed in different forms of communication for that very important interview?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Again, I certainly accept the important points that the noble Lord is making. It is unacceptable that there are health inequalities and poorer life outcomes. Indeed, action could be taken. That is why our 10-year health plan recognises these inequalities and identifies particularly those with disabilities as a priority group for more of that holistic, ongoing support. Key to that will be the development of neighbourhood services, where such groups will be prioritised.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for shining a light on this really important issue and for repeating the stat that people with learning disabilities and autism in England die almost 20 years younger than the rest of the population. That in itself is shocking, whatever your views.
The charity Mencap has cited a number of barriers that are stopping people with learning disabilities getting good-quality healthcare. These include failures to recognise that a person with a learning disability is unwell and staff having little understanding about learning disabilities in themselves. Could the Minister update the House on what specific steps the Government are taking, and with which partners they are speaking, to address these concerns?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
It bears repeating that it is shocking that people are dying on average up to 20 years earlier. As I have said, that is unacceptable. We work very closely with Mencap and other organisations, but what we are doing already is, for example, to the point that the noble Lord raised, improving identification of people with a learning disability on GP registers. In particular, a reasonable adjustment digital flag is being implemented in care records to make sure that support is appropriately tailored. In other words, if we do not know who people are and where they are, we cannot provide the support. That is an unacceptable reason.
The Lord Bishop of London
I thank the noble Lord for giving way.
My Lords, according to the learning disabilities mortality review of adults with a learning disability who died in 2023, 25.6% had a care package that did not meet their needs. We know that local authorities continue to face significant challenges to providing adult social care services. Can the Minister say what action the Government are taking to support local authorities as they respond to more complex needs to make sure that every person, including those with learning disabilities, has the correct care plan?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As the right reverend Prelate says—or is it the most reverend Primate?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am sure that all this will be clarified—but I will be delighted to change my reference. Indeed, this is extremely important, which is why we have a learning disability improvement standard to support NHS trusts, why each ICB has an executive lead on a learning disability and autism and why, among other things, we are rolling out the Oliver McGowan mandatory training on learning disability and autism.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I was not sure who I was giving way to, but I am glad that God is on my side. Does my noble friend agree that, as part of that neighbourhood approach, two things should happen? The first is joined-up services, including good training for support workers where supported housing is concerned. Secondly, the major changes in abolishing NHS England should retain services at place level, rather than have the bureaucrats overseeing them.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree with the points that my noble friend raises. Indeed, local provision is the responsibility of local trusts. I assure him that a huge part of our work is about improving care pathways and seeing people as a whole person. Part of the failing previously, I think, has been not to see those with learning disabilities and/or autism as whole people with a range of needs, just like anyone else, with those needs being specific to them. Certainly, moving from hospital to community under the 10-year plan will be a great assistance in that.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, everybody knows that this subject is dear to the Minister’s heart but, from my experience over many years, the workforce gets very nervous of having disabled people working with them. Employers and other people will give support, but the employees themselves have to feel comfortable with having disabled people working alongside them. Is the Minister able to do something about that?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord makes good points and I am glad that he does so. I have just had a word with the Minister from the DWP, who has confirmed—I am sure that the noble Lord will welcome this—that the DWP is working with employers on this. I can also say that, among staff generally, over 3 million people have completed the first part of the Oliver McGowan mandatory training, which is the Government’s preferred package. I am sure—in fact, I know—that that training is making a considerable difference in meeting the point that the noble Lord raises.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, one of the problems the Minister has talked about in developing pathways is identification and data sharing. Could she be specific about the improvements that are being made within the 10-year plan to ensure that people with various learning disabilities—it is a huge umbrella term—are better identified and that that identification is shared across different health and care services?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
First, the learning disability improvement standard supports trusts in setting out the guidance on safe and—I emphasise—personalised high-quality care provision as a general umbrella, but specifically the reasonable adjustment digital flag is going on to care records, which makes sure that people receive the right tailored care. For example, by improving the identification of those with a learning disability on GP registers, which I think is key, we are promoting an uptake of annual health checks, which are absolutely vital for identifying undetected conditions early. That means that there can be health action plans following these checks.
Jobs Market
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Wirral
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the jobs market, and of the implications for the wider economy.
The Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, despite Tuesday’s unemployment figures, there is positive information on the labour market. However, the latest figures show why we are right to focus on supporting people into work with our Get Britain Working plan, which includes modernisation of jobcentres, tackling economic inactivity due to ill health and delivering our youth guarantee.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, there are now nearly 2 million unemployed people on this Government’s watch and the number is rising month by month since the introduction of the penal national insurance job tax and now the threat of first-day unfair dismissal rights under the Employment Rights Bill. Will the Minister listen to business, listen to the Resolution Foundation, listen to Tony Blair and listen to this House when it debates this issue on Monday? Will she undertake to persuade her colleagues that this Budget must have measures that inspire business to give people the dignity of work? Otherwise, the message will be what I said in my maiden speech 50 years ago: “Labour isn’t working”. It was not working then, and it is not working now.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I regret that I was not here to hear the noble Lord’s maiden speech 50 years ago, but it is interesting that his message has not changed in the intervening years. Let me give him a few thoughts. First, he should look at what is happening underneath the employment figures and around the world. Let me point a few things out to him. Over the last year, more than 329,000 people have moved into work. In the first half of this year, the UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7. We have the third-highest employment rate in the G7—it is above the G7 average. Over the most recent quarter, the number of people claiming unemployment benefits fell by 35,000. Those people in work are doing well. Let me give the noble Lord one final stat: since July 2024, real wages have risen more than they did in the first 10 years of the previous Government. I celebrate that.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister outline what assessment has been made of the dual impact of artificial intelligence on the UK job market, in both the potential for job displacement in some sectors and the creation of new roles? What is the Government’s strategy to manage this transition and equip the British workforce with the skills to drive the new AI economy?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
This is a really great question that is obsessing most government departments and most employers, as the noble Lord will know. I think the impact depends on the sector and on the individual job, but the evidence is quite clear, which is that, across the piece, it is better for businesses to embrace AI than not to. The biggest risk to our country is in not embracing artificial intelligence—if we do not take the opportunities it offers.
The World Economic Forum has forecast that AI will create 170 million new jobs globally over the next five years and displace 90 million. We will find that there are jobs out there, but they will be different. In our country, we have to make sure that we get those good jobs in the UK. What we are doing as a Government is analysing that very carefully and supporting businesses and individuals to make sure they have the skills they need to move on to the next area. We have reformed skills; we are bringing skills into DWP for many young people; we have a brand-new skills academy; we are looking at developing apprenticeships and we are focusing on supporting education to give young people the skills they need. There will be jobs there in the future; we just want to make sure our people get them.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her statistics, but the latest ONS figures show unemployment has risen from 4.8% to 5%—the highest level for four years. On that basis, can the Minister share concern that the UK’s sluggish productivity growth and skills shortages are still holding back economic recovery? What further measures are being considered to invest in adult skills and retraining? We will keep coming back to this. I thank the Minister for what she has said, but I would like a bit more information.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
On the unemployment figures, different things are going on under the surface if one digs down into the figures, which I am sure the noble Lord has done. For example, he may be aware that two things are going on. On the quarter increases and on the unemployment level, a chunk of that is driven by young people aged 16 to 24, including those in full-time education. Crucially, falling inactivity has contributed to increase in unemployment. We are tackling people who are economically inactive, but as people return to the labour market, they move from the figures of economic inactivity into the figures for unemployment. One thing that has happened is that the significant rise in economic inactivity down to ill health has been flattened, and that is really significant.
I would love to talk to the noble Lord at a greater length about skills. As he now knows, I have the great joy that my noble friend Lady Smith, who is now a Minister not only in DfE but in DWP, because she is the Minister for Skills, is joining up the two departments.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Yes, I was going to say the less important one, but I will get in trouble any which way I do this.
We are joining up with DfE to invest heavily in skills. We have new qualifications and new apprenticeships coming online and investment in skills strategies. A huge amount is going on—more than I can say at the Dispatch Box—but I would love to talk to the noble Lord more about this.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have given notice that they will stop the employee car ownership scheme, ECOS, in the British car industry. That will reduce production by at least 80,000 units and cost 5,000 jobs. Does the Minister agree that it is time to re-evaluate this proposal?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I do not often say it, but I know absolutely nothing about that, so I will take it back to my department and somebody will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, 111,000 fewer young people are employed than at the beginning of the year. With the rise in NI and the rise in minimum wage, many employers say that they cannot afford to employ young people. What work are the Government doing to make sure that our young people have a future in employment and not on welfare?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful for that question; I know that it is something that the noble Lord cares very much about. We are doing a lot for young people. This is what is so exciting about what is happening. We have a youth guarantee, but my boss as Secretary of State has also made it clear that if an eligible young person has been on universal credit for 18 months, we will create a guaranteed job for them to support them in getting back into a job and transitioning into work. We need to move to a point where every young person out there is either earning, learning or preparing themselves to do one or the other. I am particularly worried about the growing number of young people who are not in education, employment or training, particularly on health grounds or because for some reason they are outside the labour market altogether. The noble Lord may have heard that my Secretary of State has asked Alan Milburn to look specifically at an inquiry to find out what is going on with those young people. We are already doing huge amounts in this area, but we need to address work specifically on that. I am looking forward to finding out what he has to say.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
Has the Secretary of State commissioned an internal report on the effect of the national insurance change on unemployment, and have they passed that information to the Treasury?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Government did an impact assessment at the time and acknowledged that there might be an impact on labour supply when they made changes to the national insurance regime. Obviously, what happens in the new Budget I know nothing about and it will come forward. What we have done is work very closely with employers. We know that employers are out there and want to take on people, and they want to support particularly people who are not in the labour market. Our job is to help them in doing that, and we are determined to do so.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I bring to the House my registered interest—I chair the Nuclear Industry Association. We had the recent announcement of the SMR, the small modular reactor, the Rolls-Royce build, going to Wylfa in Wales. Will the Minister join me in welcoming those highly skilled, well-paid and very often trade-unionised jobs being brought to the shores of the UK?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am delighted to welcome that. It was a really exciting announcement, and the Government are committed to investing in new high-quality, highly skilled jobs. We want to be a country that brings inward investment in, trains people up, gets them into good jobs and keeps them there. That is a good example.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, we are losing around 5,000 people a day from the labour market on to benefits. What is the department’s latest projection for the number of people expected to flow on to out-of-work and health-related benefits over the next 12 to 24 months? What are the main drivers behind that projection? Will the Government publish the underlying assumptions of the quarterly progress data so that your Lordships can track whether the interventions that the noble Baroness refers to are working?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, we have made clear what our ambitions are with Get Britain Working and that we will have metrics and publish regular data on them. One thing I want to take the opportunity to say at the Dispatch Box is that I have seen headlines this week suggesting that large numbers of people are flowing on to universal credit, as though this was a reason they were flowing out of work. I know the noble Baroness knows this and she is far too smart to raise it at the Dispatch Box, but I remind the House that the key reason for that is that the previous Government decided to close the legacy benefits and move anyone on to universal credit. For example, 800,000 people have left old benefits and made a claim to universal credit. I would encourage noble Lords, if they see those kinds of headlines, to think twice.
Palestinian Refugees
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Deech
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the status of Palestinian refugees following the recognition of the state of Palestine.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
The status of Palestinian refugees is a final status issue to be resolved through negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Recognition of the State of Palestine does not in any way alter the status of Palestinian refugees. The UK continues to support the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, and its vital work delivering humanitarian assistance and services to Palestinian refugees. This year we have provided £27.5 million to UNRWA.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister accept that either Palestine is a real state and should deal with its own people or it is not, and recognition was a falsity? Since the UK recognises Palestine as a state, its citizens living in their state cannot, in principle, be refugees. Indeed, all the other Palestinians around the world are, or should be, citizens of that state and no longer stateless. It is UNRWA that is the problem. There is much new, reliable evidence that UNRWA is permeated with Hamas officials. UNRWA continues to inflate the number of refugees instead of settling them, and teaches them that they will remain refugees until they return to what they believe were their homes in what is now Israel, with the aim of obliterating the state. There will be no future for Gaza unless UNRWA is dismantled, wrapped up with the UNHCR, and the concept of Palestinian refugees in the West Bank and Gaza should disappear.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. As I have said, the UK’s recognition of the State of Palestine does not alter the status of Palestinian refugees, and the question of refugee status remains a final status issue to be resolved through negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. We are deeply concerned to hear the accusations about UNRWA staff involved in 7 October 2023, and we welcome its commitment to fully investigate allegations against its employees and the continued implementation of the Colonna report’s recommendations to ensure neutrality and integrity.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
As long as Israel maintains its occupation of Gaza and the consolidation and illegal expansion of settlements in the West Bank, the reality of a Palestinian state remains completely distant. As permanent members of the Security Council, what are Britain and France doing together to try to ensure the establishment of a Palestinian state and the resolution of the refugee problem?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. In the West Bank, settlement expansion and settler violence has increased; we must not lose sight of the West Bank, where stability is crucial. Israel must exercise restraint, stop settlement expansion, crack down on settler violence and end its financial stranglehold on the Palestinian Authority. We have imposed three rounds of sanctions on violent Israeli settlers and members of the Israeli cabinet.
On the noble Lord’s wider point about what we are doing, as he knows, we are working with partners to implement President Trump’s peace plan, and we have important priorities in the short term to stabilise the situation, maintain the ceasefire and work towards a Palestinian State and the two-state solution.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, why are we being so beastly to refugees? This is a Christian country and the Bible reminds us to be kind to strangers “for you are strangers in the land of Egypt”. Sikh teachings have similar sentiments. Palestinians have been continuously betrayed since the Balfour Declaration protecting their rights. Does the Minister agree that they deserve our sympathy and support?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question and, yes, I would agree that refugees deserve our sympathy and support. In relation to Palestine specifically, we are providing £78 million for humanitarian and early-recovery support for Palestine this year. A couple of weeks ago, we allocated £20 million for essential water, sanitation and hygiene services. We have discussed this many times before in your Lordships’ House. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is catastrophic and the way to improve it is to increase the number of entry points into Gaza, and we call on the Israeli Government to open all routes so that aid can flow. I know that the noble Lord’s question was rather wider than that, but it is important that we deal with the situation.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, the escalation of brutal attacks against Palestinians on the West Bank by people from illegal settlements may well increase the number of Palestinian refugees. I was glad to hear the Minister say that sanctions will be continued against such attacks, but can he say whether the Government will now take action to reduce the trade that is taking place between illegal settlements and the UK—indeed, to stop it altogether—not just in goods but in services and investments too?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. I have already made clear the Government’s view on settlements in the West Bank. On sanctions, we do not give a running commentary on future sanctions, but I have already said what we have done in relation to that. On the other question the noble Baroness raises about trade and other links with the West Bank, our commitment is to work with international partners and multilateral institutions, and that, at this turbulent time, is a statement of principle in itself.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register, particularly as an adviser to the Council of Arab Ambassadors.
In terms of statements and symbolism, the recognition of Palestine has now happened. But, in terms of specific influence, what levers are His Majesty’s Government exercising—particularly in direct negotiation with Israel and the leadership of the Palestinians—to ensure the 20-point plan, and what specific lever is the UK responsible for in the plan? The time window is closing. We do not need statements and symbolism; we need action.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I totally agree with that question from the noble Lord and I am delighted he asked it. It is important that I make clear what the Government think are now the urgent priorities following the 20-point plan and our welcome for the ceasefire agreement led by President Trump. We want to move towards the disarming of Hamas and the UK has experience from Northern Ireland that we will deploy. We want to see the deployment of a ceasefire monitoring mission and an international security force, and the implementation of transitional governance arrangements in Gaza. I can tell the noble Lord, and indeed the whole House, that we have deployed UK civilian and military personnel to the Civil-Military Coordination Center that aims to co-ordinate reconstruction efforts across partners in Gaza. I hope the noble Lord will agree that we are doing everything we can for the moment.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
We will hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, in light of President Trump’s comments about the removal of Palestinians from Gaza, do the Government believe that the Palestinians should be given the right to return to their homes there, and what action are the Government taking about the forceable removal of Palestinians and displacement within the Gaza Strip and the Occupied Territories?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. I have already talked about the final status arrangements that we hope for in relation to the Palestinian refugees. She asks about the right of return; the UK supports a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees, in line with UN Security Council resolutions. In practice, this means that the right of return is a final status issue that must be agreed in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians, but with support from neighbouring countries and the international community, including the UK, and compatible with two states for two peoples.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I am sure there is a range of views across your Lordships’ House on the Government’s decision to recognise Palestine. However, I am sure everyone agrees on the need for national and border security to be primary duties of the Government. Can the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking to ensure that no person who has been a member of, or linked to, Hamas comes to the UK as a refugee from Palestine?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I will make the Government’s view on Hamas absolutely clear and that will inform my answer to the noble Lord’s question about the possibility of people arriving here. The UK assesses Hamas in its entirety to be concerned in terrorism and proscribes the organisation in full under the Terrorism Act. It is illegal in the UK to join, support or display any connection to Hamas. Hamas as an organisation is sanctioned by the UK and subject to an asset freeze and arms embargo. Since October 7, the UK has implemented three further rounds of sanctions on 23 Hamas and PIJ-linked individuals and entities to disrupt their operations and financial networks.
On the noble Lord’s question about border security, I hope I have made it clear that we are very committed to seeing Hamas, and all those associated with it, as a terrorist organisation, and we will enforce border security.
Goodmayes Hospital Mental Health Facility
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berger
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of failings at Goodmayes Hospital mental health facility.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, what happened at Goodmayes Hospital was totally unacceptable and I offer my sincere condolences to Alice Figueiredo’s family and loved ones, who have suffered an unimaginable loss. The trust failed in its basic responsibilities to Alice, and I expect—and we are working to ensure—that it will prioritise the safety of its services. I understand that the trust has taken steps to improve services and reduce risk, including changes to ward environments, better training in suicide prevention and investment in recruitment and retention.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
I thank the Minister. It was back in July of 2015 that Alice Figueiredo took her own life using a bin bag from a shared bathroom. She was just 22 years old. Recently leaked documents reveal that, just four months later, another young woman from the same ward attempted to harm herself in an almost identical manner. However, these are not isolated incidents. In 2023, three women died in a Priory psychiatric hospital within two months. I ask my noble friend the Minister: what are the Government doing to ensure that therapeutic care is provided, and lessons are really learnt, so that we do not see any further tragic loss of life from any aspect of the mental health in-patient estate?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this in this way. National guidance is being developed, which is expected soon—in January—on plastic bag use in mental health settings. The Thirlwall inquiry has also recently reviewed progress against the important recommendations of the report of Professor Williams, which were very much addressed at the role of healthcare regulators of NHS bodies and the CPS. In addition, the NHS national oversight framework now gives a transparent assessment of the performance of every trust in England, which means that those with the greatest challenges or concerns will receive enhanced support. In addition, it means that the CQC, as we move it to a new intelligence-led model, is able to conduct rapid response inspections where concerns are identified, so that we can get on top of problems before they produce the tragic consequences my noble friend refers to.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister agree with me that, while it is 10 years since Alice Figueiredo died, we know that resources in mental health services in-patient units—in terms of human resources particularly, but the number of beds they have access to as well—have deteriorated dramatically? We heard very potent evidence during the passage of the Mental Health Bill this year of the serious consequences that have arisen from this. What are we going to do to improve the quality and quantity of resources available to mental health units, so that occurrences like this do not recur?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As the noble Baroness will be aware, I take a broader approach. The current in-patient model is totally outdated and cannot address adequately the inherent risks in the mental health in-patient system, so we have to move to new models of care which are integrated in the community. Those changes will be made as part of the 10-year plan. Importantly for me, that will mean a new era of transparency as well as that rigorous focus on patient safety and care and also hearing and acting on patient and staff voices.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches we also send our condolences to Alice’s family and loved ones. Considering that the judge noted that North East London NHS Foundation Trust’s finances were in an “absolutely parlous state”, what assessment have the Government made of the direct link between severe financial distress in NHS mental health trusts and the ability to maintain fundamental patient safety standards, such as ensuring rapid environmental de-escalation and adequate staffing levels?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Of course, these matters are extremely important. On the specific trust, I am sure the noble Lord will be aware that there are particularly unacceptable issues that have been happening there. I gave the Answer straight off to my noble friend that it is in fact totally unacceptable. Looking to the future, following this terrible tragedy, the trust has replaced its leadership and is making improvements to services. The most recent CQC inspection found that services were well led and that they have improved. However, acute adult wards remain in the category of requiring improvement, as does its overall rating. I assure the noble Lord that we are continuing to work with the trust to raise its game.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the whole House will join in sending condolences. I am pleased that the Minister identified improving the performance at the CQC as an important step in preventing these tragedies from happening in the first place. She will know that Penny Dash reviewed the performance of the CQC and made a number of recommendations particularly relevant to mental health providers. Some progress has been made against that, including establishing a chief inspector for mental health, but there are still steps that need to be taken. The single assessment framework is at the moment still too input heavy and inadequately addresses outcomes in mental health. There are still expertise gaps and recruitment is challenging, and there are backlogs in risk, with persistent delays in reinspections for high-risk mental units. Can the Minister say, given today’s outcome and discussion, what steps she will take to address these very serious issues?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
These are very serious issues, and we continue to work on them. We are also very grateful to the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, whose reports highlight extremely important concerns and safety recommendations, with an aim to help us improve in-patient mental health services. Therefore, I can say to the noble Baroness that we are in the process of formally responding to those recommendations made within this report, in addition to the changes I have referred to. As the Mental Health Minister, I am invested in making sure that we continue to drive forward improvements to patient safety and accountability.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, given the testimony presented by my noble friend Lady Berger, what assurances can my noble friend the Minister provide to your Lordships’ House to underpin the Mental Health Act by way of financial spend, to ensure that it is protected for mental health services to deal with all the challenges that have happened over the last number of years and into the future?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The Mental Health Bill, which is, I hope, within touching distance of Royal Assent, is absolutely crucial. It is a reform of an Act which was 41 years old; it will undoubtedly be crucial. I am grateful to many noble Lords for their participation in getting us to the right place. It will deliver on our government commitment to modernise the legislation. I hope my noble friend is aware that implementation is absolutely key, but there are rightly a number of points within the Bill—which I hope will become an Act—which will take effect only when services are in the right place. It would be wrong to do so without it.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the incident at Goodmayes Hospital, and others raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, such as the tragic case of Kate Szymankiewicz after her daughter’s death at Huntercombe Hospital in 2022, all raise profound concerns about the treatment of vulnerable patients. Families have described the care that their loved ones received as cruel and more akin to the treatment of prisoners than that of patients. The Minister has spoken of guidance, regulation and new models. Given all these concerns in hospitals such as Goodmayes and Huntercombehlh, I ask the Minister: what conversations is the department having with trusts and ICBs to instil a culture where patients are treated with compassion and dignity and, where it is safe, patients have proper access to their families?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That is absolutely at the core. I will just say, as an example on this particular tragic case, that NHS England still meets regularly with the trust, and the last meeting took place two weeks ago—it conducted a mid-year review. There is also a recommendation for a memorandum of understanding on investigating healthcare incidents where there is suspected criminal activity, which is something we have really got to consider. That will mean that there can be action following incidents such as this, where there is reasonable suspicion. Again, having a handle on it, monitoring it, keeping accountability and having the guidance are key to prevention as well as improvement after these terrible and tragic events.
Covid-19 Pandemic: Commemoration
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Morgan of Cotes
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to commemorate the Covid-19 pandemic.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, I draw attention to my role as chair of the UK Commission on Covid Commemoration.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased that today the Government have published their response to the UK Commission on Covid Commemoration, setting out plans to mark this period in our nation’s history. I thank the noble Baroness and all the commissioners for the careful consideration they have given to their report, as well as the Covid-19 bereaved family groups: Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice Cymru, Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK, Covid-19 Families Scotland, Covid19 Families UK, the Friends of the Wall, the Memory Stones of Love, and Yellow Hearts to Remember. We are grateful for their involvement in developing this commemorative programme and for their tireless voluntary efforts to support others in their grief. I also thank DCMS officials for their work on this issue. Through this programme of commemoration, we will ensure that those we lost are honoured, that we remember the sacrifices and the resilience of so many, and that, as a country, we do not forget.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister very much for her comments. I thank the Government for their considered and thoughtful response, published today. I thank the Minister and her predecessors, both in this Administration and the last. I thank the Cabinet Office and DCMS officials, who have been outstanding throughout this process, my fellow commissioners and those who gave us evidence, including the key workers who gave us evidence about their public service.
Above all, as the Minister has said, I thank those bereaved families who shared their perspectives on what it was like to lose a loved one in the course of the Covid-19 pandemic. Many of them are here in Parliament today. They were generous with their time and commitment in the public consultation events. I remember two things that really struck me. The first was somebody saying that during the pandemic, “Everyone lost something”. The second was their determination both to honour their loved ones and to learn the lessons of the pandemic for the future. I ask the Minister to set out in a little more detail, because many will have not had the chance to read the considered and thoughtful response, how the Government have struck the balance between commemoration, remembering the loss and the loved ones, and preparedness for a future pandemic or other natural hazard.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Government are clear that the impact of Covid-19 should never be forgotten. I echo the noble Baroness in quoting the evidence given to the commission in terms of everybody losing something. A quarter of a million people lost their lives. That leaves a huge, tragic legacy for those left behind. We want them to be central to the Covid commemoration programme. We continue to support the UK-wide Covid-19 Day of Reflection that will take place each March, and we are going to confirm the dates for the next few years.
We are working with Forestry England and NHS Charities Together on the creation of new Covid-19 commemorative green spaces across England’s forests and in the grounds of NHS sites. We are setting out our support for the long-term preservation of the National Covid Memorial Wall, which is just across the river from Parliament, where we are sitting today, as a national memorial to the lives lost to Covid-19. To do that, we will continue to work closely with the Friends of the Wall and with a range of other partners that we need to include in that work.
In relation to the prevention of future natural hazards, including pandemics, we are launching a new UK-wide fellowship scheme on national hazards to support future national resilience, as recommended by the commission. I am pleased to say that the first cohort will start next year, in February 2026. Alongside this, we are launching new web pages on GOV.UK, dedicated specifically to Covid commemoration, which will include education materials, a repository of oral histories, and a map highlighting more than 100 memorials that already exist, to allow the public to easily find this information. I have a lot more information, but I am aware that other people may want to come in to ask questions.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I add my sentiments and those of my Benches to remember all those who, sadly, lost their lives. I also pay tribute to the workers, not just in health and care services, who delivered many of our public services while many were able to stay at home and shield.
We recently had a debate on bereavement and how some people lost loved ones during Covid. While we want to commemorate those who did fantastic work and kept this country going, there are still some who have not yet found closure. We had a very interesting debate a few months ago on this same issue. Is there any update on what the Government are doing to help those who still have not found closure as a result of bereavement and loss that they suffered of loved ones during the pandemic?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a really important point. A number of noble Lords will be aware that I had the privilege to work on the response in London. People who I was working with, at the same time as they were leading that response, also lost loved ones. For example, when I went to the wall a couple of weeks ago, I looked for the heart remembering Diana Walker, who was the mother of the woman who was my researcher during that dreadful period. How do you get over a loss of that kind? We are aiming to work with a range of organisations, including bereavement organisations, to make sure that we get it right. We need to get it right so that we commemorate what happened, but also so that, as a Government, we recognise that for so many people the pandemic and the devastating impact it had on people’s lives are still very much part of their present.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, we too send our remembrance to all those who have died and their families. We send our thanks to so many people across the country who went beyond the call of duty to keep people safe and alive and to keep the country running during the pandemic. The commission’s report talks about preparedness. I ask about one specific issue. What extra help and provision will be given to local public health departments across the country, because they are the ones who have the data and the resources of shoes on the ground and can make a big difference in such problems to do with pandemic or local emergencies?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am happy to meet the noble Lord to discuss this issue on a national level. I appreciate that he was asking about public health officials at a local level, but we have been conducting a pandemic preparedness exercise at a national level: Exercise Pegasus. Clearly, a huge amount is delivered locally, but I am happy to set up a meeting for the noble Lord with either me or the relevant officials, so that he gets that level of detail that I unfortunately do not have before me today.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister say what the Government’s plans are for the World Health Organization’s pandemic convention, which is moving ahead all too slowly in the United Nations machinery? Do the Government have a firm objective for that convention to be agreed and signed up to in 2026?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will write to the noble Lord on his important point.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, this appalling pandemic killed thousands of people. I am sure everybody in the Chamber knows people who were killed and these were often nasty and unpleasant deaths. Since then, the Prime Minister at the time, Boris Johnson, has said—this is my understanding; I am willing to be corrected—that lockdowns did not achieve very much. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government are looking at what the lockdowns achieved? After all, thousands of people died during lockdowns; what did they achieve and what are the Government looking at for the future?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It is important to recognise that a whole inquiry and its machinery are looking at the effectiveness of particular measures. The next module publication will be within a couple of weeks. The work we are announcing our response to today is around commemoration. From a personal perspective, however, I remind noble Lords that the NHS was in a very perilous state at the point that we went into lockdown. For somebody working on the response, the question was not whether we should do that but when.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I add my condolences and prayers to those who lost somebody during Covid, particularly those in the Chamber. I also recognise the hard work of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the commission. What effort is being made on ongoing engagement with communities to rebuild trust in public services, including the health service, which was lost during Covid?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for the leadership that she showed in London during the pandemic. Rebuilding trust is clearly important but is potentially for a wider conversation. I am happy to meet the right reverend Prelate to talk through this. In our approach to the commemoration, we are keen to make sure that, at the heart of what we are announcing today is the recognition of the loss of nearly 250,000 lives.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I also offer the Green group’s deep sympathies to those who continue to live under the shadow of Covid bereavement, those who are suffering continually from long Covid and those who gave so much during the pandemic. The Minister referred to preparedness: there is a high probability that the next pandemic, which the WHO calls Disease X, will be a flu virus; it will almost certainly be an airborne pathogen. Are the Government ready with up-to-date medical supplies to deal with that now and in the future? What are they doing on issues of ventilation and air filtration to make sure that our public spaces are safe in that environment?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Ensuring that the UK is prepared for a future pandemic is absolutely a top priority for the Government. We are embedding lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic, including the inquiry’s recommendations, within our pandemic preparedness. Like other noble Lords, we are hugely grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, and her team for their important work. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that the UK Government have been conducting a national exercise on pandemic preparedness, which is exploring a lot of these issues, called Exercise Pegasus. It involves Ministers from across the UK Government, and is working closely with devolved Governments, to ensure that we have the preparedness that we need for a future pandemic. We are clear that this will not necessarily be after another 100 years and that we need to be prepared now. The exercise is the first of its kind in nearly a decade and the largest simulation of a pandemic in UK history. Its findings and the post-exercise report will be delivered in due course and I am sure will be of interest to your Lordships’ House.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, in following the noble Baroness’s Question and the Minister’s Answer, I add my condolences to those that have been expressed by noble Lords. The Minister said that preparations are under way and that they do not necessarily need to wait on the detailed results of the inquiry. I am reminded, however, that such an exercise in preparation was carried out in 2016 and that it apparently had no effect after it concluded and the lessons were drawn. Can the Minister assure me that this time any preparations and exercises will be translated into operational capabilities? The best memorial and legacy that we can give those who suffered during Covid, and their families, is to ensure that, if this ever happens again and it is not preventable, at least we will be prepared and action will be based on the experiences of the exercises that we have carried out.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Ensuring that the UK is prepared for a future pandemic is a top priority for this Government. We are already embedding lessons from Covid-19 within our pandemic preparedness. I have already mentioned Exercise Pegasus, so will not go through it again, but the DHSC has committed to publish a new pandemic preparedness strategy, which will set out how the health and care system is implementing the principles of its new strategic approach to pandemic preparedness. We owe it to every person who lost their life or loved ones to make sure that we learn from the Covid-19 pandemic and get it right for the future.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we move on to the next business, I will make a brief statement about how we will handle the Committee stage of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill tomorrow. I will send this statement, by email, to all Members shortly. I understand that colleagues are keen to prepare and hope that this will help in planning, in line with how business usually moves forward.
