Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
The Department follows strong governance and planning frameworks, backed by rigorous value-for-money assessments, to make sure that upgrades are delivered effectively. That aligns with the Government’s 10-year infrastructure strategy and ensures that lessons, such as those from James Stewart’s review of High Speed 2, are applied across all projects.
Wendy Morton
The Secretary of State has recognised the value of the midlands rail hub and the investment that was needed there; it will create much needed capacity through central Birmingham. Given that, does she agree that now is exactly the moment to look at options such as the Sutton Park line, to enable the maximisation of rail traffic through more passenger services?
Heidi Alexander
I am keen that we look comprehensively at options for unlocking capacity that the midlands rail hub will provide. The right hon. Lady raises an important point about the Sutton Park line, and I am happy to talk to officials about whether that capacity could be unlocked as part of the scheme.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
The structures fund announced in June will help to deliver transport infrastructure upgrades effectively. Upgrading transport can of course support other goals: fixing Kennington bridge in my constituency would help thousands of motorists and cyclists while also enabling the Oxford flood alleviation scheme to go ahead. When will the Secretary of State announce the arrangements for the structures fund, so that my area can apply for funding for that much-needed project?
Heidi Alexander
My right hon. Friend is completely right to highlight the importance of the structures fund. There are bridges, flyovers and tunnels across the country where the local authority with responsibility for the structure is simply unable to meet the whole cost of repairing it. I intend in the new year to set out more details about the £1 billion fund, which will enable both the repair of structures and enhancements to our local road network.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The lower Thames crossing—or the late and tardy crossing, as it is now known in Essex—is the second largest piece of infrastructure in the country after High Speed 2. When will the work actually commence, when will the crossing be open to traffic, and—this is my third time asking the Secretary of State this question at the Dispatch Box—specifically which banks and companies will fund it? Many people in Essex are beginning to believe it is never going to happen.
Heidi Alexander
I have said to the right hon. Gentleman before that we are exploring private finance options to deliver the lower Thames crossing, having granted planning consent through a development consent order earlier this year. Enabling works, including utility works, could begin next year, before 2027, and the crossing should be open for use by vehicles in the mid-2030s.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The midlands rail hub project, which was funded at the spending review, will bring huge benefits to Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages, doubling the number of services to Birmingham per hour, but my constituents are wary about big infrastructure projects because they have seen the mess that HS2 has caused in our area. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give me that this Government have learned lessons from the previous Government and will make sure that HS2 Ltd acts swiftly and decisively to limit further disruption?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is completely right. The previous Government lost control of HS2—there is no doubt about it. This Government commissioned the James Stewart review, which made a number of important recommendations to improve project delivery. Those lessons are informing a fundamental review of HS2 that will provide certainty to communities about how long disruption will last. The Stewart review will also support improved practice on future infrastructure projects, including the midlands rail hub.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
The A59 Kex Gill bypass scheme has been subject to delays and increased costs because of design changes, poor ground conditions and further landslips on the A59. The scheme is overseen by the Conservative-run North Yorkshire council, which provides regular reports to the Department on its progress.
Sir Julian Smith
This link is vital for east-west transport. I urge Ministers to talk more frequently with the council, because the cost overruns are now becoming quite a challenge for it, and it is vital that we get the project completed.
Simon Lightwood
Under the major road network programme, once the Department has approved a scheme and agreed its funding contribution, covering any cost increases is entirely a matter for local authorities. The Department has provided over £56 million towards A59 Kex Gill, and no further funding is available, but of course I would be happy for my Department to provide advice to the Conservative-run council on how to deliver the scheme with the funding provided.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
In March, we published the maritime decarbonisation strategy, which provides the sector with the certainty that it needs to decarbonise. We support the Port of Dover’s plan to electrify short straits crossings, which I know the hon. Member discussed with the Secretary of State in September. Our colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are working on reform that will help to reduce grid connection delays.
Wera Hobhouse
UK ports are clear that large-scale electrification is essential for maritime decarbonisation, but the required grid capacity is severely lacking. The Transport Committee has urged the Government to provide planning authorities with clear guidance to facilitate grid and substation upgrades. Will the Department prioritise enabling ports to build up their grid infrastructure before they fall behind international competition, so that we can continue to lead on maritime decarbonisation?
Keir Mather
I agree with the hon. Lady on her ambition to decarbonise maritime. That is why, in my first week as maritime Minister, I announced funding of £448 million to decarbonise UK maritime. She is right to note that electrification and grid capacity are enormous issues. Department for Transport officials continue to work across the ports sector to ensure that we can improve the grid connection process, and DESNZ is working on reform of that process to free up 500 GW of capacity for crucial sectors such as ports.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The port of Falmouth has benefited from Government money for plug-in power, but it has been held back by the grid. The port is also trying to redevelop and expand, so that it can service the floating offshore wind sector, and bring in freight on the freight line that we lost 15 years ago. Will the Minister support the port of Falmouth in those aims, and will he visit?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is a champion for the port of Falmouth. I applaud the work that it is doing to achieve decarbonisation. It is incumbent on me to work with Ofgem and my departmental colleagues in DESNZ to ensure that we speed up the improvement of port capacity and connection to the national grid. I would be very happy to visit that port in the future to explore its fantastic work.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
Rail plays a crucial role in kick-starting economic growth, including by connecting communities through new and reopened stations. In July, the Secretary of State confirmed investment in new stations in the south-west—at Wellington and Cullompton—and in South Wales, as well as the reopening of Haxby station in Yorkshire.
Jodie Gosling
My Nuneaton constituents are delighted that Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council has approved a lease in principle on a site in Vale View in Stockingford, so that Nuneaton Town football club can return to home ground. Reviving the disused Stockingford railway station on the Birmingham to Leicester line could be transformational for teams, fans and residents of Stockingford and Camp Hill, and could give a huge boost to local growth. What support can be offered, so that we can reopen the station and build on the business case from 2022?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend has been a great supporter of her local team’s plan for a new home town stadium. Warwickshire county council will receive £68.7 million through the local transport grant, which local leaders can use to support schemes that are in line with local priorities. The Department will issue guidance later this year to support local authorities in deciding how to use their multi-year allocations.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Although train stations such as Harpenden and Berkhamsted are still open, to many residents, they feel closed. Frankie says that her train travel costs from Berkhamsted went from £19 to £37, and she can no longer get to work. Oliver from Harpenden says the same thing. Residents cannot use their train stations because the costs are too high, so there is much that we need to do. Will the Minister join Neill in Harpenden in calling for contactless to be linked to the network rail, to make it easier and cheaper for residents to use those stations?
Lilian Greenwood
As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, the Railways Bill will shortly come before this House. We will create Great British Railways, which will make our railways much more convenient for people across the country. I am sure that she looks forward to debating that Bill.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
We are taking ambitious steps to improve local buses, and our landmark Bus Services Act 2025 empowers local authorities to deliver better services. We are investing over £1 billion in 2025-26, and in the coming weeks, we will confirm multi-year allocations for local authorities, to help improve bus services in the long term.
David Pinto-Duschinsky
In constituencies like Hendon, bus services are not a luxury—they are a lifeline for the community, in particular the elderly and disabled people, yet there is more to be done to ensure that all residents are within easy reach of a bus stop. Does my hon. Friend agree that frequent, well-placed bus stops are essential to ensuring that local bus services are truly inclusive and accessible?
Simon Lightwood
I agree with my hon. Friend. We are clear that everyone should have access to high-quality, accessible bus services. Responsibility for services in London sits with the mayor, and 96% of Londoners live within 400 metres of a bus stop. To expand the progress made under London’s Labour mayor, we will be developing a new national strategy of stopping place guidance to support inclusive bus stop provision throughout England.
Peter Prinsley
At a lively church hall meeting in Barningham, which is a quintessential Suffolk village, a number of my constituents raised concerns about the state of rural bus provision. They highlighted not only the infrequency of the services, but the fact that the buses are larger than demand requires; many seats are unused. Does the Minister agree that a more flexible approach, including the use of smaller, more frequent buses, potentially powered by electric motors, would be preferable in rural areas?
Simon Lightwood
I agree with my hon. Friend that everyone should have access to reliable and frequent bus services. While it is for operators to manage their fleets, our ambitious bus reforms are giving local leaders the tools to deliver buses on which communities can rely, including by using flexible service models.
Sam Rushworth
I welcome the new powers relating to buses, and the new funding for them that the Government are giving, but the problem is that what this Labour Government are giving, our Reform local authority is taking. It has announced plans to cancel the 35A out of Coundon, and the 104, which connects Canney Hill with Binchester and Newfield, and to double concessionary fares before 9.30 am. Will the Minister join me in condemning that Reform council plan, and in calling on our county council to build up our bus services, not knock them down?
Simon Lightwood
I will indeed join my hon. Friend in condemning that. There is no representation here from that party today, but I urge the council to use the bus grant that we have given it to support local bus services.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
If you have already asked a question, I would not bother trying to catch my eye, unless you are exercising your knees.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
My constituents in Cranleigh, Shamley Green, Bramley and Shalford find it very difficult to get to their local hospital in Guildford, and to the community hospital in Milford. There is no direct bus service. A quarter of older people do not have cars. What will the Government do to help them solve that problem, which is becoming more and more difficult?
Simon Lightwood
That is why we brought forward the Bus Services Act 2025, which gives local leaders the tools that they need to shape bus services around needs in their community.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The age of participation increased from 16 to 18 some 10 years ago, but the age until which funded bus travel is available for those children who live too far away from the nearest school stayed at 16. I visited Purbeck school a couple of weeks ago. Many of the children who attend that school live in villages, and this was their top concern. Will the Minister look again at this anomaly, as it is simply not right that children should have to pay to get to their nearest school?
Simon Lightwood
Home-to-school transport is the responsibility of the Department for Education. However, we know how important affordable and reliable bus travel is, and we are committed to working with local authorities and bus operators to improve bus services for those passengers. We have already extended the £3 bus fare cap until March 2027, to help passengers continue to travel for less, and the substantial funding we have provided for local authorities to improve bus services can be used on local fares initiatives.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
In my constituency, residents face the challenge of there being four different bus companies, with four different tickets available, potentially at four different prices. Different providers’ tickets are not interchangeable, even when residents are trying to get to one location. What are the Government doing to empower local councils to work with bus companies to create joined-up ticketing systems, which would make bus travel simpler and more affordable, and would encourage local people to use bus services?
Simon Lightwood
Under the Bus Services Act, we are giving local leaders the powers that they need to take back control of their bus services, and to ensure that services truly reflect the needs of their community. We are working closely with local authorities to look at more integrated ticketing, and the hon. Lady will hear more about integration in our national integrated transport strategy, which is coming soon.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
We are starting to see train reliability stabilise, following a decade of decline. We are working with the rail industry on a performance restoration framework, with five clear areas of focus to recover performance to acceptable levels. These include timetable resilience, staffing, and keeping trains safely moving during disruptive events. Rail usage is up month on month: some 451 million journeys were made on Britain’s railways last quarter, which is a 7% increase on the same period last year.
Dame Nia Griffith
I declare my interest in rail travel, as I travel by train weekly between London and my constituency of Llanelli. Far too often, Great Western Railway trains between Paddington and south Wales are delayed or cancelled at short notice, causing significant inconvenience and distress to passengers, including those from my constituency. The cause is often cited to be problems in the London-to-Reading area. What more can the Minister do to ensure that GWR and Network Rail make a lot more effort to significantly reduce delays and avoid cancellations?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is a champion for her constituents and their right to get to where they need to. We are pressing Network Rail and Great Western Railway to improve reliability, which has at times fallen below expectations in recent periods, partly due to recent flooding issues. We expect Network Rail and Great Western Railway to work together to resolve these issues on this most critical route.
Jeff Smith
My constituents in Manchester are left constantly frustrated by delays and cancellations, not just on the west coast main line, which you know all about, Mr Speaker, but on our east-west routes, and on services all around Manchester. What are the Government doing, alongside partners, to drive improvements in services to our Manchester stations?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is championing the right of his constituents to use the train to get to where they need to. Alongside local stakeholders, the DFT created the Manchester taskforce in 2020 to identify solutions to performance problems throughout the city. The December 2023 timetable has delivered improvements in reliability of around 30%, and new infrastructure may enable more services to be introduced. My hon. Friend is fighting hard for his constituents on this issue, and I hope that my answer reassures him that we are moving in the right direction, but if he has any remaining questions or concerns, I encourage him to write to me.
Alison Bennett
My Mid Sussex constituents are frustrated by the number of cancellations, particularly on Thameslink services. One of the reasons for those cancellations is driver shortages; in particular, sickness rates are running at 15% to 20%. The operator has told me that it is now paying private healthcare providers, because NHS waiting lists are so long. Does the Minister think that is good use of my rail users’ fares, and will he make representations to colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, to make them aware that this is happening?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for her important question about the reliability of train services in her constituency. We recognise that the number of cancellations is completely unacceptable, and that train crew availability issues have been driving many of those incidents. The Department has commissioned work to understand in detail the impact of train crew availability on performance. Issues such as staffing levels, recruitment, training, overtime and sickness have an enormous impact, and I reassure her that we are working with officials in the Department for Transport and inter-departmentally with DHSC to make progress on this important issue.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
After leading a town-wide campaign to reinstate the direct Eastbourne to London Bridge service, I am delighted to say that it will return on 15 December. However, many passengers and staff on those trains, including Louise and Rhiannon, on-board supervisors whom I have met, are concerned about the amount of antisocial behaviour, and Southern rail’s lack of support for on-board supervisors in tackling it. What steps will be taken to keep passengers and staff safe from crime and antisocial behaviour on our train services?
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
This summer, the Department for Transport wrote to the rail regulator that the Government firmly believe that
“the arrival of competition will benefit users of rail services by expanding the number of stations served (including new markets), encouraging greater differentiation in service provision and promoting competitive prices.”
That was for international rail. Why do the Government believe that competition is good when travelling abroad but should be replaced with nationalisation here in Britain?
Keir Mather
On no subject is the hypocrisy of the Conservative party laid out more clearly than that of rail. We did not have a competitive rail system when the Conservatives were in charge; we had a fragmented and broken rail service that did not offer passengers the service that they deserved. By having Great British Railways, we can integrate track and rail services together to ensure that these services are run in the interests of passengers. Competition can of course continue through open access, but we want to centralise the service being provided in the interests of passengers right across the United Kingdom.
Jerome Mayhew
I am very interested to hear that mention of open access, because there is a risk with nationalisation that the organisation focuses on its own union-led interests, rather than the interests of passengers. That leads to bureaucratic inefficiency, delay and increased costs, and we may be seeing that already. South Western Rail was nationalised in May; since then, cancellations have been up by 50%, and delays have been up by 29%. c2c was nationalised in July; in September, it cancelled its online advance discount, making journeys more expensive, not less. Now, at TransPennine Express—the Secretary of State’s poster child for nationalisation—workers have voted for strike action. Is the Minister concerned that this Government do not have the backbone needed to face down demands from their union paymasters and put passengers first?
Keir Mather
The hon. Gentleman should know that, through the Railways Bill, we are building a system that will ensure that passenger accountability sits at the very heart of how this railway operates. I would be grateful if he could illuminate to me how constituents of his and constituents across the country are served by the previous system, under which people could not get a train where they needed to go, were plagued by strikes and had ticketing systems that did not work. We are setting up, through Great British Railways, a tough passenger watchdog that can have minimum standards and statutory advice for the Secretary of State and put passengers back at the heart of our railways.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Passengers will be at the heart of Great British Railways, and it will have a statutory duty to promote the interests of passengers in decision making. GBR will also be required to consult the passenger watchdog when developing its integrated business plan and key policies and procedures that significantly impact on passenger experience.
Chris Vince
May I welcome the extension of contactless payment to Harlow Town, Harlow Mill and Roydon railway stations in my constituency? That is making travel simpler and ensuring the best value for passengers. How will the Minister ensure that GB Railways continues to ensure that passengers are at the heart of decision making? Will he personally join me in my campaign to ensure that there are less cancellations of trains to Roydon station in my constituency?
Keir Mather
I am very pleased to hear that my hon. Friend’s constituents are benefiting from contactless payment, but he is right to urge us to go further in ensuring that GBR improves passenger experience and delivers on the priorities of the travelling public. We are committed to improving ticketing further through expanding pay-as-you-go beyond the stations at which it is already in use. Through the long-term rail strategy and its general duties, GBR will be incentivised to support innovation and deliver for passengers right across the country, including in Harlow.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I use the railways every Monday, Thursday and on other days in the week. The things that passengers look for, as well as those I talk to who come over here from Northern Ireland, are price, punctuality, space and comfort. Can the Minister assure us that those things are central to the Government’s obligation to the passenger? Let me add another factor. When it comes to safety, sometimes pedestrians stray on to the tracks, thereby holding up the trains. What is being done to ensure that security is taken into account?
Mr Speaker
I think that is slightly off the question. Minister, do you want to have a go at it?
Keir Mather
I will have a crack at it, Mr Speaker—thank you. The hon. Member is right to raise a number of issues that affect the experience of passengers on the railway. That experience is exactly what the passenger watchdog, which will be created through Great British Railways, is designed to protect. It will set minimum consumer standards that GBR and operators must meet as part of their licence conditions, but most importantly, that accountability will be public. The watchdog will publish reports and data on passenger experience and will be a statutory adviser to the Office of Rail and Road, which will carry out enforcement.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
We are taking ambitious steps to improve local bus services, including in York and North Yorkshire. These have included the allocation of £12.6 million of funding in 2025-26 through the local authority bus grant. I was pleased that my hon. Friend could join me, alongside the Mayor of York and North Yorkshire, to discuss their participation in our bus franchising pilots.
Mr Charters
Last week, I held a survey of my constituents on bus services. I got a great response, but one response stayed with me. My constituent said that the No. 11 bus—the only route to the crematorium—does not run on Sundays, meaning that they cannot visit loved ones on Mother’s Day or Father’s Day, the days that hurt most. Reading that put a real lump in my throat. No one should be stopped from remembering those they have lost because of a bus not running, so I have written to the operator, but will the Minister join me in arguing that this is the sort of practical, kind change we need to make across the country?
Simon Lightwood
It is vital that local bus services work for local communities, and that is at the heart of the Government’s bus reforms. I encourage the local operators to consider the feedback that my hon. Friend has mentioned, recognising the role that bus services play in supporting people to meet their families and friends and make important visits, such as to the crematorium.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I thank the hon. Member for his continued advocacy for this issue on behalf of his constituents. Soon the Department will publish its integrated national transport strategy, setting the long-term vision for domestic transport in England. It will focus on creating a transport network that works well for people so that they can get on in life and make the journeys they need to make easily, wherever they live.
Joe Robertson
Does the Minister accept—and, indeed, do the Government accept—that public transport will never be truly integrated for the Isle of Wight while it continues to rely on unregulated, unlicensed ferry services that are owned by private equity groups making bumper profits? He would not accept that for any other community in the UK; why should the Isle of Wight be left in a different situation?
Keir Mather
Again, the hon. Member makes a powerful point on behalf of his constituents—it is right to be frustrated by the affordability and reliability of ferry services to the Isle of Wight. I agree that urgent action needs to be taken to resolve the issues that he and his parliamentary colleagues are campaigning on. That is why it is incredibly important that we get a cross-Solent chair in place quickly, so that they can grip this issue. Fundamentally, though, we must work together to get the data necessary to create a single version of the truth, so that we can assess how to deal with these problems in the round on behalf of the hon. Member’s constituents.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
Transport is a key enabler of economic growth. That is why we are investing £92 billion to maintain and modernise our roads and railways, deliver major projects such as HS2 and East West Rail, and support leaders in our towns and cities. This will unlock productivity and support a thriving UK economy, enabling over 39,000 new homes and 42,000 new jobs.
Harpreet Uppal
As part of the trans-Pennine route upgrades, 25% of the route has already been electrified, with 40% due to be completed by summer 2027. Huddersfield’s famous railway station is also undergoing a £70 million reconstruction. Although there has been a 30-day closure that has led to some disruption for residents in my town, can the Secretary of State set out how the Government are ensuring the economic and social benefits of that investment will be utilised to help regenerate communities in Huddersfield?
Heidi Alexander
I would like to acknowledge that my hon. Friend’s constituents have had to put up with some significant disruption in recent months, but I am confident that when that work is complete, Huddersfield will have a railway station fit for the future. The trans-Pennine route upgrade programme is working closely with local partners to ensure that the £11 billion of investment delivers long-term social and economic benefits for Huddersfield and local communities along the route. This includes supporting skilled jobs, improving connectivity and creating opportunities right now for local supply chains.
Jacob Collier
Fragmented bus services, trains that refuse to show up before 3 pm on a Sunday in Uttoxeter and Tutbury and an east-west road network that needs upgrading—all those things are holding back my constituents and economic growth in our region. Can my right hon. Friend say how she will unleash the kind of transport links that will support the economic growth that my constituents, businesses and Staffordshire deserve?
Heidi Alexander
I sympathise with my hon. Friend. Some parts of the country have been held back by poor transport links from years of Tory underfunding. I am pleased, though, that with this Labour Government, Staffordshire has been allocated more than £39 million this year in highways maintenance funding, plus £92 million in local transport grant from 2026 onwards. It is now up to the local authority to use that funding to deliver for its residents, and I know he will continue to press it to do so.
Noah Law
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the recent boost to the local transport grant for my constituents in mid-Cornwall, but one of the barriers to more transformative rail investment in Cornwall remains a lack of shovel-ready projects to proceed with, which I have been talking about with residents in the western clay country and Fowey. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that we can get Cornwall’s railways back on track?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend never misses an opportunity to talk with me about the importance of improving the transport system for his constituents. Through the local transport grant, Cornwall council will receive more than £25 million, which local leaders can use to support schemes in line with local priorities. We will issue guidance later this year so that local authorities can decide how to use their multi-year allocations, and I encourage my hon. Friend to take up this cause with his local council.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Following the decision to cancel the A303 improvements at Stonehenge, the focus in Wiltshire is on what else can be done, particularly around Salisbury, to remove some of the enormous congestion that exists that clearly impacts on economic growth. I was grateful for the engagement with National Highways last night on the Wyndham bridge plans, but can the Secretary of State set out what she sees as an alternative investment in Salisbury and south Wiltshire, following the A303 decision?
Heidi Alexander
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has met my colleague, the former Minister for the future of roads, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), where they possibly discussed the A36 bypass around Salisbury. I am happy to meet him and talk to him further about any other ideas that he may have, in addition to the conversations he has already had with National Highways.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Aviation is vital to economic development and transport in the highlands and islands. The European geostationary navigation overlay system would have the massive benefit of improving the security and reliability of those flights, and they would be able to land in conditions than they cannot currently land in. What progress is being made towards that?
Heidi Alexander
We are working on this issue at pace. The aviation Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather), is cognisant of the benefits that scheme can bring and would be happy to keep the hon. Gentleman updated.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
Upgrading the Ely and Haughley junctions would enable a substantial shift of freight to the rails, which is important for net zero targets, for relieving congestion and for supporting haulage and logistics businesses. Will the Secretary of State therefore meet me, regional businesses, cross-party political leaders and the Suffolk chamber of commerce to look at the options for funding and upgrading this project, as outlined by Network Rail?