First, I thank the staff of the Public Bill Office, who have worked tirelessly to produce the Marshalled List for the first day in Committee. The list, which contains more than 900 amendments, was produced at 1.16 am today. I am sure that the whole House appreciates the hard work that staff have gone through on our behalf.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
The Whips’ Office will shortly distribute draft groupings of amendments to noble Lords in the usual manner. As the Government are neutral, any changes requested will simply be actioned. The sponsor, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, will lead on negotiating any changes, should he wish to do so. The Government will then communicate the final groupings in the usual manner to aid the Committee in having an orderly debate. This is the normal practice, including for PMBs that the Government do not support that have Committee stages.
My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will set a target at the end of today to aid colleagues in knowing when they might need to prepare speeches for or whether topics they know about or are interested in may be debated tomorrow. We expect the House to rise at a convenient point around 3 pm as per the usual conventions of the House. We will maintain the typical flexibility of the House and might need to rise slightly beyond or before this point to conclude groups being debated. This ensures orderly debate, and the spirit of good business management means that we do not have to undertake the complex exercise of noting down everyone in attendance to ensure that they are there when the group resumes on a subsequent day. It also aids the overall flow of debate on such an important topic. At the conclusion of the final group, at a convenient point, I will move to adjourn the House.
I ask all noble Lords to respect the usual conventions regarding speaking times in Committee and to respect all noble Lords who are speaking in the debate. The Whips, of course, will continue to monitor the debate in the usual manner. Finally, this is most important: sincere views are held on all sides regarding this Bill. Please respect that and, tomorrow and in the upcoming debates, remember courtesy and respect, and show those watching the House of Lords at its best. I trust that if we continue to respect each other, we will have a thought-provoking debate tomorrow.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I echo what the Chief Whip has said in relation to the enormous amount of work that has gone into producing the Marshalled List. I also strongly echo what he has said about the temper of the debate, which must do credit to the House. Thirdly, I invite any Member of the House who wishes to degroup pursuant to the suggested groupings from the Whips’ Office today to approach me so that we can discuss an orderly way of dealing with these amendments. Finally, I have been told this morning that 900-plus amendments is the highest-ever number of amendments to a Bill, and I am wondering what conclusion I should draw from that.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Government Chief Whip for outlining the process for tomorrow, which is entirely within the normal run of things. I also join him in thanking everyone who has worked so hard to draw up the amendments and the groupings.
Prisoner Releases in Error
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, on Wednesday last week, the right honourable David Lammy, Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Justice, appeared at Prime Minister’s Questions to not answer questions about inadvertent prisoner release. The Speaker in the other place sought his recall. On Tuesday this week, the Secretary of State for Justice gave himself up and returned to the Parliamentary Estate, where—despite what was, no doubt, his officials’ careful preparation—he told Members in the other place that the previous Government had inadvertently released prisoners at the rate of 17 per month. This would have involved the release of 2,856 prisoners. The true figure, as recorded in the Ministry of Justice’s own official record, is 860, or about three each month—three too many, but a fraction of the number that the Secretary of State for Justice gave to his colleagues in the Commons. Can the Minister reassure this House that the most stringent measures will now be taken to prevent the inadvertent release of any further erroneous statistics by the Secretary of State for Justice, given the alarm that these are liable to engender in the general public?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the release in error of Kaddour-Cherif from Wandsworth and all other such accidental releases, which have been far too numerous, are symptomatic of a system woefully prone to error. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, has seriously criticised the answer given by the Deputy Prime Minister to the House of Commons on 5 November. It may be that the Deputy Prime Minister made the wrong call in withholding more detail because he felt he did not have the full picture, and it may also be that there were errors in the detail of his response, but if he made a wrong call on that decision to give less detail, I accept that it was a difficult call and a call made in good faith. Of itself, it has had no consequences. The more important question is how and in what timescale we improve the system now.
We on these Benches applaud the appointment of Dame Lynne Owens to conduct a full review. Accidental releases and the systems for avoiding them are very important, not just of themselves but for the confidence of the public in our systems. The Statement says that Dame Lynne’s report will come at the end of February, three months from now. I have to say that we think that is a long time. Is there scope for an interim report? Within days of Mr Kebatu’s release, the MoJ took some urgent steps, set out in the Statement, to tighten up the system and introduce, for one measure, a more robust checklist. May we ask for a further action plan, pending Dame Lynne’s final report, from her and her team if possible?
We expect, as I think the Minister does, that much of the improvement required will involve the introduction of more robust digital procedures—initially, no doubt, alongside strengthened paper procedures. Will he give an undertaking that the implementation of those of Dame Lynne’s recommendations that the Government accept will be treated with the greatest urgency? Only in that way and with that urgency can the serious loss of public confidence in our prison security that flows from these accidental releases be recovered.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for the points they have made on this important issue. On Tuesday at 3.30 pm, the Deputy Prime Minister set out in the other place that we were aware of three releases in error from prison. We were also investigating a further case of a potential release in error on 3 November of a person who may have still been at large.
I can now tell your Lordships’ House that the potential case to which the Deputy Prime Minister referred was indeed a release in error. I can also confirm that this individual was swiftly returned to police custody on the same day and returned to prison the following morning. I thank Leicestershire Police for its diligent work.
Finally, the foreign national offender, who was one of the three the Deputy Prime Minister referred to, was today classified as a lawful release, following additional checks that took place. What I have just set out means that the current total of releases in error from prison stands at two, as of 9 am today. These are all operational matters and, as I am sure noble Lords appreciate, things can change quickly. The Deputy Prime Minister and I get regular updates on the situation.
Releases in error are symptomatic of a system stretched to its limits. Prisons are full, almost to breaking point, which makes them an even more challenging environment. I pay tribute to the prison staff working under incredibly difficult circumstances.
What we are talking about here is a paper-based system, with individual prisoners’ sentences worked out every time they arrive to a new prison. Prison staff must consider the type of offence committed and each individual piece of legislation it comes under. This process has become increasingly complex in recent years, owing to the previous Government’s early release programme and the scheme this Government were forced to put in place upon coming into office to prevent the collapse of our prisons. A 2021 review found more than 500 pages of sentence management guidance. Of course, prison staff go through full and proper training before they start their jobs, but the reality is that prisons suffered staffing cuts of around a quarter between 2010 and 2017. That is around 6,000 fewer people. The knock-on effect is that, today, over half of front-line prison staff have less than five years’ experience. That makes mistakes more likely.
The previous Government had 14 years to sort this problem out. The reason they did not is not because they did not try; it is because it is a complex and difficult task. I have taken on this challenge and what we are putting together is a sensible and achievable plan. I can tell noble Lords that, of the 57,000 or so routine prison releases in the year to March 2025, there were 262 releases in error. That is clearly too many. Typically, prisoners are flagged for release based on sentence length and statutory release points, usually at 40% or 50% of the sentence for standard determinate sentences and two-thirds for serious offences. Life and indeterminate sentences require Parole Board approval before release. Eligibility checks, identity verification, outstanding legal orders and exclusion criteria, such as sexual offences and terrorism, are all reviewed before release.
I accept that there has been uncertainty around the precise number of releases in error. This is down to the data challenges this Government inherited. It is why, on Tuesday, we published new data showing 91 releases in error from prisons from April to October. Further data on the breakdown of offences are official statistics that need to be combed through in detail before being put in the public domain. Publication was not due this week, but we recognised the public interest in being transparent about the overall number. I can tell noble Lords that further breakdowns will be published in the normal way through our regular statistics, and Dame Lynne Owens will be looking at data and transparency as part of her independent review. As the Lord, Lord Marks, inferred, it is important that we learn from her review.
As noble Lords will recall, following the release in error of Hadush Kebatu in October, the Deputy Prime Minister announced stronger release checks. There is now more senior accountability, including a new checklist to be completed by duty governors the night before a release. In the case of Brahim Kaddour-Cherif, the error leading to his release—a warrant for his remand being incorrectly forwarded by email from HMP Pentonville to HMP Wandsworth—took place before the new checks were put into place. Human error will, of course, always happen. It would be impossible to eradicate it completely, and no Government should pretend otherwise. I believe our staff turn up every day to do their best.
What we must do now is modernise the release process with digital systems that reduce the scope for error. Over the next six months, we will provide up to £10 million to deliver AI and technology-based solutions to support prison staff to detect mistakes and calculate sentences correctly and to ensure that they have accurate data available to them.
Public safety is, of course, this Government’s top priority. The Deputy Prime Minister has already given an unequivocal apology to all those who have faced fear, distress or worse as a result of the accidental release of prisoners, and I echo that apology. On those released in error who are still at large, victims eligible to receive services provided under the victim contact scheme will be notified by their victim liaison officer when the offender is apprehended and returned to prison custody.
Releases in error are the consequence of a system pushed beyond its limits. It is a legacy this Government are determined to fix, and we are already doing so. This Government have gripped this issue where others have failed to act.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, but on this occasion also to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for the bipartisan nature of his question focusing on this lack of digitisation, which I find completely flabbergasting in the context of such a massive prison estate when we live in such a digital world. This is not just about record-keeping; it is about sentence calculation as well in the context of an incredibly complex statute book. I am sometimes sceptical about artificial intelligence, but on this occasion I think it is an obvious fit for something that is essentially a complex mathematical equation that could be greatly assisted by AI. Can the Minister assure the House that that aspect of his answer will be prioritised, that the contract for the development of this technology will be firmly gripped in the context of procurement and that the sovereign capacity will be beefed up?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My noble friend is right that we have an opportunity to simplify and make more accurate decisions in the justice system. We have to grasp this, and we have to grasp it quickly. AI is one of the most important factors that we need to embrace. My noble friend is right that we need to ensure that we do the procurement process correctly and that we do not take so much time that we miss the opportunity. I have been fortunate to work with a number of colleagues within the Ministry of Justice who are AI experts. In fact, in meetings I have, people ask for the AI team on probably a far too regular basis thinking it is going to solve lots of problems. Essentially, when you have multiple bits of paperwork and staff in the offender management unit are literally dealing with boxes and boxes of paperwork, it is unfair to expect them to get it accurate 100% of the time. I would like to walk into an offender management unit and see computer screens rather than boxes of paperwork. One of the things that I have been interested in, coming from a business environment into government, is the opportunities across government for embracing AI—I think we will end up delivering much better public services as a result.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lord, we heard that, in the seven months April to October this year, there have been 91 mistaken releases, which is 13 a month. How many of those 91 had been convicted of sexual or domestic abuse offences and whose victims would have been unaware that they were now loose?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I will not be giving a running commentary on the numbers, but we will be publishing the breakdown of all that detail in the normal way in July next year. It is important to recognise that 91 released in error is too many. We need to learn from what Dame Lynne Owen’s review finds out and act upon it, but we also need to get going now. That is what we have done. We have had the first board meeting of the justice performance board. We have set up the urgent warrant query unit, which is going to be helpful because we recognise that is where a number of the issues occur. The digital rapid response unit has gone into Wandsworth and—this is where the AI element comes in—it has already recognised that there are four common points of failure that it thinks AI will significantly help, although it will not help all those issues. We have an awful lot to do, and it is a challenge I am looking forward to embracing.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I have a considerable sympathy for the Minister. I am certain that under previous Secretaries of State for Justice and Home Secretaries, including me, there have been frequent inadvertent releases of prisoners. My noble friend is right that the past 14 years and the cuts of thousands of prison officers cannot have helped this situation, so I wish him well. My question to him concerns the victims, because I am sure all noble Lords can imagine, perhaps even understand, the fear and distress that victims and their families suffer when they learn of such mistaken releases. Can the Minister assure us that everything has been done to inform victims and their families promptly and fully if an offender is mistakenly released? Will he say something about the measures that have been taken to ensure that that is the case?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question, especially referring to victims. Victims always have to come first. I appreciate what a difficult time it must have been for victims and their families knowing that prisoners who they thought were in prison were actually out in the community. Where a victim has a victim liaison officer and is part of the victim contact scheme, they will be engaged in that process. It is important to me that that happens. I refer to my noble friend’s initial comment around the fact that this has been a problem for some time. That is one of the reasons why in my speech I specifically said that I know that the previous Government were trying to improve this. Across government, politicians and civil servants have been trying to improve accuracy and systems. This is something that we need to embrace, but as part of the process, we need to understand that victims come first, and the damage this does to victims is significant.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, as has been said, prisoners have been released in error for decades. I know because I used to advise on sentence calculation in the 1990s in the Home Office legal advisers branch and I was the Prison Service legal adviser. It was difficult then; it is now fiendishly difficult because of all the changes to the statute book that have happened since then, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, knows well, because she was with me at the Home Office.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
I was indeed. The statute book is a total mess as far as trying to calculate when a release date applies for a particular prisoner. Prisoners are all in a different position. Some have additional days; some have served a different remand time. All these factors need to be taken into account. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, a digital answer has to be the way forward. As the noble Baroness said, it will obviously work here because you can punch in the details of the sentence to work out exactly when the release date is. It will have to be updated, of course, as additional days are added to the sentence and so on. We must go to a digital solution, but how long will it take for that to be up and running? There needs to be a procurement process. These things take ages, and we do not have ages. We have identified a crisis taking place. Is there any estimate of when this will be up and running and functioning to stop these releases?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The digital team that has gone into Wandsworth is confident that it can do some quick fixes. I do not have an exact timeline, but we have given it up to £10 million to do those quick fixes. The nature of digital technology is such that we will be able to roll that out across the prison estate very quickly. One relevant point some noble Lords were discussing with me in your Lordships’ House last night is the Sentencing Bill, which we hope will make things simpler. I also want to touch on the point the noble Lord mentioned about how complicated it is. It is unfair on our hard-working staff to expect them to get this right all the time, especially those who have just started. We need to support them not just with digital solutions but with a lot of training because, even though we are going to simplify things, it will still be a complex process. I hope that the Sentencing Bill will simplify things for everybody involved in the justice system.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I genuinely welcome the quick action by the Government and the measures that have been proposed—in particular, as just discussed, the use of AI. The Minister refers to the hard-working staff, but the truth is that although we have more and more prisoners, we have fewer and fewer prison officers. They are leaving at an alarming rate, so we need to address some of the staffing issues. The Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee and the Chief Inspector of Prisons have been highly critical of the recruitment procedure for prison officers, which is done via Zoom with no face-to-face interviews; of the in-service training of those officers; and, in particular, of the assessment of the in-service performance of those officers—often, no records are kept of any discussions with them. Does the Minister accept that all those issues relating to staff in our prisons also need to be addressed to ensure that we have a higher calibre of staff who are less likely to make mistakes, including mistaken releases?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that we are 100% dependent on the good will and ability of our staff. Our staff in the Prison and Probation Service have been heroic over the past few years, dealing with Covid, early releases and so on. We expect a lot of them and we need to improve their training. That is why we have the Enable project, which I worked on before I came into government. We also need to up our game on retention, because we do not want to lose experienced prison officers. One of the challenges I have set myself is that, before I was in government, I ran a company that was generally known as a good company to work for. I am determined to try to instil that sense of direction in the Prison and Probation Service.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his characteristic frankness in the way that he is responding to these questions, for his commitment to make sure that the Prison Service works better than it has hitherto, and in particular for his positive remarks about prison staff. My question is about the checklist, which I welcomed when we asked questions about this last week. I assume that this is currently a paper checklist. Since we are rightly putting a reasonable amount of faith in this checklist, could we fast-track ensuring that it is in the right place in terms of digitisation? Everything else needs doing but the checklist could potentially be a game-changer.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My noble friend is right that the checklist is important. It may sound like a basic process but it is vital. At the moment, it is a combination of paperwork and computers. It is about inputting data, but one of the problems is that there are lots of opportunities to input the wrong data. For example, a number of prisoners arrive to us with different aliases. How do we manage that? It is a process of simplifying everything, simplifying the checklist, digitising as much as we can, using AI and other technology wherever possible, but also listening to the staff on the front line who are doing this job. This should not be a change driven by head office; it needs to be after careful thought and discussion with those who do the job day in, day out.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, in my PNQ on Monday, I asked the Minister, for whom I have enormous respect, two questions. He was then reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, that he had not answered one of the two questions. Much of this discussion has related to moving away from a paper-driven system to something with more technology. The Minister answered the noble Lord, Lord Young, by saying that he would write to him and to me, giving details of the timing when officials were first notified of the accidental release. I suggest he moves away from the paper-driven solution he suggested at the time of writing to me by asking his officials to send me an email or by picking up a phone, because as yet I have not received any response.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for speaking to me after the debate a couple of days ago. He quite rightly asked me to phone him. I will phone him as soon as I have that correct information. I am very aware of the need—I get told this regularly by officials—to make sure that I get it 100% right.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a great deal of expertise demonstrated in the questions we have heard today, from the MoJ and from people dealing with offenders. I want to pass on my own experience as a sentencing magistrate. When I started 20 years ago as a sentencing magistrate, when I sent someone to jail I said that they would be released at the halfway stage. That was something I was unable to say as the complexity of the various sentences that were available grew. Instead, towards the end of my period as a magistrate, I said that they would be released when the governor said they could be released after the calculations had been made. Does my noble friend agree that it is a reasonable aspiration, with all this technology and trying to review the system, that at the point of sentencing, the sentencing judge or magistrate should be able to say what the release date is?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank my noble friend, and former room buddy, for that question. One conversation that we have a lot in the Ministry of Justice is the tie-up between the courts and prisons. I am hoping that the Sentencing Bill will make the whole process much simpler, because it is important not just for offenders to know when they are going to be released but for victims and their families. The clearer we can be, and the more quickly that information can get to magistrates, judges, offenders, victims and their legal teams, the better.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the Minister made comments earlier this week about Wetherby Young Offender Institution serving the community. I visited a number of years ago and was appalled to see that respect for prison officers was taken away from them as they were being asked to wear tracksuits, which did not distinguish them from the young offenders they were trying to hold to account. Does the Minister agree that when there have been issues such as that which harm the morale of prison officers, that needs to be addressed on an ongoing basis?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I have been to a number of young offender institutions over the years, and they are quite challenging—I would describe them even as harrowing places sometimes—but also places of hope. Sadly, a few of the foster children who I lived with when I was growing up ended up in young offender institutions and then came back to us; in fact, one of them still works in the Timpson business and is doing very well. It is important to understand what was said in the Rademaker review, which was a look into some of the behaviours and actions that happen in HMPPS. Some of them we are not proud of regarding the way that individual staff treat each other. We should have a culture of care because we are trying to rehabilitate people so that when they leave, they do not come back.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The Minister referred to the importance of having experienced prison officers, yet prison officer unions point out that 2,600 prison staff face deportation because the Home Office has raised the salary threshold to £41,700. Is the Minister talking to the Home Office about this situation and seeking a solution?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that these staff are doing fantastic work and we are lucky to have them, but it is also important that net migration comes down. We are supporting those colleagues and having ongoing conversations.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I am conscious that release in error is but one of many complex challenges that managing our prison estate throws up. In that context, does my noble friend the Minister have a plan to tackle the scourge of drones coming into our prisons to deliver drugs, phones and weapons, and in so doing making our prisons less safe? He should know that the UK military is actively developing and implementing counter-drone capabilities, and that recently it has been granted authority to bring down unauthorised drones, a number of which have been identified over sensitive military sites. If he is not already doing this, I suggest that he has a conversation with our noble friend Lord Coaker and that they form an alliance to find a way of dealing with this drone scourge using the capabilities that are being developed.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My noble friend is right to bring up drones. Not a day goes by in my office without that subject coming up. Yesterday I had a meeting with a number of governors of our high-security prisons, and drones are a real concern for the governors, the staff and actually a lot of prisoners too. The physical things that drones bring in are drugs, phones and weapons but what they actually bring in is violence because, whenever you have drugs in a prison, you end up with violence. We are taking a proactive approach. Some of the things we are doing are to do with national security so I cannot mention them, but the links we have with military colleagues are vital. As the technology changes so quickly, we need to make sure that we run very safe prisons. There are a number of things we are doing that are starting to make a difference, but this issue is very much on our list of concerns.
Economic and Taxation Policies: Jobs, Growth and Prosperity
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell
That this House takes note of the impact of the Government’s economic and taxation policies on jobs, growth and prosperity.
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to lead today’s debate on the impact of the Government’s economic and taxation policies on jobs, growth and prosperity.
I begin by noting an absent friend. I am saddened that the coming Budget will be the first in 35 years that will take place without the thoughtful and perceptive comments of the late Lord Desai. Like the Minister, I studied at the London School of Economics in the 1990s and was taught by Lord Desai. I am sure he would have spoken in this debate, and I know the whole House will greatly miss his contribution.
At the heart of today’s debate is the quest for economic growth. Today’s growth figures are not encouraging, suggesting that the economy shrank by 0.1% in September and GDP per capita is flatlining—or possibly falling, since the figures are calculated using population estimates from three years ago, in 2022. In 2000, when the Minister was working as a special adviser in the Treasury and I was a humble researcher working for the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, economic growth was 3%, taxation was 33% of GDP, public spending was in surplus and we were paying down the national debt. Earlier this year, I asked Sir Tony Blair what he ascribed that economic miracle to. He was clear that it was down to the economic foundations laid down in the 1980s and his decision not to tinker with the fiscal plans laid out by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham.
The story since 2007 has not been so rosy. Our average real GDP growth has been 1.3% per annum, with average population growth of 0.7% a year. That equates to a measly rise in GDP per capita each year of just 0.6%, meaning that living standards have stagnated for many, with millions of personal recessions where people have become worse off year by year. In contrast, over the same period, the average American has gone from being 10% richer than the average Brit in 2007 to now being 40% richer.
Is there hope around the corner? I fear there is not. Recent world economic league table projections of GDP per capita by the Centre for Economics and Business Research paint a stark picture of where the UK is headed. In 2030 we will be poorer per capita than Lithuania, in 2034 we will be worse off than Poland, and in 2043 we will be poorer than Turkey. That is the path we are on, which is why today’s debate is so important.
Fundamentally, we agree on all sides of the House on the need for economic growth and boosting living standards and prosperity. Kick-starting economic growth is one of this Government’s five missions. The Prime Minister put wealth creation at the heart of his manifesto, and the Chancellor says that economic growth is the Government’s number one mission. However, it is clear that the Government lack a comprehensive plan. I agreed with what a senior Labour figure said in a podcast recently when they suggested that the Chancellor needs to use the Budget to present
“a growth plan for the long term, turning public services round and making them better … It’s got to be a plan which sticks, which lasts, which doesn’t unravel with the markets or in Parliament or with the public in 48 hours”.
Those are the words of a previous colleague of the Minister, Labour’s former shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, speaking on his “Political Currency” podcast on 30 October. I agree with him, and I hope the Government address his challenge in the forthcoming Budget.
There is much I could say about a long-term plan for economic growth. Noble Lords interested in reading more about this might like to take a look at a new book I have written called Prosperity Through Growth, and I have placed a copy in the Library. The economic brains behind the book were my co-authors, Dr Arthur B Laffer and Doug McWilliams, and the geopolitical content came from my noble friend Lord Hintze, who sadly has a long-standing speaking engagement in Australia so has asked me to pass on his apologies.
For this debate, I will limit myself to three key elements of a growth plan where I believe there is mainstream agreement. These are abundant energy, abundant employment and abundant enterprise. I will take these in turn. Abundant energy is a prerequisite of economic growth, so we need the cost of energy to come down. The World Bank summarises the literature by saying:
“Affordable, accessible energy is at the heart of development, driving job creation, growth, and shared prosperity”.
Our energy is immensely expensive compared to our competitors. Wholesale energy costs in the UK are double costs in most European countries, and almost half of each bill is down to policy costs. The Government know that mainstream opinion is shifting on this issue. The Prime Minister acknowledged at the COP 30 summit that “consensus is gone” on climate change policy. Sir Tony Blair told us for Prosperity Through Growth that net zero should be delayed, as other countries are not following our lead. Even previous major advocates from outside politics seem to be responding to changed circumstances. Bill Gates remarked in October that for the “vast majority” of people, climate change
“will not be the only or even the biggest threat to their lives and welfare. The biggest problems are poverty and disease, just as they always have been”.
Other senior figures in the Labour movement have also expressed scepticism about pursuing net zero by 2050. The noble Lord, Lord Glasman, will be giving a lecture the week after next on “Why it’s good to be warm: energy as a common good”. Sharon Graham, general secretary of Unite, has suggested that the Energy Secretary has been “completely irresponsible” in his approach to energy security and jobs in the oil and gas sector. I agree with her, and believe the Prime Minister also agrees, as he tried to move Ed Miliband in September’s reshuffle. I wish him better luck next time, because it is essential for economic growth that we focus on lower energy bills rather than net zero alone.
A second essential element for accelerated growth is abundant employment. The importance of jobs and work is something I speak about regularly in your Lordships’ House. I continue to commend the Government for their ambition to bring the employment rate up from 75% to 80%. Since they have been elected, they have succeeded in increasing the employment rate by 0.3%, putting them on track to hit their target in 2048. At the same time, unemployment is up from 4.2% to 5%. The number of universal credit claimants who have no requirement to work is up from 2.9 million in October 2024 to 4 million in October 2025, a 39% rise in the space of a year. The number of job vacancies is down from 870,000 to 723,000. The number of new jobs which need to be created by the private sector to achieve 80% employment is now 1.4 million rather than 1.2 million. Crucially, the Employment Rights Bill reduces job creation, which is why the Treasury is rightly trying to water it down.
A Tony Blair Institute report last week said that day-one rights risk
“eroding business confidence to hire”.
The Resolution Foundation argues that day-one rights offer
“little obvious gain to workers”
and have
“the potential to inhibit hiring”.
Even the Prime Minister’s chief economic adviser, the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, expressed significant concerns about the Bill, saying,
“if you’ve got a lot of people on benefits who you are hoping to get into the labour market … then you need to give employers some flexibility to take risks on those people”.
It is time to make employing people more flexible and affordable for businesses and bring about abundant employment. This is not solely about economic growth, it is about giving people their first step on the employment ladder; no jobs, no ladders of opportunity.
The final factor we need for economic growth is abundant enterprise, and taxation is a crucial driver of that. In 1998, Gordon Brown introduced taper relief for capital gains tax. This scheme incentivised long-term investment and had no lifetime limit on holding assets, with a long-term CGT rate of just 10%. Today the picture is very different. From next April, the rate will be 18% up to £1 million and 24% beyond that. We need to acknowledge the impact that these and other changes to incentives have on our economy. As we see the rise of remote working, the mobility of people must be a key consideration when making any tax changes. This is already happening, with 16,500 high net worth individuals, many of them entrepreneurs and investors, expected to leave the UK in this year alone. It includes former Members of your Lordships’ House: the Minister’s former colleague in Downing Street, Lord Carter of Barnes, recently left the UK to go to Dubai.
On another podcast recently, a senior Labour figure suggested that the Chancellor undid the damage done by the changes to the non-dom rules and moved to an Italian-style system for taxing wealthy individuals.
“What they should think about doing is a kind of flat tax deal, because that’s what the Italians have done. They’re basically saying, ‘Look, you come here, you pay €300,000 a year and you keep the rest of it because we want you to be here’. I think Labour could get away with that, saying half a million and that’s all you pay”.
I do not often agree with what I hear on “The Rest is Politics”, but on this issue I think Alastair Campbell is spot on. We need to change the incentives to attract more entrepreneurs to the UK rather than drive them away. We need to ensure that young entrepreneurs set up their businesses here rather than go overseas.
Many other people within the Labour Party also agree with this sentiment. Sir Tony Blair acknowledged when speaking to us for our book that taxes are immensely high by historic standards and even suggested that a 40% top rate of income tax was probably too high in today’s highly mobile world. The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, expressed it perfectly in a recent report for Onward:
“A small group of wealthy individuals pay a significant proportion of the tax we rely upon. I do not agree with some colleagues that we should wave goodbye to the wealthy; we should be doing whatever we can to welcome them back, and new investors, entrepreneurs, and high spenders to our shores”.
He is right. If we are to have abundant enterprise, a key element of any serious growth plan, the Treasury needs to start attracting people back to the UK.
Last week we heard the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, say that she is willing to take “tough but necessary” choices and do the right thing. This is welcome. But raising income tax, chasing limited liability partnerships away from the UK and letting the welfare bill continue to escalate are not the right tough choices. Instead, the Chancellor should look at the policy options I have highlighted today, which are supported by mainstream opinion, including respected voices in the Labour Party.
In his closing statement, will the Minister respond to Ed Balls and outline what the Government’s long-term economic plan is? On energy, does the Minister agree with Bill Gates, Unite and the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, that we should focus more on jobs and poverty and less on net zero by 2050? On employment, does the Minister agree with the Resolution Foundation, the Tony Blair Institute and the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, that the Employment Rights Bill will make it less likely that businesses take on riskier hires? On enterprise, does the Minister agree with Alastair Campbell, Sir Tony Blair and the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn—and Lord Carter of Barnes, for that matter—that that we need to do more to attract entrepreneurs and investors to come to the UK, rather than chase them away?
This month’s Budget will have a critical impact on our economic standing in 20 years’ time. Will we maintain our position, will we perhaps even improve it, or will we fall behind Turkey? Britain’s decline is not inevitable. The path to prosperity is open to us. It is time to take it. It is time to make Britain rich again. I beg to move.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, for having secured this debate. As noble Lords will know, the noble Lord is one of the most brilliant political campaigners of his generation, evidenced in the speech we have just heard and, most notably, in his leadership of Vote Leave, the successful Brexit campaign. Hence, according to estimates by the Institute for Fiscal Studies—confirmed recently by the United States’s National Bureau for Economic Research—he is, at least in part, personally responsible for a permanent reduction in UK GDP of between 4% and 6% per annum, with estimated tax revenue being lower by more than £50 billion per year. This makes his negative assessment of the Government’s economic policies seem rather small beer. The common conclusion of serious economic studies is that Brexit, unsurprisingly, has damaged trade. Even more seriously, it is having a long-term negative impact on investment in the UK. The American study I cited estimated that there was a reduction in investment of between 12% and 18%. That is where the long-term damage is being done. Investment is the foundation of productivity growth, embedding innovation in the production of goods and services.
In recent years, Britain has had a dreadful record, with the share of business investment in GDP consistently lower, year after year, than in other G7 economies. If we do not invest more in productive capacity, R&D and skills, the growth prospects for the UK are very poor indeed. We must look to investment for the enduring impact of the Government’s economic policies. At the core of these policies are Rachel Reeves’s fiscal rules, notably the commitment to balance the current budget: day-to-day spending must be funded by revenues. However, this does not apply to investment. Borrowing is allowed for investment: indeed, the rule is designed to protect long-term projects from short-term exigencies. Hence, in the 2024 Budget, the Chancellor funded public investment growth of 2.5% per year, year on year, to 2029, replacing the Conservative plan to cut investment growth to a miserable 1.7% per annum: a difference of £20 billion-worth of investment per year.
Government investment in transport, housing, research and development and energy is the much-needed long-term commitment to the British economy, protected by the fiscal rules. Given that the fiscal rules are central to government policy, it is odd that they were not mentioned by the noble Lord in his introduction. It is surely incumbent on the party opposite, particularly the Conservative Front Bench, to state clearly whether they support the fiscal rules or not. The rules protect long-term public investment, but what is their impact on business investment? The OBR estimates that a 1% increase in public investment leads to an up-to- 1% increase in business investment as well. The Bank of England noted recently that public investment in R&D and infrastructure tends to have a stronger, longer-lasting, “crowd-in” effect than short-term spending. Growing public investment causes growing private investment. The fiscal rules are not just supporting public investment, they are supporting business investment too. Surely that is an impact of the Government’s fiscal policy that all sides of this House should celebrate.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, I would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, for giving us a chance to discuss this important question, and it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell.