Heidi Alexander
I recently visited Norwich, where business leaders and representatives made the case to me for improvement works at the Ely and Haughley junctions. I am aware of the importance of freight on those lines, given the adjacency to the port of Felixstowe. We have had to take some difficult decisions in this spending review about the rail enhancement programme. While we understand the benefits of this scheme, it has not been possible to fund it in this spending review period. However, it is part of the future pipeline of work that we will be looking at.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
There is no passenger growth commitment in the Railways Bill, just the expectation of inflation-busting fare rises in the Budget. Holidaymakers are being used like a piñata, with a 13% rise in air passenger duty already in prospect, and airport business rates will be passed on to them too. Ports have been throttled by delayed decisions on connectivity with the rail infrastructure. Motorists are facing potential fuel duty rises, with insurance premium tax rises and pay-per-mile hanging over them. Which of the above measures is supporting, rather than hammering, economic growth?
Heidi Alexander
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman what this Government are doing to support economic growth when it comes to the transport system. We have given the green light to over 50 road and rail projects in the spending review, given planning permission to airport expansion at Luton and Gatwick, and invited proposals for a third runway at Heathrow, in stark contrast to the dither-and-delay approach of the previous Government when it came to the aviation sector. I am not going to take any lectures from him when it comes to economic growth and improving the transport system in this country.
Mr Holden
Everyone I have spoken to in the UK automotive sector knows that the Government’s 2030 targets for electric vehicles are unachievable, will cost good UK jobs and are a boon to China as we see BYD sales up by 350% year on year, to 3,500 in the latest October figures. In fact, although the Government said that these targets would deliver certainty, the head of one major car manufacturer told me that the only certainty is a “terminal diagnosis” for the automotive sector in this country. When will the Government abandon these damaging targets, which are hammering UK jobs and UK economic growth?
Heidi Alexander
The right hon. Gentleman really does need to get with the programme. We have seen the best month ever when it comes to sales of EVs and hybrid vehicles. He talks about Ford. In fact, since launching our electric car grant in the summer, over 30,000 drivers have been helped to purchase an EV, including the Ford Puma and the Ford E-Tourneo Courier. There is a discount of £3,750 for individuals buying those models.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
For decades, rail fares have been subject to above-inflation increases, and many people feel that prices such as £7,780 for an annual season ticket from Didcot to the London travelcard area do not represent good value for money and hinder the railways’ potential to reduce congestion and contribute to economic growth. Does the Secretary of State support the idea of a rail fares freeze? If she does, what representations has she made to the Chancellor ahead of the Budget?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to divulge conversations that I have had in advance of the Budget. I am sorry to disappoint him, but I am not going to do that. I am acutely aware of the importance that the travelling public place on affordability, and of course I want to find a way to help those who rely on our railways, given the cost of living pressures that people are experiencing. I have spoken before, though, about the scale of the public subsidy that we are currently putting into the railways, and we have to get the right balance between supporting rail users and being fair to the taxpayer.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency conducted a record 1.96 million tests in 2024-25, and delivered nearly 42,000 extra tests between June and September 2025 compared with the same period in 2024. Waiting times remain too long, however, which is why last week the Secretary of State announced measures to prevent tests being booked up and resold by bots, and we are bringing in support from the Ministry of Defence to bolster examiner numbers.
Iqbal Mohamed
Rachel, a constituent of mine, reached out to me regarding booking a driving test for her daughter at the Huddersfield centre. There are no appointments available next week, next month or even in the next year. Young people across the country are facing similar delays since the covid pandemic, forcing them to pay for months of extra lessons just to stay test-ready. Can the Minister tell the House what steps the Department is taking to tackle the severe backlog in practical driving tests, increase examiner capacity, and ensure that test centres such as Huddersfield and Heckmondwike are accessible to learners within a reasonable timeframe?
Simon Lightwood
The DVSA has introduced measures to deliver 10,000 additional tests a month by recruiting 450 new driving examiners to increase capacity, introducing incentives for everyone delivering driving tests, encouraging qualified DVSA staff to return to frontline roles, doubling the number of trainers and extending the cancellation notice period from three to 10 working days. On top of the stuff the Secretary of State announced just the other day, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency an additional examiner is conducting tests in Heckmondwike, while another additional one for Heckmondwike is due to complete training by December, and there is an additional examiner in Wakefield, all of which is helping to drive down waiting times.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I warmly welcome the tough action taken by this Government to cut the backlog in driving tests, but one thing that will help drivers more than anything, and help pedestrians too, is a crackdown on drug drivers such as Leon Clarke, who crashed his car and killed his eight-year-old son while driving under the influence of cocaine. Does the Minister agree that we need to change the law on roadside drug tests to stamp out this rising menace?
Mr Speaker
Order. The question is about driving tests, so as important as that matter is, the hon. Member would do better to try during topical questions.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
On 3 November, the Government launched a consultation to inform the development of the third cycling and walking investment strategy—CWIS3. That follows the announcement of £616 million of capital funding for active travel at the spending review, with allocations and details concerning revenue funding to follow in due course.
Dr Gardner
My constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South have told me that they cannot move safely around their community because vehicles parked on pavements force pedestrians into the road. Similarly, Staffordshire Sight Loss Council has raised with me the dangers that pavement parking creates for people with vision loss. Of course, that also impacts parents with buggies and wheelchair users. Will the Minister ensure that active travel planning and investment are used to tackle pavement parking and that accessibility is at the forefront, so that no one is excluded from safely moving around their community?
Lilian Greenwood
Earlier this year, we announced £300 million of funding for active travel for local authorities, supporting the delivery of high-quality pavements across England to enable more people to walk and 20 million new walk-to-school journeys by children and their parents. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that pavements must be clear and accessible. The Government recognise that pavement parking can endanger pedestrians, especially children, disabled people and parents trying to walk with prams and buggies, which is why I intend to publish our consultation response and announce our next steps on pavement parking policy very shortly.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
This Government are on the side of drivers and are focused on making journeys safer and smoother, and saving motorists money. Over the past year alone, we have invested an extra £500 million in road maintenance, given the green light to over 30 road schemes and committed £650 million to cut the purchase cost of electric vehicles.
Charlie Dewhirst
Does the Secretary of State agree that the introduction of a pay-per-mile charge for motorists in next week’s Budget would disproportionately impact rural constituencies such as mine, because people are more reliant on cars to get about, and represent yet another slap in the face from this Government for the countryside and for motorists?
Heidi Alexander
There are no proposals to introduce a national pay-per-mile scheme. This Government are firmly on the side of drivers. As I have set out, we are pumping £24 billion of capital into motorways and local roads, with a record £1.6 billion for local roads maintenance this year, which is £500 million more than last year, and we are further repairing rundown bridges, decaying flyovers and worn-out tunnels.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
We are committed to providing a rail network that delivers reliable connections for people and unlocks growth across the country. In addition to building High Speed 2, we are providing £10.2 billion over the spending review period to enhance the railway, reducing congestion and travel times, and connecting more people to work, education, retail and services.
Lorraine Beavers
The cul-de-sac of Thornton and Fleetwood in my constituency once had a rail line that served the local community well. Now, there is only one main route in and out by road. It is acknowledged that lack of connectivity is a determinant of health, wealth and educational inequality. Will the Minister meet me to talk about reinstating the Fleetwood to Poulton railway link to open up opportunities for the people in my community?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is a great champion for her community. The Rail Minister has said that he will be happy to meet her to discuss the benefits and challenges of that project. She will know that we have had to prioritise funding during this spending review, and I am afraid that currently none is allocated to this project, but it is for Lancashire combined county authority to consider developing the proposal further. I am sure the Rail Minister will be happy to talk to her about that.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The Government are committed to supporting aviation. [Interruption.] We are advancing airport planning decisions, modernising airspace and reviewing the airports national policy statement on Heathrow expansion. [Interruption.] To make sure that this growth is sustainable we have introduced a sustainable aviation fuel mandate and supported production through the advanced fuels fund, and are legislating for revenue certainty.
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Holden, you have had your question. You might want to go for a walk if you are going to carry on.
Lee Pitcher
As the work to reopen Doncaster Sheffield airport takes off, the focus now turns to ensuring that it succeeds in the long run. A key part of that is building the next generation of pilots and aviation professionals. I am already working with training providers and we will hopefully launch “Pitcher’s pilot programme” for our young people. Will the Minister set out what steps the Department is taking, working across Government, to ensure that the next generation of aviation professionals is ready to take to the skies?
Keir Mather
I applaud my hon. Friend’s ambition to train the next generation of aviators. Government changes to the apprenticeship regulations now mean that aviation employers have greater flexibility, which recently enabled the launch of the Tui cabin crew apprenticeship, with more under development. Through our aviation industry skills board, the Department for Transport works with industry and across Government to address barriers to access. We also fund the Civil Aviation Authority’s outreach programme to attract the next generation into aviation careers. I reassure my hon. Friend that making sure more young people have access to careers that they are passionate about is a subject in which I have a keen personal interest.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
I would like to start by placing on record my deep gratitude to the brave railway staff and emergency responders who dealt so heroically with the appalling attack in Huntingdon a few weeks ago. I am relieved that LNER staff member Sam Zitouni is now continuing his recovery at home. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in sending our best wishes to him and his family. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
We are getting on with the job of improving our transport system, with a record £1.6 billion of funding in our roads, by investing in our country’s economic future with the approval of 50 road and rail upgrades, and by turning our railways around with growing passenger numbers and legislation introduced to create Great British Railways. Better journeys are turning into cleaner journeys, with one in four new cars now an electric vehicle. With the Bus Services Act 2025 passed, backed by £1 billion of funding, we are improving our bus network, too.
This is only the start. Transport is at the heart of rising living standards, greater opportunity and national renewal—all things that this Government promised and are now delivering.
Sarah Coombes
Ghost number plates are a scourge on our roads and must be tackled. Part of the problem is the thousands of rogue traders who are very happy to sell ghost and cloned number plates to criminals with no questions asked. Despite this number plate wild west, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has removed from its register only five businesses for the illegal sale of number plates in the past year. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that she is taking action to control the sale of number plates in Britain and crack down on the explosion of ghost plates on our streets?
Heidi Alexander
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her dogged campaigning on road safety, and thank her for talking to me about this issue and others when I visited West Bromwich earlier this year. We are determined to tackle illegal ghost plates and will publish our road safety strategy before the end of the year. We are working with the DVLA to consider options for strengthening the regime governing the supply of number plates.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The electric car grant is designed to ensure that consumers have confidence in their ability to buy an electric vehicle over the long term, benefiting from £3,750 off the cost of some models. Importantly, we are undertaking work to increase the number of electric charge points across the country, with an extra 100,000 on top of the over 80,000 that are already in use.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
Driving test wait times remain too high, and this Government are committed to getting them down. Last week, the Secretary of State announced further actions to do so, including measures to prevent tests being booked up and resold by bots, and bringing in the Army to bolster examiner numbers. We continue to develop and assess further measures to tackle this serious issue.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Snuck out on a Government website, we learn that narrower roads are coming to make driving more miserable. Is it not the case that such a move will cause even more friction between motorists and cyclists, and slow our roads down so much that it costs the economy billions?
Heidi Alexander
Claims that Government guidance mandates a certain road width are false and misrepresent guidance from Active Travel England. There have never been legally binding standards for road widths, and that remains the case. It is obviously right that each road should be designed to meet the needs of local use, and that includes road width. Those decisions are for local traffic engineers. If the hon. Member is saying that we should not design roads to help avoid fatalities, I suggest that he is out of step with most people across the country.
Greg Smith
Mr Speaker, it is on their own website. But I will turn to another Government blunder: taxpayer-funded schemes to bribe the public into buying something that they do not want, which, we now learn, will financially hammer people for doing what the Government told them to do in the first place. Is it not time to let people choose what they want to drive, before electric becomes the new diesel?
Heidi Alexander
If the electric car grant scheme is so unpopular, why have 30,000 people availed themselves of it since its launch in the summer? I am clear that the transition to electric vehicles is a key plank of this Government’s agenda, because of the good jobs it can create and the need to clean up the way we travel.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Simon Lightwood
I am enjoying the tour of village halls this morning. Level crossings can be a significant safety risk. Network Rail, the owner of that level crossing, has legal responsibility to reduce risk so that it is as low as practically possible. The Rail Minister would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the specifics of the crossing.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The new railway between Oxford, Bicester and Milton Keynes has been open for more than a year, successfully running freight and charter trains, but passenger trains have yet to start. When will passenger services begin, and what does the Secretary of State feel are the lessons for her Department as to what has gone wrong?
Heidi Alexander
There were significant delays under the previous Government—14 months between their intention to move to procurement in March 2023 and any action on it, which was not until the general election last year. Within a couple of months of my being in post, we appointed Chiltern Railways as the operator. There are ongoing discussions locally, and I hope that services are up and running as soon as possible in the new year.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Keir Mather
I would be delighted to encourage local people to give it a try. I am delighted with the announced expansion of pay-as-you-go to 50 additional stations, including Aylesbury station, next month, and I can assure my hon. Friend that it will offer her residents greater flexibility, convenience and the best price for their journey for on-the-day travel.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Heidi Alexander
I fully appreciate that everyone in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency will want to see progress on this matter as soon as possible. I would point out that Gallows Corner has been in a state of disrepair for many years. In fact, under the previous Conservative Government, Transport for London received no substantive support, but this Labour Government committed more than £50 million to finally make the structure safe and reliable again in the spending review. Responsibility now sits with TfL.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The recent approval of Virgin Trains’ application to share Leyton’s Temple Mills depot with Eurostar is welcome news for jobs and investment in my constituency and for green economic growth. What plans does the Secretary of State have to further seize the opportunities from cross-channel rail?
Heidi Alexander
The Office of Rail and Road’s decision with respect to unused capacity at Temple Mills was very welcome. We need to explore whether there are ways to increase depot capacity further, and my hon. Friend will be aware that there are a whole series of further steps that we need to go through before passenger services are live and running. I am really keen that we make use of the spare capacity that exists in the channel tunnel to improve and increase the number of direct international rail services that run from London.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Heidi Alexander
I would be happy to ask the Rail Minister to meet the hon. Gentleman to talk about the particular issues around the station that he mentions and to understand what more we could do to properly integrate transport options in that area.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Apologies for jumping the gun earlier, Mr Speaker. We need to crack down on drug drivers. Leon Clarke from Rochdale crashed his car and killed his eight-year-old son while driving under the influence of cocaine. Does the Minister agree that we need to change the law on roadside drug tests to stamp out this rising menace on our roads?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
My hon. Friend is a great campaigner for road safety. He is right to raise this tragic case and the growing menace of drug driving. I am proud to tell him that our first drug driving focused THINK! campaign will be launching this coming Monday. If my hon. Friend —or indeed any Members across the House—would like to know more, they are very welcome to come along to the drop-in I am holding in W3 at 5 pm on Monday.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Heidi Alexander
I am happy to talk to my officials about that particular scheme. If I may, I will come back to the hon. Lady in writing.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Yesterday in Parliament, I met a number of bus drivers who told me that in their research of 420 routes, 222 did not have any toilets on the route, and 155 of those had no procedures in place for drivers who needed to access toilets during their route. These drivers deserve toilet dignity in their workplace. Does the Minister agree that we need to ensure that those providers give their drivers toilet dignity, and will she meet me to discuss this matter further to ensure they get that access?
Simon Lightwood
I will be pleased to meet my hon. Friend. Welfare facilities for drivers are extremely important.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Heidi Alexander
I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents want to avail themselves of concessions provided by the Labour Mayor of London. The hon. Gentleman will know that Londoners often pay a precept to fund some of the entitlements they have in London. That is why his constituents, who fall outside the Greater London boundary, do not have those concessions available to them.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Bracknell Forest council, supported by Department for Transport funding, has delivered an early Christmas present for residents, with free bus journeys on the first three weekends in December. Will my hon. Friend share my joy in that scheme, which will boost our local economy? I know it is only November, but will he also join me in wishing everyone in Bracknell Forest a very merry Christmas?
Simon Lightwood
It is my pleasure to wish my hon. Friend a very merry Christmas. I am pleased to hear about that. We have confirmed £1 billion of funding for buses to support and improve services in 2025-26 and to keep fares affordable.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Cross-channel rail was already mentioned this morning. Specifically, trains from Ashford to Paris were a massive boost for my constituents in the Weald of Kent and are much missed. It is fantastic news that Virgin would like to run trains again from Ashford and also from Ebbsfleet, but I know that there are some open questions about how the stations will be updated. It would be great to hear about any conversations that the right hon. Lady might have had with Virgin regarding what might need to happen next to move this forward.
Heidi Alexander
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), there are a whole number of steps subsequent to the ORR decision, which we welcomed. We are keen to see the stations at both Ashford and Ebbsfleet reopened, and I will be talking to all operators that are interested in making that a reality.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Considering the imminent publication of the 10-year bus pipeline and rapidly rising Chinese market share in UK bus orders, will the Minister expand on what the Government will do to ensure that domestic manufacturers have a level playing field, which the SNP’s infamous ScotZEB2 shopping list for Chinese manufacturers dismally failed to deliver?
Simon Lightwood
As my hon. Friend is aware, we have been working closely with operators and manufacturers as part of our bus manufacturing expert panel. We will publish that pipeline of orders in the near future.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
The Secretary of State will know that there is no mandate for TfL beyond the bounds of London—little enough within it. Does she agree that it has absolutely no mandate to increase the price on rail fares to Tonbridge by extending the peak hours system in London to areas where there is now talk of putting in contactless? Will she assure me that rail fares to Tonbridge and to Borough Green will not go up through a contactless increase?
Heidi Alexander
The expansion of the contactless system to wider areas of the south-east is, I am sure, welcomed by the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents, given the convenience that it gives them. [Interruption.] He shakes his head, but I can tell him that there are a lot of hon. Members across this House who are delighted with the roll-out of pay-as-you-go. If he wants to write to me with the detail of his concern, I would be happy to come back to him.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
East West Rail promises to be hugely transformative for Bletchley, positioning the town as a key economic hub, not only between London and Birmingham but between Oxford and Cambridge. With a new eastern entrance at Bletchley station, we can unlock the jobs and investment that will not only revitalise the town centre, but deliver a modern gateway for visitors to Bletchley Park. We have local backing; we just need some local funding. Will the Secretary of State meet me and key strategic partners to discuss how we can realise that opportunity?
Heidi Alexander
I am very happy to ask the Rail Minister to meet my hon. Friend. East West Rail could be transformative for his constituency; indeed, I saw one of his recent Instagram posts explaining some of the improvements at Bletchley. That probably says more about what I am viewing on Instagram than anything else! I have full confidence in the ability of the railway to transform the travel experience for his constituents.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Spring bridge in my constituency was designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel. The previous county council administration put off vital work to fix the bridge after a landslip. What can the Government do to help the current Liberal Democrat administration speed up the work to get it completed, and will the Government encourage the county council to open one lane as soon as possible, for the benefit of businesses and residents who are being put off by diversions?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Member may wish to suggest to his council that it considers the process for securing money from the structures fund, which we will make an announcement on in the new year, as that fund is designed to help resolve the sorts of situations that he describes in his constituency.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
There is a growing body of evidence about the dangers caused by headlight glare. I know the Department is doing its own research on this. Could the Minister give an indication of when new regulations might be brought forward to reduce the risks?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the hon. Member for that important question. He will know that last year we commissioned groundbreaking independent research to better understand the problems of headlight glare. We are looking at that and considering how we might take it forward, although—as I am sure he knows—the matter is subject to international vehicle regulations.
Russian Ship Yantar
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the urgent question, I once again remind Ministers of the requirement in the Government’s own ministerial code that major announcements be made to the House in the first instance, not the media. This applies to Secretaries of State. It is disappointing that the Secretary of State for Defence made a speech on television yesterday, yet no statement from the Government has been made in this House. I hate to say this, but the House went up at 3 o’clock yesterday. There was a huge gap that could have been filled.
This is the third time in a row from Defence that a statement has been made to the outside—to the media—rather than to the House. We are elected Members of Parliament. All Ministers serve this House, not Sky News or the BBC, so I hope that message is going back. The ministerial code is not fit for purpose if this continues to happen, so I hope that it will be used, and that Ministers will take it seriously. Please, as I stated yesterday: matters relating to the defence of the realm should always come to this House first.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of lasers by the Russian spy ship Yantar.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
Mr Speaker, with your permission I would like to make a statement on the Russian main directorate of deep-sea research—
Mr Speaker
Order. I say this gently to the Minister: unfortunately, it is not a statement—that is what I had wished it would be. He is answering an urgent question, and I think that is the big problem; somehow, different Departments have decided that statements do not matter. I know that is not the Minister’s position, but I hope that people are listening and that the message about how important it is that this House comes first will go back to the Defence Secretary.
Al Carns
Mr Speaker, I will pass the message on to the broader team.
I would like to make some comments on the Russian main directorate of deep-sea research programme, known as GUGI. As the Secretary of State for Defence described yesterday, the Russian research vessel Yantar is part of this programme, and is used for gathering intelligence and mapping undersea infrastructure, not just in the United Kingdom but across many other nations, both in Europe and across the globe. The UK understands that the Yantar is but one ship in a fleet of Russian vessels designed to threaten our critical national underwater infrastructure and pose a threat to our economics and our way of life.
Russia has been developing a military capability to use against critical underwater infrastructure for decades. GUGI is developing capabilities. It is deployed from specialist surface vessels and submarines that are intended to be used to survey underwater infrastructure during peacetime, but then damage or destroy infrastructure in deep water during a conflict. Russia seeks to conduct this type of operation covertly without being held responsible. Such capabilities can be deployed from surface vessels like the Yantar. That is why Defence directed a change in the Royal Navy’s posture, so that we can better track and respond to the threats from this vessel and many others.
The Yantar has been operating once again—for the second time this year—in and around the UK’s exclusive economic zone. During that time, she was continuously monitored by Royal Navy frigate HMS Somerset and the RAF’s P-8s.
We will ensure that the Yantar is not able to conduct its mission unchallenged or untracked. But that has not been without difficulties: a laser assessed to be originating from the port side of the Yantar was directed at British personnel operating one of our P-8s in a highly dangerous and reckless attempt to disrupt our monitoring. The P-8 continued to monitor the Yantar’s activity. Post incident, when its personnel arrived back safe in the UK, they were medically assessed. No injuries were sustained and no damage was sustained to the aircraft or her equipment.
Russia does not want us to know what it is doing or what the Yantar is up to; it does not want the world to know what it is doing. But we will not be deterred; we will not let the Yantar go unchallenged as it attempts to survey our infrastructure. We will work with our allies to ensure that Russia knows that any attempt to disrupt or damage underwater infrastructure will be met with the firmest of responses. I finish by saying a great thank you to the brave men and women of our Royal Navy and RAF who continue to keep us safe at home and abroad.
James Cartlidge
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I echo what you said: it is unacceptable that we are getting the Minister’s update on a major national security incident 24 hours after the Secretary of State gave his press conference. Have Ministers learned nothing from the total shambles of the strategic defence review, when defence companies got a copy many hours before parliamentarians?