Economic commentary has been dominated by the fiscal hole—said to be £30 billion—facing the Chancellor. To stick to her fiscal rules, Rachel Reeves will have to raise taxes, or cut spending, or do both, but she has promised not to raise taxes and has promised to increase public spending. She is, therefore, in a bind. However, this fiscal straitjacket depends on two assumptions: first, that there will be little or no economic growth in the next four years; and secondly, that the British economy is already at or near full employment. These are reasonable forecasts based on recent trends. However, since 2008, average economic growth has been about 1.5% a year, a full percentage point lower than before, and much of that has been down to the increase in population. Living standards for the majority have hardly risen and productivity has been flat, and the OBR expects this to continue. The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, emphasised the need for abundant employment, but I would suggest a different path from the one he has outlined.
With headline unemployment at 1.8 million, we are tolerably close to what we think of as full employment, though it has gone up a little to 5% recently. Is this a true measure, though, of spare capacity? Apart from the headline count, we have four million, or 10% of, working-age people claiming either disability or incapacity benefits, plus 1 million NEETs: that is, those between 16 and 24 who are not in education or in employment. In addition, 7.7 million are employed part-time. Then there are those who have left the labour market altogether. Some of these categories overlap, but if one were to add up the full-time unemployed, part-time workers who want to work more, those on disability benefits who could do some work, and the discouraged, one could get a better measure of spare capacity than the headline count alone. Estimates suggest the figure would be about 10% to 15% of the labour force. This, if true, would justify greater fiscal loosening than the OBR considers prudent. That is the first point.
How do we get the underemployed back into work? It is not simply a question of increasing demand—the old Keynesian formula. One has to rebuild supply. To give one example, the Government have unveiled a youth job guarantee scheme covering ages 18 to 21. Every young person who has been on universal credit for 18 months without earning or learning will be offered a guaranteed work placement, with the aim of helping them to transition into full employment. I welcome that initiative; it is very important. I like to think that it was influenced by a paper entitled Job Creation is the New Game in Town, which I co-authored with Gordon Brown five years ago. We wrote:
“Regional and local government job and training schemes”
for young people
“are essential to the task of reallocating work and skills into the labour market”.
We went quite a lot further, but I do not have the time to go into that. The basic idea was that there should be a public sector job guarantee, with a buffer stock of state-supported jobs and training schemes that expands and contracts with the business cycle. A job guarantee of this kind could take up a large part of the slack in the labour market. By raising the rate of economic growth, it would help reduce the deficit, and the guaranteed training and apprenticeship part of the scheme would directly address the productivity problem. So I urge the Government to fight the bond vigilantes and the tax cutters with a positive programme of economic renewal.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register, and in particular to my chairmanship of Direct Special Metals, a company whose recent experience I shall refer to in my brief contribution. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and I join others in thanking my noble friend Lord Elliott for securing this debate, and also for the work of the Jobs Foundation over which he presides.
Much of the debate—in fact all of it, so far—has understandably been taken up with macroeconomic policy, which is vitally important. I want to talk about the micro: about ways in which apparently small improvements can have a dramatic effect on the economy and on people’s lives. I will talk in particular about the recent experience of Direct Special Metals when we wanted to offer people jobs.
Direct Special Metals is a recycling company based in Sheffield. We were expanding and we wanted to recruit, so we went to the local jobcentre. The story of what happened is recounted by Ian Crewe, the company’s co-founder, in Ladders of Opportunity, a recent publication by the Jobs Foundation:
“First of all, they got the volume of people wrong … Then, they got the job description wrong”.
But DSM persisted, and eventually we were offered 25 people. Ten of them could not hold a conversation. Of the 15 who were offered an interview, only five turned up. Of the five who turned up, four were not a fit at all, so we ended up employing just one person from the jobcentre. Ian Crewe was stunned. He said they were
“local jobs … Well paid, and we do pay well. Solid hours. Not flexy hours. None of that. You thought they’d be queuing at the door. But we got just the one person. I just couldn’t believe it”.
Ian did not, as so many would have done, give up. He contacted Sheffield City Council, which got involved. Soon, he was dealing with a side of the jobcentre that had previously been invisible. Two people from the jobcentre visited the company. Ian told them what the company wanted, and after that conversation things improved dramatically. The quality of the candidates got better and soon we were getting most of our staff from the jobcentre. But how many people would have persisted as Ian did? How many employers would have got in touch with the council? Indeed, why was it necessary for Ian to get in touch with the council at all?
The moral of this little story is that jobcentres need to be proactive. They need to make more of an effort to understand the needs of local employers to match the vacancies with the people on their books. If they do, we might see just a little more progress in reducing the number of jobless people in our country—as we have heard this week, that number is now higher than at any time since the pandemic—and make a contribution to the growth and prosperity that we all want so very much.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a great privilege and pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howard. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell, for bringing this Motion before the House and allowing us time to debate the various issues that have become clearer since the general election last July. The Government have told us that growth is their number one priority. However, the policies and taxes that have been introduced, or are about to be introduced, have made this aspiration harder and harder to achieve.
Many in this debate have spoken to the macroeconomic indicators and prospects, but I want to use the short time available to focus on the plight of rural dwellers. We rural dwellers are known for our laid-back ways, but being sanguine about the current economic prospects is not where we are at present. Sir Keir Starmer told farmers before the election in July that he would not raise taxes, then the Budget of last year revealed the biggest change for farming families for over half a century. The cap on agricultural property relief and business property relief for inheritance tax set at £1 million will have huge consequences for rural communities in terms of investment, succession planning and the continuity of family-owned enterprises. Indeed, the Taxing Futures research conducted by CBI Economics shows that these changes will, instead of growing the economy, put 208,500 jobs at risk, result in a GVA reduction of £14.8 billion and produce a net fiscal loss to the Government of £1.9 billion.
I received an email at the beginning of this week from someone who farms in the north-west of Northern Ireland. This woman, who lives with her family and her farmer husband, was in total despair. She told me that the proposed tax
“will have a devastating impact for each generation as it will stifle any future innovation and investment on farms. The reality for many farms is they will have to sell off fields each generation due to low profits and returns on farms as there will not be the money to pay it. This will result in ever smaller farms”—
farms in Northern Ireland are already small, as we know. She went on:
“There is no point in saying there will be 10 years or pay off the IHT tax—as with low returns from farming there will be nothing left for farm improvements/or future development”.
She continued to say that this proposed tax
“will ultimately change rural farms in NI—as many farms may become unviable and unsustainable—consequently many young families may leave and go to Canada, Australia. As it is at present—we have many part time farmers but their vital off farm income sustains their farms and multi-generations of their family—in addition to supporting many other off-farm employment throughout NI—all contribute to the NI economy”.
She also made a very important point about succession. I know that sometimes we have been told that this will help with farm succession. But she told me she believed that older farming parents are becoming increasingly vulnerable and are often pressurised by their younger family members to sign over their land to their sons and daughters. This can result in elder abuse, something I am very concerned about.
The reality is that the policy change on inheritance tax poses a direct threat to the continuity of family farming across the UK, and in particular in Northern Ireland. The Ulster Farmers Union has said that the absence of a credible evidence base and meaningful consultation or any impact assessment has led this Government, unfortunately, to implement this tax increase—which is effectively what it is—and has meant that many farm families are in a state of uncertainty and panic. I urge the Government to think again.
Lord Saatchi (Con)
My Lords, if you want a bigger slice of cake, the best thing to do is bake a bigger cake, then everyone gets a bigger slice. That, as my noble friend Lord Elliott knows very well, is how Mrs Thatcher tried to give a whole generation of young people, including me, the hope of a better life. Her famous bigger cake was economic growth—the only way you could have confidence in the country’s future and your own. Instead, we now have the exact opposite: a general feeling of disillusionment.
Recognising the national mood, the Prime Minister recently asked his officials for an uplifting plan to stimulate economic growth. It has yet to see the light of day. The reason for postponement is said to be “lack of content”. I went to the fount of economic wisdom, the London School of Economics, and very bravely asked a roomful of economics professors whether any of them had a brilliant idea for how to get economic growth in Britain. Their response? They laughed; it would take a complete change in the entire culture of the society—inconceivable, unimaginable, impossible.
Well, whisper it, but maybe the professors are wrong about what is possible and what is not, because there is one proven way to change the culture of a society; it is called the law. Smoking bans, seat belts, abortion, capital punishment, slavery, homosexuality, contraception—I can go on. We all remember, with warm approval, Lord Denning, Britain’s most senior judge, who said:
“Be you never so high, the law is above you”.
We all like that idea; it means a lot to us.
I will take a moment to describe, just for the sake of the argument, what it would be like if one was to file a lawsuit against the Government—the people v the UK Government. That has a good ring to it, does it not? The Government would be the defendant. We would of course be very humble about such a lawsuit and concentrate only on tax, because current tax law is an ungainly camel, designed by a committee that has been in standing session for 200 years.
This is how such an indictment of the UK Government might look. There are five counts here. Count one is conspiracy to enslave United Kingdom citizens and make them unnecessarily dependent on the state. Count two is conspiracy to force United Kingdom nationals to claim benefits to pay higher taxes. Count three is solicitation of multiple tax revenues by stealth. Count four is the attempt to obstruct, interfere with, impair, impede and defeat the right of United Kingdom nationals to independence. Count five is conspiracy to provide material support and resources to mesmerise and anaesthetise United Kingdom citizens.
How would such a case end? I suggest, just for the sake of the story, that on the morning of the trial the Attorney-General of the United Kingdom would come out on to the top of the steps of the Royal Courts of Justice and say something like this: “Without any admission of liability or wrongdoing on the Government’s part, today the British Government have withdrawn their objection to this case. We have reached an out-of-court settlement with the claimant. This will avoid the expenditure of court time and taxpayer money in prolonged litigation”.
In front of the astonished crowd, the Attorney-General would then continue: “The Government agree to bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity to ensure the following: millions of British people living below the official poverty line no longer pay income tax; a massive saving in the administrative cost of collecting tax or distributing benefits; a huge change in the attitude of millions of British citizens who thought it was pointless to go out to work because benefits produce more after-tax income than working; a dramatic fall in immigration as the army of young unemployed British people is motivated to get a job; total clarity about tax; the share of people’s income tax used only to pay interest on Government debt, now 30%, is to published every year; and the effect of a frozen tax threshold will be subject to full disclosure”. Finally, the Attorney-General would say, “Economics will become a compulsory subject in the national curriculum”.
Is such dramatic action necessary? Surely we can keep muddling through, can we not? Well, maybe not, because maybe this time democracy is not working. Yes, we can and do change the Government every few years from one political party to another. That is true, but nothing much seems to change, does it? It is same old story over and again. The King himself recently showed firm, decisive leadership—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
Can I ask the noble Lord to bring things to a close?
Lord Saatchi (Con)
Perhaps we need something similar to end our economic problem—someone to take away the stale pudding now on our plate and bring us a lovely, big, freshly baked cake.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Saatchi, who has considerable wisdom in these affairs. The Government’s multiple dilemmas over their economic and budgetary policies are well known; they have been widely aired in the press, and many media experts and economists have declared them to be completely insoluble. One way, they say, is blocked politically, and other ways are blocked by the simple facts of arithmetic and life. There are limits to the amount of tax you can squeeze out of an economy, especially one that is not growing much, and if you borrow more, bondholders will want to be paid more interest. Incidentally, that never happened in the distant past. More recently, monetary policy and fiscal policy have become inextricably intertwined, so there appears no way out.
However, looking at Germany, for example, which has been in roughly the same situation as us, I wonder whether this whole messy scene may not be based on some false assumptions. Germany faces the same sorts of dilemmas as we do, having inevitably planned too much spending at the Covid time and when the price of gas suddenly erupted four years ago, as well as on welfare, meeting the immigration wave and now defence. So what did Germany do? It arranged to borrow another €1 trillion—that is about £900 billion—to pay for the endless and extra spending demands upon the country. Germany is doing this without blowing up its fiscal rules, which are just as tight as ours—in fact, unlike ours, in Germany they are constitutionally embedded. How on earth is Germany doing what is causing us so much difficulty?
The answer is: by building on a reputation of past iron fiscal prudence and the lessons of the 20th century, which, of course, destroyed Germany; by having a reasonably clear forward strategy and national direction on how it is going to use the extra money, which is mostly for defence and infrastructure, although there is an argument going on in Berlin about exactly how it is to be allocated; by having a political system of machinery capable of driving Germany’s plans through, all with the right mix of private enterprise resources within a government framework of determination and initiatives to meet public needs and purposes with both public and private resources; and by methods that do not swell what we used to call the PSBR, which is now called the public sector net cash requirement.
Here at home, we know that considerably greater funds could be raised through smart new ways of public and private co-operation in building and financing capital projects in areas such as health and the NHS, military projects, new development aid through World Bank bonds, and building new nuclear power stations, which can be done without a huge burden on government finances. All these would deliver what is needed in a modern society. I have heard of NHS chiefs who are seeking permission to raise billions from combining with private finance but who are being blocked by Treasury rules. It is the old story.
All in all, a picture builds up of a potentially greatly reduced burden on the public purse, borrowing, interest rates and taxpayers. That is not ideology; it is a matter of proven experience all over the world, even in the giant autocracies. Here, the intention of fiscal balance is okay, but the root trouble is the absence of smart thinking about how to combine public needs with private co-operation and resources.
Indeed, the Government have relied on their own propaganda by blaming the consequences of everything—Covid, Russia’s illegal assault on Ukraine, the lot—on their predecessors. That is political fun, but it is based on a completely false proposition and the assumption that everything would come right when Labour was elected, which, of course, has not happened. When Labour swept in, we were promised stability, but since then we have had endless instability.
Now the Prime Minister has spoken to the Health Secretary, so I am sure that everything is going to be all right, and the bond market will no doubt be very pleased to hear the news. All we can do is wish for a more honest stance before a hurricane of wishful thinking and wrong-headed policy brings our non-growth economy to a complete halt.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I remind noble Lords of the advisory speaking limit of four minutes.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, we all agree that faster economic growth is the priority, but only Labour has a plan to rebuild our productive base and make sure that the benefits of growth are shared fairly. Just today, we have heard about a magnificent win for the Rolls-Royce workforce with the decision to deliver Britain’s first small nuclear reactor at Wylfa in north Wales. That will create thousands of local jobs and cut energy bills, which, in turn, will attract more investment and more jobs.
Let us think about the support for JLR when a cyberattack cut car production by over a quarter. This Government provided loan guarantees of £1.5 billion that were critical to confidence in supply chains. Had car production not been hit, economic growth would have been doubled. But even so, it was our Government’s readiness to step up and back industry, workers and jobs that saved the day.
The party opposite tries to draw a false trade-off between workers’ rights and jobs. It opposes Labour’s plan for day-one rights to make work pay and to call time on exploitative zero-hours contracts. But under the last Government, insecurity at work soared and living standards slumped to a historic low. That sucked demand out of local economies and was bad for growth. Let us not forget the damage caused by Conservative austerity policies. It is far too soon to try to gloss over the findings of the Covid public inquiry. Our services were left scrambling to meet the challenge, relying on the dedication of shamefully underpaid and overstretched staff.
As recently as 5 June, in a speech to the RSA, shadow Chancellor Mel Stride admitted that the previous Government had failed. He said:
“Many have lost trust in us and many are right to be angry”.
The previous Government’s trickle-down approach to the economy simply did not work for the vast majority of people in this country. Getting into work—getting a job—was no longer a guarantee of freedom from poverty. Many saw their pay packets shrink, while profiteers racked up rents and prices. According to the New Economics Foundation, those on the lowest incomes have faced an effective tax rate of 44% on their income and wealth increases—double that of the richest.
Finally, our economy faces an increasingly volatile world, with Brexit, Covid, conflict, climate change and a global financial sector that can be impulsive, destructive and dedicated to self-interest at the expense of society. As the economist Larry Elliott noted:
“During the global financial crisis of 2008 and the Covid pandemic of 2020, the markets were only bailed out thanks to the willingness of governments to print money and run big budget deficits. There was no talk of the need for the bond market vigilantes to impose financial discipline back then”.
We must defend Labour’s programme to invest and rebuild for the people of this country against future risk. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can comment on whether, if necessary, consideration should be given to the case for targeted and transparent capital controls to prevent short-term capital movements blowing the economy off course. The Conservative prescription is to shrink the state, slash employment and welfare protection, and let the markets rip. Labour’s remedy must be to rebuild and renew the public realm, raise living standards and make the markets our servant, not our master.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, but she will not be surprised to find that I agreed with very little of what she said—indeed, I was horrified by some of it.
Four minutes is not long enough to cover the very many ways in which the Government are damaging our economy, so I will concentrate on just one area: how their tax policies impact business investment in the UK. This morning’s dismal GDP figures, which are the result of this Government’s policies, underscore the growth problem. If the UK is going to escape from that, we need businesses—both existing ones and new investors from abroad—to invest.
Tax really matters when it comes to investment decision-making. This year’s tax competitiveness index ranked the UK 32nd out of 38 countries, with a corporate element only marginally better, at number 28. These are terrible figures. The key drivers of this are the headline rate of corporation tax, the complexity of the tax system and low levels of tax allowances.
First, I turn to the headline rate. We used to have a rate of 19%, and then it was raised to 25%. The current Government have said that they will keep it at 25%, which is a mistake. When CFOs run the numbers on investment decisions, a key determinant of the outcome is corporation tax, because it is such a big drag on net investment returns. Low corporate tax rates both encourage investment and increase tax yields. Ireland, with its 12.5% corporate tax rate, is the living proof of this.
Secondly, on complexity, we notoriously have the longest tax code in the world, at over 22,000 pages. Size is not synonymous with complexity, but it is a pretty good proxy. Businesses want to be able to understand the tax rules that affect them and to be able to interact efficiently with the tax authorities. We fail on both counts.
Thirdly, although we have a competitive system of tax allowances for plant and machinery, we are not competitive for structures and buildings, which are important for some kinds of business investment. Research by the Tax Foundation suggests a significant GDP boost if tax expensing were widened.
In last year’s budget, the Chancellor made the terrible decision to raise employers’ national insurance on top of the minimum wage hike. This has already led to higher prices and lower employment, and it is now a big negative factor in investment decisions that create jobs. Similarly, business rates are now weighing heavily on business investment that needs a large physical footprint. On top of all this, as my noble friend Lord Elliott explained, the non-dom tax regime actively deters entrepreneurs from making the UK their investment base. Wealthy businesspeople are already relocating; soon they will not come at all.
The Government did not create all these problems, but they certainly made them a lot worse. A decent rate of growth is a pipe dream if the Government continue with policies that actively deter business investment.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, this debate got off to a fine start with an excellent speech from my noble friend. It is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Noakes, and I agree with what she said about the complexity of the tax system.
There has been a consensus that we should stick to the fiscal rules. One-third of government debt is held overseas, and more and more of it is held by hedge funds, which owe no loyalty to this country. So we should stick to the fiscal rules, which means that the Government have either to increase taxes or to cut expenditure. This time, it is absolutely clear that they have made their choice: they will increase taxes, which will make the mantra of last year—“Growth, growth, growth”—even more difficult to achieve. Looking ahead, the point I want to make is that they should revisit that decision and look again at expenditure, particularly the ballooning welfare bill, with 1 million more people than a year ago claiming the main out-of-work benefit, without any requirement to look for a job—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky.
Working-age sickness rates in advanced economies have fallen since the pandemic, but here they continue to rise and are forecast to be 4.1 million by the end of this Parliament. What is the view of Ministers—not mine but Ministers’—on this? Last week, Pat McFadden said that the growing costs of welfare are unsustainable, with a city “the size of Leicester” being added to the benefit population each year. The Chancellor has warned Labour MPs that there was “nothing progressive” about a benefit system that left one in eight young people neither in education nor employment. The Prime Minister has said that the current welfare system is “unsustainable, indefensible and unfair”. Our Economic Affairs Committee, which reported on this earlier this year,
“concluded that people without work have incentives to claim health-related benefits; and once in receipt of them they have neither the incentive nor support to … accept a job – work doesn’t pay”.
But the Government refuse to act on their own pronouncements. The terms of reference of the Timms review, which came out last week, say that the review would not
“generate proposals for further savings”.
But why will they not act? They will not act because 123 Labour MPs tabled an amendment to the welfare Bill, which had proposed a modest £5 billion reduction in welfare costs, and that has simply stopped the Government in their tracks.
The only point I want to make today is that there is an overwhelming majority in the other place for welfare reform. My party shares the view of the Prime Minister: the current system is unsustainable, indefensible and unfair. So, rather than continue to stunt growth with proposals for a high welfare bill funded by high taxation, the Government should reach across to find a consensus on welfare reform, as they are planning to do on social care, but hopefully on a faster timescale. At a time when public opinion is polarising at the extremes of the political spectrum, should not the mainstream parties come together to find a solution on welfare reform?
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Elliott on securing it—and it is genuinely a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Young, with whose speech I wholeheartedly agreed.
I start by congratulating the Minister on his personal contribution to productivity and the economy. For those noble Lords who do not know, as well as being the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Minister for Growth, he has also recently become Labour’s campaign co-ordinator. In such a way, he has taken another job that presumably comes with no pay, so he has increased the productivity of the economy at least a little bit—so I congratulate him. I also congratulate him on his courage because, given that the Chancellor seems to be leaning into the unpopularity of her forthcoming Budget, he must be contemplating the consequences for his other job next year as he tries to raise Labour’s fortunes in Wales, Scotland and across England. I wish him the very best of luck.
I wish to set out for noble Lords the list of excuses that we have heard from the Minister and the Chancellor ahead of the Budget for why she is going to break her manifesto commitments, or so it sounds. She said that it was because the OBR had changed its view about productivity—not actual productivity, but its view, coming into line with, I think, most other forecasters. She has blamed Brexit, Donald Trump and the pandemic. We can look at what the public think and whether those excuses are going to wash—and I think probably not. In a recent poll taken by Ipsos MORI and published in the Sunday Times, only 10% of the public think that the productivity of British workers is the problem with the poor state of the economy. Only 29% think that it is Donald Trump’s fault. The outright winner, 59%, think that it is the fault of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, so they have their work cut out for them in trying to land those arguments.
With regard to the key economic statistics, several noble Lords have already mentioned today’s growth figures. We see growth slowing, and many economic forecasts see it getting slower still. At the time of the general election, inflation was at 2%, bang on the Bank of England’s target; it is now 3.8%, almost double. That has a real impact on family finances. Unemployment has risen from 4.4% at the time of the election to 5%, which is the highest since lockdown. That reminds us that every Labour Government has left office with unemployment higher than when they came in. That is a fact that I remember, when I was in the other place, Labour MPs hated being reminded of, and I suspect that Labour Peers do not like being reminded of it, but it none the less remains true.
Why might that be? I think that it is because of taxes. At the previous Budget, Labour came up with the fiction—I say that it was a fiction because it was not stood up; the OBR refused to stand it up in interviews or in documents—of a £22 billion black hole. The Chancellor raised taxes by £40 billion but increased spending by £70 billion, so it is not really surprising that it is a problem. She then said that she was not going to raise taxes or borrowing for the rest of the Parliament. She was interviewed by Trevor Phillips and confirmed that for the rest of the Parliament she would keep income tax rates, national insurance rates and VAT rates unchanged. When he challenged her on this, she said that the responsibility for the economy was “on us”.
I say to the Chancellor and to the Minister in closing that if he thinks that raising income tax in the Budget—particularly to raise welfare benefits, as the Chancellor indicated in her interview earlier this week—is going to be a winning formula, he will be sorely disappointed. It will be at the cost of the livelihoods and growth opportunities of everyone in the United Kingdom.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell, for securing and introducing this debate, even if its timing in peak Budget purdah means that its scope is necessarily either backward-looking or about broad principles. In responding to the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, on Monday, my noble friend the Minister displayed the mastery of Stonewall Jackson or Geoffrey Boycott in avoiding breaching that purdah. I suspect that he may need to draw on those skills again this afternoon.
In looking back briefly, I do not propose to get into a battle of statistics. Sixteen months into the Labour Government’s period of office, of course we would all like to see stronger growth already coming through, but 16 months is but a twinkling of an eye in relation to the long-term investment that will drive the achievement of those growth targets, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell set out.
I was fortunate to attend, in a non-parliamentary capacity, last month’s regional investment summit in Birmingham, attended by, among others, my noble friend the Minister and superbly hosted by the West Midlands mayor and his team at the combined authority. The summit was a powerful showcase for the underlying talent and potential in the UK, the confidence of companies’ investors, domestic and international—despite the impact of Brexit, referred to by my noble friend Lord Eatwell—and the Government’s consistent and vital work in creating the environment for this to deliver growth, jobs and prosperity. This was the first investment summit to be held outside London, and it vividly demonstrated the depth and breadth of opportunities throughout the country. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that future investment summits will follow that important precedent?
My right honourable friend the Chancellor and the whole of the Government have set out to balance fiscal discipline, a necessary condition for achieving all other objectives, growth and fairness. In considering the challenge of restoring financial discipline, it is impossible to ignore the legacy of the last Government. I will not explain the significance of the number of £22 billion. The Minister is now more expert on the subject of black holes than the Astronomer Royal. I will, however, again quote the evidence given to the Economic Affairs Committee by Richard Hughes, chair of the OBR, about the last Government’s submission to the OBR:
“Some people have referred to that as a work of fiction. That is probably generous, given that someone has bothered to write a work of fiction, whereas the”
Conservative
“Government have not even bothered to write down their departmental spending plans”.
It is because this Government, in contrast, have brought rigour and responsibility to budget planning that commentators have had so much data about which to speculate. I do not envy my right honourable friend in having to strike the balance between fiscal discipline and growth measures, though I have great confidence in her ability to do so.
I will end with a few words about fairness. Janan Ganesh of the FT, the biographer of the architect of austerity, George Osborne, wrote in 2015:
“A country’s tax code is not just a mesh of rules and rates—it is a secular bible of moral signals”.
There is clear evidence that people’s attitude to their own tax payments is significantly influenced by their perception of fairness. When the Chancellor announces budget measures in two weeks’ time, if there are any adjustments to taxes on higher earners or asset owners, they should not be seen as vindictive or anti-entrepreneur or anti-business. They will represent a considered judgment to rebuild public trust in the fairness of the tax system and, indeed, in our democratic society.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Elliott on securing this debate, his excellent book and all the work he has been doing on jobs. I also congratulate a number of noble Lords who have spoken, especially my noble friend Lady Noakes for her remarks—which I entirely agree with—and my noble friends Lord Young and Lord Harper, who I will return to in a moment.
When thinking about this debate, I happened to read again the lecture that the then shadow Chancellor, now Chancellor, gave at the Mais lecture last year, in which she promised a “fundamental course correction” for the British economy. As the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, has just said, it is now 379 days since the Chancellor gave her first Budget. So how is this fundamental course correction going? There is, as I am sure we have all read and seen, a growing sense of instability fuelled by speculation, a lack of confidence in the future, and more people worrying about keeping their jobs—and that is just among members of the Cabinet. Out in the country, it is far worse. The Chancellor herself has said that the UK economy feels “stuck”, and today’s growth figures confirm that.
So why are we in this sorry predicament? My noble friends Lord Elliott and Lady Noakes made a number of points as to why this might be, and I will not repeat them in the time I have. At the top of my list is a point that my noble friend Lord Young made: the Chancellor has lost control of spending. Rather than take the right, but tough, decisions to slow down the spiralling cost of welfare—not even to stop its rise—the Chancellor backed down when Labour MPs said no. She did so despite the fact that, as my noble friend Lord Young said, the Prime Minister says the current system is unsustainable. Spending overall has overshot forecasts by over 4% since the spring of 2024. Adding to the pain is the impact of the misguided £25 billion tax rise on employers—referred to by my noble friend Lady Noakes—that is stoking unemployment and making inflation stickier.
The reason the Chancellor may have to raise income tax for the first time in 50 years—50 years—breaking Labour’s promises, is her “fundamental course correction”. But, as my noble friend Lord Harper just said, the Government refuse to accept any blame or any fault for the situation we are in. As he said, they are blaming everyone but themselves. Everyone knows this is nonsense. Last autumn, the Economic Affairs Committee, of which I was then chair, published a report warning that the Government must rebuild the nation’s fiscal buffer, given the global volatility and risks we face. The Chancellor’s reply assured the committee:
“The Budget took the necessary difficult decisions to put the public finances on a sustainable path—setting realistic plans”—
realistic plans—
“for public spending while raising revenue—to create the conditions for growth”.
She clearly thought she had done enough to rebuild our fiscal defences. She said she had built a fiscal buffer, but, in reality, it has turned out to be a wafer.
A tragedy is therefore unfolding in front of us. With an enormous majority, this Government have the ability to take tough decisions to reform our public services and cut welfare, but they have ducked those tough decisions. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor mouth the right sentiments about growth, stability and security, but their actions undermine those aspirations. What do we see 379 days after their cataclysmic Budget? The fundamental course correction the Chancellor has given us is taking us deeper into the mire. There is insecurity, instability and stagnation—the reverse of everything they promised. The fear is that it will require things to get even worse for the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the noble Lord to do what they promised last year and give us the fundamental course correction this country really badly needs.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Bridges, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, on securing this important debate. I would like to start with a discussion about measuring productivity, which is, at the end of the day, crucial to growth, and which, despite the rose-tinted view of the country’s growth held by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, is at a desperate level, mainly because of government decisions which have turned a fictitious £22 billion black hole into a hard £40 billion black hole.
However, I am going to be as helpful as I possibly can to the Government, which may come as a surprise to the Minister—we will see. Specifically, I have great concerns about the measurement of productivity used by the ONS. The ONS measures labour productivity primarily as output per unit of labour, which is usually measured by gross value added per hour worked. In this country, certainly in the private sector, we have a long-hours culture, unlike, say, France, so our output per hour is bound to be lower. Unusually, in the UK, we include public sector productivity in our calculations. This is extremely difficult to measure, and of course it is extremely hard to detect any improvement. Heroic assumptions have to be made about the output, which are probably wrong. In the private sector, the gross value added is the key determinator, and that, believe it or not, is determined by monthly or even annual business surveys. So let us bear in mind that the UK economy is now 80% services, not trade, and a large proportion of that is in digital and intangible services, which are one of the fastest-growing parts of the UK private sector and are extremely difficult to measure. Surveys are very unreliable. Hard stats, such as the data on unemployment—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Harper, has reminded us, is rocketing under Labour—are much more reliable but harder to find.
I will not say much more on this issue other than to remind the Minister that I have long argued that I do not think our productivity measures are reliable—I have argued it under the previous Governments—and we may be more productive than the ONS figures indicate. I hope he will confirm that the Cabinet Office is working to improve them.
I also want to comment on the terrible damage to the economy being inflicted by the current Government in a particular area. I have many concerns—national insurance and so on—but particularly the dire effect of the Employment Rights Bill, which is going to hinder both productivity and growth. The suggestion that the Government make that, as a result of the ERB, we will have happier workers who will be more productive is frankly worthy of derision, and the refusal to exempt SMEs is going to do great damage.
The Minister will assume my remarks are politically driven, so for the benefit of him and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, I shall quote from an unsolicited letter I received from a Mr Jerry Dunham. He says:
“We are a third-generation, family-run manufacturer based in Norfolk since 1968. Our factory in Neatishead employs many local people, most of whom live within our community. The Bill in its current form would impose unsustainable costs and compliance measures that SMEs cannot absorb. It would reduce flexibility, make day-to-day operations harder, and force us to reconsider employment numbers and future job creation. For businesses like ours, which operate in the education sector, which is of course very seasonal, these proposals will make it harder to manage staffing and maintain employment during quieter periods … These changes will discourage hiring, particularly for young people and those without prior experience”.
That is from the coalface. I attended a GREAT GB seminar organised by the Cabinet Office this morning about inward investment into the UK. People representing American investors came to me and said that American investors are very nervous about investing in the UK because of the potential effects of the ERB, so I urge the Minister to assure Mr Dunham and all SME owners that this Bill will be put on hold.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, the forthcoming Budget due on 26 November is perhaps the most anticipated that I can remember. We have had a summer of speculation, an autumn of uncertainty, and now, as winter approaches, we know what is coming—tax rises—and we know this is not an inevitability; it is a political choice. It is the choice of a Chancellor who has deliberately decided not to tackle the soaring welfare bill and in doing so has failed to confront the deeper question of how we restore the value of work in our society. Once again, rather than make the structural reforms our economy so desperately needs, this Government reach for the taxpayer’s wallet, but we cannot tax our way to prosperity. We cannot grow an economy by burdening those who work, create and invest, while allowing the welfare budget to expand unchecked. The cost of economic activity through ill health is now estimated at £212 billion a year, and around 235,000 people aged 25 and under are claiming long-term sickness benefits, many citing mental health. Some 5,000 people a day are moving on to sickness benefits, and this represents not only a fiscal challenge but a moral one—the loss of potential, of dignity, of contribution. If we are serious about jobs, growth and prosperity, this is where our focus must lie.
A welfare system that traps people rather than supports them is not compassionate; it is corrosive. Yet, too often, welfare policy has become morally untouchable. Just because a policy is founded on noble intentions, compassion, equity and justice does not mean it should be immune from scrutiny. In fact, the more morally appealing a policy appears, the more resistant it becomes to critique, creating a dangerous blind spot.
The welfare bill is now one of the greatest barriers to economic renewal, not simply because of its size but because of what it represents: a failure to match compassion with accountability and support with expectation. Until we confront that reality, we will continue to balance the books not through reform but through ever higher taxes on those already doing their bit. The Government should be clear why value for money considerations and reducing inefficiency are not explicit objectives.
My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham has already referred to the Timms review’s terms of reference, but it is important PIP is fair and fit for the future, and something that we as a country can afford. It is a deliberate exclusion that raises serious questions about priorities. The Government should also confirm that improving outcomes and securing better value for the taxpayer remain central to the design and delivery of disability benefits, and commit to publishing an implementation plan with clear, measurable efficiency gains.
This debate matters. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell on securing it. His book is a good one and I can recommend it—in fact, because I am feeling a little bit generous, I am very happy to buy a copy for the noble Lord, Lord Livermore. I am sure he will enjoy every page.
Can the Minister explain why value for money considerations and reducing inefficiency are not explicit objectives, and will the Government confirm that improving outcomes and securing better value for the taxpayer remain central to the design and administration of disability benefits, and commit to publish an implementation plan with measurable efficiency gains?
I spent 34 years helping unemployed people with every problem in the book get back to work. It can be done, but it needs to be against a backdrop of the country’s good economic performance. I leave you with this: you cannot make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor, and you cannot help the wage-earner by punishing the wage-payer.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the Government have spoken about growth as their priority from day one and, to be fair, they are doing a few good things. They have carried on the Help to Grow: Management programme, which was started by the previous Government. Some 10,000 businesses have already gone through the programme; 12,000 are enrolled on it and it is delivered by 60 business schools around the country, and I am proud to be patron of the Small Business Charter, which I took over from my late friend, Lord David Young. It is a 12-week mini-MBA—just the right thing to be doing.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, spoke about small modular nuclear reactors. When I was president of the CBI in 2020-22, I was like a stuck record saying, “Let’s build these, let’s build these”. Finally, now, five years later, we are starting to build them. In entrepreneurship, it is problem, solution, action—but quickly. I am glad the Government are finally doing that.
On the priority of research and development and innovation, we spend 1.7% of GDP; America spends over 3%. We need to increase expenditure on R&D and innovation. I am chair of the International Chamber of Commerce UK; the ICC is the largest business organisation in the world, with 45 million members. We have promoted digital trade, which I am glad to see the Government have taken as part of their industrial strategy. The UK now stands at a crossroads. Outdated paper-based systems are stifling growth. The UK can be a leader; our trade represents £1 trillion of the UK economy. Does the Minister agree that implementing digital trade would see benefits such as £25 billion in trade growth, £224 billion in efficiency savings, 35% efficiency gains for SMEs, £22 billion in SME working capital unlocked, trade transaction times cut from two months to one hour, an 80% reduction in trade transaction costs, shipping costs reduced by 18% and workforce productivity increased by 60%? I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, for initiating this debate.
The Government talk about growth, yet so many of the measures they have implemented are anything but helping growth. They are hampering growth, whether this is through the rise in employers’ NI, inheritance tax on farmers and family businesses, VAT on private schools and removing business rates exemptions for private schools, or VAT reclaim for tourists, which was taken away by the previous Government. Should the Government not bring back that relief? Then we would have more tourists spending money on goods as well as on staying here and on restaurants.
Due to the non-dom regime change, over 10,000 people already have left, including many people I know. They pay £8 billion of taxes, employ people, invest, and conduct philanthropy in this country. We will lose all of that, because money walks. Now there is talk of the £30 billion hole to be filled and of more taxes going up in the Budget—which, sadly, is on my birthday.
We have 1 million NEETs in this country—young people who do not work—and we have 9 million people of working age who do not work. We need to get these people back to work.
I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group for International Students. Will the Minister confirm the talk that a levy on international students is going to be introduced in the Budget and that the two-year post-graduation work visa is going to be reduced to 18 months? These international students bring in £42 billion to the economy. We treat them as immigrants. Should they not be taken out of the net migration figures?
There is a fear of immigration. Bad immigration is bad for this country, but good immigration is great for this country. Without the 16% of ethnic minorities, this country would not be the sixth-largest economy in the world.
I was part of the PM’s delegation to India last month—it was fantastic. I spoke in the Finance Minister of India’s conference, the annual Kautilya Economic Conclave, the title of which was “Seeking Prosperity in Turbulent Times”. India is growing at 6.5% a year, with a target of 8%. In our latest figures, released today, we have grown at 0.1%—a flatlining economy. We have a debt to GDP of 100%; high debt servicing costs; the highest tax burden in over 70 years; high government expenditure; unemployment of 5%; inflation almost double the target at 3.8%; and defence expenditure that needs to go up to 3%. We need a plan—we need to be bold.
I conclude with this. In June, I visited Argentina and met President Milei and his whole team. He has a very clear plan of bringing down expenditure and inflation. Every single Minister we met sang from the same hymn sheet. This Government need a plan; they need to be bold. Then we can get growth.
Lord Petitgas (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Elliott for securing this timely debate. I also admire the speed of speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria.
The economic path of our country is alarming. We are living beyond our means, taxing more and getting less, and stifling any incentive to work or invest. I will set out five compounding and depressing facts.
First, growth is weak, while the tax burden is the highest in peacetime. When taxes rise and growth stalls, the message to investors is clear: something is structurally wrong.
Secondly, core spending—welfare, pensions and health, mainly—consumes more than half of all tax revenue. It is growing way more quickly than the economy. This must be brought under control; otherwise, taxes will just keep on rising, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, rightly said.
Thirdly, labour participation has fallen. Around one in four working-age adults is not working and not seeking work. No modern economy can seriously prosper if participation falls while welfare spending rises. Compassion matters but work must pay, and those who can work, must work.
Fourthly, public debt is nearly 100% of GDP. That is two-thirds more than Germany’s. That interest alone consumes around 10% of tax revenues. Global markets have noticed: Britain now pays the highest borrowing costs in the G7, a third higher than France or Italy and two-thirds higher than Germany. Our higher cost of capital bears down on everything in this nation.
Fifthly, confidence, as we discussed, matters greatly. It is the engine of an economy and society, and it is at an all-time low. Business sentiment has been negative for most of the year. Surveys also show that many young Britons are considering working abroad. That is not just wealth leaving, it is talent. The next generation wants to go.
So there you have it. We are stuck. We are caught in the loop of higher spending, which leads to higher taxes, which lead to weaker incentives, which lead to lower growth, higher debt, higher borrowing costs and pressure for further tax rises.
We cannot break this loop by taxing a shrinking base more heavily; nor can we escape it in a single Budget. Britain has all it takes for a dynamic economy, and yet we behave like a high-intervention, high-friction and inefficient state, so enterprise slows and talent goes elsewhere. Indeed, we need a course correction, one that rewards people who work and invest here.
I suggest three ideas, and there are many others. First, like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I think that we need to start a path toward lowering corporation tax. Even a modest step would show that Britain means business and wants investment, not capital flight.
Secondly, we should reward both enterprise and reinvestment in the UK. We should reduce capital gains for entrepreneurs—it was a measure that Gordon Brown had put in—and allow deferral when those gains are reinvested into UK companies. If you build here, you should benefit here. There, we would not need the capital controls that this mooted 20% exit tax would suggest, which would be a disaster for this country.
Thirdly, we should make work pay and expect work. Support must remain, but the system should encourage contribution, not dependency.
In summary, we have three crucial levers to make it very simple: the debt, the spending and the tax. It is correct to keep a lid on the debt. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, was eloquent on the tug of war between spending and tax, both of which are at an all-time high. If we want growth, we must reduce costs—this is like a company—free our productive forces and reward work and enterprise. Taxes cannot be the residual variable.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I too join in the congratulations to my noble friend Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell on obtaining this debate just 13 days before the Budget. Incidentally, I expect, as we all can, this to be a highly political Budget. I rather fear that common sense will be sacrificed for short-term political gain. We can all expect, from what has been a well-trailed Budget, that the Chancellor’s red meat to the left—not necessarily enough for the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady—will be to change the two-child benefit cap, which has the distinction of being both unaffordable and undesirable.
We will hear over the next few days and, no doubt, from the Minister today about the black hole—one of his favourite subjects. Of course, there will be no mention of the fact that within a matter of months, the Government have doubled that black hole. We will hear from the Chancellor the old, hackneyed phrase that those with the broadest shoulders must bear the brunt of the pain.
I do not know about anyone else, but my shoulders are pretty sloping at this moment. Let us just examine others whose shoulders have more right to slope. I am grateful to Fraser Nelson, who, with a freedom of information request, discovered that the top 0.1% of earners pay more in income tax than the entire bottom 50% put together. The top 4,000 taxpayers, at 0.01%, pay more than the entire bottom quarter, that is 8 million people, of taxpayers. The top 100 taxpayers pay almost as much money as is generated from North Sea oil revenues. As my noble friend Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell said, more ultrarich people are set to leave the United Kingdom than any other developed country. Those are not his words; they come from a study recently undertaken by UBS.
It was Denis Healey who said—to slightly misquote him—that he wanted to tax the rich until the pips squeak. Unfortunately, that squeaking is now an ever-increasingly distant noise, coming from Milan, Dubai, Lisbon and other places to which our wealth creators have already relocated. This may give a frisson of pleasure to the left, but it is the economics of the madhouse.
Like the Chancellor, I am no economist, but how can it make sense to drive away the wealth creators while rewarding the wealth consumers? It is a one-way ticket to an economic crisis. The introduction of an exit tax would achieve the twin, amazing achievements of not relocating people back to the country and, equally, others not coming for the first time to this country if they feel in some way that they cannot leave with the money they create here. When she has succeeded in doing all this, she will have to come after middle England—the doctors, the nurses and so forth—to fit and fill her fiscal hole.
I spent a good part of my ministerial career talking up the United Kingdom around the world and trying to attract inward investment, and it pains me to be so negative. But, like my noble friend Lord Petitgas, I think this is a matter of confidence and I would like to hear from the Government how we can instil some confidence in overseas investors to bring them here. ONS data shows that our jobless rate increased to 5% against a projection of 4.9%. Wage growth has slowed. The unemployment payroll has fallen by 180,000 since the Chancellor announced higher taxes on employers in last year’s Budget.
In conclusion, I understand the Government’s failure to tackle the welfare issue from their ideological point of view and from their political constraints, given where they are in the other place. But I think they need to rediscover moral fibre and a moral backbone to reform the welfare state, as it is not in the interests of those who are on it and trapped in it nor of those who have to pay for it.
Baroness Fall (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Swire. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Elliott on securing the debate today.
We meet at an unsettling moment between the Chancellor’s furious pitch rolling of last week and the Budget itself, which looms somewhat ominously. We must all “do our bit”, she said last week, and she is not wrong to call the nation together in a common endeavour. Were it truly aimed to deliver growth and create jobs, she would certainly have my support, but her record so far has suggested otherwise.
The fundamental challenge is that we seek growth at home against rising debt and welfare dependency, as we navigate an uncertain global outlook. In practice, this means that we have to deal with the complexity of an often-changing global trade climate, with its tariffs, export controls and import controls. Interventionist industrial strategies are the name of the game and the only certainty in geoeconomics is uncertainty.
So the question for the Chancellor is this: what is our response to these economic and social challenges? So far, we have heard little strategic coherence and nothing that looks, to me, like a growth plan. Right from the start, we saw the Government settling pay disputes without any conditions to drive productivity and reform. Then, instead of confidence-building measures for business to create new jobs, we saw hikes to NICs and an extensive programme of workers’ rights to be rolled out from day one—making it very expensive to hire, impossible to reassess and then difficult to fire. The stats released this week speak for themselves: fewer jobs, fewer hires and more unemployment. It is one of the worst graduate job markets for a generation. How is this helping working people?
In this age of economic nationalism, a key strategic question for the Chancellor should be what our competitive advantage is and how we are thinking about nurturing and protecting it. We are not a nation rich in raw materials; we are a nation of entrepreneurs and inventors. In other words, we live by our wits, not by our wealth. Just look at our record on start-ups: London ranks second-best place on start-ups tied with New York, yet we are seemingly not able to scale up. We incubate brilliant businesses only to have them picked off by foreign investors.
The solution is not one simple fix but a set of policies and cultural changes that require political will, whether nurturing our first-class universities, commercialising their research or backing risk. Backing a tech winner would be a game-changer. We can use public money, but at a critical moment. Backing talent must mean global talent, and it certainly does not mean implementing a raft of policies designed to show entrepreneurs the door.
I turn briefly to welfare in echoing the remarks of my noble friends Lord Bridges, Lady Stedman-Scott and Lord Petitgas. The rise of the cost of our welfare bill is alarming, but not half as alarming as the tally of wasted lives. Let us remember what welfare is for: it is there to support those who cannot support themselves and encourage those who can into work. Welfare is also about fairness—to those who need support and to the taxpayers who pay for it. Designing a system that encourages people, especially the young, to a life on benefits with no checks or redress is a tragedy for each person. It is a national disaster that we simply cannot afford. As Conservatives, we must support welfare reform at every opportunity, even if it means voting with the Government.
Taken together, the burdens on business, the policies which discourage entrepreneurs, the lack of strategic thinking for growth and the inability to tackle welfare mean we face the Labour solution to our fiscal woes, which is more tax. I cannot see where the growth plan is in this. I urge that we return to the simple but important principle of living within our means, not because we have the mind of an accountant but because we understand that the happiness and safety of our nation come from economic security.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, we must thank the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell, for introducing this debate. I welcome the opportunity to have a debate on these important issues; my main question is on what has been missing from it, which is any reference to 14 years of Conservative government.
The economy is heavily path dependent. The economy we have now is the result of that 14 years of Conservative government. My Government have done much that is good in the 16 months that they have been in power, but it is wrong to suggest that there is some magic solution that can overcome the problems that were created, starting with the ill-judged move to austerity, for which the Liberal Democrats should accept their share of the blame. I could run through the whole litany, ending with the last Conservative Chancellor’s ill-judged decision to make the unfunded cut in national insurance contributions, leading to the black hole that I am sure my noble friend the Minister will mention in his reply.
Various issues have been raised that are worth addressing during this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Swire, made a particular point of how much tax was paid by the highly paid. There is a very simple reason why highly paid people pay so much tax: it is because they are so rich. The level of economic inequality in our society is and remains substantial. It is absolutely right that those with the broadest shoulders—whether that includes the noble Lord or not, I do not know—should pay their fair share, and that means they pay considerably more.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, is not in his place, but I was interested in the issue he raised of the bond vigilantes, saying they should be ignored. I agree with that. In truth, the restriction on what our economy can do is the economy’s productive capacity—not the attitude of the bond vigilantes, as he termed them.
Reference has been made a number of times to the so-called welfare burden. I suggest that everyone reads the recent column by Chris Giles in the Financial Times, in which he stated that there was no need to panic and the costs of welfare are not spiralling; in fact, they have been remarkably consistent over time. Many of the statistics that people quote about increasing numbers in one particular type of benefit are explained by the fact that other forms of benefits are reducing. The overall welfare spend—you can read the article from Chris Giles, not from me—remains constant, and it is actually less than it was when David Cameron was Prime Minister. This idea that we are facing some existential crisis because of the burden of welfare is nonsense. I invite my noble friend’s reply.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Elliott for securing this very timely debate today. For inspiration as to what to say, I referred to the TaxPayers’ Alliance, a highly respected body founded by my noble friend. I agree wholeheartedly with the view expressed by John O’Connell, the chief executive, who said:
“It’s still not too late for the chancellor to abandon plans to increase taxes and instead focus her fiscal policy on bringing down the spiralling cost of government”.
The Institute of Director’s chief economist, Anna Leach, has accurately stated:
“Business leaders are worn out from the past year’s rollercoaster of uncertainty and tax increases”.
Data provided by the IoD suggests that the Employment Rights Bill could lead to the loss of 326,000 jobs, which would mean an increase in welfare payments of £521 million, 108,000 years of lost output and an £8.3 billion hit to the economy. The British Retail Consortium has supported the view of the Resolution Foundation that the Government’s continuing persistence in granting day-one rights will inhibit hiring, and is rightly concerned that guaranteed hours will make it harder for retailers to offer local, flexible and part-time jobs.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to spend more on defence, although the target of 3% during the next Parliament is too little, too late. If we were to increase defence spending to 3%, by 2029-30 we would be spending some £90 billion on defence, and it is deeply depressing that OBR forecasts now suggest that our annual debt bill will be 45% higher than that, at £130 billion, in that fiscal year.
The previous Government were not successful in cutting the size of the state and abolishing unnecessary quangos, but the new Government have made the position worse. I urge the Government to stop trying to blame the economic downturn on Brexit and instead belatedly to start to take more of the potential upside from us taking back control over our trade policy and regulatory regime. The chief executive of Eisai, the Japanese pharmaceutical manufacturer, whom I have known for 40 years, has told me that he was not happy at having to duplicate his licences, be supervised by both the MHRA and the EMA, and increase capital investment in Europe and the UK following Brexit, but that if we can now reduce the emphasis that we place on the precautionary principle, adopt a less cumbersome regulatory regime based on common-law principles and revert to behaving more like the rest of the anglosphere, then this country will secure and retain its place as the best country in the world for a life sciences company such as his to research and develop, trial, manufacture and distribute new treatments. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for whom I have the highest respect, could at least acknowledge the upside of Brexit.
Our incredibly high energy costs are an existential threat to our remaining industrial base. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will persuade the Secretary of State for Energy Security that it is essential to remove renewable subsidies from electricity bills now, make plans urgently to bring forward and commercialise more small nuclear technologies, and provide funding to GB Nuclear on the same basis as to GB Energy? Can he also confirm that he will seriously consider a belated attempt to retain some non-doms, such as the sensible proposal in The Prosperity Package by the Adam Smith Institute, which has been endorsed by his noble friend Lord Mendelsohn? So many of those who have been creating wealth and jobs have left or are actively considering leaving the country. They are leaving in droves, as this country is becoming an increasingly unattractive place for them to live and invest in.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Trenchard’s excellent speech. My reported understanding is that there is effectively nobody in the Cabinet who has emerged out of the private business sector. One sector that feels this strongly is small business. For many years, I have been deputy chairman of the Small Business Bureau, and I happily declare my interest. Surveys by the British Chambers of Commerce have indicated that 44% of UK SMEs correctly expected to be negatively impacted by combined tax and wage changes. As has become obvious, the hospitality, retail and social care sectors face especially high cost increases.
For the purposes of this debate, I asked for and got extensive feedback from SMEs. Nearly a third of responding small businesses have had to pull back operations due to funding shortages. One in 10 cannot access finance at all, with high borrowing costs squeezing growth and confidence. Family businesses struggle with inheritance tax changes and some now have staff who decline to work full-time so that they can top up with universal credit. Between June and August 2025, UK businesses shed jobs at the fastest pace in four years, and this continues remorselessly. I say to the Minister, especially as many of your Lordships will know this to be true, that the SME sector—the seed corn of future growth—is in trouble in every corner of the country.
This Government have a specific role to play. After nearly 10 years as the government-appointed director of the Horserace Betting Levy Board—I declare my interest—my role is drawing to an end. It has just 16 employees and distributes about £100 million for racing, prize money, research, and welfare. During these 10 years, I have seen an immense increase in the demand from government for more and more detailed information. As it is defined as public money flowing from betting, this is in principle entirely justifiable, but in practice, in my personal view, it can be wholly disproportionate. Some months ago, I went to see the Comptroller and Auditor-General of the National Audit Office. We had a frank and productive conversation. He has now written to some government departments advocating greater oversight proportionality. Recently, the Government announced the next stage of their regulation action plan. The objectives are clear, but the arms of government need to apply control over excessive control by Whitehall. I hope the Minister can give clear and active assurances about this.
There is one European country which has long experienced fast growth, and not by massive borrowing or a welfare state that reduces the need to work. That country is Poland. In a spirit of free enterprise, it has low corporate taxation, a clear and simplified tax code, tax relief for investing in research and development, and special focused economic zones—policies which are producing real growth and prosperity for working people, much of it derived from a thriving and prosperous SME sector, which is so regrettably absent here.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the incoming director-general of the Institute of Economic Affairs. My proposition today is that we are living through a great refusal when what we need, as this morning’s growth figures show, is a great reversal. In Dante’s “Divine Comedy”, the shade of Pope Celestine V stands on the threshold of hell, judged for his great refusal: his rejection of the burden of the office of Pope. This country stands in a similarly precarious position, because this current Government—indeed, successive Governments—have refused to face up to their burdens and their duties: the difficult but necessary actions to get the economy back on the right track. They have refused to use the regulatory freedom that came with Brexit to deregulate and get markets going again, and now we are paying the price for all this.
We know what brings prosperity to a country: low taxation, property rights, no confiscation of wealth, rewarding of effort, welfare that supports the needy but only the needy, and well-functioning markets with minimum regulation. Sadly, since the 2008 crash, the direction of travel has been in quite the opposite direction. Changing this will not be easy. Indeed, I fear that we are instead seeing something that is very common in human nature: when confronted with something you do not want to change, you find intellectual justifications for why it does not need to change.
A new conventional wisdom has therefore emerged: the belief that those fundamental nostrums that I have just set out are somehow outdated and that the modern way to run the economy is different. Its believers, who are heavily represented in the current Government and in the public sector economic establishment—but not only there—think that high tax and spending are not in themselves bad; that growth can come from more public sector so-called investment, financed by tax or borrowing and a state-run industrial policy; and that these things never squeeze out private sector activity in any way. They think that distributional questions are the most important ones, and that dynamism in an economy is a bad thing because it increases inequality. They think that prices and markets do not have a signalling function but are essentially arbitrary and can be safely manipulated for wider social goals, and much more of the same sort of thing.
Of course. this is how the economy has actually been run—or, rather, run into the ground—for most of this century. That is why GDP per head has gone up by a miserable 0.5% a year over most of this period. It is why taxes are up eight percentage points from the early years of the Blair Government, now at 37% of GDP. It is why spending has gone up 12 to 13 percentage points, now at 45% of GDP—and no doubt later this month all those figures are going to be a couple of percentage points higher still.
We have reached the end of the road for this economic programme. We do not need more of it. What we now need is a great reversal, the renunciation of big-state economics, the undoing and the unwinding of most economic policy measures that have been taken this century: labour market controls, price controls, wage setting by government and judicial fiat, the disastrous net-zero policy, the pensions triple lock, heedless welfare spending and, of course, tax. We need a 10-year programme to get tax, spending and regulation safely back down to those early Blair-era numbers. If we do not do that, we will face another great refusal: the refusal of the markets to finance us and the refusal of our people to stay in the country and be taxed to deliver them.
There is no point in doing things that are popular but do not solve the country’s problems. I would like to hear from the Government that they understand that, and that they need to face up to this as a country and change our ways soon.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell on securing this important debate, on his penetrating criticism of the Government’s economic policy, echoed by so many of the speeches of my noble friends, and, not least, on having a positive alternative to put forward in this debate—namely, his book Prosperity Through Growth, which I am looking forward to reading. I gather that it promises 24 policies that would raise growth by 7% above current forecasts within five years and are fully costed.
I shall make three points in responding to him. First, my noble friend is right to argue that our economic culture since the age of Gordon Brown has been so fixated on wealth distribution as to forget the primacy of wealth creation, as I put it in my own rather more modest publication for Policy Exchange, The Right Way. Small and medium-sized firms are the forgotten heroes of the British economy—a point just made in his speech by my noble friend Lord Risby—but I am afraid I suspect there will be nothing much for them in the Budget.
Secondly, tax cuts are the easy bit. The heart of it, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, referred to a moment ago in his speech, is public spending control. The medium-term financial strategy of the 1980s, the foundation of British economic recovery in the Thatcher era, was built on reducing borrowing. It is to the credit of my noble friend that his book apparently—as I say, I am looking forward to reading it—proposes some economies.
Finally, pamphlets like mine, books like my noble friend’s, OBR forecasts and Treasury Red Books are all important and have their place, but they must operate amid all the roughness and unpredictability of the real world, where there are known unknowns, unknown unknowns and known knowns, and it is to one of these that I want to turn in closing.
Our urban areas are at the risk of balkanising. Our streets are seeing open support for terrorist groups. Palestinian flags and St George’s crosses are becoming territorial markers. Jews have been murdered simply for being Jews. Mosques as well as synagogues are targeted for violence. The driver of this unrest has been Islamist extremism and the reaction is white nationalism, and in between is the mass of the population, of all religions and none. Countering this extremism requires a cross-government programme, run from Downing Street, that runs from monitoring out-of-school settings to providing more prison places, through prosecuting incitement in mosques and curbing violent protests—in other words, taking the action that successive Governments have failed to for probably over 25 years. This challenge cannot be met by public money alone, but it will cost public money if we are to meet it. That money is going to have to come from somewhere, and, if I hear the voices of my noble friends correctly, at least some of it should come from welfare reform.
There is no such animal as economics without politics; indeed, it is politics that shapes economics. If the political challenge of the coming decade is strengthening our internal security, as I fear it is shaping up to be, the economic challenge of the coming decade will be strengthening our security. I urge the Minister and the Government to rise to it.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, we recently celebrated the centenary of the birth of Margaret Thatcher. I think we all realise that we could do—as many people say today—with another Margaret Thatcher to deal with the mess confronting us. We certainly need her ability to centre on the economic problems of the country and follow that up with a single-minded determination that is all too often lacking in the present Government.
My good friends, the noble Lords, Lord Goodman and Lord Frost, have just emphasised the centrality in her thinking of controlling public spending. They may not realise it, but during the Labour Government period when she became the leader of the Conservative Party, public spending became 47% of GDP, the highest proportion in post-war economic history. The result, as noble Lords may remember, was a trip to the IMF to bail out the then Labour Government. Margaret Thatcher then became Prime Minister of this country and in 11 years brought down that 47% to 35% in 1988-89. As a consequence, we had a cumulative 21% growth over five years—the best five years of post-war economic growth. Today, public spending is 44% of GDP and it is certainly a central task to bring that down rather than mask the problem by raising taxation to 44% or thereabouts.
Recently, we have all been instructed, quite rightly, to read my noble friend Lord Elliott’s book and also read the recent pamphlet from Policy Exchange, which lists at least 10 of the things we need to do, including, in addition and importantly, welfare reform. The noble Lord opposite quoted Chris Giles in the Financial Times, but could I recommend to him a much more thorough analysis by Sir Charlie Mayfield, the former head of John Lewis, of the real, fundamental difficulties and dangers of having welfare reform of the kind we have at the moment?
So will the Labour Government do something of the kind we need on public spending? No, because it is not in their DNA. It is asking them to do the opposite of what they came into politics to do, which was to put up public spending. They are the party of the public sector, for the public sector, by the public sector. As the noble Lord, Lord Risby, pointed out, no Member of the Cabinet has extensive private sector experience. It is a tragedy of our country at the moment that we have a Government who are peculiarly unable to tackle the real problems. It will therefore fall to a Conservative Government to do that: to bring down public spending with proper control and release the animal spirits of the private sector. I hope we will be able to do that in reasonable time and, when we do it, we will do it with the determination and practical skill that Margaret Thatcher showed all those years ago.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell, for securing this debate. In an often-told story, Albert Einstein set an exam paper for his graduate class. One of his colleagues noticed that the questions were the same as on the previous year’s exam paper. He asked how the great man could set the same exam again. Einstein smiled and said:
“But the answers have changed”.
This parable captures the problem of the UK economy. For the last 20 to 30 years, we have faced the problem of low economic growth, investment and productivity, rising poverty, and crumbling infrastructure. But Governments provide the same old answers: privatisation, outsourcing, unchecked profiteering, real-wage and spending cuts, regressive taxation—and the ideology that direct state investment in new industries and infrastructure must be neutered. Inevitably, the economy struggles. We now have a rentier economy, where the state guarantees profits for water, energy, care homes, private healthcare, internet companies, prison services and much more.
Despite low rates of inflation, interest and corporation tax, and generous incentives, investment in productive assets remains disappointing. In the age of deindustrial- isation, the UK has been at the bottom of the G7 league for investment in 24 out of 30 years to 2022. It is ranked 28th for business investment out of 31 OECD countries. It is currently investing 18.2% of GDP in productive assets, compared with 26% for France and 25% for Germany. The OECD average is 23%. China spends 40.4% and India spends 30.5%. One lesson is that economies flourish with direct state investment in infrastructure and new industries; this also benefits the private sector.
The City of London never had an appetite for long-term risks. The stock market functions as a cash-extraction machine. In 2024, listed companies raised £25.3 billion in new shares and paid out £91.2 billion in dividends and another £57.1 billion in share buybacks. Companies sweat assets. No Government have tackled short-termism, or the power of shareholders to extract returns. Good purchasing power for the masses is essential for economic growth, but that has been eroded. The average real wage has hardly changed since 2008. Some 16 million people live in poverty, and 24 million live below socially acceptable living standards. The bottom 50% of the population owns less than 5% of wealth, and the bottom 20% has less than 0.5%. The bottom 20% pays a higher proportion of income in tax than the richest 20%.
You cannot squeeze 50% of the population and expect economic growth: that does not happen anywhere, so why on earth did the last Government pursue that strategy? Somebody ought to explain. The UK has the wrong model for economic growth. Equitable distribution of income and wealth, progressive taxation, and bigger public investment are necessary prerequisites to building a sustainable economy. I urge the Government to follow that course.
Lord Wharton of Yarm (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell, on securing this debate. The number of noble Lords who are here to contribute is testament to his keen insight into what is interesting in politics right now. Sadly, it is also testament to how much worry there is out there about the direction in which our economy is headed, and about the coming Budget, which is often widely speculated on in the media. Little of that speculation is uplifting or positive in its nature. We all take an interest in this area and, unfortunately, many people have quite a degree of concern—I fear, rightly—about what may be just around the corner. In terms of the Government’s balancing of the rate of tax against the amount that they are going to be able to collect—and the uses to which they can put that money—we are certainly about to reach the wrong end of the Laffer curve. Perhaps we reached it long ago.
We tax things to raise revenue and do good things, but the Government generally tax things to signal that they are bad things. They tax cigarettes and alcohol, which are not very good for people. They tax fuel because, the more people drive, the worse it is seen to be for the environment. Yet we are currently seeing taxes going up on a wide range of things that ought to be good things and of which we need more. We see higher taxes on capital gains, on creating jobs and on businesses that are trying to drive forward our economy and doing the sorts of things the Government ought to and need to encourage if we are to be a success.