I turn to the incident, which appears to represent a serious escalation by Russian forces in close proximity to our homeland. Given the priority of protecting our service personnel—I welcome the news that the P-8 pilots were unharmed—will the Minister outline what mitigations are being taken against the evolving laser threat involved?
This incident surely underlines that Russia remains a serious threat. That being so, we could not help but notice that yesterday the Defence Secretary got the podium out for the media just as the Defence Committee was publishing a damning report about Labour’s total lack of progress on boosting our defence readiness. The report said that when it comes to readiness the Government are moving “at a glacial pace”.
On the subject of pace, the SDR promised a defence readiness Bill that would include measures to deal with the grey zone threat, but Ministers recently told me that it has not even been timetabled. In what year will the defence readiness Bill become law?
Capability questions will be key when it comes to undersea cables, but every one of Labour’s defence policy papers has been late. The Government promised to publish the defence investment plan “in the autumn”. With a week of that season remaining, will they keep that promise?
As the Minister knows better than anyone, when it comes to the hybrid threat, our special forces are more important than ever. Is he not concerned that General Sir Michael Rose, who led the relief of the Iranian embassy siege that made the SAS world-famous, has condemned the Government for “hounding SAS veterans”, warning that that will harm recruitment and morale?
The Yantar incident shows the seriousness of the threat that we face, but what are the Government actually doing in response? The answer: Labour is cutting £2.6 billion from defence spending this year, surrendering sovereignty of the Chagos islands and, following its shameful vote this week, putting the British Army back in the dock.
Al Carns
The hon. Member is correct that Russia does remain a threat. With the ongoing conflict in Ukraine causing over 1,000 casualties a day, it is the biggest threat that the UK has faced in a generation.
As we progress and we hear the Opposition’s criticism of the Government, trying collectively to convince us that we are not doing anything, it is worth noting from my perspective of 24 years of service that we watched the degradation of defence, with the armed forces facing their lowest morale, equipped with equipment that was not fit for purpose, going alongside ships that had not left docks in years, and with families in houses with leaky homes and damp. We had to put up with delay, decrepitude and downgrading of all our defence capabilities.
Now, for the first time in a generation, the military is looking at an increase in defence spending and, with the strategic defence review, integrated missile defence, “NATO first”, and by 2027 running a Steadfast Defender with a whole-of-society approach. We are putting £4 billion into uncrewed systems and £1.5 billion into munitions. The defence readiness Bill is another legislative process to push further changes through by the end of this Parliament.
On elements at the tip of the spear, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, looking into the details, that recruitment and retention is not one. Indeed, we inherited the smallest Army since Napoleonic times due to recruitment and retention issues under the previous Government. Before the Conservatives start lecturing us, a year and a half into our government, on how decrepit our defence is, and downplaying our soldiers, Air Force and those individuals in the Navy, they should take some responsibility for the mismanagement of the defence portfolio for the last 14 years.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Yantar’s presence within our waters makes clear Russia’s threat to our democracy, and I am grateful for the service of the brave men and women of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force who protect us. Within the context of the Defence Committee’s recent report, can the Minister highlight how our Government’s leadership of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group and our treaties with Germany and France are essential in ensuring that we reset our relationships and ensure that democracy is safe within Europe?
Al Carns
I would like to thank my hon. Friend for his contribution.
Since coming into Government, we have signed the Trinity House deal with the Germans and renewed the Lancaster House deal with the French. We have done the world’s biggest-ever frigate deal with the Norwegians, bringing in tens of billions in investment. We have done a Typhoon deal with the Turkish, and we have secured a UK-EU security and defence partnership. We have led the coalition of the willing with the French. We have taken on the UDCG, which has generated billions of investment for Ukraine. We have done deals with the EU, US and India. I would argue that this is like an episode—a really bad one—of “Deal or No Deal”.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
May I begin by joining the Minister in thanking our service personnel for their bravery and dedication? The use of lasers in this instance was a brazen act of aggression by Russia that endangered the lives of RAF pilots. Have the Government identified the Russian officials and military personnel who gave the order to engage so that they can be held accountable and sanctioned? What assurances can the Minister give that Russia understands the consequences of repeating this aggression towards the UK?
This episode has shown once again the lengths to which Putin will go to undermine Britain’s defence. It follows the reports of Russian sabotage of Poland’s civilian railway this week. Can the Minister tell the House what conversations Ministers have had with fellow European Ministers to agree a collective response to Russia’s hybrid attacks, including to protect Europe’s critical undersea infrastructure? Recognising also that our Ukrainian allies are on the frontline of Putin’s aggression, will the Minister take forward my private Member’s Bill, which calls for the unilateral seizure of Russian assets in the UK so that they can be used to fund Ukraine’s defence?
Al Carns
The hon. Member brings up a really valid point: the Yantar and the GUGI programme is not just a UK issue; nor are the asymmetric threats that we collectively face across Europe. They are international issues. GUGI vessels operate all over the world. We will collectively work together to gather evidence and show Russia that we know exactly what it is up to, and indeed expose any nefarious activity. I would like Members to be in absolutely no doubt that we will hold people, states and organisations to account should any of our critical national infrastructure be threatened in any way.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Given both the Baltic sea incident in 2024, where underground cables were said to be sabotaged, and the latest provocation where the Yantar is said to be mapping undersea cables, will the Minister please outline how allied co-ordination, particularly with our Nordic and Baltic partners, could be strengthened?
Al Carns
My hon. Friend raises a really valid point. We have seen several cables in the Baltics severed or cut. I would argue that the Yantar, with its intelligence-gathering capability, maps these cables, and perhaps accidents take place at a later date. We are working really well, in particular with our Norwegian partners and the US, to ensure that we understand the exact capabilities that sit on some of these vessels, so if something were to happen, we can attribute and expose it , not just from a UK perspective but an allied one.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Responding to that directly, if the Government are trying to map the capabilities of the vessel, can they tell us whether they knew in advance that it had this laser capability, and if they did, whether steps are being taken to find methods of protecting our personnel against such laser attacks? Will the Minister and the Government be careful not to fall for the bully’s playbook of the killer in the Kremlin? It is no coincidence that this incident happened now, just at the time that the Americans are coming up with a “peace plan” that plays into the hands of Putin and betrays our Ukrainian friends.
Al Carns
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution, which was very focused and meaningful, as always. I will not go into detail on the specific capabilities, but from our perspective there has been no impact on the aircraft or the crew, and we have expanded our rules of engagement to ensure that no vessel can operate over sea, over our critical national infrastructure, without being watched and monitored in the closest and most sophisticated way.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
The first duty of any Government is to keep our citizens safe, which is why this Labour Government are delivering a historic uplift in defence spending, in stark contrast to the cuts of the Conservative Government. The Minister set out a potent example of the rising threats to our country. Will he say more about how our increased defence spending will keep us safe and support jobs in the defence industry, such as at the Westley Group in my constituency, which makes all the castings for our UK submarine fleet?
Al Carns
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. Defence spending is not just about defending the nation; it is an engine for growth. The Typhoon deal alone has created over 20,000 jobs, and Members will have seen just recently that we are providing up to 100,000 drones to Ukraine. That is to do not just with the capability going forward, but with the industrial base back here in the UK. The huge increase in defence spending in 2027 will broaden our defence industrial base; combined with deals here in the UK and overseas, we will make it an engine for growth, increase jobs and prosperity, and, importantly, shore up the defence of the nation.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I congratulate the Government on being more forward in their public responses to this kind of provocation than any other European member of NATO, let alone the United States, but also point out that this underlines what we know from what Putin and Lavrov have been saying? They think they are at war with NATO and with the United Kingdom already. The question is not how we retaliate directly, but how we retaliate in order to put pressure on Putin and Russia. The answer is by increasing our military assistance to Ukraine to tip the balance in its favour, change the calculus, and get the Russians to come to the peace table and agree a proper ceasefire, which even President Trump’s appeasing plan seems most unlikely to achieve.
Al Carns
The hon. Member is right: we must push as hard as we can to impose cost on Russia. To date we have spent £21.8 billion in Ukraine—£4.5 billion in military support—and I know we have support from both sides of the House to do everything we can to increase the pressure. I mentioned that we have upped our drone production to 100,000 this year, and we are increasing our training of Ukrainian troops to 61,000 in total. We will do whatever it takes to enable the Ukrainians to win the peace.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
The Yantar was intercepted in the north Atlantic, which is the UK’s new frontline but my constituents’ backyard. I was reassured by the preparedness of the RAF and the Royal Navy and grateful for their defence of our airspace and seaspace, but what assurance can the Minister give my constituents about our preparedness and resilience to meet these kinds of hybrid attacks? These cables do not just run across the Atlantic; they run between our islands, too.
Al Carns
My hon. Friend highlights a valid point. The north-west of Scotland plays an invaluable part in our defence architecture, and sustains economic growth with a variety of undersea infrastructure. We have some of the best ships, personnel, aircraft and Air Force members. They will continue to monitor, track and deter any Russian aggression anywhere near and within our territorial waters and exclusive economic zone.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I associate myself with comments about the bravery and professionalism of the military personnel involved in the response to the Yantar’s presence, many of whom are based at Lossiemouth in my constituency. Yesterday, the Defence Committee published a report recommending that the UK Government accelerate and deepen defence relationships with the EU in the face of Russian threats. However, unsurprisingly, the EU is now charging the UK to enter agreements to which we had EU member access prior to Brexit. That leaves these isles more isolated. In the face of the very real Russian threat, what is the risk to RAF pilots and crews at Lossiemouth? Will the Minister tell me the specifics of any plans to work closely with European allies to ensure safety and security of the North sea and the protection of Scotland’s coast from Russian vessels?
Al Carns
We are working closely with our European allies to get access to the Security Action for Europe programme and an EU-UK defence partnership. That is primarily for two reasons: first, so that we end up with a far more collaborative and interoperable defence capability, and secondly, to ensure that the economic benefits of both are seen south of our coast and here in the United Kingdom. Importantly, we have a trajectory to invest in P-8s long into the future. They play such an important role in our anti-submarine warfare fleet, and will continue to do so until the threat is gone.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and join him in thanking the Royal Navy and RAF personnel, and the civilian staff, who have been involved. There is a possibility that vessels such as the Yantar could be used to launch drone attacks on the UK. Will the Minister reassure us that he is working to bolster the UK’s air defence system?
Al Carns
That is a valid point. For years we have not taken homeland security seriously. The House will note that, in the strategic defence review, we have invested in integrated missile defence, which is important both for very sophisticated systems and for the low-grade systems we have seen flying in our airspace, which are sometimes more difficult to track and defeat. I can absolutely give the assurance that we are investing in integrated missile defence as we move forward with the strategic defence review and the defence investment plan.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I welcome many of the Minister’s comments. I would add my enormous thanks to the intelligence personnel who assisted not only in zeroing in on the ship but in understanding its capabilities a long time before anybody else arrived on the scene.
As a fellow former military assistant in the MOD, may I raise one point with the Minister? We have both seen Governments of every colour making decisions and statements that sound good on the day before the reality of a lack of kit becomes clear. I saw that under Blair and Brown, and again, yes, under Governments of my own stripe. I am sure that the Minister, too, saw that under them all. I raise this because the reality is that the world has changed. We are much, much more vulnerable today than we have been, but we have fewer ships at sea, fewer men in uniform and fewer planes in the air than we have had at any time. Yet the aspiration for the 3% is still “by the end of the Parliament” or “over the next five years”, and always on the never-never. He must be very careful, as I am sure he is hugely aware, that he is there to change defence, not to apologise for failure.
Al Carns
The right hon. and gallant Member raises a valid point. When we came into government, we took the significant step of raising defence spending, but he knows as well as any that it is not just about buying or investing in the same capability; it is about rebuilding and reshaping our armed forces to fight not yesterday’s war but the war of the future. We are absorbing many of the lessons from Ukraine to ensure that we can transform our military to fight in the most effective manner. That is why I got into this game in the first place—to move that along faster, particularly when it comes to autonomous systems.
The right hon. and gallant Member will have seen in the strategic defence review a massive increase of £4 billion for autonomous systems, as well as an increase in the number of drone companies. Just today, the Defence Secretary opened another factory down in Plymouth. I am away after this statement to go and open another in Swindon. A huge industrial base to build drones is growing in the UK. It is a Seedcorn capability that can expand rapidly at times of conflict. I am happy to take any of these points offline to talk further about how we can work collaboratively to move forward.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
This reckless act from Russia demonstrates how important it is that the world stands united against Putin’s aggression. What discussions has the Minister had with his international partners about maintaining and galvanising that support?
Al Carns
That is a really useful point. Individually, we are strong. Collectively, we are united. It is really important that we double down on our allies and partners to collaborate—whether that is with NATO, the joint expeditionary force or some of our European or international allies. This is all about our being stronger together, whether that is the UK Army, Navy, Air Force and intelligence partners working to expose the Yantar’s capability, or collectively, working with all our like-minded allies to make sure that we are mapping and tracking its capability. Should there be a disruption in critical national infrastructure, we can then expose it and attribute it as fast as possible.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Everyone in this House should be concerned by the increase in Russian sub-threshold activity, and this certainly is not the first time we have found ourselves in this House discussing the Yantar specifically. The use of lasers against an operational P-8 very much pushes the boundaries of what we could consider to be sub-threshold activity.
I want to ask the Minister a question that is very much within his bailiwick. I do not expect him to be able to comment on whether we have deployed any elements of the Fleet Contingency Troop to HMS Somerset, which is tracking the Yantar, but under what circumstances and geographically whereabouts within our waters would the Yantar need to be in order for us to apply some maritime interdiction via the Fleet Contingency Troop?
Al Carns
I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his point. As someone who used to be in that part of the organisation, I am sure there are lots of people who are champing at the bit to get involved. We must adhere to the international rules of the sea, but let me be really clear for anyone listening to this today that we know exactly what Russia is up to—without a shadow of a doubt, we know what it is up to—and should there be a connection between understanding our cables or undersea infrastructure and disruption, individuals, units, organisations or countries will be held accountable.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The sight of this sinister ship snooping around our shores strikes alarm. How can we be confident of the security of our vital undersea communication cables and what, without compromising our security, is plan B if they are severed?
Al Carns
As my hon. Friend will know, we work with our allies to build contingency across all our critical national infrastructure. There is lots of work to do, and we are working in collaboration with other Governments to do it. The point he raises, which is one of the most important, is that Russia wants to operate behind a veil of darkness, in the shadows, but let us be really clear: we know exactly what it is doing; we know everything that it is up to. A laser pen is not going to deter us. We will continue, we will double down and, if required, we will expose and attribute.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
In the light of this recent escalation, what specific and immediate steps is the Minister taking to ensure that UK armed forces are equipped both to protect critical underwater infrastructure and to respond rapidly and effectively to direct threats from Russia and others?
Al Carns
The strategic defence review points to the multi-role ship and our buying into mapping and tracking our infrastructure, protecting it and, importantly, if required, deterring capabilities such as the Yantar, and a suite of capabilities that the Russians can field, to ensure they cannot work with impunity in either the EEZ or international waters.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
In January, the Defence Secretary came to this House to make a statement when the Yantar passed through British waters, but he did not see fit to do so when that ship directed lasers at our pilots, which I think reflects poorly on him. Has the Russian ambassador been summoned over this highly dangerous action, and if not, why not?
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. It is something I will take up with my colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. If there is unruly or escalatory activity, we have to continue to ensure that, diplomatically, individuals are called in and held to account, and we will continue to do so.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
We know, as the Minister has said, that Russia and China target undersea cables and interconnectors, which we rely on increasingly because of the Government’s energy policy. We know that the Russians put listening devices on our offshore infrastructure to monitor our submarines, and we know that China, which dominates the world market for cellular internet modules, inserts kill switches into the turbines that this Government want to buy from them. I have been asking the same question for a year now: why is there not a single Minister in charge of the security of our offshore energy infrastructure? What representations have Ministry of Defence Ministers made to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, who is causing so many of these problems?
Al Carns
I would not say that there has been a lack of accountability, but the hon. Gentleman is right to mention that until now there has been a lack of centralisation around our critical national infrastructure. A recent report was issued and we now have clear lines of accountability. Defence is a part of that and we are building our capability, with the view eventually of fulfilling our role with that structure. We are working collaboratively across Government to ensure that our critical national infrastructure is protected, so that should there be an incident, there is accountability.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his strong words and his answers, which encourage both hon. Members and those who are listening. Let us be clear and succinct: Russian ships have twice entered British sovereign waters, and to add to that aggression, they have been tracking our RAF pilots with lasers. Our enemy has breached our waters disgracefully, disregarded neutrality and shown disrespect. The facts and the evidence are there. To quote Winston Churchill, who I loved when I was a boy and who was certainly my hero:
“We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be”.
Will the Minister confirm that this is a form of attack, and that the might of our armed forces is poised, their equipment is trained and they are ready to go?
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his insightful question. Be in no doubt: we will defend every inch of this country and our territorial waters. If anything is taking place in our EEZ, in particular, we will expose, we will attribute and, be in absolutely no doubt, we will hold people, organisations or countries accountable should there be any impact on or disruption to our critical national infrastructure.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I will now announce the result of yesterday’s deferred Division on the draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025. The Ayes were 376 and the Noes were 16, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Ukraine: Forcible Removal of Children
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the future of the war in Ukraine and the forcible removal of children to Russia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
Russia’s assault on Ukraine is an unprovoked, premeditated and barbaric attack on a sovereign democratic state. For over three years, Ukrainians have defended their country with courage and a fierce determination to defend the shared values that we cherish.
President Putin continues to intensify missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities which continue to kill civilians, including children, and damage vital civilian infrastructure. President Putin is also taking children from their families. Almost 20,000 Ukrainian children have been forcibly deported to Russia or to Russian temporarily controlled territory by Russian authorities. We are closely engaged with Ukraine and our international partners to ensure that Ukraine gets the support that it needs to defend itself and achieve a just and lasting peace.
President Putin has shown no readiness to engage in meaningful peace negotiations. At last week’s Foreign Ministers meeting, G7 partners were clear that international borders must not be changed by force. We will also continue to use the full might of our sanctions regime to bear down on the revenues that are funding Putin’s war and to ratchet up pressure to force him to engage in meaningful talks. To date, this Government have sanctioned over 900 individuals and entities, targeted Russia’s illicit shadow fleet and its two largest oil producers, and announced a ban on maritime liquefied natural gas, all to curb funding of Russia’s war chest.
Russia’s heinous policy to deport, indoctrinate and militarise Ukrainian children demonstrates the depths to which they will sink to eradicate Ukrainian identity and future.
The UK has committed more than £2.8 million to supporting Ukrainian efforts to facilitate the return and reintegration of children deported by Russia. Since the beginning of September, Ukraine’s pilot tracing mechanism, which the UK is co-funding, already identified more than 600 additional children who were deported to the Russian Federation or relocated in the temporarily occupied territories. The Foreign Secretary discussed this issue with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister during last week’s inaugural meeting of the UK-Ukraine strategic dialogue. We are working internationally in support of Ukraine and Canada, which co-chairs the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children.
Priti Patel
This House has been resolute in its support for Ukraine and its defence of its territories, sovereignty and freedom. Since 2022, the amount of support we have given to Ukraine has placed us at the forefront of those working with it to secure peace on its terms. As US military officials are in Ukraine today, we need to know what role the UK Government and the coalition of the willing are playing. What is the Government’s position on reports that the United States is brokering a deal with Russia that will involve Ukraine making territorial concessions, with Russia gaining territory, or being party to some form of lease arrangement, under which it effectively controls the east of Ukraine? Was the UK involved in drawing up those proposals? Reports suggest that under those proposals, the Ukrainian armed forces will be reduced and limited. What is the Government’s view on that? Are these reports accurate, or are there proposals on the table that align more closely with our view, and the Ukrainian view, that Russia should leave Ukraine?
Can the Minister give an update on the steps being taken to pressure Russia and its economy? We know of the sanctions and measures, and that they are being kept under review, but are proactive steps being taken to press countries to stop refining Russian oil? Turkey, India and China all have refineries, and are significant importers of Russian oil. When the Prime Minister met the Turkish President last month, did the Prime Minister raise this issue, and press him to stop? We have asked that question before, but we did not get a direct yes-or-no answer. Have British Ministers raised this issue with their Chinese counterparts in the Chinese Communist party when they have gone to Beijing to conduct shuttle diplomacy? Is there an update on securing the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea to support Ukraine?
Finally, today is World Children’s Day. Our thoughts are with the 20,000 Ukrainian children reported to have been abducted by Putin. We welcome the reports of the returns, and the rescue of 1,800 Ukrainian children, but what further steps is Britain taking to secure their return as soon as possible? Is that a priority in the talks that are taking place?
Mr Falconer
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for the tone of her questions. The whole House is united both in support of Ukraine, and in outrage at the iniquity of what the Russians are doing to Ukrainian children.
We are glad of our partnership with the Ukrainian Government on the new tracing mechanism. As I said, it has made some progress since September, having identified more than 600 children who should be returned to Ukraine, and we will use our full efforts to ensure that they are returned. The shadow Foreign Secretary asks about reports made in recent days. I am sure that she will have seen the statement this morning by the US Secretary of State, in which he indicated that a range of ideas were being discussed. The Foreign Secretary is in direct regular discussions with the US Secretary of State, and he made an important statement last week at the G7 on these questions. That statement reiterated that an immediate ceasefire is urgently needed.
We should be clear that President Zelensky is ready for an immediate ceasefire, and the UK supports him in that initiative; it is President Putin who is failing to come to the table. What should be the starting point of negotiations? It was clear in the G7 statement that the current line of contact should be the starting point, and we remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force. I know that principle is held strongly across the whole House.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Today, on World Children’s Day, we are reminded that safeguarding the next generation is not just a value that we hold dear, but the responsibility of every Member of this House. In recent days, more than 100 Members have backed President Zelensky’s Bring Kids Back initiative. They stand united with Ukraine and its stolen children, and I thank all those Members.
I also thank the Minister for working with me on supporting the Ukrainian Government’s launch of a new pilot programme to trace the children. Since September, it has found 600 of those children. If media reports from the last 24 hours about a US-brokered peace deal are to be believed, they should trouble every single one of us. A deal that trades away Ukrainian territory and security and makes no mention at all of the 20,000 children whom Russia has stolen from Ukraine is not peace; it is capitulation. This House should stand united in rejecting that deal. Can the Minister assure us that before any peace deal is considered, the future of Ukraine’s 20,000 stolen children will be top of the agenda?
Mr Falconer
The whole House recognises my hon. Friend’s work on this issue, both before she arrived in this place and since being elected. The atrocities that have been committed against Ukrainian families are at the top of our minds, and the removal of children is first among them. This issue remains a priority for the Government; I described the tracing mechanism, as has my hon. Friend, and we are pleased with the results since the pilot began in September. I can confirm that the Foreign Secretary discussed it with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister during his visit last week, and we will continue to work on these issues. It cannot become the norm in international relations to kidnap children and relocate them, which is what we have seen the Russians do. We oppose that, and it is why we will continue with our work on this.