I spend a fair amount of time in Gibraltar, which is an interesting place. With its approach to regulation and with much lower taxes than we have in the UK, it seems to be doing really rather well. We should be pleased and proud that British Gibraltar is doing particularly well and is a success, with growth last year at around 3.45%, but we should also learn from that approach. I fear that some of the investment I see when I go there may be being driven there because of the decisions that Governments in the UK are taking here, and the decisions people are taking about their own personal circumstances. We have heard many noble Lords talk of the flight of capital, people and talent that is being caused, in no small part, by the tax system and the direction of travel in which our taxes are headed.
We also have to be aware that the decisions we make in this country will affect what happens in Gibraltar. Only this week, His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar’s Minister for Justice, Trade and Industry, the honourable Nigel Feetham MP, was in the UK, spelling out to all those who would listen to him the potential impact on Gibraltar of changes to gambling taxation in the UK—standing up for the success of his low-tax, low-regulation territory because of the impact the direction in which this Government are headed could have on its national finances.
There are also rumours, as people have observed the flight of capital, individuals and entrepreneurs, of an exit tax. I take this opportunity to warn in the strongest terms against such an idea because an exit tax is not only immoral and unjust—for people to pay tax yet again on income on which they have already paid their due taxes—but, in effect, discourages people from coming as well. We may—although I suspect it is unlikely if we are to implement a leaving tax—dissuade some people from leaving, but I fear we would certainly dissuade many more people from coming. At a time when we need capital investment, entrepreneurs and to grow our economy, that would be very bad indeed for the UK.
Lord Marks of Hale (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Wharton. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Elliott on bringing this most relevant of debates to the House.
I ask the Minister: how do higher business taxes, increased regulatory burdens and policy uncertainty encourage the very entrepreneurs and small firms we rely on for jobs, growth and innovation? Britain does not need more bureaucracy and taxes; it needs belief in enterprise and to allow our wealth creators—the very people who see a gap in the market and take a risk—to have confidence to invest in Britain. Our small business owners, entrepreneurs and innovators, who employ more than 16 million people in this country, are at the whim of government policy. When confidence is negative, investment stalls, jobs are lost and not replaced, and growth slows to a trickle.
Some of Britain’s largest companies are suffering too. Dominic Paul, the CEO of Whitbread, which owns the Premier Inn chain, said recently:
“You cannot just keep taxing businesses. We have got to be the beating heart of a growing economy. If taxes go up, responsible businesses will cut costs, staff and investment and you won’t get growth”.
Never before has global competition been so intense. Nations are racing to attract investment, talent and capital in technology, energy, advanced manufacturing and AI. We ought to be at the forefront of that race and we are not. Instead, businesses have been met with uncertainty, mixed signals and a tax environment that risks dulling enterprise rather than accelerating it.
Let us examine some of the evidence. The Autumn Budget in 2024 hiked national insurance contributions to 15%, coupled with a slashed secondary threshold which has had the effect of piling billions of extra costs on to businesses already grappling with slim margins. In short, rising NI is not just a tax on jobs; it is a tax on opportunity. We simply cannot expect a job-led recovery if we make job creation more expensive. Every time the cost of hiring increases, a door closes for someone who wants to work, train or make a start in life. This is not theoretical; it is happening on high streets, factory floors, building sites and across the tech sector.
In the north-west, where I live and am involved in a number of businesses in the UK and beyond, I have heard from tech entrepreneurs delaying hires or automating roles because they simply cannot afford the added burden. This means preventing one less apprentice and one less parent from re-entering the workforce. The national cumulative effect is causing job losses in the thousands as businesses rush to cut payrolls. The double whammy of a rise in capital gains tax is deterring investors and founders, hitting tech exits and prompting an exodus of skilled talent to more welcoming shores such as the United States and the UAE. Even carried interest taxation jumping to 32% risks starving venture capital that fuels our start-ups.
On these Benches, we advocate for lower taxes to ignite ambition, deregulation for innovation and targeted support for digital skills. How many more unicorns must we lose and how many more innovators need to emigrate before this Government pay attention? These policies are not economically sound, and they are an assault on aspiration.
Wealth is not created by the state, and entrepreneurs are not asking for subsidies; they are asking for stability, clarity and trust. They want to know that their success will be celebrated, not penalised, and that the Government will provide an environment to support those with the courage to build, hire and create. That is the only path for lasting jobs, growth and national prosperity. As Dom Hallas, the executive director of the Startup Coalition lobby group, said:
“Any action at the budget should be focused on motivating entrepreneurs to stay here, not holding them for ransom”.
I urge the Minister to restore trust in our innovators and entrepreneurs, to be their ally and not their obstacle and to secure this country’s future by giving enterprise back its freedom.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, for moving this incredibly important and topical debate ahead of the forthcoming Budget. This is a time to take stock, and to scrutinise and challenge the direction of travel. As we have heard, the central paradox of the Government’s position has been to make growth the top priority, yet their actions, and the uncertainty they are generating, are in danger of throttling that very growth before it takes root.
In June, I welcomed the Government’s new industrial strategy, which aimed to provide the certainty and stability for long-term investment in eight particular sectors. But what certainty is there for a business today? What stability can it plan on? The reality is that the positive signal sent by the industrial strategy has been completely drowned out by the noise and speculation surrounding the upcoming Budget.
The prospect of looming tax rises has shattered business confidence, and business leaders have said that they are expecting the worst. That means shortening their planning horizons, cancelling hiring and putting investment on hold. The labour market is already showing signs of strain. As we all know, unemployment is at a four-year high of 4.8%. For young people, this is a deeply concerning dilemma. Prosperity is not built on a foundation of ever-increasing tax burdens; it is built on a dynamic economy where businesses are confident to invest and to create high-quality jobs.
Nowhere is the contradiction more starkly illustrated than in the Government’s treatment of the North Sea oil and gas industry. Here we have a sector that should be generating billions in tax revenue, supporting 200,000 jobs and strengthening our energy security. Instead, the Energy Secretary has imposed a ban on new licences and extended the so-called windfall tax until March 2030, even though oil prices have fallen and there is no windfall left to tax. The consequences are devastating: almost a thousand jobs are being lost every day, and Britain’s biggest oil producer has just announced that it is slashing its North Sea investment by half, citing the Government’s punitive tax measures. Industry experts tell us that ending the windfall tax sooner could unlock £40 billion of investment. That means jobs, tax revenue and energy security, all of which we desperately need.
The narrative that tax rises are the only solution to the UK fiscal challenge is a false assertion. It ignores the vast potential for savings—savings within the Government’s own spending—and it ignores the revenues that could be unlocked by sensible policy changes. Of the £1.2 trillion budget, £434 billion is spent on the procurement of goods and services. Properly implemented AI and automation could—not shall but could—reduce much of the procurement costs by anywhere between 10% and 20%. With a 10% reduction, we could theoretically be looking at savings in the range of £40 billion or more.
With government spending locked at 45% of GDP, we need a smaller state and lower taxes. There is no evidence that you can sustain debt reduction with ever-increasing taxes. The Government should demonstrate that they have exhausted every possible efficiency saving, starting with procurement, before they consider tax rises. They must show that the commitment to growth is not just a slogan.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, being 30th in the list is a problem, as I am bound to repeat what many noble Lords sitting on my Benches have said. But sometimes things need to be repeated time and time again for them to sink in, and this is particularly so when you are facing an audience that does not want to hear the chorus of voices expressing their concern.
I am not talking just to people sitting on my Benches but to allies and friends of the Labour Party. Take Sir Tony Blair, who has warned that the workers’ rights Bill will erode business confidence and ultimately undermine growth. Labour backer John Caudwell recently said that it will make Britain “less investable”. Sir Martin Sorrell and an array of major business leaders, SMEs, entrepreneurs and start-ups all echoed this view and urged the Government to reconsider.
The Government speak of delivering growth, but the facts are there. After only one year, growth has fallen to nearly 0%, the budget deficit is up, public debt is the second highest on record, unemployment is up, productivity is down and inflation is up. What is the Government’s answer? It is more taxes. No wonder confidence has collapsed. Apart from trade unions and their supporters, no one seems to support the workers’ rights Bill. Why? Anyone who understands economics realises that, once you tax jobs, you end up with fewer jobs. If you tax success, you kill aspiration. Tax wealth and the wealth leaves. We should reward entrepreneurs and encourage them to invest, not punish them and drive them into the welcoming arms of Italy and the Middle East.
Non-doms are not freeloaders; they have paid billions in taxes, invested in British businesses, created jobs and supported philanthropy—yet they are being driven away. Redistribution of wealth may sound very virtuous, but it is ideology, not economics. The Laffer curve is not a theory but a warning; beyond a certain point, higher taxes reduce revenue because people simply stop working and investing or they move elsewhere. We are there—Labour is draining the lifeblood of our economy, taking more from a shrinking number of taxpayers to fund an ever-growing number of dependants. This is not fairness but folly. You cannot redistribute prosperity if you are destroying it in the first place.
Will the Minister consider a flat tax model on the Italian system, as laid out so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, to attract investment and drive growth? Does the Minister accept that constant tax rises are driving away the very entrepreneurs and investors on whom the economy grows? I conclude by congratulating the noble Lord on tabling this important debate and giving us an excellent opening speech. I am surprised to see how few on the opposite Benches are speaking—maybe because they cannot actually defend their policy.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I open by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, on an extremely well-argued speech—even politically balanced, at times. It was a complete contrast to the barrage of criticism that we have had from the Opposition Benches throughout this debate. It was not quite clear to me who the barrage of criticism was directed against. Is it against the 17 months of Labour Government or against, in the 17 years since the financial crisis, the 14 years in which all these people here were in power and had the opportunity to do something about the problems that they now complain about?
We know where we ended up in 2024, with public debt that had soared, a share of investment in the economy at one of the lowest in the OECD, a broken state—just look at the health service and the criminal justice system—and a social problem of huge magnitude. Some 7.1 million families were going without essentials, 5.3 million skipping meals and 4.1 million going hungry. I believe in welfare reform, as many people on the other side have argued for, but it has to be coupled with a policy of tackling child poverty. The two things went together in the Governments I worked for in the Brown and Blair years. We need welfare reform and labour market action to get more people back into work. That is what the Mayfield review is about and what the Alan Milburn review on NEETs is about.
We should provide in this Budget incentives, such as a national insurance holiday for people who take on unemployed people on welfare. We also have to look—although this is something that a lot of people on my own side will worry about—at minimum wages for young people, and whether they are not too high. I think we should get the Low Pay Commission to look at that. I support the Employment Rights Bill, but day-one rights have to be coupled with a genuine probationary period in which employers are not discouraged from taking on people with a problematic work record.
I believe that the Government’s economic strategy is on the whole right: borrowing to invest and making sure that the public investment happens, which it did not under the previous Government, but also balancing the books on current spending. If we have a deficit, which we have, in my view the best way to tackle that is through broad-based taxes, a rise in income tax and reform of property taxation, which will help economic efficiency. The truth is that income tax in this country is low by international comparisons, and tax is the price we pay for a civilised society—we must always remember that. At the same time, we must have much stronger incentives for entrepreneurship and research and development, and an ability to translate our intellectual excellence into commercial success in companies that are growing greatly.
To conclude, I commend to your Lordships the recent report of the Lords Science and Technology Committee, which has looked at the reasons why we are failing in this regard. But I am an optimist, and I am looking forward to the Budget.
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell, for initiating this important debate, and I congratulate him on his speech and his book. This is, of course, a very problematic time for the UK economy; we recognise this from all sides. We urgently need more growth and job creation. Yet while the Government have these objectives in mind, some of the measures taken in the last year actively undermine the stated ambition, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster.
The first problem has been the decision, as mentioned by many colleagues, to raise NI and the minimum wage, which creates disincentives to employ and has led to a creeping up of unemployment now to 5%, which is a four-year high. The Employment Rights Bill, which has been much debated and amended in this House, would exacerbate the situation further by reducing the flexibility of the labour market and imposing more regulation on business. This matters because it is businesses that will drive our economy forward, not transfer payments and debt-fuelled capital spending by government. We have now hit the 45% level of public spending as a proportion of GDP, and historically that is a peak which has proved unsustainable. I believe the Government recognise this, but in branding spending cuts as a return to austerity, they have boxed themselves in. They are now choosing to raise income tax, under pressure—some might say—from the left wing of their parliamentary party.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that the impact of these tax increases should fall on those with “the broadest shoulders”. He should take note that these broad-shouldered citizens are the same people who already pay 30% of income taxes, create the real jobs we so desperately need and run the businesses that can compete internationally. Rather than penalising this highly productive cohort, why do the Government not look at the benefit bill and take the political risk of tackling benefits, which now account for 15% of GDP and rising? As the noble Baroness, Lady Fall, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, have both mentioned, this could be a cross-party effort to reform this whole structure.
High levels of benefits are a double whammy—they impact the borrowing requirement, but they also lead to more immigration. The jobs that the local population cannot or will not take on still need to be filled, be they in the NHS, the care sector or hospitality. The result is increased net migration with all the negative side-effects on public services, rent levels and—some would argue—social cohesion, to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, also alluded.
The Government’s number one priority must be to get the economically inactive back to work; I do not think that is controversial in this House. For the upcoming Budget, I urge the Government to avoid two measures that would seriously undermine wealth creation and growth. Raising capital gains taxes or, even worse, equalising them with marginal rates of income tax will reduce risk-taking and produce no revenues for the Exchequer. Investors will simply hold on to assets and invest new money into bonds. It will reduce equity investing, which we urgently need, especially in small and mid-sized UK companies. Another tax to avoid at all costs—this has been mentioned by several Peers—is an exit tax, which would be a disaster for the UK’s reputation as a business-friendly country. However tempting it might be from a redistribution point of view, the idea of financially trapping people in this country will serve only to demotivate not only those who are running businesses here but those who would come here to build the businesses of the future.
We are at a crossroads for the economy, and I recognise that the political choices are very difficult for the Government. In a sense, there is a conflict between their ambitions for growth and their political ideology, but the opportunities for growth are there for the UK to seize. We can be a leader in the AI revolution and benefit from the productivity gains which can flow from its evolving capabilities but, for the UK to benefit from this, businesses need to be incentivised to take up these opportunities, not burdened by increasing regulation, rising taxes and higher interest rates, which result from excessive spending.
Lord Kempsell (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the director of a number of small businesses, and I join in thanking my noble friend Lord Elliott for convening today’s debate. It has been extremely wide-ranging in its scope on the matter in front of your Lordships’ House, and there have been many interesting and insightful contributions from all sides.
What can I add, as the final speaker on the list? Well, I might just pick up on a point mentioned in passing by my noble friends Lord Risby and Lord Horam. They touched on the astonishing fact that not a single member of the Cabinet today has any real meaningful experience of running a business. I think this is a factor in the current predicament that the UK finds itself in under this Government: not a single decision-maker around the most powerful table in the land really understands what it feels like to be worried about making payroll at the end of a month, because their financial security has always been somebody else’s responsibility.
This is a Cabinet that has next to no commercial experience, even of the most basic business activities; that has never worried about paying a supplier, like so many small and medium-sized enterprises now across the country; that has never chased a late invoice, filed a company return or dealt with the burdens of red tape, such as that contained in the Employment Rights Bill; and that has never, in a business setting, hired, fired or managed a team—even though the Prime Minister is now getting used to having to fire people in a different context. Crucially, and stunningly, this is a Cabinet that has never created a job—not one single job—through entrepreneurialism.
I have no doubt that the cadre running the country at the moment were the very best think tank researchers, charity workers, academics, trade union officials and professional politicians, but I am afraid they seem ignorant of the pressures that those running businesses in the UK today currently faced. We have 0.1% growth, the highest inflation in the G7, soaring debt, rising unemployment and record high taxes. I must warn Ministers opposite that, as we go into the next fortnight, for many millions of business people across the UK this will be the Budget of sleepless nights, genuine fear and anxiety for those running companies large and small, terrified of the Chancellor’s next move by a Government who are pushing job creators and employers to the very edge.
The Government have blithely shredded their key election pledge not to raise taxes on working people. That is a total and unforgivable breach of trust on the Government’s core fiscal commitments. As with every Labour Government, it is now the case that the Treasury is racking up debts, including £100 billion in annual debt interest costs.
What has been the result of these fiscal policy choices a year into the Labour Government? What do we have to show for the increases in employers’ NI contributions, business rates and capital gains tax? What do we have to show for hiking the cost of employing the average worker by £900, abolishing the key elements of agriculture and business property reliefs, and countless other measures? I contend that the Government’s headline economic achievement so far has been taking 80% of workers out of income tax altogether in Mauritius, with their disastrous Chagos Bill, a deal that will cost tens of billions of pounds. This Labour Government are delivering seismic tax cuts; it is just that they are doing it in a country more than 6,000 miles away, while here at home, in just two weeks, they no doubt plan to hike income tax on millions of workers in Britain. Even in the long litany of the Labour Party’s history of economic failure, the Starmer and Reeves project will surely go down as one of the most flabbergasting chapters of all.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the Budget is only days away. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, may be the only person who can say that he is looking forward to it. Last week, the Chancellor made a paving speech which made it clear that huge tax rises are coming. Most of us expect to see higher income tax—that would be no surprise. However, we have none of the details, and that is where the devil lies, so this debate is in some ways only part of a prologue.
Although I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, on obtaining this debate, it was rather curious that, in his litany of causes of the current economic condition in which we find ourselves, he overlooked mentioning Brexit, which was, in fact, the deepest blow by far. The Government finally have the guts to say that out loud, but they have not turned towards pushing for a customs union, which is the obvious cure. Using figures from Frontier Economics on the GDP uptick that would come, and from the Commons Library on tax yield, rejoining the customs union could be expected to provide an additional £25 billion a year in tax revenue to the UK Treasury. The economic benefit that arises from that change completely exceeds the impact of any proposal we have heard from any Bench today. That is important and we need to recognise it.
Meanwhile, I do not doubt the £22 billion legacy black hole that the Minister often talks about; it was echoed by the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and others. Public services are on their knees and the need to invest in infrastructure after years of neglect is surely a given. Perhaps most dangerously of all, people are feeling the cost of living pain, many to the point of breaking. Living standards matter.
Clearly, we need growth and productivity, and I was glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Fall, focused on scale-up in part of her discussion. However, I am expecting a horrible forecast from the OBR because although some monthly figures show productivity growth, it is off such a low base that the benefit is marginal. In that vein, I warn the Government against looking to small businesses to fill the Budget hole. This is exactly the sector that needs to be investing to get productivity going. We heard concerns about that from quite a number of speakers, including the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Kempsell.
The self-employed should not be targeted either. That includes small LLPs, which are often just two people and simply a variant on self-employment, with similarly precarious income, limited benefits and no employment protection.
It is important to recognise, particularly in this discussion on levels of economic inactivity—referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Petitgas and Lord Skidelsky, most extensively—that, in today’s economy, this sector, the self-employed and small business sector, has the most promise to get disengaged people of working age either back into work or into work for the first time. We have to look to that and support that group.
Whatever the Government choose to do, they also need to calm the gilts markets. We are paying a significant premium, even over France with all of its woes. According to CBRE Investment Management, a 1% reduction in gilt yields reduces the UK’s borrowing levels by a cumulative £21 billion over five years. Part of that calming is achieved by creating credible fiscal headroom, which has not happened in previous Budgets. I say to the Minister that it will have to be a really important feature of the Budget.
In this situation, where are the greatest emergencies? My party has identified two. The first is the fragile state of the hospitality industry, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Risby. It is the backbone of so many high streets and communities. We call on the Government to slash VAT by 5% for pubs, restaurants and entertainment and accommodation venues with immediate effect and until April 2027. Ordinary folk looking for small pleasures will benefit too.
The other and perhaps even more urgent need is to provide relief to ordinary people by removing the main renewable levy from people’s energy bills, not discarding the funding for tackling climate change but replacing it with Treasury funding until April 2027, by which time a new renewables obligation scheme should have been developed and should be in place. This would slash a typical energy bill by £90 a year, bringing it to its lowest level since the energy crisis began in 2022. The two measures would cost through to April 2027 a total of £12 billion and save a typical family £270 over the next 18 months.
However, we in my party are responsible. The Government have scoffed in the past when we have argued for a windfall tax on the banks, which are still benefiting from high interest rates. The IPPR has proposed a scheme that targets the windfall interest payments received by commercial banks as a result of the QE-related reserves they hold at the Bank of England. The tax would expire when the base rate returns to 2% or when quantitative tightening concludes, anticipated to be after 2030. It could raise £30 billion in total between now and 2030. That is less than half of what is needed for the two proposals I have just outlined, which would cost £7.5 billion and £4.5 billion respectively.
In the past, I have proposed taxes that could raise significant money for the Exchequer in a way that is fair, increasing from 2% to 10% the digital services tax on global tech companies—who are, frankly, absolute masters at tax avoidance—and doubling the remote gaming duty on online gambling. Those two together would raise almost £3 billion a year.
I will return to my opening comments. Because of the scale of the issues we face, the biggest increase in tax revenue could come from renegotiating and rejoining a customs union with the EU. Frankly, the only pain that would be experienced would be a pain to the pride of the Brexiteers. We would all be benefiting in our pockets.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I also start by thanking my noble friend Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell for initiating this debate so compellingly and I echo his tribute to Lord Desai.
I agree with so much of what he said about the importance of growth—dismal again today—the disastrous effect of high energy prices, the need to remove regulatory obstacles to employment and the devastating effect of high taxation on enterprise culture and competitiveness. As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, it was a balanced speech. It was good to hear the latter’s support for welfare reform and for sorting out the nonsense of the day-one rights in the Employment Rights Bill. Let us hope that happens.
It is helpful to look at the broad picture first. Sometimes implicitly, the debate has touched on two linked economic hypotheses, both of them relevant to how we run the economy and the level of tax. The first, touched on by my noble friend Lord Massey of Hampstead and reflected in the request from my noble friend Lord Frost for reversal, is that there is a level of overall taxation, in terms of a percentage of GDP, beyond which extra tax becomes ever more injurious and disincentivising, hence economically undesirable. Economists note that the current level of taxation in the UK is very high by historic standards. Many conclude that the UK has reached the stage where this hypothesis is becoming increasingly true.
The second hypothesis, touched on by my noble friends Lord Petitgas and Lady Meyer, states that high levels of national debt, judged as a percentage of GDP, is a bad thing. Unfortunately, UK debt now stands at around 100% of GDP—a very high level for peacetime. It holds that the responsible thing for the Government to do, when faced with high levels of debt, is to reduce it, not least since high levels of debt reduce the effectiveness of responses to outside shocks such as Covid.
Under this Government, we have a very high level of national debt and taxation, both of which ought to be decreased, but on present plans will increase. The only way to square this circle is to reduce national expenditure. Yet, as my noble friends Lady Stedman-Scott and Lord Young of Cookham have said, the Government’s own review of PIP is looking at no savings at all. We need welfare reform and, indeed, a single-minded determination to get expenditure down, in the words of my noble friend Lord Horam, who recalled a former Conservative Prime Minister. My noble friend Lord Harper said raising income tax to pay for welfare was not a wise way forward.
If they were responsible, the Government would be planning to reduce expenditure to improve the fiscal position. But, alas, all the signs are that this is as likely as finding a man on the moon. Britain is living beyond its means, locked in a doom loop of high spend, high debt and high taxes.
There were some interesting new thoughts in the debate. My noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne emphasised the importance of microeconomics and the the fascinating lessons of his firm Direct Special Measures in improving our jobcentres. My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford talked about how Germany has been dealing with the fiscal challenges. It was also a pleasure to hear again the creative thinking of my noble friend Lord Saatchi and to hear from my noble friend Lord Kempsell, who noted that no one in the Cabinet has run a business, as of course many people in this House have done.
I turn to taxation, so eloquently addressed by one such person, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. According to the international index published last month by the Tax Foundation, the UK now ranks 32nd out of 38 OECD countries for tax competitiveness. In the G7 it is ahead of only Italy and France. This is not a good place to be. As another former businesswoman, I can confirm from experience that high rates of corporation tax affect investment decisions and that investors go where such taxes are low—just look at Ireland’s success.
The Government are keen to paint a picture in which the state of the economy is everyone else’s fault, but business leaders and the public know that the situation we are in is substantially a consequence of the Government’s own decisions. They started by claiming that growth was their overriding priority, which I supported, but quickly lost credibility with last year’s Budget decisions, notably on NICs, IHT—we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, about its devasting effect on rural communities—and, of course, the Employment Rights Bill.
It is obvious that, if professionals and innovators see a large share of each additional pound going to the tax man, their incentive to expand businesses or move to Britain diminishes. We can look at international examples as a cautionary tale. France’s experiment with a tax on top earners a decade ago led to an exodus of talent and embarrassment for the Government. We have ourselves seen a huge exit of the wealthy since the election. As the noble Lord, Lord Petitgas, said, some of those leaving are younger people, including members of my own family.
We need to find a way to reverse the incentives to move to Dubai, Singapore, the US or Gibraltar—which we heard about from the noble Lord, Lord Wharton. However, these Benches all agree that taxes on exit would be a disaster and lead to further problems.
In addition to the fiscal damage done to our economy, it is clear from the debate that the regulatory changes being introduced in the form of legislation, such as the Employment Rights Bill, are set to harm working people even further and discourage hiring. The Government themselves estimate that the Bill alone would add almost £5billion a year in costs to businesses, killing growth in the SME sector, which bears the highest burden, as my noble friend Lord Leigh said. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is also very sound on this point about SMEs and we very much agree that it is a vital consideration. Many, including my noble friend Lady Fall, spoke about the problems in the labour market and the recent rise in the unemployment rate to 5%. His Majesty’s Opposition are clear that the Employment Rights Bill should be rewritten.
Unfortunately, this comes on top of other increases such as in business rates and in NICs—£25 billion— new environmental charges of various kinds, large increases in the national living wage at the same time, and energy costs, as my noble friend Lord Elliott emphasised, which are four times as high as they are in US and seven times as high as China’s. My noble friend Lord Trenchard talked of the impact of this growing pattern of regulation on investors such as Japan, and my noble friend Lord Risby made a compelling case for the devastating effect on SMEs, on which I have already touched.
We on this side of the House are clear that economic prosperity comes from productivity and growth, not from ever-higher taxes. Increased productivity is the foundation of raising wages and living standards. My noble friend Lord Elliott’s excellent book is worth reading for the number of policies that he sets out.
Another problem we have with productivity is the sheer size of the Civil Service, which is less productive than the private sector, employing 384,000 before the pandemic and 516,000 today.
The shadow Chancellor set out a menu of £47 billion in savings last month, without hitting most of the capital investment that the Minister so often cites, That includes the SMRs in north Wales that were announced today, which I also welcome. Mel Stride’s menu is the path to faster growth and higher productivity.
My noble friend Lord Bridges rightly registered our disappointment that the promise in the Chancellor’s Mais Lecture of a “fundamental course correction” for the British economy has not been delivered and said that the Chancellor has lost control of spending. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, we are clear that fiscal responsibility means honesty, consistency and transparency, but we have had none of this from the Chancellor.
I look forward to the Minister’s answers to some of these challenging questions, but the evidence is clear: since the election of July 2024, the trajectory of economic policy has tilted towards higher taxes and greater regulatory burdens, and it is clear that we are going to have more of both. This path is fraught with dangers for jobs, growth and prosperity in Britain. The record-high tax burden is squeezing businesses and households and risking a downturn in economic activity. A Budget that prioritises growth and productivity and reduces regulation would set Britain back on the path to rising incomes and expanding opportunity. That is what is needed.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell, on securing this debate and on his thoughtful, interesting and wide-ranging opening speech. I very much look forward to reading his book, once I receive the free copy that I was promised. I also join the noble Lord in his heartfelt tribute to the late noble Lord, Lord Desai.
It has been most enjoyable today to listen to the contributions from so many distinguished noble Lords, and it is a pleasure to respond to this debate. It has been a particular pleasure to hear from noble Lords from the party opposite about how to grow the economy; it is perhaps a pity they did not take their own advice over the past 14 years.
We have heard in this debate from members of the previous Government about how to grow the economy and increase prosperity, despite growth in living standards being one of their greatest failures; we have heard from some of the most prominent supporters of Brexit about how to grow the economy, despite their own disastrous Brexit deal permanently reducing GDP by four percentage points, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Eatwell; and we have heard from some of the most enthusiastic acolytes of Liz Truss about how to grow the economy—
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
If the Minister will allow me, he spoke about GDP being reduced by four percentage points. I assume he is referring to the OBR’s original projection, which was over the next 15 years. So far, we have not had the 15 years, and he is thoroughly misrepresenting the situation if he is implying that this has already happened.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not think I have misrepresented the situation in any way, shape or form. The OBR forecast that around two-fifths of the 4% impact had already occurred by the time the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement came into force and that GDP will be 2.7% lower by 2025, with the remaining reduction occurring by 2030, meaning the economy will be over £100 billion smaller than it otherwise would have been.
As I was saying, we have also heard from some of the most enthusiastic acolytes of Liz Truss about how to grow the economy, despite the Liz Truss mini-Budget crashing the economy and sending mortgage rates spiralling. I think we have long since abandoned any hope of an apology to the British people from the party opposite for its record on the economy over 14 years, but what is still shocking is its inability to show even the slightest hint of self-awareness for the damage it did to the British economy over the past 14 years or any awareness that that damage continues to scar our economy today, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton clearly set out.
The reality of that record over 14 years is stark, as my noble friend Lord Liddle said. First, there was austerity, mentioned by my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, which took demand out of the economy at exactly the wrong moment and cut investment, undermining the economy’s ability to grow, and left us ill-prepared for the future. Then a disastrous and tragically misjudged Brexit deal—interestingly, not mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, in his opening speech—imposed new trade barriers equivalent to a 13% increase in tariffs for manufacturing and a 20% increase in tariffs for services, reducing total trade intensity by 15%. As a result, as I have said, the economy will be over £100 billion smaller by 2030.
The combined effect of these costly mistakes was devastating. Had the UK economy grown by the average of other OECD countries over those 14 years, it would be more than £150 billion larger today. The previous Parliament was the worst ever for living standards. Inflation hit 11.1% and was above target for 33 months in a row. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, mentioned business investment. She may recall that, under her Government, the UK had the lowest private investment levels in the whole of the G7, productivity growth entirely stalled and output per worker grew more slowly than in nearly every other G7 country.
These policy errors, chronic instability and low levels of investment have left deep scars on the British economy, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell set out. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, alongside the forthcoming Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility will set out the conclusions of its review into the supply side of the UK economy. I will not pre-empt those conclusions today, but the OBR may downgrade the historic assessment of the UK’s productivity and may conclude that the productivity performance we inherited from the previous Government was even weaker than previously thought.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
Can the Minister clarify that his argument is that the Government have made no policy errors regarding their economic management over the last year?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am only five minutes into my speech; let us hear my whole speech before we conclude on that.
The OBR’s productivity assessment will be a look in the rear-view mirror, but the past mistakes of the previous Government do not need to determine our country’s future. While the record of the past 14 years may be even worse than previously realised, it underlines the importance of delivering higher and more sustainable economic growth, which has been the defining mission of this Government since we entered office. The noble Lords, Lord Elliott, Lord Harper and Lord Bridges, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, mentioned today’s growth figures. While they are, of course, lower than any of us would want to see, they confirm that the UK was the fastest growing economy in the G7 in the first half of this year and show just how much more there is to do.
We will move further and faster with our growth strategy, set out clearly many times and built on the three pillars of ensuring economic and fiscal stability, reforming the economy and increasing investment. It is welcome that the IMF has said that this strategy focuses on the right areas to increase productivity. This strategy recognises that growth comes not from government but from businesses and investors and that there is a role for a strategic state, not to step back and let businesses fend for themselves, but to act in partnership with business by systematically removing the barriers to growth that it faces.
The first pillar, stability, is the foundation all else is built on. That began with the Government’s first Budget last October. The noble Lords, Lord Harper, Lord Swire and Lord Leigh of Hurley, could not help but mention the £22 billion black hole in the public finances we inherited, which the previous Government sought to conceal from the OBR, but once again—
Lord Harper (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that at no point would the OBR, either in interviews or in its documents, confirm the existence of a £22 billion black hole because it absolutely did not?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The report that it produced stopped before the conclusion of the previous Government. It stopped at that Government’s last Budget and of course they had several months left to run. The OBR reported on the period it was asked to report on, yet the previous Government still had several more months to run. The OBR has absolutely concluded that that information was concealed from it, and I think that is a very serious thing for us to know. Once again, noble Lords who mentioned it in their speeches today sought to deny and downplay that black hole—exactly the behaviour that got the country into the mess the previous Government left behind.
Faced with that inheritance, any responsible Government would need to act. One of the decisions we took was to increase the level of employers’ national insurance contributions to help repair the public finances, rebuild public services and restore economic stability, as mentioned by so many noble Lords in today’s debate. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said, I acknowledge, as we have always acknowledged, that there are consequences to responsibility and that the increase in employers’ national insurance would have costs to businesses and beyond, but the consequences of irresponsibility for the economy and working people would have been far greater, as we saw in the Liz Truss mini-Budget. Many noble Lords opposite mentioned the importance of small businesses, and I completely agree with them. The Government protected the smallest businesses from these changes by increasing the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. This means that 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance contributions at all, and more than half of all employers will either gain or see no change.
Another area highlighted in this debate by the noble Lords, Lord Elliott and Lord Bilimoria, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, was the non-dom regime. It is right that everyone who makes their home in the UK pays their taxes here. The Government have therefore removed the outdated concept of domicile status from the tax system and introduced a new residence-based regime. The OBR has certified that the non-dom reforms the Government have implemented will raise £33.8 billion in total revenue, and that figure accounts for some non-doms who are ineligible for the new regime choosing to leave the UK in response to these reforms. The Government will of course continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that the new regime is internationally competitive and focused on attracting the best talent and investment into the UK.
The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, among others, mentioned changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief. The Government made these changes better to target APR and BPR and to make them fairer. The reforms mean that, despite the tough fiscal context, we are maintaining very significant levels of relief from inheritance tax beyond what is available to others. These reforms mean that almost three-quarters of estates claiming APR, including those that also claim BPR, will not pay more inheritance tax.
The economic stability provided in our first Budget is underpinned by our fiscal rules, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Eatwell and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. Those rules allow us to invest more in capital, alongside a credible plan to grow our economy and bring debt down within this Parliament. We met these fiscal rules in the Budget last year and at the Spring Statement in March, and we will meet them again at the forthcoming Budget.
The second pillar of our growth strategy is to deliver whatever reforms are necessary to remove the barriers to growth faced by businesses and investors. These include planning reforms, which the OBR estimates will add 0.4% to GDP—the biggest policy-driven booster growth with no fiscal cost that it has ever scored. Our pension reforms will unlock £50 billion of investment for businesses and major infrastructure. Our skills reforms will equip firms with the skilled workforce they need to grow. We have begun a reset with the European Union, which I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, will support, despite not going as far as she argued for in her speech today. We have also reached a trade agreement with the US and signed a new trade deal with India. We have set out a new modern industrial strategy to target high-growth sectors. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Risby, we are cutting the administrative costs of regulation on business by 25%, and we are delivering the Leeds reforms, the widest-ranging reforms to financial services regulation in over a decade.
The final pillar of our growth strategy is investment, which stability and reform are designed to increase. The Government have an important role to play here. The IMF has long warned that a lack of public investment was a significant barrier to growth. That is why we have committed an additional £120 billion of public investment over the next five years, made possible by reform of the fiscal rules. Our fiscal rules ensure that we do not need to cut capital spending, unlike the previous Government which planned to cut it even further, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell observed, which got us into this productivity hole in the first place. We are directing our additional capital investment into growth-driving projects, including new homes, improved transport connectivity and new nuclear projects such as Wylfa, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and we are catalysing private investment through the new National Wealth Fund and British Business Bank.
As so many noble Lords opposite have said today, the real prize is increased private sector investment in our economy. Whereas under the previous Government the UK had the lowest level of private investment in the G7, since the election private sector companies have committed over £325 billion-worth of investment into the UK, including during the US state visit in September and, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Chandos, at the regional investment summit last month—the first, we hope, of many.
Real progress takes time and, as my noble friend Lord Chandos said, we cannot reverse 14 years of underinvestment overnight. But real wages grew more in the first 10 months of this Government than in the first 10 years of the previous Government. Under the previous Government, we saw the worst pay growth in a century, with barely 0.3% growth between 2010 and 2024. The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, spoke about living standards in his opening speech. Living standards are up 2.1% since the election, compared to the 1.8% fall over the last Parliament. That was the only Parliament on record where living standards were worse at the end of the Parliament than at the beginning, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky.
Whereas the UK was ranked seventh out of seven for projected 2025 growth in the G7 under the previous Government, our growth was the fastest in the G7 in the first half of this year. But we do not expect anyone to be satisfied with growth of 1%. Today’s growth figures reinforce the fact we need to go further and faster, not repeating the previous Government’s mistakes of cutting investment but continuing to create the right conditions for growth.
The first part of our planning reforms will add an additional £6.8 billion to the size of our economy in the next five years, but the next part, our planning Bill, must complete its passage through Parliament before it can make a difference. Interest rates, which rose consistently in the last Parliament, have now been cut five times since the election, but at 4% they are still a constraint on business borrowing and a burden on family finances. Inflation is clearly much lower than the double digits seen under the previous Government, but the choices we make must be focused on getting inflation falling and creating the conditions for interest-rate cuts to support economic growth and improve the cost of living.
As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, in his opening speech, while we have taken action in the industrial strategy to reduce business energy costs by up to £420 million a year, they are still too high and we must go further.
Noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Elliott, Lord Harper and Lord Bilimoria, mentioned the importance of employment. The latest figures show that 138,000 jobs have been created since the election. The OBR forecasts that over this Parliament employment will rise and unemployment will fall, but the figures published this week show exactly why we must go further to get Britain working and get our economy growing. I am grateful for the support for the youth guarantee from the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky; and the noble Lord, Lord Howard, mentioned the importance of jobcentre reform.
Noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Elliott, Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Massey of Hampstead, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, my noble friend Lord Liddle and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, mentioned the Employment Rights Bill. As noble Lords know, the Bill is still going through its final parliamentary stages. The Government are also supporting businesses to create jobs, innovate and grow, including by reforming our regulatory framework to reduce barriers to growth and investing in our economy.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Petitgas, Lord Horam and Lord Bridges of Headley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, mentioned welfare. The Government are committed to reforming our welfare state. We are shifting the focus from welfare to work, skills and opportunities. We have backed that up with £1 billion a year for employment support by the end of the decade. As my noble friend Lord Liddle said, the Government have also announced an independent report into young people and work, to be led by Alan Milburn, which will examine why increasing numbers of young people are falling out of work or education. He will publish his final report by next summer.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Elliott, Lord Harper, Lord Petitgas, Lord Swire, Lord Wharton of Yarm, Lord Massey of Hampstead and Lord Kempsell, the noble Baronesses, Lady Stedman-Scott, Lady Fall and Lady Kramer, and my noble friend Lord Liddle, spoke about the forthcoming Budget in just under two weeks’ time. There has been much speculation about the forthcoming Budget, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, but, as my noble friend Lord Chandos rightly suggested, I am not going to comment on individual tax measures today. The Chancellor has asked the OBR to produce a new forecast. She will take decisions based on that forecast, and we will set out our fiscal plans at the Budget in the usual way. The Chancellor will, though, make those decisions mindful of the importance of growth and investment to businesses and to the economy, and it is vital that the tax system supports our growth mission.
The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, spoke of the importance of innovation and enterprise, mentioned also by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Hale, while the noble Baroness, Lady Fall, rightly spoke about the importance of supporting scale-up businesses. The current rate of corporation tax is the lowest in the G7, and that is supplemented by generous business investment reliefs that directly support investment, including full expensing, R&D tax reliefs and the patent box regime.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, mentioned headroom. As the Chancellor said earlier this week, we will continue to
“build more resilient public finances—with the headroom to withstand global turbulence … giving business the confidence to invest and leaving government freer to act when the situation calls for it”.
We have been clear about the principles that will guide the forthcoming Budget. It will protect the NHS and public services from a return to austerity, because it was austerity that choked off investment that would have put our country on a path to recovery after the financial crisis. Instead, we will protect investment in our economy and build on the progress already made to repair the public services. The Budget will support growth, enabling businesses to create jobs and innovate. It will improve the cost of living by doing what is necessary to protect families from high inflation and high interest rates, and it will keep debt under control because the less we spend on debt interest, the more we can spend on the priorities for working people, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, rightly said,
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in today’s debate, but we will take no lectures from the party opposite, which presided over 14 years of instability, low productivity and economic decline. Where it delivered the slowest projected growth in the G7, growth in the first half of this year was the fastest in the G7. Where it presided over the worst Parliament ever for living standards, living standards have increased by 2.1% since the election. Where it oversaw the worst pay growth in a century, real wages grew more in the first 10 months of this Government than in the first 10 years of the previous one. Where it continually cut capital spending and deterred investment, we are investing for the long term, with £120 billion over the next five years, alongside £325 billion committed by the private sector since the election.
The OBR may conclude shortly that the productivity record of the previous Government was even worse than previously thought, but we will not let those past mistakes determine our country’s future. This Government will invest in the NHS, support growth and improve the cost of living. We will continue to build strong foundations for our economy because that is the only route to securing Britain’s long-term future.
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief. I thank the Library for its excellent briefing note, and all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. It has been a superb and stimulating debate; we should consider making it an annual fixture in the Lords calendar.
There are lots of points I would love to pick up on, not least on welfare, the notion of an exit tax, even capital controls, but I get the sense from the House that the thing noble Lords would like to hear from me most on is perhaps Brexit. It was mentioned by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
There was a lot of talk about the OBR report. I have read that report and it is based on projections brought together before the referendum, before we knew what sort of deal it would be from the EU. It is actually a very old report. Since 2016, it is worth noting that UK economic growth, although less than expected, has been higher than most western European countries. UK trade—
Lord Livermore (Lab)
It is just worth noting that the OBR updated those forecasts in 2024 and 2025 and maintained its view that it will reduce GDP by four percentage points.
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)
It is also worth noting that UK trade with the EU is now higher than it was in 2019, as is UK trade with the rest of the world. The referendum was over nine and a half years ago and we left the EU five and a half years ago. I think it is time to take responsibility for what is going on now with economic growth. The Government should be commended for some measures which have increased economic growth, such as the post-Brexit trade deals—not possible without Brexit—with the US, the Gulf states and India.
I liked the intellectual honesty of saying that we should rejoin the customs union and think the Government should be more intellectually honest if they talk about Brexit. It is worth noting, though, that were we to rejoin the EU, what would the annual membership fee now be? Perhaps £22 billion a year—that would be another £22 billion to think about. I hope the Government consider some of the proposals put forward in the Budget and I beg to move.
Hillsborough Law
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in the development of the proposed ‘Hillsborough Law’.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Prime Minister opened last week’s House of Commons debate on the Second Reading of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—the Hillsborough law—with what he described as
“a simple acknowledgment, long overdue, that the British state failed the families and victims of Hillsborough to an almost inhuman level”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/25; col. 653.]
Echoing the “burning injustices” description used by the noble Baroness, Lady May, he powerfully described the closing of ranks, institutional lies, cover-ups, smears and betrayal by the very people who should have been protecting families: victims who became trapped in a cycle of profound grief and wicked vilification, with the public purse used to bankroll misconduct and malfeasance and to camouflage the truth. Truth, expeditious justice, and consequences are the three themes I wish to address today.
Hansard records that 36 years ago, as a Liverpool Member of Parliament, I sent correspondence to the Government of the day questioning the suitability of Hillsborough for the semi-final on 15 April 1989. I enclosed a statement from the chief executive of Liverpool Football Club, who said
“there was no way I could support the choice of Hillsborough this year with the same ticket allocations applying”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/4/1989; col. 32.]
Of course, the match was played, with disastrous consequences.
Despite repeated suggestions that the fans had brought the calamity on themselves, Lord Justice Taylor accurately identified the role of South Yorkshire Police and criticised its attempt to shift responsibility from itself to the spectators. Four days after the disaster, I wrote to Sir Cecil Clothier, then chairman of the Police Complaints Authority, enclosing a first-hand account from a constituent. I asked him to open an independent inquiry into attempts by the police spokesman to blame the fans for their own deaths. I said this was
“part of a smokescreen of propaganda aimed at diverting attention from the truth”.
He declined to investigate the conduct of the police, despite repeated requests.
Years later, I was shown a letter from Sir Cecil to the chief constable of South Yorkshire, saying that he had done his best to “deflect” my complaint. Sir Cecil signed the letter “Spike”: a word journalists use when an editor has decided to withhold a story from publication. With the truth being “spiked”, victims had to watch a system circle its wagons around its own. In 2012, the Hillsborough Independent Panel found that 164 statements had been altered significantly, and 116 had been amended to remove content that was unfavourable to the police.
It was only when the original 1990 to 1991 inquest verdicts of accidental death were re-run—using the obligations of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 2 of the ECHR—that verdicts of unlawful killing were finally reached. Some 27 years had now passed as the truth gradually began to emerge. The 2016 jury vindicated the fans and established gross negligence, defects at the stadium, errors in the safety certification and much more besides. Instead of consequences for those at fault, we have seen early retirements and enhanced pensions.
Parliament will want to be convinced that the Hillsborough law will tip the balance away from the behemoth against whom the small battalions are pitted. We must finally lay to rest what the 2017 independent report into Hillsborough, chaired by Bishop James Jones, described in its title as The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power. Five years after its publication—and 28 years after the disaster—I protested that there had still been no government response to the report’s recommendations that, first, a duty of candour, secondly, an equality of arms at inquests, thirdly, the appointment of an independent public advocate, and fourthly, a charter for families bereaved through public tragedy, should be enacted.
Following this up in 2023, I participated in an all-party group meeting here on public accountability. We discussed a range of public tragedies, including Primodos, atomic test victims, infected blood and Hillsborough. Other examples might have included Windrush, Chinook, Grenfell, Manchester Arena, Covid, grooming gangs and Horizon. After that meeting, I suggested to Ian Byrne Member of Parliament, who had been a young spectator at Hillsborough, that he should write to the Joint Committee on Human Rights—of which I was a member and which I now have the privilege to chair—and ask us to examine the Hillsborough law. It did, and its witnesses included Bishop Jones and Andy Burnham. The hearing led to our unanimous report in May 2024 calling for a Hillsborough law. On 3 March, the Government responded positively. It is indicative that, during its hearings, the Joint Committee was told that a Hillsborough law could have made a difference when inaccurate evidence was given to the late Lord Kerslake’s inquiry in the aftermath of the Manchester Arena bombing.
In addition to the duty of candour, the new law must build on the admirable work begun in 2014 by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, and Maria Eagle Member of Parliament in promoting a Bill for an Independent Public Advocate, which I strongly endorsed, and which was established in 2024. The post is now held by Cindy Butts. Although the JCHR has not yet decided what its approach will be on the new Bill, I hope it will consider seeking further information on whether she has adequate powers and resources to support victims of major incidents, to guide them through the obstacle course and to ensure a response from Government. I would like to hear the Minister’s view about strengthening the advocate’s role and for her to tell us why the Government say this Bill might not be the right place in which to do it. I would also like to hear about the creation of a national oversight mechanism to ensure that when recommendations are made, they are implemented.
The House will also want to hear about the practicalities of ensuring that victims of disasters or state-related deaths receive parity of legal representation during inquests and inquiries, and about the resources the Government will set aside for this. Above all, the House will want to hear how confident the Minister is that the new legal duty of candour on public authorities and officials will bring to an end the depressingly familiar pattern of cover-ups and concealment, and whether penalties will be exemplary and adequate to punish outrageous conduct.
In the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, who will steer the Bill through this House, we have a Minister whose entire working life has revolved around justice, and she is particularly well placed to turn bitter experiences and unfulfilled promises into a workable reality. I am grateful to her for the constructive discussion we had last week.
Thirty six years ago, I visited the families of constituents who had loved ones, including teenage children, among the fatalities and the injured. Among those was Andrew Devine, who suffered life-changing injuries after being deprived of oxygen. His remarkable parents, Hilary and Stanley, lovingly cared for Andrew with exemplary humanity and courage. Andrew emerged from his coma in 1994. On his death in 2021, the coroner ruled he had been unlawfully killed, becoming the 97th Hillsborough victim.
Andrew’s family are grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet them privately, without media intrusion, to discuss their hope, which they have asked me to relay to the House, that there will be one enforceable code of conduct for all public officials with significant sanctions, including financial penalties, for non-compliance. In the quest for truth, expeditious justice and consequences, Andrew, his family and all those who 36 years ago paid such a terrible price must now be our guiding light. I thank all noble Lords who are taking part today.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this debate in such a magisterial way. I take this opportunity to thank and pay tribute to him for all his decades of work on behalf of the Hillsborough families.
The Bill is important because, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said at Second Reading in the other place, the experience of the Hillsborough families and so many others show how
“the culture of the state has to change”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/25; col. 655.]
The Bill is intended to do just that. As the Bill makes its way through Parliament, it is vital that the interests of the victims and bereaved in these great public disasters are kept front and centre of our deliberations. I suggest that they can be summarised as this: finding the truth about what happened and why, finding it quickly, and for accountability to follow without delay. All of this was denied for so very long to the Hillsborough families and so many victims of public disasters.
I ask my noble friend the Minister to clarify a few important details about the Bill that bear on those objectives. I will quite understand if she is not in a position to answer them today, but I would be grateful if she would agree to meet me at some point to discuss them before the Bill arrives in your Lordships’ House.
My first point is about the duty of candour. This crucial part of the Bill aims to transform the culture of cover-up that has characterised the aftermath of public disasters such as Hillsborough, but transforming the culture of public sector organisations is notoriously difficult. This is particularly the case when those in such organisations might feel they are in the frame for allowing the disaster to happen, rendering them liable to be charged, for example, with gross negligence manslaughter.
This was the charge eventually brought against Chief Superintendent Duckenfield over the Hillsborough disaster. The maximum penalty for gross negligence manslaughter is life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for breaching the statutory duty of candour in this Bill is two years’ imprisonment. In these circumstances, it is possible to imagine how someone who felt that they might end up with a sentence of life imprisonment might prefer to take their chances with breaching the duty of candour.
To lessen the chances of such calculations taking place, and to accelerate the cultural change that the duty of candour is designed to engineer, there need to be greater protections for whistleblowers. Imagine if there had been a whistleblower who felt sufficiently empowered and protected to challenge the poisonous culture in South Yorkshire Police following the Hillsborough disaster. There must have been some in that force who hated what was happening. If there had been such a whistleblower, the Hillsborough families would have been spared decades of struggle and grief.
The detriments suffered by whistleblowers and the public service they can deliver are well known, and I will not rehearse them here today. But this Government have repeatedly acknowledged that existing protections are inadequate, yet they have done nothing about it. The time has come to stop this prevarication, which is so damaging in so many ways. This Bill offers a rare legislative opportunity to do so, and I would be grateful if the Minister would consider all the proposals that I and many others in this House will propose for doing so in due course.
Secondly, I turn to the so-called parity of arms sections of the Bill, which aim to stop what the Prime Minister has described as bereaved individuals being confronted at inquests by
“armies of state-funded lawyers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/25; col. 659.]
I hope the whole House will support that principle.
However, there are some important questions of detail that are unanswered in this Bill as drafted. Importantly, it seems to leave open the question of who exactly will qualify for legal aid at inquests. My understanding—which may not be perfect—is that the definition will derive from the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which defines relevant members of an individual’s family as relatives
“whether of the full blood or half blood or by marriage or civil partnership … or cohabitants”,
or where one has parental responsibility for the other.
But what would happen in the case of, for example, a divorced couple whose adult child was killed in a public disaster? Do they each get legal aid? If not, how would the allocation be decided? There are many more such problems of definition.
Theoretically, this could lead to a situation, after a public disaster such as Hillsborough, where there are over 100 lawyers on legal aid acting on behalf of the bereaved. This could prolong an inquest for years, and, crucially, that, in turn, would prolong the trauma and grief of all those who had suffered in such a public disaster.
The Minister might point out that the coroner has powers to prevent such prolongation, but I ask her to consider the response from victims and the bereaved, not to mention the media and the general public, if a coroner were to try to shut down in any way an advocate speaking on behalf of any one of those victims and bereaved. So I would be very grateful for any light the Minister could shed on how the Government propose to tackle this issue.
Finally, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain exactly why the Government refuse to use this Bill as an opportunity to increase the powers of the Independent Public Advocate to support those bereaved by public disasters. She will be aware that the establishment of this position rose out of my Private Member’s Bill in 2014, the drafting of which, incidentally, was greatly helped by the Prime Minister in the hiatus between him leaving his post as the DPP and becoming an MP, and for which I and my friend in the other place Maria Eagle campaigned for 10 years. This arose out of my experience working with the Hillsborough families.
The Minister will also be aware that this position, as I had originally envisioned it, was significantly watered down by the previous Government. Crucially, the ability to set up the equivalent of a Hillsborough Independent Panel—the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to its importance—got to the truth quickly. That panel, which I devised when I was a Minister, was the way in which the Hillsborough families finally got the truth, after all the legal efforts and everything else. Incidentally, they got it in two years and it cost under £5 million, compared with, for example, the Grenfell inquiry: £170 million, seven years and still going. So why is there no provision in this Bill for such an independent panel—not to mention other measures to increase the powers of the Independent Public Advocate?
The right honourable Maria Eagle made a compelling case at Second Reading in the other place for not relying solely on lawyers—with all respect to my noble friend on the Front Bench—to secure justice for victims and the bereaved in public disasters. Measures to improve the powers of the Independent Public Advocate would not be alternative to measures in this Bill; they would actually strengthen support for the bereaved. I believe something such as that would command cross-party support in your Lordships’ House, and I await the Minister’s response to my suggestion with great interest.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wills, who raises many salient points. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for tabling the debate and for his, as ever, eloquent and very moving introduction to it.
In terms of the development of the Hillsborough law, it is clearly well advanced, and we have the introduction of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which is good news. The duty of candour and the proposed new offences are a good step forward, and I think we all hope that they will bring about the change in culture that is so desperately needed. As has been mentioned, campaigners have fought long and hard for this Bill, and that means that expectations around it are riding extremely high.
If you are from Hillsborough or Grenfell, if you are one of those infected or affected by infected blood, or if you are one of the sub-postmasters, you understand only too well the barriers, frustrations and failures along the way. When you have faced, at best, a never-ending barrage of obfuscation, the duty of candour is a very appealing thing, even if it is the least you should expect from those in a position of responsibility.
However, I do think we need to sound a note of caution. The duty of candour does provide part of the answer, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Wills, highlighted, it is not a cure-all and, if we place too much emphasis on what it can realistically achieve, we risk creating further disappointments for people who have already endured enough setbacks to last a lifetime.
As we all know, a duty of candour has existed in the NHS for over a decade, but we have not seen the desired culture change there. The new Bill provides a more robust framework: the reach is wider and there is a requirement for codes of ethical conduct. But, if we are to truly transform the response to those who have been failed by the state in all its various forms, there are other things that we should pay equal attention to. I think the Minister might see some themes emerging from this, because I would also like to talk about the Independent Public Advocate. This was created in the last Government’s Victims and Prisoners Act, and that was in no small part due to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, the right honourable Maria Eagle and my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead.
One of the most appalling features of all the scandals that we have mentioned and continue to mention in this House is the way in which those affected butt up against a system that seems to work against them, thereby inflicting further harm. The Independent Public Advocate is the only part of this intimidating wall of bureaucracy that people face that speaks solely for the victims and survivors, and that they know will be entirely on their side.
The new Bill has provision for parity of arms in terms of legal aid, but this is about more than legal representation; it is about the relationship between the public and the state. It is about building trust when trust in the system has been smashed to pieces. I just do not think the value of this can be overestimated, so I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wills: I think many of us would have preferred to see a much stronger role for the IPA than that which we ended up with.
As it was originally conceived, the IPA would have had the power to compel evidence, which could potentially solve problems earlier down the line and could also, in some instances, avoid the need for costly public inquiries. As it stands, the IPA has not been given the remit or resources to do this. The last Government agreed to a review once we have seen how the role is evolving. Will the Minister’s Government champion the first IPA, Cindy Butts, giving her the necessary support to develop the role and allow it to reach its full potential?
An example that I mentioned previously was that of the sub-postmasters. When they asked whether anyone else was experiencing problems with Horizon, they were told that no, they were the only ones. Had we had a duty of candour back then, you would hope that maybe it might have prevented that—but then, had that group of sub-postmasters also had the backing and, importantly, the clout of the IPA, the situation might have been very different. Those lives might not have been ruined, and we might not have ended up with another costly public inquiry.
If we can get the duty of candour and the IPA working in tandem and to full effect, it is just possible that, in future, when an inquiry is necessary, it may not need to be statutory. In the current climate, the calls from victims and campaigners for an inquiry to be statutory are absolutely unavoidable, because only a statutory inquiry can compel evidence. The moment that happens under the terms of the Inquiries Act 2005, it is inevitable that the process will be long and expensive. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Wills, has mentioned, there are other options, such as independent panels, which can be more agile and sometimes more effective, depending on the circumstances. The recent Select Committee established to look into the Inquiries Act, which I was on, also recommended that other models of inquiry be considered if possible.
We need to look at ways in which to achieve this because, as the number of statutory inquiries has proliferated, we now have this enormous backlog of recommendations, all of which tend to be accepted by the Government of the day—any Government—and many of which are not then delivered. I work with many of the groups involved in a number of recent public inquiries and they are all, without exception, deeply frustrated. They have all asked what the point is, if the recommendations are not going to be delivered. Inquiries are there partly to rebuild trust and, in that sense, I am afraid that they are no longer doing their job.
In fact, as I speak, the group Act on IICSA is holding an event right now to highlight the fact that so many of the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse have not been implemented. Just to demonstrate how ridiculous it has all become, we are now heading into another related inquiry on grooming gangs, on the back of a report by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, which repeated many of the recommendations made by Professor Alexis Jay in her original IICSA report. This is the situation in which we increasingly find ourselves, not helped by the fact that there is no formal monitoring for inquiries or inquests.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
I am going just as long as everybody else did, and I have one more paragraph and one important question.
Can the Minister say whether the Government are actively looking at this issue? Does she agree that the Hillsborough law needs to sit in a wider suite of initiatives if we are going to deliver that long-lasting change?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I do not wish to be insensitive or difficult, but this is a time-limited debate, and the time limit for speeches is seven minutes. The effect of going over that time will be to curtail the time available to the Minister.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
We owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for placing this item for us to discuss. I have to admit a certain inadequacy. I thought when I put my name down that there would be many other speakers, and I wish to raise only a particular, narrow point.
In a way, the debate has had the wind taken out of its sails by the fact that we now have the Bill and we have had the Second Reading in the House of Commons. I urge all noble Lords to read the whole transcript, because the extent of the problems and the issues that need to be dealt with are brought home very strongly when we do so.
Of course, this is popularly known as the Hillsborough law. I was struck by what the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice said, echoing the words of the Prime Minister, in winding up the debate. He said the legislation
“was not born here in Westminster; it was born out of heartbreak, out of unimaginable loss, out of the tireless courage of those who refused to be silenced”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/25; col. 720.]
We need to recognise that in the debate. It was brought home to me by reading in Hansard all the different cases that were raised and where action is required. I have to pay testimony to my honourable friend Ian Byrne MP, who—I think we can fairly say—led this campaign but, of course, is part of a coalition with what were described as the scouse MPs, and MPs from across the country. The campaigners really deserve the credit for what is being achieved here.
Two things struck me in the debate. I will get on to my specific point shortly, but it is worth saying that what came out of it was the range of issues, and—it has already been touched on by my noble friend Lord Wills and by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson of Welton—that it is not just about the duty of candour. It stuck me that, in trying to achieve the target of a rebalance of power between the state and working people, the issues of legal aid, whistleblowers, press regulation and Leveson 2, and the questions of inquiry follow-through and having a clear, specific locus for national oversight of these issues were raised.
The second point, which brings me to the specific question I wish to ask my noble friend the Minister, is about the range of issues that have raised concern. Obviously, Hillsborough is the centre of this; people also mention Grenfell and Windrush. I went through underlining all the different problems that MPs raised, which are clearly of crucial importance to them. They vary greatly. Windrush was very specific and tragic, and it destroyed families. My big question is: what range of issues is going to be covered by this legislation? Here, I declare my interest as an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Investment Fraud and Fairer Financial Services.
I am widely concerned. During the previous debate, I had to nip up to Committee Room 14 where there was a meeting of the all-party group. Committee Room 14 was packed with people who have suffered financial harm and are looking for some form of better support than they have received so far from the apparatus of the state. The harm you receive from being defrauded is straightforward, but the psychological harm, in some cases, leads to people’s deaths. I am not specifically suggesting here that the law should be expanded to cover all circumstances, but it is an issue that we need to consider. Financial harm can be as severe on people as the other problems that were discussed in the House of Commons. I hope we will be able to have a full discussion about the scope of what is covered by this legislation and what the state needs to do to rebalance power from the state, as regulators of the financial sector and individual people.
Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)
My Lords, like others, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for the opportunity to debate this important matter, and I shall be brief.
The long and painful process of inquiry into the Hillsborough tragedy demonstrated atrocious behaviour by a number of organisations and individuals who failed in their duty to act with integrity. It also revealed determined attempts to avoid accountability. Similar concerns arose in the context of the Post Office scandal and the Infected Blood Inquiry, to which I gave evidence. They also form part of the background to the Orgreave inquiry, which is about to begin under the able chairmanship of the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Sheffield.
I therefore welcome the fact that, after a number of false starts, the Government have introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. Accountability is of course one of the seven principles of public life, initially articulated by Lord Nolan nearly 30 years ago and endorsed by all subsequent Prime Ministers. Without accountability, checks on the abuse of power are lost and we also lose the ability to learn from errors and mistakes. That is very clear in the inquiries that have taken place: we have failed to learn from the errors that have taken place over many years.
I am also therefore encouraged that the Bill goes a step further and requires all public authorities to promote and actively maintain high standards of ethical conduct. One might expect that most departments and agencies and other parts of the public sector would do this as part of normal business, but that is not the case. When I was chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, we undertook an inquiry into the ways in which departments, agencies and other public bodies encouraged and inducted their staff in terms of the ethical requirements of their roles. In many cases, the system was almost entirely absent. In fact, on one occasion I had a discussion with a senior official in one department who said that he did not believe that his department faced any ethical challenges or issues, which struck me as an extraordinary blind spot for somebody in such a senior role. I will not be naming names.
It is so important that all those in public service should understand what is expected, experience the opportunity to learn and then be expected to live up to those standards, and that there is a system to help and encourage and require them to do so. There is no such system today. I also wonder whether this duty should be widened to include Parliament, where our current induction into ethical expectations and conduct is often sketchy, to say the least, but that is perhaps a discussion for another day.
I further welcome the inclusion of the intelligence agencies within the scope of the Bill. Accountability may, of necessity, operate differently for the agencies, but it is no less important, and the Bill proposes a workable model to ensure accountability without prejudicing sensitive information, the publication of which would damage the ability of the agencies to protect us all from threats such as terrorism and from increasingly aggressive hostile states.