I have already provided some response on the question of negotiations, but to state the very obvious, the Ukrainian flag flies from the Foreign Office. It flies from many churches in Lincolnshire, and from buildings across the constituencies represented in the Chamber this morning. The UK is steadfast in its support for Ukraine, and it will be for Ukraine to determine what negotiations it is prepared to enter into. That is what the Foreign Secretary was discussing with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, the US Secretary of State and a range of her other international partners last week.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Donald Trump’s latest proposals for securing peace in Ukraine might as well have been written in the Kremlin—indeed, they probably were. Those in Reform UK who have been paid to repeat Russian propaganda might disagree, but I believe that those in the House today will see the proposals for what they are. If Kyiv is pressed by Moscow and Washington into accepting these terms, which include the surrender of the Donbas and a halt to vital weapon supplies, it would be nothing less than a betrayal of our Ukrainian allies, so will the Minister publicly express the Government’s unequivocal rejection of those proposals, including the sacrifice of Ukrainian sovereign territory, and will the Government urgently convene a coalition of the willing, with a view to generating fresh support for Ukraine?
The abduction of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children by the Kremlin is the clearest and most grotesque evidence of Putin’s cruelty and desire to erase a whole nation. It will go down as one of the gravest crimes of the war. What further financial support are the Government offering to Bring Kids Back, and will the Minister back my Bill to seize Russian assets in the UK and make the proceeds available for helping Ukraine’s children, women and men?
Mr Falconer
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his questions. I will not answer on Reform’s approach to these questions. Reform Members have not made themselves available this morning, unlike many others who have a deep commitment to, and interest in, these questions.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the funding that we have committed to tracing Ukrainian children and reuniting them with their families. We have provided more than £2.8 million to support those efforts. He also asked about the latest reports on what a deal might look like. I draw his attention to the statements, which I read from earlier, made last week by the US, the UK and the G7, and to the US Secretary of State’s statement this morning.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on her excellent work on the stolen Ukrainian children, whom we all want returned as soon as possible. Does the Minister agree that only greater resolve, unity and support from the west can drive back Russia’s outrageous demands for Ukrainian territory, and pave the way for a peace that represents Ukraine’s interests? What more can he do to encourage greater support for Ukraine among our allies?
Mr Falconer
There is resolve in Ukraine and among its allies, and there is significant unity. There have been a range of steps taken in recent weeks, including the sanctions that the shadow Foreign Secretary referred to, the steps announced over the weekend on Ukrainian children, and the strategic dialogue with Ukraine that the Foreign Secretary conducted in London last week. We will continue to press. There is an illusion, I fear, taking root in Moscow that one more push and yet further military operations will lead to a weakening of resolve in Ukraine, the UK and across the west. That is an illusion. We will remain steadfast in support of our Ukrainian friends.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I remind the Minister that I look forward to tabling a motion for a Backbench Business debate on Ukraine, which will refer to the 20,000 abducted children. I join him in congratulating the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on the work she is doing on this subject. That motion will also draw attention to the other atrocities. Just this week, we welcomed two former Ukrainian prisoners of war, who had been held and tortured by the Russians, completely without regard to the Geneva conventions for prisoners of war, because the Russians fabricate this narrative that they are not at war in Ukraine and are conducting some special military operation. They do not have the regard for the norms of warfare that we would expect any civilised country to have. Can the Minister underline the point that the Trump proposals are unacceptable, and will he join all the NATO allies in making it clear to the United States that these proposals are unacceptable?
Mr Falconer
I will ensure that the Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), is aware of the hon. Gentleman’s proposals for further discussions in this House on these important questions. He is right to draw attention to the clearly preposterous Russian position that it is engaged in an operation, rather than a war. I am less well versed in military matters than the Minister for the Armed Forces, but this is clearly not an operation. We are some years in, and there have been thousands upon thousands of casualties—men, women and children —and a significant loss to Russian forces, even over the past month. The hon. Gentleman asks about our position on some of the media speculation. He will understand why I am reluctant to be drawn on that in great detail. I can point him to the clear statement from the G7 last week, and to the latest comments from the US Secretary of State this morning.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
The stealing of 20,000 children like this is an outrage. I thank the Minister for his statement. Does he agree that the Bring Kids Back campaign is right to emphasise that the return of these children is non-negotiable in any future peace deal?
Mr Falconer
It is non-negotiable. You cannot steal children in 2025 and think that is an acceptable way to conduct war. The relevant international legal provisions are absolutely clear, and I know that this whole House, and indeed the whole country, is genuinely outraged by what the Russians have done.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
By putting forward proposals that could have been drafted by the killer in the Kremlin himself, it seems that President Trump has finally given up on the Nobel peace prize, and is content to settle for the Lenin peace prize instead. Do the Government share my concern at the remarks, admittedly aspirational, by the US ambassador to NATO about his long-term hope that Germany will take over America’s role at the heart of the alliance? Does that not betray the decades of peace after the second world war that NATO was created to preserve?
Mr Falconer
I am not familiar with the Lenin peace prize; I will google it afterwards. I have been clear on the position and the basis of negotiations. Clearly, it is for Ukraine as a sovereign nation to determine the position that it takes in negotiations. I saw reports of the discussion. I think it was, to be fair, about who should perform the role of SACEUR—the Supreme Allied Commander Europe—rather than the future division of responsibility between forces in NATO. NATO remains a vital component of European security and perhaps the most signal commitment to Europe and America’s shared defence and shared values. Long may it continue.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Russia is enduring significant financial pressure as a result of its illegal war in Ukraine. Does the Minister share my view that we must impose maximum economic pressure on Russia in order to force Putin to the negotiating table?
Mr Falconer
I do. I feel great sadness for the Russian people, because the truth is that President Putin appears to be happy to endure their hardship at almost any cost. The Russians are suffering terribly, both on the battlefield and in their standards of living across Russia. The sensible thing for President Putin to do—the thing that he has refused to do—is enter into the ceasefire talks that President Zelensky, the UK and many of our allies have called for him to enter into. This is not complicated or difficult. We will continue to apply financial pressure on the Russians until he does so, and it is with great regret that some of the sanctions will put further pressure on the already suffering Russian people. That is what we must do, and it is what we will continue to do until those ceasefire talks begin.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Minister is very well read, so I wonder whether he can identify any point in history when the appeasement of an aggressive, expansionist autocrat has ever worked out well. The population of these isles and the rest of Europe have endured high energy prices for the last three years, have taken Ukrainians into their homes, and have heard his Government and the previous Government unite the House by saying that, whatever it takes and however long it takes, we will get Ukraine’s sovereign territory back. Yet here we are, with the United States apparently in bilateral talks with Russia about how to carve up Ukraine. Does he have any positive message about the UK’s role in rejecting that? If he does not have a positive message for me today, what is the message from the UK to our allies in Norway, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland and Moldova, who know very well what appeasement of Russia looks like and feels like?
Mr Falconer
I thank the hon. Member for his kind words. This is my message for the people of eastern Europe and for the people of the UK: we remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force. Russia will not win. The Russians are not winning; they are suffering terribly in trying to pursue a so-called operation that is bringing them nothing but misery. I hope that they realise that swiftly, that they start ceasefire talks on the basis of the line of contact, and that Ukraine is in a position to secure its full and sovereign rights. That is what the British Government are committed to.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Russia’s kidnapping of children as a weapon in its illegal invasion of Ukraine is absolutely abhorrent and wicked, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for her sterling efforts to make sure that these children are not forgotten in this place. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that children have been used as a weapon of war; we have seen it in Nigeria and other places in recent years. What more can this Government do to ensure that this is not normalised by dictators and despots across the world, and that children cannot be used as a weapon of war? What more can be done to ensure the return of Ukraine’s 20,000 stolen children?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend asks an incredibly important question. She is right to suggest that children are bearing the worst brunt of conflict. I was in Yemen this week, and I was appalled to see so many children with both moderate and severely acute malnutrition. That malnutrition is in very significant order created by the Houthis, who have restricted aid access into north Yemen and, indeed, detained UN aid workers and seized their offices. What the Russian forces do in Ukraine is seen elsewhere: it is seen by the Houthis and by militias in Nigeria. This country will stand up for an international rules-based order, which includes the protections that children are entitled to. We will continue to work to ensure the safe return of those 20,000 Ukrainian children. Six hundred of them have been identified by the mechanism that we co-fund and co-founded with the Ukrainians, and we will continue to work to ensure that all the remaining children are returned.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I welcome the courage of the American people over many decades in standing up for our liberties and defending our freedoms, and I draw attention to the fact that this wonderful act of generosity has supported a US economy that has grown more powerfully, more capably and in more directions than any other economy in human history, making the United States the richest and most powerful country the world has ever known. Would the Minister agree with me that that stance on the side of truth and justice has genuinely been a great blessing for all free peoples, and that we should be standing up against people traffickers and child traffickers—by, for example, calling out folk like Jeffrey Epstein—but that seeing the world’s largest child trafficker almost getting away with it would be a betrayal of the great American values that have led to the happiness and prosperity of one of the wonderful countries of this world?
Mr Falconer
I thank the right hon. and gallant Member for his question. The US and UK have stood together on questions of European order ever since the second world war, and I am incredibly proud that it was a Labour Foreign Secretary who led on the creation of NATO. I know that our American friends continue to see questions of European security and order as being of the utmost importance, and that security and order cannot co-exist in a world in which territory is seized by force and children are abducted in exactly the way he describes.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
The stealing of Ukrainian children by Putin is scandalous and equally devastating for the Ukrainian families impacted. Putin shows no desire to agree a ceasefire in Ukraine, with continued bombardments on the Ukrainian people day in, day out. Does the Minister agree with me that, until Putin demonstrates that he is committed to returning these children and committed to a ceasefire, we must continue to provide Ukraine with all the military, economic and diplomatic support that it needs?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend puts it very well, and I do agree. We will continue to stand with Ukraine for all the reasons that hon. Members have expressed this morning. We will continue to do so until talks have started, and a just and sovereign future for Ukraine is secured.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
In Wokingham there is a Ukrainian refugee community that has made a positive difference to the area. I have worked with local groups to help supply aid to civilians in Ukraine, and many have shared their concerns about the war and the safety of their relatives back home. I fully support the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on her comments about the 20,000 Ukrainian children stolen by the Russians. What are the Government doing to reassure the many Ukrainians in my constituency that UK support for Ukraine will remain steadfast against the Russian invasion, that Putin will be held to account for his war crimes, and that Trump will not be allowed to backtrack on his support for Ukraine and NATO?
Mr Falconer
I pay tribute to the hon. Member and his constituents for their work to support Ukrainians. I know that hon. Members right across the House and their constituents have been engaged in supporting Ukrainians in many different ways. I myself have met the Ukrainian community in Lincoln, and there are many people in Lincoln who have taken in Ukrainians or provided support. I would like to assure all of those people that we will continue to stand with the Ukrainians on these questions.
The hon. Member asks an important question about how we can continue to identify those children who have been seized by the Russians. There is work ongoing, often using Russian databases themselves, which are relatively freely available, to identify where Ukrainian children are likely to have been taken in Russia. I imagine that the Russian authorities think people are not sufficiently interested to track individual children. I can assure the House that we are, that we will and that we will continue to follow this to the end. Alongside our Ukrainian friends, we have identified 600 individual Ukrainian children by name. We will not forget the names of those children, and we will not forget the locations of those children. The Russian families who have sought to take in those children should know that such an effort is ongoing, and that it is supported right across the Government, right across the House and right across the country. We will continue, day in and day out, to ensure that those children are returned.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Using children in this way is sick—there is no other word for it. The people of Newcastle-under-Lyme opened their homes, they spoke out, they spoke up and they stood with the people of Ukraine—and they still do. They raise money and deliver medical supplies, books and clothes. I thank them all for their efforts and commitment. We rightly support the people of Ukraine against Russia, but we also see Russia continuing to seek influence in other parts of the world through money, arms and the rest. This is a geopolitical challenge that we think we are getting right in one part of the world, but we cannot afford to ignore it in others. What are we doing to help ensure that we neutralise Russia’s attempt at command and control in other parts of the world?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Russia exerts a malign influence not just in Ukraine; we have seen its relationship with the Houthis. We have seen its relationships in Syria. I am glad to see that they have declined in recent months, but it continues, through Africa Corps and a number of other arms of its state, to be a malign influence right across the world. Its efforts are always at the expense of the populations where they are found. We continue to work with our friends and allies across the world. I was discussing malign Russian influence in Yemen in recent days. I have discussed it in Libya. I have discussed it in Syria. We will continue to act across the world—as my hon. Friend would expect; I know he pays close attention—and we will not rest while Russia continues to exert such a malign influence on global affairs. We wish to have a friendship. We have long and historic relations with the Russian people. I know that nothing would give greater pleasure to so many in the UK than to have a more normal relationship with the Russian state than we currently do, but that will require significant changes from the Russian state, which continues to exert such a malign influence on global affairs.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
One of the most important things the UK can do to support Ukraine is to push President Trump on a comprehensive G7 plan to seize the estimated £300 billion of Russian assets across those seven nations and funnel them to Ukraine. Please can the Minister confirm what steps the Government have taken to push President Trump to build international co-ordination on seizing Russian assets, including Sutton Place in my constituency?
Mr Falconer
We have worked across our allies and friends to ensure there is a robust and unified approach to these issues. I have described some of the statements we have made in recent days. I can confirm that the Foreign Secretary discussed the questions engaged in Ukraine at some length with the Secretary of State on the sidelines of the G7 last week. We will continue to do all we can and everything it takes to ensure we are putting the pressure on Russia that is required to ensure that this war comes to an end.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
In September I had the privilege of meeting, in Kyiv, Raisa Kravchenko and Yulia Klepets of the All-Ukrainian NGO Coalition for People with Intellectual Disabilities. They told me of the devastating impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on disabled people. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly distressing that when Russian forces have kidnapped Ukrainian children, they have targeted disabled children, and that when we can finally look to reconstruction and rebuilding Ukraine, specific support will be required for disabled people who have suffered so much as a result of Russia’s aggression and crimes—crimes for which Russia must be held accountable?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is right. These are actions almost beyond comprehension. To be targeting disabled children in this way is a crime that will not be forgotten. He is absolutely right: it is always the most vulnerable who are worst affected by conflict, and that is particularly true of people who are disabled. It is something that we consider in our own aid efforts in Ukraine and, as he says, must of course be considered as part of reconstruction efforts.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers and for his strong focus on the Ukrainian children. I also thank the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for all that she has done—we appreciate it. The trafficking to Russia and forced adoption of Ukrainian children is truly despicable. The re-education camps that are brainwashing children to forget—or to erase—their Ukrainian heritage are detestable, and the need for British involvement is undeniable. Will the Minister please outline what steps we will take to bring those children home to their families, instead of accepting that they are prisoners of war, which is disgusting, inhuman and contemptible?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman’s tone is absolutely right. I have described some of the tracing efforts that we are engaged in, but clearly, simply locating these children in Russia is not enough—they must also be returned. We will continue to work at every level; the Minister for Europe has met with civil society organisations involved in those efforts, as has Baroness Harman, our special envoy for women and girls, and the Foreign Secretary has discussed the children with her opposite numbers. We will continue to give this issue the focus that the hon. Gentleman rightly demands of us, and I assure the country that we will do so until the children are returned.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
It would seem that the traditional role of the American President as someone who can straddle the world stage, working with friends and allies to achieve outcomes for good across the world, is in danger of being diminished to the role of someone who proffers capitulation on behalf of another sovereign nation. That is something that we cannot accept.
On the children who are the focus of this urgent question, I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter). As young people are returned—hopefully in increasing numbers—what work can we do as a country and a Government to ensure the reintegration of those young people into the society that Putin worked so hard to prevent them being part of?
Mr Falconer
We must work to see those children returned. We are an active member of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children, and we work closely with the Ukrainian Government on these questions. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that one can hardly imagine the trauma, confusion and status of those children on their return to Ukraine. We will do what we can to support the Ukrainian Government in their efforts in that area.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
All of us want to see peace in Ukraine, but it must be on the terms of the Ukrainian people—terms that they are fully behind. Russia cannot gain, or be seen to gain, from its illegal and unprovoked invasion. What assurances can the Minister give that the Government will stand fully behind Ukraine in ensuring that there is a peace agreement on Ukraine’s terms?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend has been a doughty champion for Ukraine’s interests in this House, and he is right. We are working with our friends and allies, particularly at the G7. I have described the statement that we agreed last week on the questions of ceasefire and negotiations, which, as my hon. Friend says, must happen on the basis of Ukraine’s sovereign interests. We will continue to work with G7 partners in condemning Russia’s actions—condemning its provision of arms to others as well as its actions in Ukraine—and increasing the economic costs to Russia, as we have set out in our most recent sanctions measures.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Minister for his responses. I will allow a few minutes for the Front Benches to swap over, during which time it might be helpful to remind Members that in an urgent question, the questioner gets two minutes, the Minister gets three minutes to respond, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman gets one minute. Any Member posing a question that is approaching one minute in length might think about reducing the length of their question.
Separation Centres: Terrorist Offenders
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the implications for national security and the management of terrorist offenders following disruption to the separation centre regime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important question. Separation centres are a vital part of our strategy to manage those who pose the most significant terrorist risk. Following the horrific attack at HMP Frankland in April this year, we took immediate action to ensure safety in our separation centres. Today, everyone is safe and a stringent regime remains in place.
Our prison officers are some of the hardest-working and bravest public servants in this country. It is right that they feel safe as they work to protect the public. That is why, following the attack at Frankland, we mandated the use of protective body armour in our highest-risk units, including our SCs, for the first time. The Deputy Prime Minister has recently announced a further £15 million investment in safety equipment, including to roll out up to 10,000 pieces of body armour to up to 500 staff trained in the use of Tasers.
The Abu judgment is very fact-specific and does not threaten the integrity of the separation centres themselves. This Government take the judgment and others that were referenced very seriously. We are clear that any decision regarding segregation must comply with prison rules and human rights obligations, including under the European convention on human rights. We are working to ensure that our referral process is robust and are strengthening our ability to defend against legal challenges. Specialist staff continue to assess referrals rigorously, and placements are made only where the criteria are met.
Let me be clear: the Government will always put national security first. Separation centres remain an essential operational tool, and we will continue to use these specialist units to protect the public from the most dangerous offenders.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Robert Jenrick
Sahayb Abu is a danger to this country. This is an ISIS fanatic who bought a combat vest and a sword so that he could, in his own words, “shoot up a crowd”, yet this week the High Court ruled that keeping him apart from other prisoners to prevent him from radicalising them was a breach of his human rights. We have reached the perverse situation where a terrorist’s mental health is prioritised over national security and the protection of the very men and women in uniform who are targets for these dangerous individuals with very little to lose. Abu is now in line for a payout from the taxpayer.
This is not an isolated incident; it is the latest in a line, including the double murderer and extremist Fuad Awale and Denny De Silva. Every extremist housed in a separation centre may now be able to deploy this judgment to escape being housed in such a unit and to get a payout. Terrorists are weaponising the ECHR and the public sector equality duty to milk the state, and the Ministry of Justice is signing the cheques. I note that the Minister did not say that she would be appealing this judgment.
The separation centre regime was created to counter highly subversive terrorists recruiting inside jail and to ensure protection for prison officers, which is effectively collapsing. Prison governors are being paralysed just when there is a crisis of extremism and extreme violence in our prisons, necessitating more separation centres and more segregation.
Will the Minister finally publish Jonathan Hall KC’s review of separation centres, which was produced as evidence in court but which has not been published to this House or the country? Will she say that under no circumstances will any terrorist be rewarded in this manner, and bring forward emergency legislation to override this judgment, prevent payout, protect national security and protect our prison officers? I have said many times that it is only a matter of time before an officer gets killed by one of these monsters. Will the Minister bring forward this legislation? If she does, she will have the Opposition’s support; if she does not, we will do so.
Alex Davies-Jones
The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that I am unable to pre-empt decisions that are yet to be taken by the courts. The Government will always ensure that taxpayer money is used responsibly and effectively. On the most recent judicial review, announced just yesterday, the Government are considering all the available options, including the right to appeal. I want to put that on the record.
I find it quite disingenuous that the right hon. Gentleman—the almost Leader of the Opposition—talks about leaving the European convention on human rights. If he feels so strongly about this, why did his party do absolutely nothing on it when it was in government for 14 years? The Conservatives talk about action; this Labour Government are acting. We have been clear that we will not fail to act on reform of the ECHR; in fact, the sentencing Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards)—is in Strasbourg right now having discussions with partners on a range of topics, including reform of the ECHR.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the findings of Jonathan Hall KC’s independent review of separation centres. The Government commissioned that following the attack at HMP Frankland, and Mr Hall’s report and our response will be published in due course. Let me just say, for the avoidance of any doubt, that it is the priority of this Government—as it should be of all Governments—to keep the public safe and to protect national security. This Government will always ensure that that is done.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
May I thank the Minister for reaffirming the Government’s support—which it should not be necessary to do—for the rule of law and the ECHR? Will she concentrate on the key points here? The first is making sure that the most dangerous prisoners are held securely and the second is ensuring the safety of prison officers. Will she also say what the status of Jonathan Hall KC’s review is? I understand that it has been with the Lord Chancellor for some months. When will we see that and when will we implement the recommendations of the report?
Alex Davies-Jones
As I have stated, the Government are committed to ensuring that separation centres continue to prevent those who pose the highest terrorist risk from influencing the wider prison population. That is precisely why we commissioned Jonathan Hall’s independent review following the appalling attack at HMP Frankland. Mr Hall has delivered his findings, which we and the Lord Chancellor are grateful for, and which we are considering very closely and with the utmost seriousness. We will publish the review and the Government response very shortly, but we are taking all relevant steps to ensure that our prisons and our prison staff are safe.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
What a sorry state of affairs. This case highlights the consequences of a prison system, which includes separation centres, that was overstretched and under-resourced by the last Conservative Government, of which the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was a prominent member—he has now forgotten that.
Please will the Minister confirm what assessment the Ministry of Justice has made of the decade of Tory underfunding and overcrowding, which left prisons unable to safely manage violent extremists such as those we have been talking about? Will she also outline how Abu’s ideology and violent behaviour escalated the need for extreme segregation measures? Finally, violent attacks on prison staff are on the rise. We have seen high-profile cases of prisoners, including one from my constituency of Woking, being accidentally released. What assurances will the Minister give us, as MPs, that public safety and the protection of prison staff will be prioritised in the under-resourced prison system that the Government inherited from the Conservatives?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his questions and for the constructive way in which he asks them. He is right to highlight the chronic underfunding of our Prison Service and our criminal justice system over 14 years of Tory austerity. He is right that if there is a dereliction of the duty to look after our criminal justice system, this, sadly, is the result. We are slowly beginning to pick up the pieces of what was left of our criminal justice system when we came into office 18 months ago, and this is yet another example of how the previous Government failed to keep us safe and failed to invest in our Prison Service. This is the result.
We realise that more needs to be done and we are committed to doing it. I pay tribute again to the brilliant prison staff and prison officers who work in intolerable conditions. We are committed to investing in them to make sure they are safe, as I have stated, with effective body armour and better training. We are listening to them and to the governors of prisons directly about what they need, because they are the best people to identify the needs on the ground, and we are seeking to provide reassurance. I extend a hand across the aisle and offer to work with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson and his party to ensure that we get this right for the sake of everyone.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The European convention on human rights has safeguarded the lives and rights of many people. Will the Minister please tell the House what the Law Society of England and Wales thinks about the Conservatives’ plans to leave the ECHR?
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. In the past, the convention has served the victims of John Worboys, the families of the 97 killed in the Hillsborough disaster and British troops who died in Iraq, and it underpins the Good Friday agreement. It is frankly astonishing that the Conservative party, after 14 years of failing to do anything on the ECHR, seeks for us to withdraw from it, when the only other country to do have done so is Russia under Vladimir Putin. Is that the company the Conservative party wants to keep?
We are working to ensure that our referral process is robust, and we are strengthening our ability to defend against any legal challenges. Specialist staff continue to assess referrals rigorously, and placements are made only when the criteria are met, but to answer my hon. Friend’s question specifically, the Conservative Government, as we have already heard, left our prisons at breaking point. They were at 99% capacity, and the Law Society of England and Wales has stated that the answer to that is not leaving the ECHR.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
When it comes to terrorists, what is worrying a lot of us is the fact that people are pouring across the channel illegally and there is absolutely no check whatsoever on them. The Minister may not be able to answer this now, but I am interested in the state of the law. Surely it is a very risky thing for our nation that our enemies could be infiltrating our country in this way. Would it be possible under the refugee convention to detain all illegal migrants, do full background checks on them, and put them in separation centres or whatever, so that we can check that these people are actually safe?
Alex Davies-Jones
We are working very closely with the Home Office on this, and on our proposals regarding reform of the ECHR. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are bringing forward legislation to clarify exactly how article 8 of the ECHR, the right to a private life, operates domestically in relation to immigration rules, to ensure an appropriate balance between the rights of individuals and the national interest. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister speaks from a sedentary position regarding article 3. Again, we are looking at the interpretation of article 3, so that varied prison conditions or access to healthcare is not a bar to extradition or deportation. I reiterate our commitment to do everything we can to keep our national security safe. I will happily write to the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) with more information and clarification on those points.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her response to the urgent question. The Frankland attack was awful. Given that body armour is crucial to the safety of prison staff, can she please tell us more about its procurement, so that prison staff are protected as best as possible, as soon as possible?
Alex Davies-Jones
It is right that we equip our prison officers with the most robust security and protection possible. That is why we are working with them, with the unions and with governors to ensure that all steps are taken. I stress that it is also really important that prisoners’ mental health needs are taken into account. We have medical staff advising on the placement of prisoners within separation centres. I will happily write to my hon. Friend with further details on procurement, but I reassure him that we are doing all we can, working with our prison staff, who work in exceptional circumstances, to ensure that they feel reassured and safe.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Normally, I like the Minister’s can-do attitude. Is she really telling the House that this Government would rather make payouts to terrorists than disapply the ECHR?
Alex Davies-Jones
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I do have a can-do attitude, and I am willing to do everything we can as a Government to ensure that we get this right—that we keep our public and our prison officers safe, and keep dangerous criminals locked up where they belong. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the legal proceedings are still ongoing. I reiterate that we are looking at all options available, including the right to appeal, because we will be as responsible and effective with taxpayers’ money as possible.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Hashem Abedi was in a separation centre at HMP Frankland when he attacked three prison officers with hot cooking oil. Under these rulings and interventions by European courts, determining the human rights of convicted and violent terrorists, does the Minister really think that it would be appropriate for this individual to be given access to a kitchen?
Alex Davies-Jones
I will not pre-empt the findings and outcome of Jonathan Hall’s review, but we believe in separation centres. They are a valuable tool, as the judgments state. We are ensuring that all our prison officers are kept safe, and once the recommendations of Jonathan Hall’s review are published and the Government have carefully considered them, I will happily speak with the hon. Gentleman, and work with him to ensure that they are followed through.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
This terrorist was moved to a separation centre over concerns that he would use his extremist Islamist ideology to radicalise others, and yet the ruling says that this move was a breach of his right to a private life under the European convention. Should national security and prison officers’ safety not come first, and will she rule out paying any money to this terrorist?
Alex Davies-Jones
I echo my previous comments: we cannot pre-empt the judicial decision and we are looking at all our rights, including the right to appeal. There are select criteria for prisoners to go into a separation centre. Prisoners will be selected only if all other options have been considered. This is not the case if it is the most desirable location. They are entitled to challenge their selection and raise complaints if needed; however, as I have stated, our priority remains the safety and security of our prisons, our prison staff and the general public.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The key issue is that making a decision about whether someone goes into a secluded area away from other prisoners is a judgment call. What assessment has the Minister made of the implications of the judgment on what will happen to terrorists who should be separated from other prisoners?
Alex Davies-Jones
Separation centres were never intended for use with all terrorist offenders; they exist to separate the most pernicious radicalisers. We are achieving that aim successfully using the current separation centres’ capacity, which is kept under regular review. We are awaiting the findings of the Jonathan Hall review, and we will look closely at the judgment from yesterday’s decision to ensure that all steps are taken and that we are working with governors and prison officers on the best steps forward. We are determined to ensure that prisons are kept safe.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In Northern Ireland, we have dealt with the spread of extreme forms of paramilitarism in our prisons, and we have learned that the influence of the most hard-line prisoners spreads easily and completely; there are those who enter prison for, perhaps, petty crime and come out the other end with hatred they never felt before. Those with extremist views should not be able to proselytise and convert people —younger inmates in particular—to extremist views. Legislative change has been mentioned. Given what we have learned in Northern Ireland would it be helpful— I always try to be helpful—for the Minister to contact the prisons Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly to get their ideas? Perhaps we can be helpful to each other.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am grateful for the extension of an offer to help. I will ensure that that is followed up with our counterparts in Northern Ireland. We will follow the evidence and do what works to keep our prisons safe. We will assess the risks of any further radicalisation in our separation centres and our prisons to ensure that that is not happening, and we will keep under review whether any individuals pose a danger through extending their views to the prison population or to the public. I look forward to working with counterparts in Northern Ireland to share knowledge and expertise to ensure that we get this right for everyone across the United Kingdom.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Minister for her short, sharp answers—perhaps a masterclass for what is to follow. Business questions will run for an hour and no more.
Business of the House
(1 day, 3 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 24 November will include:
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.
Wednesday 3 December—Remaining stages of the Pension Schemes Bill.
Thursday 4 December—Debate on a motion on the war in Ukraine, followed by a general debate on St Andrew’s day. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 5 December—The House will not be sitting.
Jesse Norman
May I start by recording my thanks to the Leader of the House for agreeing to the request to have the Ukraine debate on 4 December? I think we all feel warmly about that decision.
Politics at the present moment may not be enormously pretty, but it has been a week of triumph in the sporting world. We have had the joyous mayhem of Scotland reaching their first world cup for 28 years, but let us not forget the extraordinary thumping that the England rugby team dealt out to the All Blacks at the weekend or the perfect world cup qualification record of our English footballers. In that spirit, I hope many Members—if perhaps not all—will join me in sending our best wishes to the England cricket team as they prepare for the opening test in Perth tomorrow.
This has been another week in which the headlines have not been kind to the Government and their allies. They have reported that the Prime Minister has spent a sixth of his time in office abroad. That is two and a half months to date spent outside the UK since the last election. Half of all UK jobs lost since the Government came to power are among the under-25s. That is 80,000 more young people out of work since July 2024. Agency staff brought into work during Birmingham’s eight-month-long bin strike by members of Unite have now themselves decided to go on strike. The former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), is reported to be planning a leadership bid, following last week’s speculation about the Health Secretary and last month’s unfortunate foray by the Mayor of Manchester. Since Labour took office, the energy price cap has not fallen but risen by £187 to £1,755.
I often wonder if the Government have forgotten that there is a world outside London and our biggest cities. In that spirit, I hope I may raise a couple of important issues on which I would be grateful for the assistance of the Leader of the House. The first is local. Last weekend, the village of Ewyas Harold in my constituency was devastated by flooding as a result of Storm Claudia. The village was inundated after record levels of rainfall flooded the Dulas brook, with water levels rising to the highest ever recorded by the monitoring station. The emergency services were called out to help vulnerable residents and houses, and local pubs and other businesses were severely damaged. Many local people have been involved in clearing up the mess—in particular the brilliant young farmers club—but it will take months for the village to fully get back on its feet.
The House was given time to discuss the severe flooding in nearby Monmouthshire in Wales yesterday, so may I ask the Leader of the House if he will encourage both the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to take the swiftest and most comprehensive action to protect Ewyas Harold and other flood-hit areas across England in order to prevent this from happening again?
The second issue is a national one. The listed places of worship grant scheme helps thousands of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and other places of worship to reclaim or get grants to cover the VAT paid on repair and maintenance work. It is a small but very useful and cost-effective institution that has quietly worked away over more than two decades to preserve the historic fabric of our nation. Unfortunately, since the last election the size of the scheme has been cut in half and a new cap has been imposed on the level of individual grants. It is a feature of these repairs that if they are not made, the damage often leads to enormous further costs. The Government seem determined to maintain or increase public spending in other areas, so given that and the relatively very small sums involved, could the Leader of the House pick this matter up with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and see whether this scheme can be quickly restored to its previous glory?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the shadow Leader of the House for his questions. Can I first, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, thank Mr Speaker for his timely reminder this week of our responsibilities in this House regarding national security? As the House will know, the Security Service issued an espionage alert to Parliament, highlighting targeted outreach by the Chinese Ministry of State Security to individuals in our community. This is a serious matter that the Government take very seriously, and I know that Mr Speaker does too. I urge all MPs to heed the advice and to report any suspicious activity immediately.
Next week is Parliament Week, when we encourage young people and the public to engage with the UK’s democratic systems and institutions. In that spirit, I was delighted yesterday to meet children from East Hunsbury primary school, after my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) mentioned them during a business questions earlier this year. The school has won the kind school award, and it was a great pleasure to meet the children. They are a credit to their school, to their parents and, most of all, to themselves. They are a reminder to us all of the importance of being kind. You will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have been made an honorary kindness ambassador—[Laughter.] I have to say, that is an honour that I never received during my time as Chief Whip.
I was pleased to announce in this week’s business that the Backbench Business Committee has chosen Ukraine as the subject for its debate on 4 December. I thank the shadow Leader of the House, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), and the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for their representation to help secure the debate.
Members will welcome the publication of the men’s health strategy this week. It is an important topic that has been raised frequently during business questions. The strategy will address the stark inequality in men’s health to create a society where men and boys are supported to live healthier and happier lives. I encourage Members to contribute in the debate later, on International Men’s Day.
As the shadow Leader of the House said, it has been a good week for sport. I want to congratulate Scotland on qualifying for the world cup for the first time since 1998, and I remind the House that the only time a home nation has won the world cup was under a Labour Government.
The shadow Leader of the House complains about the amount of time that the Prime Minister has spent abroad. That reflects two things above all. One is the uncertainty of the international situation. The second is the fact that he has spent a great deal of time addressing the issue of trade and bringing investment into this country. On the issue of jobs, he surely must realise that getting good trade deals—which his Government were not prepared or able to do—will not only bring investment to our country but, hopefully, turn into jobs across our nation.
The shadow Leader of the House quite rightly raises the issue of flooding. I will draw to the attention of DEFRA and the Environment Agency the urgency of ensuring that preparations are made as far as possible, but I also gently encourage him to urge some of his colleagues to start recognising the effect of climate change.
As a constituency MP, the shadow Leader of the House has every right to raise the listed places of worship grant scheme. I have to say that his constituency and neighbouring constituencies have some fantastic churches, many of which are in need of repair. I will not comment on matters of VAT or possible tax changes, as we have only a few days before the Budget, but I will draw his concerns to the attention of not only DCMS but the Treasury.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
The speedy passage of environmental legislation through this House is not often a feature, so I thank the Leader of the House for the speedy way in which the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction treaty was dealt with by the Government. In contrast, I remind him that in 2023 our party said that we would bring forward legislation for a new clean air Act. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House is thinking about what may be going into the King’s Speech next year. Given that it will be the 70th anniversary of the original Clean Air Act 1956, could he put this forward as something to be looked at to ensure that we meet World Health Organisation standards?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The biodiversity treaty is an important step forward, and I thank him for all the work he is doing in this regard. The Government are committed to environmental improvement. Although I expect that the second Session will be quite crowded, I will certainly bear in mind his comments.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I join the Leader of the House in thanking Mr Speaker for the seriousness with which he is taking Chinese interference in our democracy. I represent many Hongkongers in my constituency, and they are deeply concerned about this issue.
It was a relief to hear confirmation that the Budget will be taking place on the Floor of the House next week. I am sure it is also a huge relief to advisers in the Treasury, who have just days before they start leaking the 2026 Budget. One thing that people will be looking out for in the Budget next week is the provisions that will be made for children with special educational needs and disabilities. I am fully aware that this is a crisis that was inherited by this Government, but it was not an unforeseen crisis. Eighteen months into this Government, we hear that their major reform plans have been pushed back again, which is a disappointment to us on the Liberal Democrat Benches. We are seeing councils go bankrupt, teachers in despair and families held in legal limbo—and ultimately, children being failed.
I appreciate that there are some really tricky issues to resolve—balancing legal entitlements on paper with quality provision in reality, and adjusting to a world with higher diagnosis rates—but there are some actions that the Government could take right away, in particular in relation to private placements. Those have trebled in the past decade, and they cost more than double a state placement—about £60,000. We know that private equity is really aggressive in this space; it is taking on institutions and eating up market share, and its profit margins are reportedly around 20%. In the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Government introduced the idea of profit caps on those who are being exploitative in the children’s social care sector. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Minister whether that can be extended to SEND schools?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman is right to express concern about the SEND system. The Government have acknowledged that it is broken; it does not work for parents or children. He is also right to say that there were signs that things were not as they should be, but this is one of the many issues that, when we came into government, we discovered was even worse than we had anticipated. I will not comment on what might or might not be in the Budget, but I gently point out that we have already invested an additional £1 billion in SEND and we are creating more specialist places in mainstream schools, with an additional £740 million on top of the £1 billion.
We will bring forward the schools White Paper early next year, and the hon. Gentleman may wish to keep some of his suggestions for that, or perhaps secure a debate on it in order to give further clarity to what he is saying. I know that this issue is frustrating, including for our constituents, but we need to work with parents and teachers, and the most important thing is that we get it right.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
On that note, the number of constituents who have contacted me since my election to raise difficulties and delays in the SEND system is staggering. I asked constituents to fill in my online SEND survey so that they could feed into the Government’s schools White Paper, and I have had 250 responses, which shows the extent of the problem. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking those parents in Kettering and across the country who are feeding in their experiences to this Government’s mission to fix the broken system we inherited?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am very pleased to do that. I thank everyone who has responded to my hon. Friend’s survey. That is one of the very best ways of getting information from parents, and the scale of the responses demonstrates the scale of the problems in the system. I pay tribute to her for the work that she has done on this issue. As I said, we are committed to creating a SEND system that truly works for children and parents, and I am sure that her constituents’ comments will be reflected as the White Paper comes forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for 4 December in the Chamber. I understand that the House may be suspended for a period on that day because of a state visit, so will he give consideration to protected time for those two very heavily subscribed debates? Will he also indicate whether we will get time in the Chamber on 11 December? Our backlog of debates is such that if we had every Thursday between now and the Easter recess, we could fill every single one. I note that the House rose very early yesterday. If the Government are having a problem with business, we can always put on debates to allow colleagues from the Back Benches to debate what they wish to debate in Government time. If we are given Thursday 18 December, it will be the traditional pre-recess Adjournment debate for Christmas.
Our forthcoming business in Westminster Hall is as follows. On Tuesday 25 November, there will be a debate on the potential impact of immigration reforms on humanitarian visa routes. On Thursday 27 November, because of the Budget debate in the main Chamber, there will be a Select Committee statement from the Business and Trade Committee, followed by debates on the impact of extended producer responsibility for packaging and on protecting children from domestic abuse. On 2 December, there will be a debate on the adequacy of funding to support homeless people, and on 4 December, there will be a debate on a comprehensive acquired brain injury action plan, followed by a debate on seafarers’ welfare.
Today is the 80th anniversary of the start of the Nuremberg trials. Earlier this week we had a very good briefing at the all-party parliamentary group for the Holocaust memorial and education centre from Adam Wagner, a renowned human rights lawyer. Twenty-four Nazis were put on trial, and the trial lasted 11 months. At the end of it, 22 of them were sentenced to either very long prison sentences or death; amazingly enough, two were acquitted. It would be very helpful if we could have a statement from the Education Secretary on incorporating the business of the Nuremberg trials into the national curriculum, because this was the first time that human rights law started to come to the fore, particularly on war crimes and crimes against humanity. Could the Leader of the House arrange for that to happen?
Sir Alan Campbell
I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to his place and thank him for raising those important matters. The Nuremberg trials marked a reassertion of justice, human rights and accountability, and their 80th anniversary is a stark reminder of the need to commit to international criminal justice. That is one of the Government’s top priorities in supporting the international legal order. I will give consideration to what he says about a statement, but will also make sure that the Secretary of State for Education is aware of his comments.
I will certainly give consideration to the hon. Gentleman’s request for protected time; he knows that I am sympathetic to that. I do not think it is appropriate on every occasion, but I am sympathetic to it should the House be suspended for any reason. I will let him know about 11 December at the earliest opportunity. Yes, this week has been a little up and down in terms of sitting hours, with the debates and statements that we have had. It is always slightly difficult to get a balance, but let me say gently that it is not a problem for the Government and their business; it is a problem for the Opposition. If they cannot turn up in numbers to hold the Government to account, what are they doing?
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Nearly two thirds of the land in our country is owned by a handful of aristocrats, oligarchs and bankers, who often hide their wealth in trusts, and corporations, which never die. May we have a debate on how we might raise more revenue from those ultra-rich landowners, and so afford some more generous proposals on agricultural property relief for the farmers who are essential for our food security, nature restoration and climate action?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue and join him in acknowledging the vital work that farmers do, which is one of the reasons why we are investing £5 billion over two years in the farming budget. I am not going to pre-empt the Budget, but I am sure that he will wish to amplify those points during the four days of debate on the Budget that I have just announced.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Brain Tumour Research states that one in three people are likely to know someone with a brain tumour; they could be our friends, family or constituents. Brain tumours are a cruel disease, and yet drug development and research has stagnated, denying patients access to lifesaving treatment. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on the need for immediate investment to improve brain tumour research and outcomes?
Sir Alan Campbell
I invite the hon. Gentleman to request an Adjournment debate or a Backbench Business debate, because I think that would illustrate not just how many constituents, but how many of us personally—or our family and friends—have been affected by brain tumours, which can have terrible consequences. The Government are absolutely committed to doing as much as they can in this regard, not least through the 10-year health plan. A debate would be a great opportunity not just to hear about the problem, but to hear about what the Government intend to do about it.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Churches are the bedrock of our communities and play a particularly strong role at the heart of our villages. St Philomena’s church in Winchburgh has been a centre of spiritual, community and cultural life for 100 years. It celebrated that milestone with a special mass led by Archbishop Leo Cushley on 26 October. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Father Deighan, Father Henderson and Deacon Robertson, as well as the congregation of St Philomena’s, and wish them all the best for the years ahead?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Father Henderson, Deacon Robertson and the venerable parishioners of St Philomena’s church. She is right to point out that places of worship provide a variety of services, often above and beyond the religious purpose—in the strictest sense—that they are there for. They are at the very heart of our local communities. I wish the church well for the next 100 years.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Last Thursday, there was a heavily subscribed Westminster Hall debate about the terrible problem of rogue and conmen builders who fleece people of thousands upon thousands of pounds for work that is never completed and is often not started at all. May we have a statement from an appropriate Minister on the need to consider criminalising the process in which people are robbed of their money and told afterwards that that constitutes only a civil offence?
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. He will know, having been in this House for quite some time, that it is a perennial problem. I will draw it to the attention of the Minister and see whether they might make a statement. The right hon. Gentleman might wish also to seek a debate on that matter.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
At this time of year, the fireworks debate always rages. As a dog owner, I share my constituents’ view that we need legislation to make fireworks safer and more controlled, not just for the sake of animals, but for people too. I recently met the fireworks impact coalition, which is also calling for a review. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time to discuss this important issue further?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is not the first Member to raise that issue with me—especially over the past few weeks. As he knows, it is not just a question of the run-up to bonfire night; we are approaching end-of-year celebrations as well. Pet owners will once again be worried for their pets. It is important that measures on fireworks are proportionate, but this is such a big topic for MPs that if he were to secure a debate on it, he would find that it was particularly well attended.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I speak today on behalf of one constituent, although there are many similar examples. My constituent, who does not want to be named in order to protect herself, is losing out quite substantially because the Child Maintenance Service is failing to enforce the regular payments that she is owed. The non-resident parent makes one partial payment after another and then simply defaults again. The CMS has the necessary powers to act, but is not using them effectively to stop that cycle. Might we have a debate in Government time on how the CMS can enforce the timely payment of child maintenance?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady raises another issue that is constantly in our constituency postbags and inboxes. The CMS is committed to ensuring that separated parents support their children financially. The powers should be used, but that is not happening in too many cases, as she says. If she supplies me with the details of that case in confidence, I will raise it with the appropriate Minister and see whether we can resolve it.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
This weekend, a very special service will leave the station at Chasewater Railway in Burntwood in my constituency. The hospital Santa special trains are a Christmas service for seriously ill children, and are offered completely free of charge. This year, 1,300 kids and their families are expected to attend. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Chasewater Railway, its trustees and its fantastic volunteers on their wonderful work to spread the festive spirit?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Chasewater Railway on spreading joy this holiday season. He says that a huge number of people will be part of it, and I thank Chasewater Railway for that. These initiatives happen thanks to volunteers playing their part, so we thank them—and indeed volunteers across the country.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
This week, the Birmingham bin strike escalated further. Now, even the agency workers who have been keeping a minimal service going have voted to join the strike from 1 December. I have raised this issue with the Leader of the House before, and was promised a statement, but the situation has got worse since then. Will he assure me that we will have a statement before the new wave of action begins next month?