Of course, the test of the new arrangements will be the extent to which they prevent, or at least help to uncover, the abuses of the sort surrounding the Hillsborough disaster and the other scandals to which a number of noble Lords and Ladies have drawn attention. We need to keep an eye on the cultural aspects of this as well as the legal aspects and the education and the encouragement of all those in public service to live up to the high ethical standards which we all proclaim but which we have found are in a number of cases sadly lacking.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, in a television documentary about Kenny Dalglish, the man known in my home city as King Kenny reveals how he was contacted by Mr Kelvin MacKenzie, the former editor of the Sun, who was seeking advice on how to end the widespread boycott of his product in Liverpool. He was told firmly that he needed to print a new front page that simply read, “We lied”. Four days after the disaster, the Sun’s front page had been headlined “The Truth”, but it published false and deeply damaging claims and made vile accusations against the victims. It took many decades for the truth to be revealed.
For that, we must thank those who overcame the barriers created by officialdom, as outlined by my former candidate in Liverpool, and my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. We must thank the heroic campaigners and families whose unwavering strength and courage eventually dragged this necessary legislation before Parliament. Their fight to expose institutional defensiveness, lies and deceit over three decades demands our utmost respect.
The Bill seeks to correct a monstrous injustice done to the 97 who died and to avoid similar injustices involving institutional cover-ups. It has taken the 36 years since Hillsborough for us to set about establishing a statutory duty of candour to provide for transparency and frankness on the part of public officials and authorities, with consequential criminal penalties for wilful deception. Calls for such measures were resisted by almost everyone in authority until the 20th anniversary memorial of the disaster took place at Anfield. The speech given by the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was loudly interrupted by booing and cheering, and chants of “Justice for the 96”. That was the number of fans who had died, to be followed later by Andy Devine, who was in a coma from his injuries before he died 32 years after he was crushed. A previously reluctant Government were then persuaded to look again at Hillsborough by setting up the independent panel.
With the legislation that is now proposed, we must also change the culture which allowed the cover-ups, falsehoods and denial of justice over the decades. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, repeated, the warning from Bishop James Jones about the danger posed by the “patronising disposition of unaccountable power”, and this extends well beyond those involved in the Hillsborough deceit. To dismantle that power and ensure the Bill is effective, I believe we need to focus on three critical areas that demand strengthening as the legislation proceeds through Parliament.
First, we must achieve a genuine equality of arms in our justice system. This means correcting the grotesque inequality of families having to scrape together every last penny they can for representation to face what has been described in this debate as an army of well-funded state lawyers.
Secondly, we must ensure robust accountability with no hiding places. It is welcome that the Bill’s intention is to apply the duty of candour to private bodies and contractors delivering public functions, but we must ensure this measure is not weakened and includes all subcontractors. While the Bill includes complex provisions for the security and intelligence services, the principle must remain absolute: the duty to tell the truth must apply to everyone, without carve-outs that risk becoming new cover-ups. We must also ensure that accountability goes right to the top, resting personally with chief officers and executives—not merely the corporate body—to act as a true deterrent against the culture of defensiveness.
Thirdly, effectiveness depends on embedding mechanisms for disclosure and learning. As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, argued persuasively, we need to strengthen whistleblowing protections to help the facts come to light. We need that independent office of the whistleblower to ensure statutory protection for those who exercise candour. These measures would provide critical front-line defences against institutional misconduct.
Finally, the integrity of the Bill requires an accompanying commitment to a national oversight mechanism. Without a body responsible for monitoring and ensuring that recommendations from inquests and inquiries are acted upon, we face the problems described by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, that hard-won lessons risk being left on a shelf, gathering dust, compounding the original injustices.
Our goal must be to pass a strong law, unwatered down, which guarantees genuine transparency and accountability.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions. It would be wrong not to pay particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his advocacy concerning the Hillsborough families and for public accountability more widely.
The Government’s Public Office (Accountability) Bill, widely referred to as the Hillsborough law, represents a significant step towards placing a legal duty of candour on public authorities and officials, and strengthens the inquest representation for bereaved families and victims.
Noble Lords who have followed the Hillsborough campaign know that this is not simply an exercise in drafting; it is an attempt to learn the hard lessons of decades of anguish and pain. It is our duty to ensure that no families ever again have to go through the prolonged fight for truth that the Hillsborough families have had to endure. The Government’s stated aim, to ensure that the truth cannot be concealed by the state and to extend legal aid for bereaved families at inquests where the state is an interested party, is therefore to be much welcomed.
As and when noble Lords scrutinise the Bill in your Lordships’ House, legitimate concerns that have been raised by campaigners and practitioners about the Bill’s scope and drafting must be considered. As was flagged by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, it is crucial that the duty of candour is framed so as to be effective in practice and not merely declaratory in form. The new criminal offences must be targeted so as to deter serious wrongdoing without producing unintended consequences that discourage necessary co-operation by public servants in good faith.
As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, we must also be clear about the Bill’s application across different parts of the state, including how it interacts with national security, defence and policing functions. Thoughtful, precise drafting and careful parliamentary scrutiny, which are hallmarks of your Lordships’ House, will be essential.
As was highlighted also by the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Wills, on practical points, the commitment to broaden legal aid at inquests is welcome but it must be matched by clarity over funding and timeliness, and it must also provide the support that families require to participate fully in investigations and hearings. If the Bill is to fulfil its promise, the culture and the practical machinery of state accountability both need to change, not only the letter of the law.
Finally, as the Government and Parliament proceed, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition thank those across the other place, your Lordships’ House and, most notably, outside the Palace of Westminster who have worked tirelessly over decades to ensure that this grave issue remains on the radar and is ultimately fixed for good.
The former Attorney-General, the right honourable Dominic Grieve, persisted with constructive engagement over many years with questions of public accountability and the rule of law. His contributions, both in public office and subsequently, have helped advance turning the wider public concerns into enforceable statute.
There are many families whose perseverance has made this measure possible. Their cause deserves the highest level of care and best efforts in scrutinising and improving the Bill when it comes to your Lordships’ House. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition look forward to further discussion and collaborating cross-party with all noble Lords to ensure that the Bill is effective and fair and delivers the justice that families of relatives and friends caught up in the Hillsborough disaster both seek and deserve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, it would be customary to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate, but I am sure he will agree with me when I say that I should open my reply on behalf of His Majesty’s Government by paying tribute to the victims of the Hillsborough disaster and their families. In doing this, I want to make it clear that I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Wills that the victims and the bereaved must always be front and centre of the Government’s mind as this Bill makes its long overdue way through Parliament.
I hope that all noble Lords will understand what I mean when I say that the Bill is not just about justice for the Hillsborough victims and their families and those of the other disasters—which, for reasons of time, I will not name individually, but many of which have been listed by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton. The Bill is more than just that; it determines what kind of society we are and want to be. Do we protect vested interests, or do we believe in the importance of the rights of and protections for our fellow citizens as individuals?
At this point, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, not just for securing this debate but for his tireless work to see justice done for the Hillsborough families. In his powerful and moving opening remarks, the noble Lord referred to wanting to be convinced that the Hillsborough law will tip the balance away from the behemoth against whom the small battalions are pitted. I suggest nothing speaks more powerfully to this Government’s commitment to this than the fact that not only did my right honourable friend the Prime Minister make a personal promise that he would bring forward a Hillsborough law but he delivered the opening speech himself at the Second Reading debate in the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said some kind words about me and my life in the law, for which I thank him. I can honestly say that my proudest moments as a lawyer, and latterly as a judge, have been when I have been able to make a decision which puts the individual citizen’s rights first. It is my profound wish to continue to do so.
I shall do my best to respond to all points made by noble Lords, but if time does not permit today, I will write to those I was unable to answer here.
Perhaps I may also say a few words of thanks to my noble friend Lord Wills for the important role he has played in bringing us to where we are today. He and I tried to meet before today’s debate, but time pressures did not allow it. I have already made arrangements to meet him as soon as possible after this debate. I would be delighted to meet other noble Lords, if they wish to do so, before Second Reading in your Lordships’ House. We need to get this right.
I now turn to matters raised by noble Lords: first, and perhaps most obviously, the duty of candour, raised by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord Wills, among others. I agreed with my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton when he said that it is not just about the duty of candour. All the elements of the Bill are intended to work together as a catalyst for change. Reflecting on the experiences of local government, we intend to bring forward an amendment in the other place to extend this duty to local authority investigations in England, capturing the local grooming gang inquiries and the Kerslake review into the Manchester Arena attack.
I reassure noble Lords that although this duty focuses primarily on the public sector, some private bodies will be captured. Private bodies which deliver public functions, have a relevant health and safety responsibility or are relevant public sector contractors will be subject to the duty. My noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton raised an important point about the scope of it. Financial consequences really matter too, and it will cover, for example, the Horizon inquiry or events similar to that.
My noble friend Lord Wills brought up the discrepancy between the maximum sentence available for breach of the duty of candour and for substantive offences such as gross negligence manslaughter, and whether that might have the unintended consequence of creating a perverse incentive to cover up rather than to be frank. It is an interesting point, on which I will reflect and about which I would welcome a discussion with my noble friend.
Whistleblowing was raised by many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Wills and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. The new mandatory ethical codes of conduct must set out a process through which employees can raise concerns internally and to ensure that whistleblowing procedures are clear and accessible. Noble Lords will almost certainly think that that does not go far enough. This matter can be discussed during the passage of the Bill. At present, the Government believe that any significant reform to whistleblowing needs to be considered as part of a broader assessment of the framework, but we are happy to discuss this matter.
Legal aid, support at inquests and parity were raised by many noble Lords. Under the Bill, people bereaved as a result of a public tragedy will never again have to face the inquest process unsupported or the grotesque spectacle of having to raise money from friends and family to ensure that their voices are heard. It will be funded by the individual public authorities; in effect, the legal aid will be clawed back from the public authorities when they are an interested person.
My noble friend Lord Wills asked: why for only one member of a family? This is considered to be a reasonable and proportionate use of public funds. However, where there are exceptional circumstances, individuals can apply to the exceptional case funding scheme and be considered on a case-by-case basis. We intend for this to help foster proportionate participation and spending behaviours among interested public authorities, including in the use of their own legal representation at inquests.
We understand the concern about this allowing inquests to turn into a battle of the lawyers, not only enriching them—that offends many people—but extending the time taken. So we are requiring public authorities to use legal representation only where it is necessary and proportionate to do so, and we will crack down on any poor conduct by public authorities and their legal teams at inquests. We want to ensure that they are focused solely on supporting the fact-finding nature of investigations.
The Independent Public Advocate was at the forefront of my noble friend Lord Wills’s speech, but was also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson of Welton. As your Lordships’ House is aware, Cindy Butts has now started as the first Independent Public Advocate. She is an excellent appointment and has recently been deployed to support the victims of the horrific attack at Heaton Park synagogue. The Victims Minister met Ms Butts last week to discuss her early experiences in post, and we will continue to engage with her on the nature and delivery of her role, and to better understand the experiences of victims. We are keeping an eye on this. The Government will update the House if we feel that there is further to go in these respects, and reports written by the Independent Public Advocate about her functions will be laid before Parliament as per the Victims and Prisoners Act.
The national oversight mechanism was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson of Welton. We agree that, too often after inquiries have concluded, lessons are not learned—whatever anybody says—and mistakes are repeated. This Government have already taken steps to improve the transparency of government responses to inquiry recommendations through a new online database, and we are considering how we can improve scrutiny and accountability to ensure that inquiries lead to lasting change. This work will continue alongside the Bill.
Inquiries reform was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. Public inquiries can effectively investigate serious concerns, address past injustices, give voices to victims and help to implement change, but they often last a very long time, meaning that victims, their families and the public are waiting too long for answers. Therefore, the Government have been exploring ways for public inquiries to deliver findings more quickly and in a way that facilitates public trust. It is a substantial piece of work, led by the Cabinet Office, that will aim to improve how we identify wrongs and get to the truth. This important policy work is in its early stages, but we will continue to keep Parliament updated.
I turn briefly to the application of the duty of candour to the security services, raised by the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, who has great experience in this area. We are grateful to him for saying that he thinks it is a workable model. We believe that we have got the balance right, but we will be interested in what is said during the passage of the Bill by others.
It may be the Government who are bringing forward the Hillsborough law, but the credit is not ours. That belongs to the campaigners who have devoted their lives to the pursuit of justice. We have worked closely with those campaigners to develop legislation, and we will continue to do so throughout the Bill’s passage. I look forward to meeting all victims, survivors and their families. I repeat: we are in listening mode and we are determined to get this right.
Biodiversity and the Countryside
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grayling
That this House takes note of the impact of the Government’s policies on biodiversity and the countryside.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, when this Government took office 18 months ago, they did so promising environmental recovery, but I have to say that, instead, we have seen a series of steps which, in my view, simultaneously weakened protections, tightened budgets for nature-friendly farming and put development first.
Of course, my colleagues and I want to see growth and an end to our housing shortages, and I accept that we will need to build on open land as well as in our towns and cities, but development has to be managed in a way that manages and maximises the protections for nature, the countryside and, crucially, our food supply.
It cannot make sense to reduce new housing targets in city areas while increasing them in the countryside, to build large-scale solar farms on our most productive agricultural land, and to have so much uncertainty for farmers around just how much support they will get for nature-friendly agriculture or, frankly, question marks about the budgets available.
This matters, because if farmers no longer have financially viable routes to invest in wildlife-friendly habitat—hedgerows, wildflower margins and wetland creations—biodiversity loss will simply accelerate. The uncertainty over the SFI and the grant structure for farmers looking to do the right thing for nature has to stop.
We are clearly where we are on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but this is by no means the end of the debate. In my view, this House has made some pretty sensible amendments to the legislation. I would love to think that Ministers will accept them, although I fear the Treasury may have a different view on that. The risk is that we end up, still, with a measure that has few friends in the environmental world. I have to say to the Minister that the jury remains firmly out on the planned environmental development plans and, crucially, on the ability of Natural England to deliver the kinds of promises with actions that Ministers are saying will happen.
Beyond the debates on that piece of legislation, we on this side of the House will be watching very carefully what comes in secondary legislation and whether promises made in this House and the other House turn into reality. Then, on the horizon, there are reports of a further Bill that may emerge from the Treasury to try to drive growth; of course, the worry is that that will happen with scant regard for the impact on nature. That must not be allowed to happen.
Beyond this, most immediately in the Minister’s department, I am particularly concerned about the proposed changes to biodiversity net gain. It is certainly the case that some aspects of the way BNG is working make no sense. I had a case close to where I live, where the local tennis club had to get BNG processes to cover the merging of two tennis courts about a metre apart—that makes no sense at all. But the problem is that, if you get rid of BNG for small sites altogether, it removes one of its key benefits. As a Member of Parliament, I too often saw occasions when a developer would take a site, knock down a house, bulldoze everything that was there and kill all the nature before even applying for planning consent, so BNG on small sites does have a role to play, and I think the Office for Environmental Protection is right to have expressed real concerns about what is proposed. I urge the Minister to make sure that the outcome of the consultations on BNG do not remove its key benefits and leave small site developers free to do whatever they want on the sites they plan to develop. Ministers also need to be clear about how they expect BNG to operate alongside environmental development plans and the planned nature restoration fund, because I assure the Minister that it is not clear yet how that is going to work.
Next on her department’s list to bring forward is its land use strategy. In some respects, I have misgivings about how such a strategy is applied. The danger is that it becomes a series of Stalinistic diktats about how a landowner can use his or her land. However, if it provides a broad framework—and I stress “broad”—towards the target of 2030 for biodiversity in the UK and how we accommodate housing and infrastructure needs alongside meeting that target, then it has a role to play. It is about getting that balance right. There need to be clear guidelines for planning authorities and government departments that are taking over some local authority decision-making so that we do not take daft decisions in this country, such as, for example, building on our most important and productive agricultural land. We have to ensure that that does not happen.
I welcome the fact that the Government have taken on board most of the environmental and biodiversity targets set in place by the previous Government. That is good, but there is a big difference between accepting targets and delivering a strategy that will achieve them. So far, the jury is firmly out on whether this Government can deliver for nature and our countryside. While I note that the Minister shares many of our aspirations in this area, what has to happen now is tangible action that takes real steps towards 2030 and towards restoring the loss in biodiversity that we have experienced, turning round the issue of so many endangered species. In the growth agenda, the development agenda and the energy agenda, there has got to be a proper balance between the interests of the economy and taking this country forward and ensuring that we do not do further damage to our natural world at the same time. There has got to be equal priority between the two.
I turn to my other big biodiversity concern in this country. The Minister knows that I have for years been seeking to persuade this Government and their predecessors to speed up the process of banning bottom trawling in marine protected areas around our coasts. It is a practice that is disastrous for our marine biodiversity. Huge industrial trawlers dragging massive nets scour the bottom of the ocean doing untold damage to all kinds of marine life, and they do so over vast areas. These are enormous vessels with enormous nets. The idea that this practice is allowed in marine protected areas makes a complete nonsense of the concept of marine protected areas. If they are protected, we should not be allowing this kind of damaging practice.
I have to say that we can now do things about it. When people ask me about the Brexit benefits to the UK, I put pretty high on my list a practice which would have been impossible to ban under the common fisheries policy. We are now free to do something about it. I was pleased that the previous Government made a start in the Dogger Bank in the face of huge hostility from many EU countries who want to scour it for sand eels to turn into fish food. It is an important area for biodiversity, and this country has done the right thing to provide it with extra protections. Sometimes the environment does have to come first.
I did not think that my party moved fast enough in government on this, and I am increasingly disappointed by the steps taken by this Administration. When last June they announced a consultation on banning bottom trawling in another 41 marine protected areas, I thought that was a good step forward, but for me that positivity was completely reversed by the subsequent policy statement that Ministers do not intend to go further and ban the practice across all MPAs in UK offshore waters, nor, apparently, will the changes to the 41 they are consulting on happen quickly either. The fact is that that decision does not command support in Parliament. It was noticeable that it was criticised by the Environmental Audit Committee, which I was part of in the last Parliament and which is now chaired by the party in power.
There is an argument that says a blanket ban in each MPA does not work, because each MPA is different and has different conservation needs. I understand that there may be variations, and I always argued that some freedom should be left for local fishing fleets still to operate, but we are not talking about local fishing fleets coming out of small ports in the United Kingdom; we are talking about giant industrial trawlers coming from other countries and tearing up the seabed. Surely, the scale of that is so vast that it has to be time for MPAs to do what they are supposed to do and provide blanket protection.
So, I ask the Minister to revisit the MPA policy and consider going much further and much faster to provide those wide-ranging protections in MPAs. Also—and this is clearly not something that lies at her desk— I would be grateful for her reassurance that the Government are not taking their decision to avoid a blanket ban because of the new deal on fisheries with the European Union. It would be a complete travesty to give away something we have gained from Brexit even though it will deliver genuine environmental benefits in our coastal waters.
I am grateful to those who have stayed to participate in this debate late on a Thursday. It is an important area. There are issues for us to address around farming, around biodiversity in the countryside, around water and around issues in our coastal waters. The Minister and I, and a number of people here today, have exchanged views on this before, and we will do so again, because I see it as my job, as somebody who feels passionately about this, to keep asking the Government these questions. I reiterate that we all want to see growth in this country and government policies that deliver prosperity, but it cannot be at the expense of what I thought were very good policies put in place by the last Government, which I hope this one will build on, that look after biodiversity and accept what we have done wrong as a country and that we need to turn the tide back.
I have three specific requests for the Minister today. The first is about progress towards the 30% commitment by 2030. We need credible time-bound proposals, transparent monitoring and adequate funding. We cannot have any more of the classic distraction that Governments of all persuasions come up with: “We will have another consultation”, while the destruction carries on in the meantime. It is now 2025, nearly 2026—four years away from that 2030 target—so it is time to see some real changes that make a real difference.
Secondly, nature recovery must be on an equal footing with housing infrastructure and food production in land-use frameworks. If nature is a secondary concern, biodiversity will be the loser. Budgets for nature must match the Government’s stated intention, and in particular, the support provided to farmers must enable them, landowners and rural communities to deliver for wildlife.
And finally, marine protected areas must be real marine protected areas. Where habitats are fragile and vulnerable, whole-site prohibitions on enormous, destructive fishing gear must be adopted without delay. As a country, we cannot claim leadership on biodiversity if 90% of our marine protected areas are still open to bottom trawling.
I do not doubt the Minister’s personal commitment in this area, but she also knows there are powerful forces in government pulling in different directions. My message to her is: please, fight the good fight. This House will be behind her, and we feel passionately about this agenda. Will she please deliver for us?
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my environmental interests as listed in the register. I am sure we all know that nature in this country is in serious decline, with species and habitats disappearing and only 33% of SSSIs in favourable condition, and they are the jewels in our nature conservation crown. Our rivers and seas are mostly in poor ecological condition, and we are one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. This is the inheritance of 70 years of undervaluation of nature. Since the Environment Act 2021, successive Governments have had legally binding targets to halt the decline of species abundance in England by 2030. The UK is also committed, under the global biodiversity framework, to manage 30% of the land and sea for nature by 2030. And there are other targets, but the Office for Environmental Protection has assessed that we are largely off-track to achieving these targets.
However, an awful lot is happening, and I am sure my noble friend the Minister will give a full picture of measures being taken by this Government: for example, the increased targeting of agricultural support payments to ensure public goods for public money; increased funding for environmental land management schemes; a commitment and plans to cease bottom trawling in MPAs where appropriate; plans for new national forests; improvements to the biodiversity net gain scheme; huge strides forward in reducing pollution and carbon through clean energy measures; clamping down on river and water body pollution; banning neonicotinoids; and pushing forward local nature recovery strategies. All those things are happening, but the turnaround of decades of harm is going to take longer than 16 months.
However, we have only five years to meet the 2030 targets. That is not going to be easy, since it often involves join-up across government departments for which biodiversity is something that they buy in the supermarket and they think is a washing powder. It is never going to be easy, so it is going to need extra-special effort. I shall focus today on three areas where we all need to put our shoulder to the wheel now to make the progress that we so desperately need. I am pleased to say that I am very much in agreement with many of the things the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, said, because this is not the time for scoring party-political points; this is the time for getting on with the job.
My first point is about the Government reviewing and resetting the environmental improvement plan and resetting their targets. I ask my noble friend the Minister to assure the House that, where we are not on track for targets, the targets will not just be reduced. It is a time for efforts up, not targets down. An example is that the tree-planting targets are insufficient. They are not even being met, but they could be—there is no problem with meeting them if we make sufficient of the right efforts—so to reduce the targets would be a travesty of ambition.
Secondly, if we leave to one side the problem of our seas, much of our terrestrial biodiversity loss comes from the way that land is managed. It is managed for all sorts of purposes—food and farming, climate, flood-risk management, water quality, sustainable soils, human health and well-being, development, growth and jobs. I welcome the recent update that has been circulated from Minister Creagh on the land use framework: a framework to encourage rational decision-making about land at national, regional and local level. I hate to introduce a note of political dissent, but the Conservative Government promised the framework by Christmas 2021, then again for Christmas 2022 and then again for Christmas 2023.
I am aware of a huge amount of progress having been made behind the scenes, but it would be good to get from my noble friend the Minister her best estimate of the publication date and the process of implementing the land use framework, because it is urgent. Already, spatial plans are being developed by regional mayoral authorities, government departments and local authorities on issues such as housing, infrastructure, transport and energy, and individual landowners are making day-to-day decisions and choices that will last for many years.
In the post-war settlement, the Labour Government magnificently addressed capital, labour and land as the three pillars of economic recovery. In my view, it would be a fine thing for a new Labour Government to reset the economic importance of land at this stage, so I hope my noble friend the Minister can assure us that 2026 means January or February, not December.
Thirdly, I was sitting weeping gently as I ate my lunch, watching what was happening in the Commons this afternoon on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, because it has shown how distressingly easy it is to fall into the thinking that we can either have growth or we can have nature. But we are smarter than that: we can do both. There have been polarising statements about newts, bats and lizards. I bet there is not a single Member of this House present today who has actually seen a British lizard. If you have, come and see me later. Ah, the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, claims to have: very good, sir.
However, polarising statements about these species being a block to developments are simply not borne out by the data. For example, over five years, data across more than 50 local authorities under the current district licensing scheme for newts shows that fewer than 1% of planning applications had any newt issues at all, and all those that had newt issues were resolved within 10 days. All the evidence available shows that newts, as in this example, do not slow down or impede development.
This is borne out by information I extracted with difficulty from the Home Builders Federation recently. It put down its perception of the blockages and problems impeding development. It said the biggest barriers to development were viability, affordability, the absence of support for first-time buyers, local planning authority delays, and shortage of construction skills. There was only a small range of biodiversity issues on its list. So can the noble Baroness persuade others in government not to resort to nature bashing and polarising headlines?
I can see my Whip out of the corner of my eye telling me I have gone over time, but I have a commitment to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, who asked me, since he could not be with us today, to talk about his amendment to achieve protection for chalk streams. It was supported on Report and will no doubt figure at ping-pong, but he has asked me to ask the Minister very nicely if she would include it in the Bill. I applaud my noble friend Lady Hayman for her knowledge, willingness to listen and commitment to reaching agreements. It is refreshing to work with her.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to join this debate: it is always wonderful to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It is something close to my own research expertise, but, before I join this debate, I must declare my interests as noted in the register, specifically my role as a non-executive director and founder of Natcap Research.
I want to start with the baseline facts. According to Defra in 2024, only around 7% of England’s land meets the protected status we need in order to achieve 30 by 30. As reported by the House of Lords Climate and Environment Committee in 2023, England therefore needs to find an additional 3.4 million hectares of land to meet this target. I want to approach this debate from perhaps a slightly different angle to ask, first, who owns the land on which we are looking for nature to recover? Secondly, how much land are we discussing? Lastly, are the scale and scope of government legislation and incentives sufficient to persuade land managers and other affected parties to make the necessary changes?
In terms of who owns the land, despite rumours that the vast majority is owned by the Crown, the public sector or the Forestry Commission, actually those are tiny percentages. The largest amount of land is individually owned by private landowners and by companies and trusts. That accounts for 70% of England’s land.
What government policies do we currently have to persuade these land managers to do the right thing for nature? First, there are the builders and land managers, who manage for builders and developers. We have heard before that we have biodiversity net gain targets to improve both onsite and offsite biodiversity and increase biodiversity by about 10% in biodiverse habitats. This is very much in line with the 1.5 million houses to be built by 2030. But, even if we include that, and all the debates we have been having, that still accounts for a really small percentage of the land.
Secondly, there are land managers tasked with offsetting their CO2 emissions through tree planting and peatlands. Again, that is a really small amount of land, even if it reached 100%. Thirdly, there are the farmers and land managers, who until recently have been incentivised by ELMS and the like. This represents the largest percentage of land that could be converted or could be surplus to food production.
If you add all this up on the back of an envelope, as I did, if everything is reached by 100%, this comes to around 1.4 million hectares, which means we are still 2 million hectares short. There are many caveats in that. The first is that there is double-counting. Many of these commitments that talk about BNG, ELMS and other things overlap. In addition, particularly with BNG, we are finding that developers are doing onsite enhancement rather than offsetting. So this is a really big undershoot in terms of the amount of land we need.
We have this very large shortfall, so what should we do about it? We now need to move beyond who owns the land, and instead ask: who are the big actors determining how the land is managed in England, and what incentives and structures are there to improve the impact on nature? This is not something we normally consider, but I believe we must, because the top five UK supermarkets’ food-supply chains are linked to between 4 million and 7 million hectares of land in England. Compare that with something we have debated at length in this House—namely, the water utility companies—which account for only 140,000 hectares. What changes are needed, then, to persuade these actors, particularly the large supermarkets? For these large companies, it is not the incentives associated with ELMS, BNG or carbon offsets that are needed. We need instead to demonstrate to them why nature is important to their balance sheets and risk registers, and ultimately boards and shareholders.
This is what some of our supermarkets are now doing. Tesco, Unilever, McCain and Waitrose are already starting to look at the land they manage in England through this lens; for example, adopting regenerative agricultural practices. They are doing so not because they want to be seen to be doing the right thing for nature, but because by adopting these approaches they reduce the risk of soil erosion, improve soil quality and enhance biodiversity and carbon sequestration. At the same time, they are achieving similar, if not higher, yields in their crops. So it is a win-win situation for nature and agriculture.
If regenerative agriculture were to become widespread for all farmland in the UK, we could—and, I believe, would—start to see widespread recovery for nature, and we would get to 30 by 30. But—and there is always a but—to do so we need proper incentives and support for the transition, and for the Government to set the right level of audit to adopt to ensure that there is a level playing field for all people working in this space. Such a framework does exist: it is called the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures—TNFD—which identifies economic risks and opportunities. The International Sustainability Standards Board announced last week that it will begin standard-setting on nature-related risks and opportunities, drawing on the TNFD’s disclosure framework, and highlighted its value. Many countries have made TNFD mandatory, but it is still voluntary in the UK. Perhaps the Minister could address this in her response. Are there plans to mandate this in the UK?
If we really want to see a rapid change in land use—and have any chance of reaching 30 by 30 and reversing species decline—we need to think about not just who owns the land but the people who manage it. How do we give them the incentives and structures required to ensure that the outcome that we all desire is achieved?
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Grayling on opening this debate in such a balanced and wide-ranging way. It is also a tremendous pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. I was extremely interested in the far-reaching questions that she put to the Minister and to the whole House.
A 2024 Defra report stated that recent years have seen some of the most extreme weather conditions on record, impacting soil health, our countryside, its communities, our landscape, plant and animal health, and, obviously, our food security. There are views in the farming industry that rising temperatures might present opportunities for growing new crops, and for longer growing seasons. The very unpredictability of the changes presents very difficult problems.
This matters because—as mentioned by my friend—70% of UK land is farmed, regardless of ownership. It is obvious, therefore, that the role of the farming industry is vital in restoring nature, cutting greenhouse gases, and managing and protecting our landscapes and countryside, our biodiversity and food security.
None of these things could be done if it were not for the farming industry. Farmers deliver not only our food but our environmental aspirations. They are key—so key that the Labour Party promised in its election manifesto to “champion British farming”. Sadly, this has not proved to be the case. Labour’s first Budget crippled farming and rural investment through its inheritance tax proposals and national insurance rises. Another blow was inflicted by the very sudden closure of the sustainable farming incentive. We are told it is paused, but I think there is no clear future plan as yet. The delinked payment amount is to be reduced by 76%, with no payments above a total of £30,000. What is really important is that there is no transition period. That is so important because, of course, farmers have to plan.
The result of all of this is quite simply that our key farming industry and communities have lost confidence and trust in the Government. That confidence and trust are now at their lowest ever level. The recent announcement in the farming press by Velcourt, the well-known farming management company, of a proposed 20% cut in its operations exemplifies the current lack of confidence in this Government within the industry.
I exempt the Minister from the comments I am about to make, but the widespread view in the farming industry is that the Government do not understand that, in order to protect our food security and environment, farmers need reliable support from government. It needs to be reliable because the industry, by definition, has to plan ahead, often by a year, two years or further still. Farmers should not be penalised by taxation or criticised for possessing the land, the machinery and the investment that they need in order to feed and protect us all.
Things are bad. A recent CLA report highlights the lack of trust in government within rural communities. The CLA president, Victoria Vyvyan, said:
“Labour’s attacks on business are damaging the economy in rural areas. When local businesses fold, they don’t just take jobs with them. They take prosperity, identity and quiet bonds that hold a place together”.
That is true. I say again that 70% of land in the UK is farmed. I believe the Minister knows that, to protect our biodiversity, environment and food security—in short, our future—the nation needs a confident and vibrant farming industry. I hope that she will be able to persuade her government colleagues of that important and overriding fact.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I too am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I must also say that I am the second barrel to the gun of the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard. As the subject is almost completely dependent on a strong and stable farming industry, I will direct my remarks to the state and prospects of that industry. I declare my farming interests in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire, together with membership of the NFU, the CLA and the Central Chilterns Farmer Cluster.