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Lady knows that our priority has always been Birmingham residents. This is an issue for the employers in the first instance, but it is important that the council works with Unite to end the strike—that is long overdue—and to tackle concerns regarding agency work and issues of equal pay. We remain in close contact with the council and continue to monitor the situation. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is looking into it and will update the House at the earliest opportunity.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Yesterday evening, I had the privilege of hosting the British Standards Institute at a reception at Speaker’s House to mark the launch of the UK’s first national suicide prevention standard—BS 30480: Suicide and the Workplace. That is a huge step forward in making suicide prevention everybody’s business, and I thank all those involved. Might we have a debate in Government time on how we can support employers and organisations to implement and make the most of that important guidance?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on this topic. As she knows, the Government are committed to reducing the number of lives lost to suicide, which remains the biggest killer of men under 50. We have announced investment in suicide prevention projects for men as part of the first ever men’s health strategy for England. Her concerns will be shared across the House, so I suggest that she call for a Westminster Hall debate.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I do not understand the mindset of an absent parent who tries to renege on their financial responsibility to support their children. Nor, it seems, does the Child Maintenance Service, because one of the manifold issues with that service is that absent parents renege on payments —starting and stopping payments again and again—and the CMS resets the clock every time, meaning that the receiving parent has to start from the very beginning. Might we have a debate in Government time on the manifold issues with the CMS, to find a way forward for that deeply dysfunctional agency?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will draw the hon. Member’s comments to the attention of Ministers, because, as he will have heard, that is the second time the matter has been raised this afternoon. He may wish to initiate such a debate, because, as I suggested before, his concerns are shared across the House.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Coalminers powered our great country in the 20th century. They need justice in this century in relation to their pensions. Labour put right the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme, but parity is needed for the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. Will the Leader of the House ask the Treasury for a statement on pension justice for our mining communities, to right that historic wrong?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for all his work on that issue. He has raised it with me a number of times—as have colleagues at business questions, so there is real interest in it. Ministers continue to meet the BCSSS trustees, but as my hon. Friend knows, I have just announced the future business, and he will have two opportunities to raise it further: first, we will have a debate following the Budget, when he may wish to go into more detail; and secondly, there is some pension legislation coming down the track.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Animal lovers across the country— most especially Katie Amess, the daughter of our late dear friend, who is continuing the battle for animal welfare across the country—are raising concerns that after the seven-day statutory period, many healthy dogs are not being offered for adoption and are instead euthanised without transparency. One shelter that receives dogs from several councils lists only a handful that are available for rehoming despite its far higher intake figures. That lack of accountability is deeply troubling. Will the Leader of the House make time for Members to examine whether stronger reporting requirements and safeguards are needed to protect those animals, and may we have a debate on the welfare of stray dogs transferred by local authorities to contracted shelters?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise these sad and often abhorrent cases. Should he seek a debate, he could amplify his message, and others could join him, so that anyone who is engaged in these practices recognises the scale of concern. If they cannot change the way in which they operate, the Government will need to consider whether legislation is adequate.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Gerry Marsden has been collecting for the poppy appeal in Redditch for 40 years. Since becoming the poppy appeal organiser, he has helped to raise over half a million pounds. At the same time, he has readily stepped in to lead the local Royal British Legion, to ensure that our town celebrates and marks the sacrifice made to protect our freedoms. Gerry will hate me doing this, but would the Leader of the House join me in thanking Gerry and all those who support him for his incredible contribution to Redditch and for all those who have served?
Sir Alan Campbell
I would be delighted to do so. Let me say a big thank you to Gerry and, indeed, everyone else involved with the Redditch Royal British Legion fundraising campaign. Let me also extend that to all the volunteers across our country who do such a fantastic job, particularly at this time of year but throughout the rest of the year, too.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
My constituents are no strangers to flooding, whether that is from the Rivers Severn and Vyrnwy in villages such as Melverley or from surface water or inadequate infrastructure in Gobowen and Hadnall. The Environment Agency says that another 1,600 properties in my constituency will be vulnerable to surface water flooding by 2050, and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill fails to address flooding or climate change at all. Given that the Government voted down my amendments and those of my Lib Dem colleagues to the Bill, which were intended to tackle this problem, can we have a debate or a statement from the relevant Minister on how the UK will build flood resilience?
Sir Alan Campbell
This is a concern across many constituencies. I am sorry to hear of what is happening in the hon. Lady’s constituency. I invite her to seek a debate, because many Members will share her concern, and she can then put those questions directly to Ministers.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
One hundred and 10 years ago this month, Mary Barbour, who was born in Kilbarchan in my constituency, led the Glasgow rent strikes, standing up to improve housing conditions for working people. The legacy of that strike gave us the rent restrictions Act, a landmark safeguard that shielded tenants from exploitative profiteering right up until the wave of Thatcher-era deregulation. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising Mary’s legacy and calling out the SNP Government in Holyrood for undermining it? Some 13 councils across Scotland have now been forced to declare a housing emergency and 10,000 children in Scotland are left stuck in homeless accommodation.
Sir Alan Campbell
I will join my hon. Friend in recognising the important legacy of Mary Barbour. I invite my hon. Friend to seek an Adjournment debate in which she could not only highlight the housing emergency she refers to in Scotland but put on record that Scotland has secured a record funding settlement this year, and therefore the Scottish Government should be held to account for that.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Yesterday I attended a drop-in session in aid of those who suffer from Huntington’s disease. As is often the case when we attend these events, they signed me up as a champion. My first role as champion is to highlight the new guidelines issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for those suffering from this disease. Could the Leader of the House ask the Health Secretary to make a statement to explain how quickly those guidelines can be implemented, to help those suffering from this awful disease?
Sir Alan Campbell
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being a champion—it has been a good week for awards for us both. Huntington’s is a terrible disease. The fantastic work by people across communities has kept this in the public eye, and the NICE guidelines are addressing this. The need for speed, I am sure, is in the minds of those who are involved. I will raise this matter with the Health Secretary.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Last weekend I attended the annual conference of Interfaith Wolverhampton in my constituency, which has done much to bring different faith communities together, including those of no faith, and to celebrate diversity, which is so needed at a time when we face division and hate crime. The Conservative Government withdrew all funding from the national Inter Faith Network charity, forcing it to shut down. Will the Leader of the House meet me and the relevant Minister to discuss restoration of the national Inter Faith Network, so that it can again provide support for interfaith organisations across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
Interfaith relations are vital for strong and cohesive communities. Last week was Inter Faith Week, which is a chance for communities to come together and celebrate different faiths and beliefs. I will ensure that Ministers hear my hon. Friend’s concerns and, of course, I am always happy to meet him.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I would like to return to the listed places of worship scheme. Although departmental policy is to keep grant funding records for seven years, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport uses grant records only for the last three years, since 2022, as only that data is considered reliable. The Leader of the House will know that slots for Backbench Business debates are taken until the next King’s Speech, and there is a massive queue for Westminster Hall and Adjournment debates. However, in hope and endless optimism, may I ask him for a debate about financial record keeping? Neither the Secretary of State nor the Treasury can possibly assess the value, importance and impact of schemes like this if they have no idea where the money has gone, because record keeping is so poor, it is inaccurate, or the records have been lost.
Sir Alan Campbell
I accept that the list of Backbench Business debates is long, but Adjournment debates are chosen frequently, and I encourage colleagues to request them and see where they get. The hon. Lady might wish to raise Treasury matters in the Budget debate; she does not need to wait for an Adjournment debate.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
Preston-based KeTech in my constituency is a British-based and owned technology and engineering company that employs around 50 staff and provides the live update data and displays for almost 80% of all UK rail passenger journeys, including much of the London underground. Its biggest competitors —Hitachi, Siemens and so on—are all foreign-owned. When I visited the company last week, its chief executive, Denise Lawrenson, shared that in a recent meeting with Department for Transport officials, she was advised that while buying local is encouraged in Government procurement, there is no firm accountability, leading to many contracts still going abroad rather than investing in British companies and British growth. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating this brilliant northern tech company on its 26 years of innovation and keeping the UK moving, and might he consider a debate on how this Government can put British small and medium-sized enterprises at the heart of our growth plans?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking KeTech for its contribution over so many years, and I also thank her for her assiduous work for the people and businesses in her constituency. We have consulted on further procurement reforms to boost domestic supply chains and create more opportunities for local businesses. She could seek a debate on this, but as I have said in response to many questions today, we have four days of Budget debate in which some of these issues will be particularly relevant.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The 1 to 7 December is Crohn’s and Colitis Awareness Week, which is run by Crohn’s & Colitis UK to raise awareness and generate conversations about what it is like to live with the condition. Many Members in this House will know people—and they will certainly have constituents—who suffer with this condition but never talk about it, because of the stigma around talking about things relating to our bowels. Most people dismiss it as an irritable bowel or something to do with diarrhoea, when in fact it is crippling internal ulcers that generate internal bleeding and blood clots. I have watched my brave wife battle this condition for over 10 years, including two life-changing surgeries, the last of which required nine hours in theatre. This disease is crippling and debilitating, and awareness of it is still, sadly, very low. Would the Leader of the House be willing to work across Government to look at how we in this House and the Government can work with Crohn’s & Colitis UK on its awareness week, so that we can all play our role in raising awareness of what this condition really is?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right to raise this subject on the Floor of the House. This debilitating condition affects a large number of people across our constituencies. We will join him in any cross-party work to highlight the condition during that week, but I can also offer him a meeting with Ministers so that he can speak to them directly, not just about the scale of the problem but about what we are doing to tackle it.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
My constituent Naomi was a victim of extreme online stalking, slander and harassment for several years, which had a profound impact on her mental health. Despite the perpetrator pleading guilty, it took three years until they were finally sentenced to prison last month. The ordeal has shattered Naomi’s faith in our criminal justice system, so may we have a debate in Government time on support for victims of online stalking and harassment?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important issue. Our thoughts are with Naomi and many others who find themselves in that terrible situation. We have introduced measures to tackle stalking. We are currently undertaking a review of stalking legislation to ensure that it is fit for purpose, and our violence against women and girls strategy will also cover online and offline stalking. If my hon. Friend seeks a meeting with a Minister to look into this further, I am sure that he will be successful in getting one.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The UK is coming under intense scrutiny at COP30 for saying one thing in public but doing the opposite in private, by apparently blocking progress on the Belém action mechanism to secure fossil-free jobs, workers’ rights, communities and our planet, despite the Prime Minister saying in his statement to COP
“that the UK is all in”
on embracing opportunities. Can we please have an urgent debate on how a shift in the backroom position of the UK could unlock negotiations, rebuild trust and align the Government’s actions with their public commitments?
Sir Alan Campbell
There is absolutely no difference between what the Government are committed to and have said publicly, and what we are saying in private. Of course, some issues require a great deal of diplomacy. The Prime Minister himself went to COP30 with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. When the Secretary of State returns, I would expect one of them to make a statement on COP30, so the hon. Lady will be able to put those points to them directly.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Our creative industries offer huge opportunities for economic growth, and the Crown Works film studio in Sunderland will be a box office smash for jobs across the north-east. Last year, the Chancellor premiered investment to prepare the site, adding Government support to that of our Labour council and elected Mayor. That release was critically acclaimed, but people are crying out for a sequel. Will the Leader of the House confirm that there will be time in the Budget debate to discuss growing the creative industries in the north-east? As a political A-lister, will he help me to ensure that we roll out the red carpet for further investment in Crown Works?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to champion our creative industries. As well he knows, we have a proud record in this country. Many iconic films are filmed here, including in our region and in my beautiful constituency. As he alludes to, there will be four days of debate on the Budget, which should be ample time for him to raise those thoughts.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Stockon’s Labour council has made the decision to close 11 play parks, taking away precious facilities from children in Long Newton, Ingleby Barwick and Bishopsgarth, despite charging among the highest council tax in the country and spending £300,000 on an opening party—yes, £300,000 on a party —for its urban park. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the benefits of play parks and the need for councils to spend taxpayers’ money with respect?
Sir Alan Campbell
Of course it is important that local authorities spend the money they have wisely, but for 14 years they were starved of the resources they need and we are determined to put that right. The hon. Gentleman is a loud voice in his constituency, and I am sure that if he were to seek an Adjournment debate, he could amplify it even further.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
The food hygiene rating scheme means that we can celebrate five-star venues, like Alleppey Kitchen my constituency, and we can all avoid the ones with one star, if we choose. Councillor David Bennett from Clowne is running a campaign to make it mandatory to display those ratings in England, just as it is in Wales and Northern Ireland. Will the Leader of the House consider granting a debate in Government time to allow us to discuss that?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises some important matters, as does her constituent David Bennett. I would have thought that if she applied for an Adjournment debate, a Westminster Hall debate or a Backbench Business debate, that would allow further discussion of the issue.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The last general election gave us an extremely disproportionate result, with the Government getting a massive majority on just a third of the vote. Current opinion polls show that the next election is due to be even more disproportionate, with the party currently leading the polls likely to get a majority on around 30%, perhaps even less, of the vote. Given that is the case, given that there is huge support among members of the Labour party for voting reform, and given that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) himself supports proportional representation, is it not time that we had a proper consideration in this House of changes to the voting system, so that the next election is not a disaster for democracy?
Sir Alan Campbell
We have had many such discussions. In fact, opinion was tested on whether or not the people of this country wanted change, and they decided that they did not. The Government have no plans to bring that forward, but that does not mean that the debate will not go on.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in again congratulating the Scotland men’s national football team on qualifying for the 2026 world cup? The entire team are heroes, not least John McGinn from my West Dunbartonshire constituency, who is a former pupil of my old school, St Columba’s in Clydebank. Does the Leader of the House recognise that:
“We’ve got McGinn,
Super John McGinn,
He’s Stevie Clarke’s man,
He’s better than Zidane”?
Does the Leader of the House agree that he is, in fact, super John McGinn and will he congratulate the entire team?
Sir Alan Campbell
I congratulate the entire team, John McGinn and everyone involved. I gently remind my hon. Friend, if my memory serves me correctly, that Steve Clarke was a Sunderland manager who honed his skills when he was there. I remind anyone who did not hear me say this earlier that the last time Scotland qualified was in 1998 and the last time England won the world cup was in 1966—the link is that at both times there was a Labour Government.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Jacques Jefferies, a grandson of my constituent Susan Jefferies, on his selection for Team GB at the winter Olympics in February? Does he share my frustration that Jacques has had to set up a fundraising page to make it financially possible to go? In the week that Scotland reached the world cup and England start the Ashes campaign down under, will he recognise the soft power of sport and agree to a debate in Government time on how we fund athletes, retain our place on the world stage and help people like Jacques to fulfil their ambition?
Sir Alan Campbell
I wish Jacques and all our athletes all the success in the world. We are very proud of them all. Sometimes funding is a major issue, but the Government are trying to put that right because we have great faith in our young people, and particularly the importance of sport in their lives. The hon. Lady might wish to call for a debate on these matters, and I am sure there are many others across the country who would be able to make similar points through their MPs.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
It is national Road Safety Week and soon the Government will unveil their much-anticipated road safety strategy. In my constituency, road safety is now the issue that is raised most often with me and our neighbourhood police, but when we raise these concerns with the Reform leadership at Lancashire county council, they consistently refuse to take action. The Reform policy is to wait for accidents to take place, stating that there need to be at least 10 collisions, of which 20% must have killed or seriously injured, before action is taken. This flies in the face of common sense and is an insult to our residents, who see close calls and near misses every day. We must listen to our communities. I have been calling on the leadership of Lancashire county council to work with me, but so far they have refused even to meet. Road safety should be above local politics, so will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on this important matter?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this question, which is timely, given that this is Road Safety Week, and I thank him for all the work he does on behalf of his constituents. Reform-led Lancashire county council comes up quite frequently. As I have said before, it appears that it has over-offered and is under-delivering. I find it astonishing that the leadership will not meet my hon. Friend, because whoever is leading in a local authority should be meeting with MPs. If they will not meet him, I am sure that a Transport Minister will do so.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Twelve-year-old Hollie Goodwin from Markyate last week won in her age category at the world trampoline, tumbling and DMT championships in Pamplona in Spain for British Gymnastics. Like the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), Hollie’s family had to raise money for her to get there, because they will not get funding until she is 18. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Hollie and help me to secure a meeting with Ministers to see how we can support young people in sport, especially young girls and women?
Sir Alan Campbell
I congratulate Hollie and, as I said before, everyone else involved in sporting success. Two Members from the same side of the Chamber have raised that interesting point, so that is perhaps the beginnings of a debate. I think Ministers will be available to meet the hon. Ladies so that they can raise these issues directly.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Blackpool council has asked for the views of residents for the most ambitious and exciting regeneration project in our town’s history. In less than a week, more than 2,500 residents have signed my petition calling for Blackpool to build a world-class arena on the empty site in the Blackpool central area, which is backed by local industry experts and local artists. Such a venue could hold major concerts, e-sport tournaments and international sporting events and secure Blackpool’s legacy as a destination for world-class entertainment. Does the Leader of the House agree that a project of that scale could be transformational for my home town, which is in desperate need of an economic boost to tackle the highest level of deprivation in a place in this country?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend knows that I share very much his concern about the state of some coastal towns and his ambition to make them better. He is a tireless campaigner for Blackpool. There is clearly the potential for economic growth, investment and jobs in his constituency with the scheme that he talks about, and the Government want to see all those things in every part of the country, including in coastal areas such as Blackpool. That is another point that probably falls within the parameters of a contribution to the Budget debate, because supporting coastal towns is a very important part of what the Government seek to do.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Today is Transgender Day of Remembrance, yet it is also the day when leaked Equalities and Human Rights Commission guidance on single-sex services has indicated, shockingly, that people could be challenged on their sex because of
“their appearance, behaviour or concerns by others”
and turned away if
“there is any doubt that they are telling the truth”.
That would unacceptably result in trans and non-binary people—and potentially anyone—being questioned because of how they look, and it would be unworkable for businesses and service providers. Will the Government commit to putting a workable and inclusive proposal before the House so that the Liberal Democrats can protect hard-won rights and dignity?
Sir Alan Campbell
Before I answer, may I wish the hon. Gentleman all the very best wishes? He got engaged this week—indeed, he got engaged in this very Chamber.
The Government respect the court judgment. This is a serious matter, and there are clearly different views on it, but the Government are absolutely committed to bringing forward proposals at the earliest opportunity and giving the House an opportunity to discuss them.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week saw a big day for Rochdale and for Greater Manchester, as building works began on a world-leading research centre—the Sustainable Materials and Manufacturing Centre in Kingsway Business Park, which is backed by £15 million of this Government’s money. Does the Leader of the House agree that that proves the Government’s industrial strategy can boost the jobs and apprenticeships of the future to help towns such as mine that have a proud manufacturing past and present?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. That kind of investment speaks to the strength of our industrial strategy, which the whole of Government are focused on delivering. He is absolutely right to draw attention to how the strategy is unlocking opportunities for young people in every part of the United Kingdom, and I am sure he will amplify the success of that investment and what the new manufacturing centre means for Rochdale and beyond.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am deeply concerned by the continuing persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China, including some disturbing and well-documented allegations of forced organ harvesting. Will the Leader of the House urge the Foreign Secretary to outline what concrete actions the Government will take to press for an immediate end to the unethical harvesting of organs from religious minorities in China and to ensure the protection of the Falun Gong against transnational repression in the UK?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Member for raising such a serious and unreported issue. As ever, he is a real champion for religious minorities, and I commend him on his commitment to that cause. He knows that the Government are committed to defending freedom of religion and belief for all. The environment for freedom of religion and belief across China is restrictive and includes the persecution of the Falun Gong both in China and overseas. We continue to monitor the situation and review evidence. If these matters are true as he reports them, in our view they would constitute a serious violation of human rights. I will draw the issue to the attention of the Foreign Secretary, but the hon. Gentleman may have noticed that Foreign Office questions are on 2 December.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
As we celebrate International Men’s Day, may I ask the Leader of the House to join me in thanking the staff and volunteers at Men Matter Scotland in Drumchapel? They offer social, financial and emotional support to men. In particular, will he join me in thanking Ian Sproull, who ran 10 marathons in 10 days to raise funds for the organisation? Will he also be so kind as to consider visiting the organisation next time he is in Scotland?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that serious point. I absolutely join her in thanking everyone involved in Men Matter Scotland for their input and work, and I note the success of Ian Sproull. She will know, as I am sure the whole House knows, that this week sees England’s first-ever men’s health strategy. I would be delighted to accept her invitation should I find myself in Scotland.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
May I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to the reform of business rates to boost our high streets? In Uttoxeter, one street faces much higher rates than other parts of the high street, where other businesses are exempt. That is negatively affecting owners such as Joe, who runs Fueled Coffee. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on how we can support community businesses such as Fueled before the new system comes into place?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are absolutely committed to supporting local businesses and local high streets. That is why we are seeking to protect high streets by creating a fairer business rates system. My hon. Friend will know that at the end of this month, we will mark Small Business Saturday, giving us the opportunity to further celebrate the small businesses in our communities. Should he seek to raise this matter through either a debate of his own or the Budget debate, I am sure it will be a popular topic.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), who is no longer in his place, my inbox is full to the brim with emails about fireworks. When they are enjoyed as part of professional displays on national holidays, they can be magnificent, but my constituents are concerned that they are being deployed well outside of normal hours and holiday times. On behalf of my constituents—those with post-traumatic stress disorder or autism, veterans and families with pets, who have all contacted me—may I press the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on the need to update firework regulations for the modern era?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue; he is not the first to do so today, and he is certainly not the first to do so in the past few weeks. This is an important matter, particularly at this time of year. It is true that there are rules on the use of fireworks, but, as we all know, they are not always kept to. That would be a popular topic for a debate, judging by the number of people who raise it with me.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
As I suspect he has an important question on Scottish football, I call Richard Baker.
Richard Baker
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating not only the famous and heroic Scottish football team on its qualification for the world cup this week, but the charity Fife Gingerbread in my constituency? It was also successful this week, as it was a finalist in the Centre for Social Justice UK charity awards. It was recognised for its stargazing strategy and brilliant work to tackle child poverty and promote employability for lone parents. Will the Leader of the House consider allocating time for Parliament to debate how we can best support the vital work of third-sector organisations in providing employability programmes?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Scottish football team. This is its first time qualifying for the world cup since 1998—in case Members need reminding, that was under a Labour Government too. I will absolutely join him in congratulating Fife Gingerbread on making it to the charity award finals, and I thank it and charities and volunteers across the country for the vital work they do to support families in tackling child poverty.
Migration: Settlement Pathway
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on a fairer pathway to settlement for migrants.
The story of migration in this country is woven through my own. My father came here in the early ’70s, my mother a little less than a decade later. Both came to seek a better life, and they found one here. In time, while always proud Kashmiris, they became British citizens themselves—Brummies, too—and brought up four children just as proud as them to be a part of this country and that great city. This is not just my story; it is the story of many of my constituents in Birmingham Ladywood, and of many millions more across this country.
Like so many others like me, I am a patriot. Mine is a love of a country that is forever changing, while something essential about us always endures. It is a patriotism that finds room for those who trace their roots back many generations and for those who, like me, do not. However, I worry that for some, that broad patriotism is narrowing, and that a vision of a greater Britain is giving way to that of a littler England, as anger turns to hate. Some will choose to scorn this analysis; they would rather that we simply wished it away, but those who look like me do not have that luxury. Our lives and those of our families are more dangerous in a country that turns inwards, so we have no choice but to ask what the cause of our division is, and how this country might be united.
As I said earlier this week, the pace and scale of migration in this country has been destabilising. I spoke on Monday of the 400,000 people who have claimed asylum since 2021, but that figure pales in comparison with the net migration figure for the same period. In that time, 2.6 million more people moved to Britain than left. To place that in perspective, around one in every 30 people in this country arrived in those four years. This is the result of the extraordinary open-border experiment conducted by the last Conservative Government.
In that period, now sometimes called the Boriswave, immigration controls were drastically lifted. This was most notable in the case of the health and care visa, for which minimum salary requirements were dropped. An attempt to fill between 6,000 and 40,000 jobs led to the arrival of 616,000 individuals between 2022 and 2024. Over half of those individuals were not even filling jobs in the sector—rather, they were dependants of those who were—and as any Member of Parliament could tell us, abuse was rife.