Those who read Farmers Weekly will have seen last week the shocking headline that the McCain Farmdex report had reported that 51% of farmers have considered leaving the industry over the last 12 months, and 61% say that work affects their mental health. Is this a surprise? We have seen seven Secretaries of State at Defra over six years. This gives farmers little confidence in the commitment to or long-term planning for the industry.
We had the Budget bombshell of the inadequately thought through inheritance tax proposal, which will shortly come into force, destroying both confidence and investment in the industry. We had the abrupt ending of the 2024 sustainable farming incentive and the old basic payments scheme. We had a national food strategy published in July that refers heavily to a promised but undelivered land use framework, a 25-year farming road map and a profitability review by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters.
At the same time, in the real world of farming, arable farmers have suffered reduced yields for the 2024 and 2025 harvests, and very low prices because of the strength of sterling and good harvests elsewhere. Potato farmers had a disastrous 2024 crop, as well as poor demand, and they are now sending off quality potatoes for animal feed and anaerobic digesters. The 2025 crop is good, but, due to favourable harvests elsewhere, the market has collapsed. Sugar beet farmers are handing back contracts to British Sugar, as it is often grown at a loss and chemicals to control virus yellows are restricted. Chemicals are similarly restricted with rape, and success or failure is a lottery.
For some livestock farmers, the situation is more stable, but profitability remains a struggle due to the lack of pricing power. Animal diseases such as bluetongue and avian flu are a growing threat. Meanwhile, dairy farmers are struggling to cover the cost of production as the price of milk falls.
The result of all this is that some farmers are selling up, investment has stalled and, as we have heard, contract farmers such as Velcourt are reducing their acreage as they cannot make a decent return on capital employed.
Ultimately, the business of farming is producing food profitably and sustainably for a growing population. Environmental work can be driven only by profitability. It therefore comes as no surprise that farmers and landowners are looking at other uses of their land, such as solar farms, that will provide a secure and decent return. Let us therefore please stop criticising farmers for the loss of good agricultural land in the absence of policies that enable them to farm profitably.
The way forward is for the Government to cease prevaricating and make their decisions on future farm support. When will we see the 2026 SFI and the land use strategy, which has already been mentioned, and when will the farming profitability review be published?
Happily, it is not all doom and gloom on the farming front. The All-Party Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture has released its report, Feeding Britain Sustainably to 2050. The report calls for more locally grown food, lower inputs and emissions and a smaller environmental footprint, and argues that policies to support rather than hinder farmers—like tax hikes—and to relieve pressure on farmland through a land use framework are needed. Current policies undermine productivity and innovation, promoting environmental goals at the expense of food production.
We require co-ordination across government on policies, and there needs to be a complete rethink on support for domestic food production. The report pointed to the strong scientific evidence that indicates that a land-sparing approach, which involves harnessing farming innovations to optimise high-yield production on as small an area of land as possible, would leave core land intact for nature and carbon sequestration. This offers a more efficient and cost-effective basis for farm policy to deliver on food, climate and biodiversity goals. Are the Government considering this approach?
Finally, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what is meant by the Government’s frequently quoted phrase,
“food security is national security”.
Does this involve producing more of our own food, or tying into more food imports?
Lord Hart of Tenby (Con)
My Lords, I join in the chorus of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for bringing this matter before the House. There are never too many occasions to raise this, and the level of expertise, passion and dedication shown should come as no surprise—it certainly comes as no surprise to me, and neither do the two themes that seem to be emerging from this discussion: relationships and respect; that is, the relationship between central government and the people on the ground who have to deliver, or certainly live with, these policies, and respect for those people.
I am just about old enough to remember my family farm in Wiltshire. I was pretty tiny at the time, but I remember that biodiversity—it probably went by another name back in those days—and food production were seen not as an either/or but as an essential combination. They were seen as nothing surprising; it was our obligation, not just our pleasure, to deliver biodiversity in the most interesting and diverse way we could, because doing that ensured that we were able to produce food—in our case, it was a dairy farm—to the highest standards. Buying patterns, food production and the larger political landscape have changed since then, but the fundamentals have not. I remember very clearly that, back in those days, we did all that because we wanted to do it, not because we were obliged, forced or even paid to do it by whoever were the Government of the day.
Noble Lords will have received yesterday an interesting briefing from the RSPB. It was quite solid in parts, as you would expect, but I wanted to highlight two aspects of it that concerned me a bit, because what started as a solid document drifted into the usual sort of lazy stereotyping in part of it. I will highlight two case studies. One, fairly close to my heart these days, is Lake Vyrnwy in north Wales, a substantial 5,000-hectare area of land, owned and managed by the RSPB since 1996. You would think, therefore, that it would be the epitome of biodiversity success. Yet, in that time, the numbers of hen harriers, merlin, black and red grouse, breeding curlews, and peregrine falcons have all fallen. Every single one of those crucial, iconic species has declined in the 30-odd years that one of Britain’s leading conservation and biodiversity charities has been in charge of that site.
Contrast that with case study two: Bolton Castle, in Wensleydale in Yorkshire—a site of special scientific interest, a special protection area and a special site of conservation. In 2024, it boasted 250 pairs of nesting curlew—there are only 450 pairs in the whole of the south of England—and that is not to mention ouzels, dunlins, stonechats and a range of other upland birds that, for many of us, are a very rare sight indeed. My message, which emerges from this, is that that success story is not despite the shooting interests of that estate in Yorkshire or despite the incredible, dedicated work of gamekeepers, land managers and farmers there; it is because of them. That is why it is such a success. We could say it was despite government, if we wanted to be cynical. This is an area commended by the British Trust for Ornithology—BTO—and even by Mary Colwell, the director of Curlew Action, an important charity looking after the interests of one particular species. You could multiply this incredible success story many times across the UK, but particularly across upland areas of the UK.
What does all this mean? It is a message, I hope—to the Government Front Bench, stakeholders and other people with an interest in this agenda—that all these ambitions will succeed only if we show the necessary degree of co-operation and respect to those who will have to deliver them, who want to deliver them and who will have to live with the consequences of government policy around food production, farming and, in particular, conservation.
Certain comments were made by my noble friend Lord Grayling at the beginning about growth. It is perfectly possible to have growth at the same time as an enhanced and improving biodiversity landscape. However, we need to be careful that there are agencies and quangos—and I hate to pick on Natural England, but it is probably the most powerful agency in this particular field—that have the ability to put their foot on the brake of growth, apparently in the interests of conservation. That is not always the case, because biodiversity includes the human population just as much as it does the animal, bird or wider biodiversity ambitions that we have. Without the communities of these fantastic parts of the British Isles, these schemes will find it very difficult to get off the ground.
So my message is: let us not repeat the mistakes of the past; let us involve the people who matter, who know and care; and let us co-operate in a collegiate way and not fall into the trap of some of the divisions that always seem to accompany the decisions of Parliament, particularly with regard to our dealings with rural issues and conservation.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the UK has been described as one of the most nature-depleted countries on earth. My friend Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta wrote his famous The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review in February 2021, which starts:
“We are facing a global crisis. We are totally dependent upon the natural world. It supplies us with every oxygen-laden breath we take and every mouthful of food we eat. But we are currently damaging it so profoundly that many of its natural systems are now on the verge of breakdown”.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for initiating this debate—he is a fellow alumnus of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge—and for his opening speech.
To go back to Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta—who has just written a book this yearm On Natural Capital: The Value of the World Around Us—he says of nature that
“the demands we make of its goods and services far exceed its ability to meet them on a sustainable basis”;
the difference between the two is a measure of the human ecological overreach. Since 1950, the global economy has grown fifteenfold; absolute poverty has declined from 60% of the world at that time to 10% today, in spite of the world population going up from 2.5 billion to 8.1 billion people on this planet. In many ways, as he says, humanity has never had it so good. But our global success has come with an increasingly impoverished biosphere, including extinction of species. Currently, average extinction rates are 100 to 1,000 times higher than those that the world has seen for several million years.
In endorsing Sir Partha Dasgupta’s new book, David Attenborough, a national treasure, says:
“Partha Dasgupta provides the compass we urgently need… by bringing economics and ecology together, we can help save the natural world at what may be the last minute – and in doing so, save ourselves”.
When it comes to countryside policies, the reality is that urban authorities receive 41% more government-funded spending per capita while rural residents pay 20% more council tax per head. Would the Minister acknowledge this?
Evidence from the Dasgupta review in 2021 highlights the fact that biodiversity underpins rural productivity, food security and long-term economic stability. The United Kingdom Food Security Report 2024 found that biodiversity decline and climate shocks account for around 40% of food price inflation, demonstrating the economic stakes of countryside environmental management.
On taxation, as we have heard—the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned it—the change in the law whereby the Government have now, with their measures on inheritance tax relief, doubled the tax for family businesses and farmers means that it will be a huge burden on family farm transfers and rural business succession. The countryside and biodiversity policy agendas are increasingly interdependent.
With rural economy productivity, rural areas account for 21% of England’s population but only 15% of economic output. Environmental land management schemes, or ELMS, remain the UK’s primary mechanism for biodiversity recovery, but the SFI closure, funding uncertainty and limited landscape recovery scale threaten progress towards the Environment Act 2021 targets. Would the Minister agree with that, and that a more ambitious, stable and better funded higher-tier LNR programme is essential?
The BNG, which the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, mentioned in his opening speech, is one of the most important policy tools for reversing biodiversity decline, while maintaining development and growth. Yet, without stronger local authority capacity, coherent land use planning and robust enforcement, BNG risks falling short of its ecological potential. Strengthening, monitoring, supporting councils, and integrating BNG with broader ELMS and Landscape Recovery schemes will be essential. Does the Minister agree with that?
When it comes to protected sites in the nature recovery network and essential pillars of biodiversity, weak site condition, limited enforcement, fragmented landscapes and insufficient local delivery capacity threaten progress. We need to strengthen these areas. The UK’s species abundance targets are ambitious, but they are at risk as well. On the critical point of biodiversity recovery, policies exist but delivery remains slow due to funding gaps, workforce shortages and uncertainty around long-term land use planning.
On the issue of soil, I say that I took part in COP 26 in Glasgow as president of the CBI and I spoke at about 40 different events, but not one person mentioned soil. A few years ago, the Indian spiritual leader Sadhguru set off from Parliament Square to raise awareness of soil with the Save Soil campaign, so that 3% to 6% of organic content should be in soil.
I conclude with this: the biodiversity hit to economies is estimated at up to $25 trillion a year, reported in the FT last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change equivalent, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Tackling biodiversity loss, climate change, water scarcity, food insecurity and health risks in isolation is not only compounding those issues but driving spiralling economic costs.
I conclude with this: Sir Partha Dasgupta—who I started with—says in his report:
“We are part of Nature, not separate from it”.
We rely on nature to sustain us, yet we are degrading it faster than it can regenerate. Nature is our most precious asset.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. I declare my farming and land management interests in Wales, as set out in the register. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Grayling on securing this important debate before the Budget.
I begin with the policy area that should have been the cornerstone of recovery: land management. The Government’s handling of environmental land management schemes—SFI, Countryside Stewardship and Landscape Recovery—has created deep uncertainty among farmers and land managers. Pauses, reviews and shifting signals have left farmers unsure whether they can commit to habitat restoration, soil recovery or long-term stewardship. As we have heard this evening, these schemes cover 70% of England’s land, so, where they falter, our biodiversity targets falter with them.
As we have heard from nearly all noble Lords, that same instability now extends to inheritance tax. Farmers who want to invest in nature recovery are being actively discouraged by the Government’s proposed changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief. The NFU has warned that the reforms could force farmers to sell part of their farms simply to meet their future tax liabilities, and the CLA has cautioned that they risk making some farms “economically unviable” precisely when we need them to deliver environmental benefits.
If a farmer intensively cultivates every inch of land, relief is available, but, if they re-wet peatland, create wetlands, plant woodland or commit to long-term ecological recovery, they may lose it. This is a perverse incentive. It rewards environmental degradation and penalises stewardship. Nature recovery depends on generational continuity and these policies undermine it.
Compounding this is the Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which conservation organisations, from the CPRE to the Wildlife Trusts, warn will weaken environmental safeguards to accelerate growth. Biodiversity does not benefit from speed. It benefits from scrutiny, local accountability and protections that prevent short-term economic pressures overriding long-term ecological health. Yet the Bill risks increased habitat loss, reduced oversight and fast-tracked development across landscapes already under strain.
The same problem appears in an area which has not yet been mentioned: the Government’s energy strategy. Ministers insist that accelerated renewables deployment is inherently good for nature, but that is not how it is playing out on the ground. As Professor Dieter Helm has argued forcefully in the Times, the Government’s claim that renewables are “nine times cheaper” than gas relies on ignoring the enormous system costs: new pylons, substations, storage, cabling and “lots of back-up gas” needed to stabilise an intermittent system. We now require 120 gigawatts of installed capacity to meet the same demand once met by 60 gigawatts, meaning more infrastructure, more land take and more environmental pressure. Professor Helm warns that the Government are
“digging an ever-deeper energy policy hole”
and that this dash for infrastructure is not climate leadership but an ecological burden being loaded on to rural Britain.
Climate policy is not automatically nature policy. Net zero will not succeed politically, economically or ecologically if it is pursued at the expense of the landscapes and communities it affects most. The countryside is not merely a backdrop for targets; it is a living system of farms, hedgerows, rivers and habitats already stretched to breaking point. Weakening environmental protections, destabilising nature-friendly farming schemes and penalising ecological land management through the tax system are not the actions of a Government who have grasped the scale of the biodiversity crisis.
Given the deep uncertainty facing farmers who wish to commit to long-term environmental management, can the Minister tell the House when the Government will announce the next round of countryside stewardship agreements and whether farmers can expect continuity of funding in time for the coming planting and restoration seasons?
We cannot rebuild nature on the back of contradictory policy signals or wishful economics. We need coherence, honesty and a willingness to listen to those who live and work on the land.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for securing this Opposition day debate and for the opportunity it presents to take stock of how government policies are shaping biodiversity and the health of our countryside. It has been an absolute privilege to hear the speeches that we have had this afternoon on this issue.
This debate touches on all our shared national identity and environmental stewardship for future generations. Everyone has spoken with determination and passion on the need to halt the decline and work to preserve our precious heritage, from our ancient woodlands to our unique and fragile chalk streams. We have heard many times about the nature depletion levels in the UK. The abundance of species in England has fallen by 32% since the 1970s, with one in seven species at risk of extinction. I thank the Wildlife and Countryside Link for its briefing and the analysis that it shared with us, which confirms that only 3% of England’s land area can count currently towards the 30 by 30 target. Does the Minister’s own department’s research show a different percentage? If so, what is it? If she does not have it with her, she can write.
We have made some progress on this issue. When it comes to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is obsessing many of us in this House, the amendment from the excellent lobbyist and right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich on Report drew attention to the unique and irreplaceable value of our chalk streams. Those rare ecosystems, found in only a handful of places worldwide, are one of the jewels in the crown of our natural heritage.
His amendment, which was supported across the House, was a reminder that care for the environment is not peripheral but a duty central to any credible planning policy. We hope that it survives the bumpy ride in the Commons right now and comes back and survives in some way.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Parminter, whose persistence and expertise ensured that the Government accepted the inclusion of the mitigation hierarchy written into the Bill. I thank the Minister for including it. That hierarchy—a clear sequence requiring avoidance of harm before mitigation or compensation—is a small but vital safeguard against the steady erosion of biodiversity that has, for far too long, been the by-product of unbalanced development. It means that, when we make decisions about where to build, we do so with nature in mind, not as an afterthought but as a founding principle and starting point.
It will therefore not come as a shock to hear that we believe there are other improvements that can be made to the Bill, even at this late stage, to ensure that biodiversity has the urgency attached to it that is so vital. I particularly support the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis and Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, as we continue to believe that the Bill could be improved by ensuring that EDPs are not used inappropriately when it comes to harming wildlife. I genuinely know and trust that the Minister will ensure that we continue a dialogue on this between now and ping-pong.
While others elsewhere have been a bit obsessed about spin from No.10 over the past 48 hours, I know that all of us on these Benches do not share the sentiments behind some of the spin that might have come from next door—I do not know—suggesting that newts and bats are standing in the way of bulldozers and building. I certainly know that that is not a sentiment shared by the Minister. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out, all the statistical information suggests that planning and development are not constrained in this way. Again, can the Minister share what her department’s analysis shows? For example, what percentage of developments since—to pluck a month and a year out of the air—July 2024 have been constrained by species?
As the briefing from the RSPB makes clear, progress on biodiversity recovery remains hesitant and fragmented. The Government’s own environmental improvement plan has admirable ambitions, but the gap between aspiration and delivery is the frightening issue from all the briefings that we receive. The Office for Environmental Protection warned in its latest annual progress report that, unless things change materially, key targets such as the 30 by 30 for land and sea will not be met, citing a lack of strategy, guidance and action.
We are told that record sums are being allocated to environmental programmes, but too little of that funding seems to find its way to those on the front line: farmers, local authorities struggling to maintain conservation staff, or community groups restoring habitats destroyed by neglect. Vision is great, but it is quite another thing to sustain structures, commitments and action.
The decline of biodiversity cannot be reversed through these aims alone. The most important thing is coherence between Defra, MHCLG and, above all, the Treasury, with all departments moving in the same direction. Yet time and again we see competing priorities, particularly in planning, undermining this unity.
We should also remember that the biodiversity crisis is not confined to designated habitats. Nature does not recognise the boundary at the edge of a national park. The character of the countryside depends as much on the health of its working land—its farms, rivers and rural communities—as it does on protected zones. That is why we have long argued for integrated, locally driven environmental policy that trusts local partnerships to steward the land they know best.
We should also recognise, as set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the central role that farmers play in safeguarding biodiversity across the countryside. Farmers are not only fundamental to our food security but pivotal in shaping the health of our soils, wetlands and wildlife habitats. Government policies must support and reward those farmers who adopt nature-friendly practices, such as maintaining hedgerows, planting wildflower margins, reducing pesticide use and restoring wetlands.
I join with other noble Lords in asking what the update is on the SFI and other subsidies. I am keeping my fingers crossed about the Budget and the threshold with regard to inheritance tax. I know that the Minister will not be able to comment on that, but it is a defining thing and the recommendations from the EFRA Committee in the Commons are extremely helpful in that regard. If at all possible, I would also like any information the Minister may have, given that we are nearly at the end of 2025, on the farming road map.
In that spirit, I hope the Government will take seriously not only the criticism raised in the debate but the spirit of collaboration expressed in it. When this House works together, it is possible that we can deliver 30 by 30, but we will all need to work as a team.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Grayling for securing this important debate on the impact of this Government’s policies on biodiversity and the countryside. The scorecard is looking pretty grim, as many noble Lords have pointed out in this fascinating debate, and I will address further some of those points.
Before I do so, I refer your Lordships’ House to my registered interests as a quasi-regenerative farmer with Countryside Stewardship, landscape recovery and sustainable farming incentive schemes, as an owner of woodland and developer of new forests under the Woodland Carbon Code, as a peatland restorer under the Peatland Carbon Code and as an investor in natural capital-related businesses.
Most of us in this debate bear the scars of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Creating a new system via the environmental delivery plans to protect and compensate for damage to nature in development simply confuses the issue when we, in government, put in place protections and market structures that ensure that nature overall should benefit from development through our landmark Environment Act 2021.
My noble friend Lord Grayling and others mentioned the biodiversity net gain market, created in the Environment Act and underpinned by the mitigation hierarchy. The BNG industry report from July this year highlights 21,000 acres now dedicated to biodiversity net gain after only 15 months of operation, and forecasts a £3 billion market size by 2035. Should the Government accept our amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, this would allow those BNG markets to continue to develop, with greater experience building among those buying these units as well as selling them, proving that nature does not need to get in the way of growth.
Earlier this year, the Government conducted a consultation on its functioning. Can the Minister tell us when the Government will respond? We would welcome any changes that make the system easier to use for smaller developers and that allow the market to function more effectively for nature and growth. I agree with my noble friends that this need not mean exempting small developments.
What nature needs as much as our rural community is consistency. Habitats need to be left alone in order to thrive; farmers need to be able to plan ahead to make good decisions for their businesses and the right decisions for land use. This Government have halved inheritance tax reliefs under APR and BPR, destabilising that long-term planning. They have smashed delinked payments, brought SFI applications to an end and forced the farming community to wait until a date—which we hope we will hear shortly—in 2026 before any information or payments will be available for new schemes.
While the one-year extension to Countryside Stewardship mid-tier schemes, due to end this year, is most welcome, it was late. The net result is anecdotal evidence that many farmers have ploughed up or cultivated land that had been managed under these environmental schemes, in order to have some confidence that their businesses would survive. Can the Minister confirm that the beneficiaries of this extension will be able to apply for the new SFIs to be launched next year, rather than having to wait another year and potentially being closed out again?
This Government, and indeed previous Governments, are not providing the answers that biodiversity and the countryside need. The Government must incentivise private investment in nature recovery and other natural capital markets. Farms are businesses, not just producing food but sequestering carbon, protecting and enhancing nature and looking after our landscapes.
The Minister accepted the importance of water companies investing in nature-based solutions in the Water (Special Measures) Act, and at Third Reading of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, her colleague made helpful and clear commitments about the role of private land managers in delivering environmental goods in these EDPs. I hope that this is part of a progression towards functioning natural capital markets that will replace the burden on taxpayers with investment by the private sector. That could be the underpinning of a more prosperous future for the countryside, delivering even more biodiversity and nature restoration, which we are debating today. The £3 billion forecast for BNG alone is larger than Defra’s farming budget.
Businesses, as the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, mentioned, are also good citizens that see the value in protecting all our futures. That is why many are already buying voluntary carbon units and investing in carbon insetting in their supply chains to reduce their overall carbon footprints. They are also evaluating what they can do under the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures’ recommendations to improve the natural environment and their reporting. While I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, that it would be welcome to see this become more widely used in the UK, I would also be cautious about the reporting obligations and costs that this might place on smaller and medium-sized businesses.
Can the Minister inform your Lordships what the result has been of the consultation on including woodland carbon units in the UK Emissions Trading Scheme? The consultation closed 15 months ago. This could be a valuable step towards incentivising much more tree planting, a healthier rural economy and greater biodiversity. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has already mentioned the disappointing performance of tree planting in the UK versus, frankly, unambitious tree-planting targets. Steps such as this could incentivise much larger-scale planting.
My noble friend Lord Grayling made important points about the restrictions we still operate under in our coastal waters. The Government chose, unnecessarily, to allow our European friends to continue to have access to 40% of our fishing rights, when we could have recovered them all in June next year. The one-off coastal recovery fund of £360 million is a pretty disappointing attempt to buy off our coastal communities, when the full value of our fishing rights would have delivered an extra £600 million a year of revenue. In addition to responding to my noble friends’ questions, can the Minister be clear that the Government have the power to revisit the policy on marine protected areas without consulting and deferring to our European friends?
Lastly, I agree with my noble friends Lord Harlech and Lady Shephard and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that farmers need to be allowed to make a return on their land and to help prevent food security being undermined by the loss of the best and most versatile land to energy production. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for tabling today’s debate. It has been a very interesting debate, and I thank everyone for their contributions. I reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to restoring and protecting nature, but we recognise the challenges that we face. I will talk about the progress that we are making and some of the actions that we are currently taking to deliver change.
In England, we are committed to delivering the Environmental Act targets, which have been mentioned during the debate, to improve species abundance, reduce species extinction risk and restore or create more than 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat. Alongside this, we are also determined to deliver on our international commitment to protect 30% of the UK’s land and sea by 2030, but, clearly, this is a challenge. The programme is adaptive, so we can update it and make changes as we get more information and evidence on the progress that we are making. We simply cannot be the generation that lets nature slip away. We need to allow our children to inherit a wild and beautiful Britain that is richer in nature than it has been before.
The 2025 spending review announced the largest investment into nature in history, with over £7 billion directed towards nature recovery. This includes £5.9 billion for environmental farming schemes, £816 million for tree planting and £86 million for peatland restoration. These investments are designed to improve water and air quality, and to create spaces where biodiversity can thrive. The environmental improvement plan was mentioned by noble Lords, and I am very much looking forward to its publication. This will be our long-term plan for improving the natural environment and people’s enjoyment of it.
Obviously, farming was mentioned a lot in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, talked about the importance of nature-friendly farming, for example. Farming is central to our ambitions for nature. The sustainable farming incentive and Countryside Stewardship were mentioned; we are looking to evolve those schemes so that they work for both farmers and nature. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and others asked about the next round of Countryside Stewardship. Applications will be by invitation from Natural England and the Forestry Commission. We are currently working with farmers and land managers to develop the application. It will include some farmers and land managers who are in existing agreements, as well as those who will have new agreements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, was clear about the importance of certainty in farming. Farmers need to know how to plan for the future, and I fully understand that; it is something that I talk about in the department. As noble Lords mentioned, we have announced a one-year extension for more than 5,000 Countryside Stewardship agreements to help farmers deliver vital environmental work, including managing hedgerows. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, talked about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked about the review being carried out by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, and when we are likely to see it. The Secretary of State for Defra confirmed this week that it will be published before Christmas, so noble Lords should look out for that.
The landscape recovery programme is one of the most ambitious parts of our farming programme. It aims to deliver large-scale nature restoration. We have two landscape recovery projects—Boothby in Lincolnshire and Upper Duddon in Cumbria—which are restoring habitat and boosting species abundance now.
The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, asked specifically about action on and delivery of habitat targets. We are starting to see encouraging signs of progress in nature recovery. Since January 2023, action has been taken to create or restore more than 38,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat, for example.
My noble friend Lady Young asked about tree planting; it is now at its highest recorded rate in over 20 years and we are delivering our manifesto commitment to create three new national forests. The Western Forest, which we announced in March, is the first new national forest in 30 years. Last week, we also confirmed the second national forest, which will be between Oxford and Cambridge. Early next year, we will launch a competition to decide the location of the third forest. They will see millions of trees planted in the years ahead, as part of our wide commitment to allocate over £1 billion in this Parliament to tree planting and to support the forestry sector.
We are also taking action to protect and restore peatland. We have invested £85 million in peatland restoration and lowland peat management, which will take us through to 2030.
We are also supporting the recovery of threatened and declining species. The noble Lord, Lord Hart of Tenby, talked about declining species such as the curlew. We recognise the importance of stopping those species further declining and we need to look at how best to restore them. We have a species recovery programme, which works in partnership with organisations across the country, as it is absolutely right to respect those who are already working to re-establish species to support that recovery.
We think that such partnership working is essential. We need to work with farmers, as the noble Lord, Roborough, said; the private sector, which is a really important investor; civil society; and landowners. We have established the National Estate for Nature—the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, might be interested in this—which is a group of major public, private and third sector landowners which collectively manage around 10% of England’s land.
The local nature recovery strategies are also supporting local partnerships to identify the priority places for nature recovery. Last November, the first ever local nature recovery strategy was published. We now have 16 more, and the remaining 31 are expected soon, over the coming months. The idea is that they will cover the whole of England.
A number of noble Lords talked about the land use framework. The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, talked about the competing pressures on land use, and that is what it is designed to do: to deliver for nature recovery alongside housing, infrastructure and food security. All these have been discussed in the debate, and we recognise that England’s land is limited and the demands on it are growing. My noble friend Lady Young and others have asked about the timing on the land use framework for England. We are currently looking at the consultation that ran earlier this year and are working across government to see how best we can use the responses from that to develop the appropriate proposals through it. I cannot give an exact date, but we are actively working on it at the moment.
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill was obviously mentioned by quite a few noble Lords, and there has been a lot of interest in it. I think it is important to remind noble Lords that we did table a number of amendments in your Lordships’ House to better protect nature and the environment and for it to work better with development. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked, we are still actively in discussions around further concerns that noble Lords have on that. I also agree with my noble friend Lady Young that development and the environment do not have to be in conflict, and I am certainly not a fan of nature bashing.
I remind noble Lords that we also have a clear role for green finance, which is why we are working to strengthen private finance for nature recovery. We have a natural environment investment readiness fund that actively works in that space.
I have a few minutes to go through some of the specific questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, asked some pretty detailed questions—which are important questions to ask—around how land is managed, who owns it, and incentives and support for recovery. I would suggest that these matters really need to be dug into more deeply. I would be very happy to sit down and go through them with her, because she is far more experienced on this—and my maths is dreadful. It would be really good to have a bit of time with her if she is happy to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, asked about biodiversity net gain. We recognise that BNG is working as is intended but also recognise that its implementation can be challenging for SMEs. We have had a consultation to explore options for improving BNG for minor, medium and brownfield development, which is also an important part of this. The feedback we have gathered is that we want to balance environmental outcomes with their actual deliverability, and officials are looking at that at the moment.
Bottom trawling—a really important subject, also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, and mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech—is clearly a damaging activity. I do not think there is any doubt about that. Anyone who saw David Attenborough’s programme will be very clear about what the damage is. Our approach is to restrict fishing which is assessed as damaging to the specific protected features in each marine protected area, based on advice from the statutory nature conservation bodies. I am sure the noble Lord is aware that a consultation on the latest round of proposed fisheries by-laws, which proposes further restrictions on bottom trawling, closed at the end of September. The Marine Management Organisation—MMO—is now carefully looking at all the responses that were received. It may be that we need to pick this up together, because I know of the noble Lord’s specific interest in this area.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked about our little slogan, “food security is national security”. My understanding is that this is about our ability to feed our population and that is a fundamental pillar of our stability, safety and security. Food production and its supply chains should be considered part of our critical infrastructure. That is my understanding.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, talked about a number of things, but I want to comment on the important things he said about rural communities and the economy and the fact that there are challenges in the rural community around that. We are committed to improving the quality of life for people living and working in rural areas, because thriving rural communities and a prosperous rural economy make such a difference to the overall economy of the country. We need to underpin that through improvements in rural connectivity. I am not just talking about digital; I am also talking about transport, which is often a big issue. We need to ensure that affordable housing is available, that the energy supply is secure and affordable and that community services are available to rural communities. A Defra-led rural task force was set up earlier this year to gather evidence on those potential opportunities and challenges in rural areas, in order to look at how we can deliver growth and support sustainable rural communities. The noble Lord may be interested to look at that task force.
The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, talked about our energy policy. I am sure he is aware that planning for renewable energy projects, as for any project, requires extensive up-front surveying. There are important checks and balances that need to take place, because decision-makers need to ensure that statutory environmental and habitats assessments are conducted as part of the planning determination. Those assessments consider the likely impact on the environment and protected species and habitats. If significant adverse impacts are likely, developers have to put in place measures to avoid, preferably, or reduce, mitigate or compensate for those impacts. I hope that is helpful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked some specific questions. She asked whether we agree with the CLA’s assessment that 3% of England’s land counts towards 30 by 30. The answer is no. The government analysis is higher. We have identified 7.1% of England’s land that already meets the 30 by 30 criteria and counts towards the target, but on the other specifics I will write to her.
I hope I have covered most of the questions that have been asked. If I have not, I will check. I thank noble Lords once again. It is important that we consider these debates in the round and I think we have done so today.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very good debate and I say again that I am grateful to noble Lords who have remained here late on a Thursday because we all view this as such an important issue. There are not many issues that can command near-unanimity across a Chamber of Parliament. This is clearly one of them. I know that that unanimity in reality that extends to the Minister, although I have to say I share the concerns voiced on this side about the way the Government more broadly have treated the farming community. That really has to change.
I have two final points. I add my support to what the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said about regenerative farming. If we are going to achieve the 2030 target, regenerative farming has got to be at the heart of that and what the Government do has to support it. The other point is that we all know that government moves slowly, regardless of who is in power, but 2030 is pretty close. Frankly, the need now is for the Minister and her colleagues to put rocket boosters behind the government machine, whether it is civil servants, the MMO or Natural England, because this all has to happen very quickly indeed. There is clear unanimity in Parliament that we want this to happen and we want it to work, but now the task is delivering it and that is what falls on her desk. So I am grateful to her for listening to all the points this afternoon, but my message is, “Please can we get on with it?”