I would have thought that my support for migration did not need to be stated, but after some of the questions I faced on Monday, I think I had better do so. Migrant communities have been woven into the tapestry of British life for generations. While I will never believe in assimilating communities, we have achieved cohesion because different communities have integrated, retaining their distinction within a single, pluralistic whole. This makes demands of those who are already here to remain open to new arrivals, but more than that, it demands something of those arriving. To settle in this country forever is not a right, but a privilege, and it must be earned. Today, that is not the case; settlement, or indefinite leave to remain, comes almost automatically after five years’ residence in this country. At that point, a migrant gains access to many of the rights of a British citizen, including to benefits.
As a result of the unprecedented levels of migration in recent years, 1.6 million people are now forecast to settle between 2026 and 2030, with a peak of 450,000 in 2028—around four times higher than the recent average. That will now change. As this Government announced in their immigration White Paper, the starting point for settlement will move from five years to 10. To ensure that this is earned, new criteria will be added, which will act as a disqualifying bar for those who do not meet them. First, the applicant must have a clean criminal record; secondly, they must speak English to A-level standard; thirdly, they must have made sustained national insurance contributions; and finally, they must have no debt in this country.
While these criteria set the bar that everyone must meet, there are a series of other tests, which today have been published for consultation. These either add to, or subtract from, the 10-year qualifying period. To recognise the particular value to society they play, the Government propose that those who speak English to a degree-level standard could qualify for a nine-year path to settlement; those paying the higher rate of tax could qualify at five years; and those on the top rate could qualify after three, the same as those on global talent visas. Those who work in a public service, including doctors, teachers and nurses, would qualify after five years, while those who volunteer—subject to this consultation—could qualify at between five and seven years. Not subject to consultation, the partners of British citizens will continue to qualify at five years, as is the case today. This is also true of British nationals overseas from Hong Kong, who will qualify at five years in honour of our unique responsibilities to them. All grants under the Windrush and EU settlement schemes will also remain unchanged.
While some people will be able to qualify for settlement earlier than 10 years, others will be forced to wait longer. Once again, these proposals are subject to consultation, but the Government propose that those who have received benefits for less than 12 months would not qualify for settlement until 15 years after arrival. For those who have claimed benefits for more than 12 months, the duration would rise to 20 years, and to encourage the use of legal routes into this country, those who arrive illegally could see settlement take up to 30 years. As has already been set out, refugees on core protection will qualify for settlement after 20 years, although those who move to a work and study visa could earn settlement earlier, and those arriving by a safe and legal route would earn settlement at 10 years. This consultation is open regarding settlement rights for some cohorts of special interest, including children, members of the armed forces and victims of certain crimes.
As well as considering the responsibilities that are expected of those who seek a permanent life in this country, the consultation also raises the question of the rights that will be provided. Specifically, it proposes that benefits might not be available to those who have settled status, reserving them instead for those who have earned British citizenship. Finally, the consultation addresses the question of the so-called Boriswave, specifically the cohort of lower-qualified workers who—along with their dependants—entered the country through the health and care visa, and some of whom are never expected to be net economic contributors. It is right that we apply more stringent controls for this group. For that reason, we propose they should wait 15 years before they can earn settlement. Crucially, for these people and for every other group mentioned, we propose that these changes apply to everyone in the country today who has not yet received indefinite leave to remain, although we are seeking views on whether some transitional arrangements should be available.
May I make one thing absolutely clear, though? We will not change the rules for those with settled status today. These are people who have been in our country for years, or even decades. They have families here— wives, husbands and children. They have worked in our hospitals and taught in our schools, and have been contributing to our society for years. Fairness is the most fundamental of British values. We made a promise when we gave those people settlement, and we do not break our promises.
The Reform party—whose Members, I note, are not in the Chamber today—has said that it will do this most un-British of things. The Tories have said that they will, but then said that they will not; I am left in as much of a muddle about their policy as they are, although perhaps the shadow Home Secretary might enlighten the House today. But I can be clear that this Government will not change the rules for those with settled status.
As this consultation shows, we listen to the British public, and I encourage all those interested to make their voices heard. Today I have set out what we propose and, perhaps more importantly, why. I love this country, which opened its arms to my parents around 50 years ago, but I am concerned by the division I see now, fuelled by a pace and scale of change that is placing immense pressure on local communities. For those who believe that migration is part of modern Britain’s story and should always continue to be, we must prove that it can still work, with those who come here contributing, playing their part and enriching our national life. While each will always retain something of who they were and where they came from, they become a part of the greatest multi-ethnic, multi-faith democracy in the world. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
As always, I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. She has had a busy week. I wonder whether this burst of hyperactivity has anything to do with her leadership bid. As her shadow, I will say this: I am rooting for her in her tussle with the Health Secretary as to who gets to replace the Prime Minister, although I fear my endorsement may not be entirely helpful to her!
Immigration under successive Governments has been far too high. That has included illegal immigration across the channel, which has surged since the general election, with 10,000 illegal immigrants crossing just in the 75 days that the Home Secretary has been in post. Last year—the first year of a Labour Government—there were a record number of new asylum claims. The number of illegal immigrants accommodated in hotels has gone up under this Labour Government, even though they promised they would reduce numbers.
Besides illegal immigration, on which this Government are so clearly failing, legal migration has been far too high, too, absorbing the equivalent of half the new housing supply in recent years. Allowing mass low-skilled migration is bad for the economy, not least when we have 9.5 million working-age people out of work. Mass low- skilled migration without integration has placed all kinds of pressures on society, not least because there are a million people here who do not speak English properly or at all and 10,000 foreign citizens in prison. Where I suspect we and the Government agree is that very limited, high-skilled migration is a good thing, but the days of mass, low-skilled migration must come to an end.
There is much in this statement that I support, not least because so much of it is so familiar. The idea of a 10-year route to indefinite leave to remain is something that we proposed in amendments to the Government’s Bill around nine months ago. Inexplicably, the Labour party voted against those measures, and now they have adopted them. We also proposed removing benefits from foreign citizens, including those on ILR who do not have British citizenship, and this consultation document now looks at doing the same thing. I am delighted to see that the Home Secretary, upon arrival at 2 Marsham Street, got out her laptop and started copying and pasting Conservative policies.
I have one or two detailed and specific questions, which I ask in a spirit of constructiveness, given that the Home Secretary has adopted so many Conservative policies. Importantly, she said that these policies on ILR qualification would apply to those people here already. She is absolutely right to say that, and I support it. She mentions transitional arrangements. I just urge her to be cautious about those, lest they create loopholes. Can she give the House an estimate as to when these new measures will be implemented? I think the previous rules around legal migration took effect in January 2021, so the people who arrived under them will become eligible under present ILR rules from January 2026—just a few weeks’ time. When will these changes be implemented? I hope it is as soon as possible.
The Home Secretary also says that to qualify for ILR at 10 years, people will need to have made national insurance contributions. I have tried to get through the consultation document in the past half hour, and I think I am right in saying that the qualifying threshold is to have earned £12,570 for a period of three years. She can correct me if I have got that wrong, but that strikes me as a very low level of earnings—some £12,500 for three years would not represent a net economic contribution to this country—and I urge her seriously to consider setting the threshold a great deal higher.
The Home Secretary also mentions the possibility of volunteering meaning that people get ILR at five years, rather than 10. We know how people game the system when it comes to immigration, such as by pretending to convert to Christianity to get asylum. I urge her to draft those rules carefully and to be extremely cautious, lest she creates some loopholes.
Will the Home Secretary consider adopting one last Conservative policy, since she appears so enthusiastic about them, by introducing a binding cap on legal migration? It could be voted for by Parliament each year so that this House can democratically decide the level of inward migration. She has adopted so many of our other policies, and I strongly urge her to adopt that last one too.
Shabana Mahmood
I am pleased to see that the Leader of the Opposition let the shadow Home Secretary have a go today. He seems overly concerned about my personal future, but he should worry about his own and that of his party. One good way to secure the future of the Conservative party would perhaps be to start with an open and honest acknowledgement of their track record in government and, dare I say it, perhaps even an apology for messing up the system so badly in the first place. Given their track record, they barely have the right to ask questions, let alone propose solutions. It is my view that, as with settlement, people have to earn the right to offer solutions. One way of earning that right would be to apologise for what the Tories did.
The shadow Home Secretary asked a specific question about when the changes will come into effect. The 12-week consultation will end in the middle of February, and we anticipate making changes and to begin the phase-out once the changes are adopted from April 2026. As he knows, the immigration rules usually change twice a year every year, and that is when we will begin making some of those changes. Some could require technical fixes and solutions that may take a little longer, but the intention is to start from April next year.
The shadow Home Secretary made a point about the qualifying threshold being around £12,000. He will know that we have used the national insurance contributions threshold specifically because it is one of the quickest ways to establish whether somebody is in work. It is designed to give an indication of the period spent in work. He will also know that there are different income thresholds for the different routes by which people can come into the country, and those are not being changed.
The shadow Home Secretary made a valid point about ensuring that the new system does not have any loopholes. I will be alive to that. As we discussed at length in the House on Monday, there is a relationship between some types of visa overstaying and coming straight into the asylum system as well. I am alive to those risks, and we will do everything we can to shut that down. In the end, this will be a whole package of reforms to clamp down on abuse and retain public confidence in running a migration system overall and in the asylum system in particular.
What can I say about a cap? The cap has had a long life in the Conservative party, and I gently suggest that they never managed it in 14 years in power. I do not think we will be pursuing that failure now.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I applaud my right hon. Friend on many points, not least for debunking the idea that a cap will solve anything or is even achievable. There is a lot of detail in this statement, but one issue is that people going through the system have to apply repeatedly to extend their discretionary leave to remain until they reach settlement status. That is costly for them, cumbersome for the Home Office and does nothing to help them integrate or work in the community. I have had the opportunity to meet a junior Minister on this issue, but can the Home Secretary give any assurance to the House that the Home Office is looking at it? We should ensure that those who are welcome here have a less burdensome system to go through. That will hopefully save money and enable the Home Office to focus on more urgent issues.
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend brings a huge amount of personal experience to this discussion, having been a Minister herself, and she has a very august track record as a Select Committee Chair, so I will always take seriously any suggestions that she makes. I will discuss with my ministerial team the detail of what she suggests. Our principled position is that it is right that people pay fees for visa extensions, and that we move from a five-year to a 10-year qualifying period for settlement. We are not consulting on whether we move from five years to 10 years, which is already decided policy. What is set out in the consultation are some of the other questions that sit underneath that. I will happily discuss that with her, because I know she has much experience in the area of Home Office capacity and how we build a system that can work effectively, not only in being delivered by the state but in providing certainty for the people who ultimately want to make their lives in this country.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I begin, I beg your forgiveness for taking a few extra seconds to reflect on the exchanges in this Chamber on Monday. I would like to use this opportunity to put on the record my utter contempt for those who abuse the Home Secretary and anybody else who is abused based on the colour of their skin or their religion. That is not what Britain stands for.
The Home Secretary will, of course, choose the language that she wants to use in this debate, and I will choose my language too. The constructive and moderate tone of voice that I and the Liberal Democrats will use in discussions about immigration will remain, as will our attempts to help offer feedback as and when the Government bring forward proposals. The number of Liberal Democrats present today shows that we are not ignoring this issue; indeed, we have as many in the Chamber as there are Reform Members—and none of them is here.
Like others, we are aware of the issues facing communities up and down the country, and immigrants who live here too. We agree with the Home Secretary that faith must be restored in the immigration and asylum system, as I stated on Monday, and we agree that that requires changes to policy. Of course, most of what we are discussing today is distinct from some of the discussions we had on Monday about desperate refugees and asylum seekers.
We also believe that it must be acknowledged that prior to Brexit and the removal of nearly all safe and legal routes, this country had a more rational and controlled approach to immigration and asylum. The Conservative party is responsible. We think it is regrettable that the Government have not made quicker progress towards building stronger links with Europe in their work on getting control of our immigration policy, and we believe that discussions about regaining control must also come with a proper discussion about the opportunities that that provides and the potential risks.
Changes to pathways to settlement must be done with regard to the economy and public services, and with fairness to individuals. We are concerned about the chilling effect that some changes could have on the economy. The UK is fast becoming a less competitive place for science and innovation, not least because of Brexit. The cost of a five-year global talent visa to Britain is £6,000 per person—around 20 times more expensive than comparable visas in our competitor countries, where similar schemes typically cost a few hundred pounds. It is no surprise that so few researchers come to Britain on these visas every year. Cancer Research UK alone spends £900,000 annually—money that could be better spent on setting up research labs instead.
The Government must also be careful about the effect that their rhetoric and policy will have on our public services. The NHS is heavily reliant on nurses and staff who are not British nationals. Has the Home Secretary made an assessment of the risk that some will leave, and what steps are this Government taking to develop domestic talent in the health and care sector?
Shabana Mahmood
I do not propose to revisit the detail of our exchanges on Monday, but I will always listen to constructive contributions, wherever they come from in this House, and I will reflect on the points that the Liberal Democrats make in order to be constructive. One thing on which we will perhaps continue to disagree is just how important it is that we acknowledge that there is concern across our country. It is not made up, and it does demand answers of politicians. I hope that that is now a point of agreement between us.
I think the hon. Gentleman made a point in relation to the asylum system. I did not pick it up directly, so if I do not address it now, he is welcome to write to me. Again, I do not propose to go into the details that we discussed on Monday during the asylum policy statement, but one thing that I made very clear is that the number of those arriving on small boats in this country is almost exactly the same as the number of people who overstay visas. There is a relationship between legal migration and illegal migration in the overall migration system: when people overstay and then come straight into the asylum system, and particularly into asylum accommodation, at the point at which a visa ends, it is a very real problem, and a significant number of people are doing that. It is incumbent on us to resolve that, which is what the totality of all these reforms is designed to do.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government has made huge strides in resetting our relationship with the European Union, and these are matters that we discuss very closely with our counterparts in Europe. The progress made since the EU reset has been considerable, and we will continue to build on that. Once again, though, I do not propose to revisit old debates. We live in a new reality, and we are forging a new path ahead.
Of course, we want to give certainty to people who are already in this country. That is what we are doing through the consultation that we have set, and I have given certainty to British citizens who wish to bring their dependants over and to those from Hong Kong. Those arrangements will not change, and we have also given certainty through Windrush grants and EU settlement grants, none of which is affected by the consultation. Since the Government published our immigration White Paper, people have known that the qualifying period will move from five years to 10.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about fairness to individuals. I agree with him, because giving fairness and certainty to those who have come here to work and make a contribution to our economy is absolutely important. However, our reforms are also designed to give fairness to those who are already here, and to build public confidence in the system overall.
The hon. Gentleman made some points on the national health service. I know that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care takes very seriously future labour market reforms and ensuring that there is a pipeline of the required labour so that our NHS keeps going. We absolutely value the contribution that those from overseas who have come to work in our national health service have made, are making and will always continue to make.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I have a constituent, born and bred in Llanelli, who is unable to bring in his foreign spouse because of the current earnings limit of £29,000. The Home Secretary will be aware that the Government’s family financial requirements review notes that a threshold in the region of £23,000 to £25,000 would allow most British workers in full-time minimum wage jobs to qualify. When will she consider this review and look again at the fairness of the current earnings thresholds?
Shabana Mahmood
We always keep those thresholds under review, and we will continue to do so in relation to family and to bringing dependants over.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Home Secretary loves our country and I love her efforts, frankly, because it is not just the fate of this Government that depends on her success, but good community relations, saving dozens of lives at sea and, let us be frank, probably our political fate. Will she undertake to be judged not just by the strength of this announcement and words spoken in the House of Commons but by results, so that we actually make a real contribution towards stopping the boats? Is she prepared to constantly ratchet up the pressure so that if someone is sitting in France, they think, “Is it worth the risk? I’ve got virtually no chance of being allowed to stay in Britain forever. I will have my case reviewed regularly—every two years. I will be sent back to where I came from when it is safe; otherwise, I will go back to a return hub.”? Can we not all agree on that?
Shabana Mahmood
Results are all that matters. It is incumbent on me to think about the way that we have to reform the system, to make a public argument for it, to win that argument, to persuade people and then to get this done. What I care about now is ensuring that we can deliver these proposals, and we will do so. Then I need to ensure that the Home Office is in a position to run a system properly, administratively and fairly in the future. That is what matters. This is a low-trust environment for the public—all of us involved in politics know that. In the end, the public have heard a lot of rhetoric from a lot of people, but this Government intend to get on and deliver and to win the trust of the British people.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, particularly what she said about the more than 75,000 nurses working in our NHS who have arrived in this country since 2021. Those nurses and other healthcare professionals were actively encouraged to come here to fill the gaps left by the previous Government’s failure to do NHS workforce planning. Since they arrived, they have served our communities and cared for our citizens with distinction. I welcome what she said about maintaining a five-year route for those who are engaged in public service. Could she confirm that that will apply to NHS staff, such as those I have mentioned, and could she explain how she will continue discussions with DHSC colleagues to ensure that there will be no unexpected reduction in NHS workforce staffing in the months ahead?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right about the contribution that those nurses and other staff in the national health service are making. He will know that we are consulting specifically on the element of the proposals that relates to public service and to its getting people a five-year discount on the qualifying period. No doubt he will make his own responses to that consultation, and we have heard them, too. Of course, in the normal run of things, public service would include those who work in our critical public services.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I broadly welcome the changes to ILR, but I seek clarification about whether there will be revocation for those already settled who break the law. Why are the Government proposing making low-skilled workers who are net fiscal recipients wait for 15 years for ILR, instead of telling them to just leave the country?
On the broader question of immigration, the Government say that they want to get the numbers down—it is correct that the Boriswave was a disgrace—but the measures implemented so far by this Government are projected to reduce the number of people coming here by only 61,000 a year. That is before we take into account the new rules for Gaza, Afghan dependants and the schemes launched this week by the Home Secretary. In fact, that is less than the revision by the Office for National Statistics of the number coming here last year. If she does want to get the number down, when will she bring forward new policies to ensure that the number of visas issued falls by the hundreds of thousands as soon as possible?
Shabana Mahmood
The powers to revoke indefinite leave to remain are not going to change as a result of this. The hon. Member will know that the specific provisions for foreign national offenders will also be unaffected. Separately, we are going to review the threshold in relation to criminality. The current rules work on the basis that someone cannot qualify for indefinite leave to remain if they have received a sentence of 12 months or more. However, given the changes being brought forward in the Sentencing Bill and others, we will be looking at that threshold in its entirety. He raised a point about retrospectivity, and we will be reviewing that as we review all the criminal thresholds that apply here. He had another question, but—forgive me—I missed it. [Interruption.] If he will write to me, I will come back to him, but I think he was asking about wage thresholds.
The hon. Member made a final point, which I did pick up, about the modelling—essentially, the numbers—and whether a reduction of 61,000 a year is the right number. Let me just say to him that I will be coming to this House on a regular basis to be held to account for the delivery of these reforms and those that I set out on Monday about the asylum system. It is a big package of reforms, taken together. These are the biggest changes to settlement for 40 years, and the asylum package is one of the biggest packages of modern times. The combination of the two will keep modellers and others very busy over the coming months, but I promise the House that we will be transparent on the data, the numbers and what our proposals mean in practice. That will inevitably change as we design the new system, but hon. Members will always get transparency from me in this House.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with the Home Secretary that our immigration system needs reform and that people are concerned about it. I think we should also be very clear in this House that we recognise the benefits of immigration to our country—the talents, the jobs and the entrepreneurship it brings—and that nobody would ever argue that we will bring this country together by tearing families apart. On that basis, it is very welcome to hear the Home Secretary commit to a five-year pathway for partners of British citizens. Many of my constituents have been deeply concerned about that, because they would never wish the state to tell them whom they could fall in love with. However, given that some of those people are on different visas here, can she clarify how the five-year term will be calculated, so that we do not inadvertently end up penalising people who fall in love with somebody who came here on a worker visa, but has been here for five years? Love is love, and let us make sure that in this country we welcome it.
Shabana Mahmood
None of the rules about marriage in-country, as it were, are going to change, but if my hon. Friend wants to send me some of her constituency examples, I would be very happy to look at them. It is important to have a distinction between what citizenship unlocks as a set of rights for British citizens and what applies for those who are working here and who may not have settled status but may acquire settled status. I think it is right that we open a question in the consultation about what is unlocked from the British state and for people’s rights here at citizenship as well as at settlement. I would be very happy to discuss these matters with her in more detail, and I am sure I will do so over the next few months.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Many migrant survivors of domestic abuse apply to settle in the UK permanently if their relationship has broken down because of domestic violence or abuse, and the right hon. Lady knows just how close this issue is to my heart. Will she reassure this House and survivors of domestic abuse that they will be protected under her reforms, and that her changes to ILR will not have the adverse and perhaps unintended impact of locking those survivors into abusive relationships?
Shabana Mahmood
First, let me put on record my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on his engagement.
The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous campaigner on domestic abuse issues, based on his own experiences. He and I have had many debates across this Chamber on those matters, and I very much respect the perspective he brings and the way in which he constructively engages with the debate. I can assure him that we will continue to have pathways to settlement for victims of domestic violence and for other vulnerable groups as well. In the consultation, we are inviting views and perspectives on how some of the changes might have unintended consequences, and on how we can ensure that those pathways continue to exist. I am sure he will be engaging with the consultation in that regard.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I agree with the Home Secretary that fairness must be at the heart of the immigration system, but would she say a little more about the route to settlement for the Ukrainian families to whom my generous constituents opened their doors following the horrific invasion of their country?
Shabana Mahmood
Nothing I have said today changes the position of those who have come to this country on the Ukrainian scheme. That is a bespoke scheme for the people who have arrived here from Ukraine. In fact, it is seen not as a refugee route, but as a temporary scheme. All its provisions were supported by us in opposition, and they continue to be supported by us in government. Nothing in the position of Ukrainians in this country will change as a result of anything in the asylum policy statement or today’s Command Paper.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As the descendant of immigrant grandparents, I have a high degree of empathy with the Home Secretary’s opening remarks about her own family. Does she agree that the reason that both main parties are facing the possibility of an electoral bloodbath is not so much the overall level of immigration, but the fraction of it—still a very large number of people—who come to this country on small boats and by other illegal means? We do not know what they believe, we do not know what values they have, and because in many cases they destroy their documents, we do not even know who they are. Can she explain how the measures she has outlined today will have an impact on deterring that sort of person from breaking into our country?
Shabana Mahmood
I have acknowledged that the way the system is working—or, more appropriately, not working—is causing deep unease across the country, including in my constituency and among people who are of immigrant backgrounds themselves, because of a sense of unfairness. A lot of people in my constituency regularly report overstaying to me, which they see as an abuse of visas and as a particular problem, while others are more concerned about the small boats. I acknowledge that those concerns are legitimate, real and felt deeply across the country. That is why I think it is so important that we rebuild public trust in the overall system by dealing with both illegal migration and legal migration, based on the principles of fairness and contribution, and give the public confidence that the rules we have can be maintained, enforced and followed properly.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that the destruction of documents and the other ways in which people seek to frustrate our ability to remove them from this country is driving some of the discontent. That is why the reforms I set out in the asylum policy statement are designed to say to those making the calculation in the north of France, “Don’t get on a boat. It’s not worth it. That is not the way to come to this country.” As we build safe and legal routes to this country—which will clearly be a much more privileged way of entering, with a faster path to settlement at 10 years, as I have said—the reforms will show very clearly to people making that calculation which path is worth it and which one is not.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I welcome the assurance the Home Secretary has given to those who have achieved indefinite leave to remain and have settled status in this country. That certainty is really important. She will know that in my constituency I have many families from Syria and Afghanistan, who came under the Syrian programme and Operation Pitting. They have limited leave to remain and are deeply worried, from what the Home Secretary has said, as to whether they will ultimately be deported from this country. Can she give an assurance to those who are currently seeking ILR and who came on those programmes that they will be able to follow the path that was set out for them when they arrived? Will she give that assurance and ensure that this country will never do a deal with the Taliban to deport women and children from this country?
Shabana Mahmood
We will always have specific obligations on not returning anybody who has arrived in this country seeking asylum or who has been granted refugee status. We would not return those individuals to danger. We will abide by our international obligations, as I hope I made clear in the statement on Monday. However, our ability to have new rules that look more carefully and more regularly at whether a country is safe for citizens to be returned is important. It is a shift in the way we do things, but we will never return people to face danger. I would be happy to look at some of the examples my hon. Friend has raised today in more detail with him.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
First, I apologise to the Home Secretary for missing part of her statement, but I have read it. Will she confirm whether any assessment has been carried out on the economic impact on Scotland of extending the ILR wait time to 10 years and beyond? If not, why not? Whatever the needs of Wales and Northern Ireland, Scotland’s economic and workforce needs once again appear to have been ignored. Does the Home Secretary understand that such a blanket policy risks exacerbating skills shortages, threatening vital sectors and making it harder for communities to thrive? Incredibly, for a so-called Labour Government, this lurch to the right now appears to favour the wealthy over the less wealthy.
Shabana Mahmood
Really, Madam Deputy Speaker! The hon. Gentleman will know that immigration is a reserved matter. That will not change. The thing that is holding back the labour market in Scotland is skills and education policy, which is devolved. It is on the SNP to sort that out.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
In 2024, in the run-up to the election, I knocked on door after door where people told me that they were absolutely sick of our broken immigration system that we inherited from the Tories. They did not trust Reform, who are not here today, to tackle it. I welcome the intervention from our Home Secretary. Does she agree that to be the open, tolerant and generous country that we know we are, we must get order and control at our borders?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is an open, tolerant and generous country. What I have acknowledged in the reforms I have set out, both today and on Monday, is that there is a condition to unlocking the full extent of that openness, tolerance and generosity. It is about having order and control at our borders and a fair, managed asylum and immigration system where the principles of fairness and contribution are at its heart. That is the way we can prove to the public that it is possible not just to have an asylum system, but one they can be proud of.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I am not sure it helps the Home Secretary’s cause for me to say that I have a great deal of respect for her and that I thought her interventions this week were very important, particularly those pointed towards members of her party on the left who will make the cause they choose to champion more difficult if the system as a whole is not brought under control. The people who support asylum and refugee processes and want them to be there in future need the system to be brought under control.
My sincere question relates to what I would describe as tinkering around the edges of the human rights laws. The Home Secretary must know that whatever she does to clarify the fringes of the rulings the ECHR has made over the years, they have created a case law that forces our judges to rule in favour of spurious claims. She cannot change that; those rulings are those rulings. Unless we are willing at the very least to have a derogation from some elements of the Court’s decisions, how does she think we can override those well-established rulings which give enormous amounts of rights to people when they are making their asylum claims?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman and I have an obvious point of difference on the European convention on human rights. This Government will not be leaving that European convention. We do not see the case for derogation or any other measures. We believe it is possible to achieve the reforms we need by legislating for the way that article 8 applies to immigration cases, by defining family life and by more tightly drawing up what is known as the public interest test. We will debate that legislation in this House in great detail, but I hope to show to everyone who is currently a sceptic of our ability to stay in the ECHR and get control of our migration system that it is possible to do both those things. The convention—the Human Rights Act brought the rights into our domestic legislation—is an important international treaty and we do not see any reason to leave it or derogate from it. I hope that Opposition Members will engage in good faith on the changes we seek to make to article 8, and the immigration rules in particular, because we think that is one of the best changes we can make to get control of our migration system.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members will notice that we have two debates after this business. I am going to finish this statement in around 10 minutes, so I ask remaining Members please to keep their questions short and the Minister to keep her answers short.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I ask, as someone who was not born in this country, whether the Home Secretary agrees that we should not stop talking about the benefits of immigration while managing migration. As she has already acknowledged, will she confirm that we will always offer sanctuary to those truly fleeing peril? Does she accept that for those people, we should be making settlement and integration into British society quicker and easier, not more difficult?
Shabana Mahmood
I hope my hon. Friend will reflect on how I opened my statement today and how I closed it. I see the benefits of migration. I would not be here if this country had not welcomed my parents. It is literally the story of my life and how I have managed to get from there to this Dispatch Box today, so I very much feel those benefits personally. I will always speak up for them—as I have done today, as I did on Monday and as I will always do—as I make the case out there in the country for the need for these reforms. I hope that he and others will always support me on that—I know they will. I have also made clear that we will always offer sanctuary. I want us to be a country that offers sanctuary to those who are in need. That is why it is so crucial that we get order and control back into our asylum system and open up new safe and legal routes. It is important that today I have confirmed that those safe and legal routes will have the earlier 10-year path to settlement. That is what will enable the integration we all want to see.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
In the summer, I spent the morning with Anushka, a senior social care worker in Wimborne. She and her colleagues earn more than the earnings threshold and came here with their families on the understanding that they could make a new life here, contributing to society and paying their taxes. The recent hostile narrative is making her and others consider leaving for places such as New Zealand and Australia. Will the Home Secretary confirm whether Anushka and her colleagues, doing jobs that cannot be filled by British workers who will not do the work, will be considered public sector workers?
Shabana Mahmood
These will be matters for the consultation and I encourage the hon. Lady to engage with it. We have put in an element around public service, because we recognise the specific contributions made by those who fill the gaps in our labour market that we are not otherwise able to fill. On the general principle, I would say to her that settlement is not a right and that it is absolutely fair for a Government to say that it has to be earned. It is not unusual for countries to change their settlement requirements. That is quite normal. It happens all over the world, as British citizens who work abroad know all too well. The proposal to go from five years to 10 years will not change, but all the other measures I have set out today are subject to consultation. I encourage her to engage with that.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, the care and fairness with which she has crafted the proposals, and the incentives that they instil. In my work on the International Development Committee, I have seen the immense negative impact of global displacement and the loss of over $20 billion of economic activity every year from developing countries. Then, of course, there is the impact of asylum accommodation on our overseas assistance budget. Does my right hon. Friend agree that while the measures might ostensibly seem harsh, there is nothing progressive about well-meaning people on the left of politics excusing a situation where thousands of people are risking their lives to cross the English channel from already safe countries?
Shabana Mahmood
It is immoral if we stand by and watch people make dangerous crossings, pay thousands of pounds to criminals, and put their lives and those of others at risk, while we do nothing. That would be a total dereliction of duty. It would also be a dereliction of duty for a Labour Government to continue to preside over a broken system, or to not have the mettle to go ahead and reform that system, and then watch as we lose public consent for having an asylum system at all. I think it is existential for us to have public consent for the asylum system, which is why all the changes are so necessary.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Bobby Dean, with a very short question.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for her confirmation about the five-year pathway for Hongkongers—that is a promise kept to them. The statement was otherwise a series of push measures. I am always fascinated by how much more difficult it gets, when it comes to the individual decisions made within the system. To push the Home Secretary on the Boriswave, which she has criticised, the vast majority of those figures were made up of Hongkongers arriving here under the BNO scheme, Ukrainian refugees, and deferred student visas after the covid pandemic. Which of those measures does she think was a mistake?
Shabana Mahmood
I was clear about our responsibilities towards Hongkongers, and that the issues in relation to the Ukraine scheme are not going to change. However, the hon. Member will know that the stats on health and care visa holders, primarily those who came to work in adult social care, will be the main contributors to the settlement increase between 2027 and 2029, because they will make up nearly half of all settlement grants in 2028. The figures really do speak for themselves, so it is important that the Government move to deal with the vast number of settlements due to happen over the next few years. It is therefore right that we extend the path to settlement, and ask some questions about how we manage the situation in the future.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I entirely agree that we need control of our borders in this country. In respect of transitional arrangements, over the next 12 years there will be an 83% increase in the number of over-80s in my constituency. Health and care visa workers are currently providing critical services to many of my constituents, as well as supporting the NHS. Can the Home Secretary confirm how the transitional arrangements will ensure that this care continues to be provided to my constituents?
Shabana Mahmood
The Health Secretary and his Department are always reviewing and considering the arrangements. We need to ensure that we have a workforce capable of sustaining the national health service. We have an ageing population, which brings its own specific challenges. We are not talking about preventing people from working in our national health service; it is about the pathway to settlement. It is about extending the pathway from five to 10 years, and then thinking about the rules we need to bring that number down from 10 and closer to five years, or that might increase it instead. In that spirit, I encourage my hon. Friend to engage with the detail, and I would be happy to talk to her offline.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Home Secretary announced a consultation on a five-year pathway to settlement for those who work in the public sector to recognise the particularly valuable role they play in society. Will she please put that to the vote, so that MPs can ensure that those who work in organisations that are fundamental to the public sector—such as those who work in hospices, like the amazing Woking & Sam Beare hospice in my constituency—are always included in the five-year pathway?
Shabana Mahmood
All the measures will be taken through in the usual way.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I am delighted to hear the Home Secretary announce that we will keep our promise to British national overseas visa holders from Hong Kong. That is something that I have worked with my constituents to lobby the Government on over the past few months, and I am delighted that the Government have listened. As well as transnational repression, Hongkongers bring other issues to me. Many of them in Leeds South West and Morley are highly skilled and have excellent qualifications, but employers in this country do not necessarily recognise those qualifications, which makes it much harder for them to get their first job. Will the Home Secretary work with other Departments to help employers in this country recognise the amazing contribution that Hongkongers can make to the UK economy?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and while it is not the direct responsibility of the Home Office, I will ensure that those conversations happen across Government and that a Minister from the Department for Business and Trade writes to him on the matter.
Reoffending: Rehabilitation in Prisons
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Justice Committee. Andy Slaughter will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, and not to the relevant Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for me to make a statement on behalf of the Justice Committee. This is the seventh report of the Committee and its subject is rehabilitation in prisons.
This time last year, the Justice Committee began its principal inquiry to look at the crisis of reoffending against the backdrop of a broken criminal justice system. Around 80% of all offending is reoffending. That figure alone suggests there is a serious issue, and that His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is not currently serving its stated mission of rehabilitating the people in its care. The purposes of prisons are clear: punishing, protecting the public, and rehabilitating offenders. The opportunity for offenders to be rehabilitated in prison should not be considered a luxury; it is a fundamental necessity to ensure that those who have done their time can return to society as law-abiding citizens.
The evidence we received, however, paints a starkly different picture. Instead of being places of reform, too many of our prisons have become places of stagnation, where offenders languish and rehabilitation opportunities are scarce. Our inquiry into rehabilitation has taken place amid a prison capacity crisis. Overcrowding, staffing shortages and deteriorating infrastructure have created conditions that actively undermine rehabilitation. The Committee found that the current conditions across the prison estate are simply not conducive to reform.
Overcrowding has led to arbitrary prisoner transfers, disrupted sentence progression, and reduced access to purposeful activity, education and family contact. With the demand for prison places set to keep increasing, the Government must set out the steps they will take to ensure that rehabilitation is not compromised, alongside how they intend to manage demand and supply.
The challenges do not end there. In the 12 months to 30 June 2025, there was a leaving rate of almost 12% among prison officers. These staffing shortages are not just an operational inconvenience, but a public safety risk. As we heard recently, in the year to March, 262 prisoners have been released in error. Overworked staff, outdated systems and inadequate training have meant that when officers are stretched to breaking point, the likelihood of administrative errors skyrockets.
Current levels of wrongful releases are not isolated blunders, but symptomatic of a system under intolerable strain. Alongside that, high turnover, poor recruitment processes and limited professional development have all contributed to a culture that hinders rehabilitation. Governors lack the autonomy to lead effectively, and the current staffing model is unsustainable. The Committee recommends that prison staff should receive training at least annually, with more frequent support as they progress through their careers.
Furthermore, the prison estate is in a state of disrepair. Dilapidated buildings and broken infrastructure limit access to rehabilitative spaces and contribute to poor mental health. Despite recent capital investment, it remains unclear how the Government intend to address the £1.8 billion maintenance backlog. That backlog is not just a financial figure; it represents real barriers to rehabilitation. We call on the Government to provide a clear breakdown of how funding will be used to address the backlog and to ensure that investment is targeted at improving prison conditions and rehabilitative activities.
The Committee is deeply concerned by the widespread failure to meet the statutory minimum for time out of cell. Many prisoners are locked up for 22 hours or more each day, with limited access to fresh air, showers or rehabilitation. This lack of time out of cell undermines efforts to reduce reoffending and contributes to poor mental health and disengagement.
Purposeful activity including education, work and offending behaviour programmes is central to rehabilitation, yet it is inconsistently delivered and often deprioritised. The Sentencing Bill rightly aims to incentivise good behaviour and engagement in purposeful activity through its earned progression model, but this ambition will fail if purposeful activity remains inaccessible. The Committee calls for a renewed focus on ensuring that all prisoners have access to meaningful activity, for time out of cell to be formalised and standardised, and for data on it to be published.
Education is the cornerstone of rehabilitation, yet prison education is underfunded and poorly delivered. Participation rates are low—50% of prisoners are not in education or work. For those who do take part, Ofsted ratings remain poor, with 75% of prisons inspected in 2024-25 rated “inadequate” or “showing no improvement”. It is therefore unsurprising that two thirds of offenders are not in education or work six months after release from prison. Given that, we are alarmed by reports of significant real-term cuts to prison education budgets of up to 50%. We expect the Government to clarify the rationale of any budget reduction.
Conditions across the youth estate are also in decline. Children in custody are entitled to 15 hours of education a week, yet the Committee heard that that minimum is routinely not met and that children are spending up to 23 hours a day in cell due to the failure of HM Prison and Probation Service to manage behaviour effectively. As well as making every effort to meet the statutory minimum of 15 hours of education, HMPPS must set a statutory minimum for time out of cell in young offender institutions.
Health and wellbeing services are failing to meet the needs of prisoners. Mental health support is inconsistent and operational pressures prevent timely access to care. Women in prison face acute and complex health needs, yet the system is failing to provide even basic support. Although the Government have set out their ambition to reduce the number of women in custody, it is unclear what action will be taken for those currently in prison. The Committee expects the Government to respond with a clear plan for how they will meet the health and wellbeing needs of the women currently in their care.
Remand prisoners now make up 20% of the prison population—the highest level in at least 50 years—yet they remain excluded from much of the prison regime, including access to education. We heard that remand prisoners often spend extended periods in custody only to be released directly from court following conviction, without any support or intervention. This raises serious concerns about how the Government expect these individuals to avoid reoffending. Rehabilitation must be available the moment someone enters custody, and remand prisoners should therefore have access to all parts of the regime, should they choose to participate.
There is plenty more to be done to improve outcomes for offenders. The Committee will shortly commence part 2 of its inquiry by examining how rehabilitation continues in the community for those released from prison, as well as those serving non-custodial sentences. A further report will follow, making not only recommendations for changes in how community sentences work, but long-term recommendations for structural reform across the criminal justice system in order to once and for all end the cycle of reoffending.
Let me be clear: the time for action cannot wait. The Sentencing Bill represents a welcome opportunity to rethink how we reduce reoffending, but legislation alone will not deliver rehabilitation. I apologise that it is a bleak prospect that I set out, but that is the reality of prison life—prisons are simply not working, and that is particularly true in the field of rehabilitation. As this report sets out, legislation must be matched by renewed focus from HMPPS to deliver better time out of cell, education, and health and wellbeing services. I urge the Government to take these recommendations seriously, to promote rehabilitation effectively and to ensure that our prisons are places of reform, not despair.
The Government have inherited a very difficult situation here. They are trying to address that in a number of ways, but the prisons crisis cannot be underestimated—we have seen the symptoms recently in wrongful releases and other tragedies in prison sentencing. We have to deliver a system that truly serves the public good, and that will come in the longer term only with effective rehabilitation in prisons.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for presenting the Committee’s statement. With the chief inspector of prisons recently concluding that the outcomes for children in custody are not improving and the urgent notification issued to Oakhill secure training centre, and given that it is children we are discussing, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the conditions across the youth estate are completely unacceptable and, as recommended, the Government should produce an action plan for youth custody?
Andy Slaughter
I thank the hon. Member, who is an effective and active member of the Committee, for her question. We should not ignore the fact that youth custody is one of the successes of the prison system in the sense that over the past few decades, the number of young people in custody has gone down from over 3,000, I think, to around 400. However, those who remain in youth custody, in a rather confused variety of institutions, are not being well served. It is the intention of the Committee to look at youth custody and young people in prison itself, but we can only examine and recommend; it is for the Government to look as a matter of urgency at the crisis in the youth estate for those who remain in custody.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. Does he agree that reducing reoffending through rehabilitation is the key to reducing not only prison overcrowding, but the court backlog? It is unacceptable that prisoners very often have to make the choice between engaging in work or education and accessing their basic needs, such as time out in the fresh air, a shower or a hot meal.
Andy Slaughter
It is certainly true that there is a close relationship between the crisis in the courts and the crisis in prisons. A good example is that, as I mentioned in my statement, the number of people on remand is at a 50-year high, with remand prisoners occupying prison places for far longer than they should be. It is also true that if we can break the cycle of reoffending—as I have said, 80% of offences are reoffending—the numbers in prisons will come down. That in itself will make rehabilitation in prisons a lot easier, which will mean that fewer people will be coming before the courts. We are in a downwards spiral at the moment, and we have to not only stop that but reduce it; lower numbers of offences against the public at large mean fewer people in prison and fewer people before the courts. It is a big ask, but if we do not start with that, we will not get there.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In the light of the urgent question earlier today, does the Chairman of the Committee believe that it is essential for the purpose of rehabilitation that prisoners should be protected against indoctrination by convicted terrorists?
Andy Slaughter
I do believe that—very much so. I believe that is what this Government, and indeed previous Governments, have set out to achieve. I hope that the report by Jonathan Hall KC will shine a light on what is not working; given his background, I believe that it will. The Government then have to implement that. One of the problems with prisons, as we covered in another recent report on drug culture in prison, is the operation of not just extremists but organised crime. The lack of control, organisation and discipline, not only in the prisons that Jonathan Hall KC talks about, but across the prison estate, is one of the most worrying aspects of prison life.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
There is an epidemic of violence against women and girls in this country, and the Government have a stated aim of reducing that by 50%. In that context, it is critical that our prisons play their role in rehabilitation. Does the Chair of the Select Committee agree that with 70% of people being released from remand—either directly because they are found not guilty or, in fact, because they are found guilty but released on the basis of time served—we are missing a huge opportunity to do rehabilitative work, because it is typically not offered at all to those on remand?
Andy Slaughter
The numbers of women and, indeed, young people in prison are a small percentage of the prison population, but they give particular cause for concern. As I mentioned in my statement, the health and mental health needs of women prisoners and the levels of self-harm are both higher. There is a clear need there and it is one that, to be fair, the Government have recognised and which they have policies to address. It is the practicality that we are lacking at the moment, because of the levels of support required. I welcome that the Government have clearly said that they want to see fewer women in prison, but we need to know how that will be achieved from this point onwards.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Around half of prisoners are neurodivergent and the population of young prisoners with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is around 10 times higher than in the population at large. With such specialist targeted support needed for those prisoners, we have heard that they have been let down by the system and that they cannot access the right support at the right time, regardless of the new system that is in place. Does the hon. Member agree that the delay in producing an update to the neurodiversity action plan is unacceptable and that it really must be published straightaway?
Andy Slaughter
The hon. Lady is the newest member of the Committee, and I am pleased to see her here today. She has obviously got behind the brief very quickly: we are waiting for an update on the neurodiversity action plan. Many levels of societal problems are reflected to a much higher level in prisons, whether that be around people with learning difficulties, literacy problems or neurodivergence. That is not a coincidence, but it is a wake-up call to the fact that such issues have to be addressed. Rehabilitation is for all prisoners, and special steps need to be taken, particularly in relation to neurodiverse prisoners. I hope that we are going to see that. The very capable Minister for Courts and Legal Services is in her place, listening to all this, and I am sure that she will tell us soon when that action plan will be updated.
Bills Presented
Tax Reliefs (Evaluation)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Bobby Dean presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to establish and maintain a framework for the regular evaluation of tax reliefs, including in relation to their effectiveness, cost and value for money and to require annual reporting under that framework; to require the Secretary of State to review all existing tax reliefs; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2026, and to be printed (Bill 335).
Declaration of Income and Gifts by Candidates for Elected Office (Russian Federation)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Max Wilkinson, supported by Lisa Smart, presented a Bill to place a duty on candidates for elected office to declare any past or current income or gifts from the government of the Russian Federation or from any person or organisation connected to that government; to place a duty on political parties to ensure that their candidates have made this declaration; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 July 2026, and to be printed (Bill 334).
International Men’s Day
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Josh Newbury, who will speak for around 15 minutes.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered International Men’s Day, the issues affecting, and contributions made by, men and boys, and what it means to be a man in Britain today.
It is an honour to lead this debate, and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for the House to consider this important issue. I also thank Members from across the House who supported the application and recognise the need for a serious national conversation about men’s health, men’s wellbeing and modern masculinity.
This year marks the 10th anniversary of our International Men’s Day debate—a chance for us to celebrate men and commit to tackling the challenges they face head on. For me, being a man means being there for family and friends, particularly when they need support the most. It means being the best dad and husband that I can be and, perhaps most importantly, being a completely fallible human being.
But let’s face it: you do not need to be an expert to know that being a man in Britain today can be very tough. We hear that from the men in our own families, on our street and in our workplace. Mental health issues are on the rise, preventable killers such as heart disease and prostate cancer are being caught too late and, most shockingly of all, suicide remains the leading cause of death for men under 50—something that I know many hon. Members wish to focus on today. With that backdrop, many men and boys are turning to online influencers who promote a particular, reductive view about what being a “real man” is, but that rarely gives them any sense of hope or optimism about their future and role in society.
The uncomfortable truth is that men often do not ask for help. For generations, we have been taught that a stiff upper lip, sorting yourself out and manning up is the best response to life’s challenges. When we combine that with higher rates of addiction of various types, it is no wonder that men’s health has reached a crisis point, and that hits families, workplaces and our communities. That is why the first ever men’s health strategy for England, published yesterday, is so welcome. I commend the Government and all the organisations involved in writing it for listening to what men need and not shying away from tackling issues that affect men specifically.
The strategy will mean that we meet men where they are to break down enduring stigma around mental health. It will improve care for men with prostate cancer and will support ex-miners, like those in my constituency, with better NHS diagnosis and treatment for people at high risk of respiratory disease. It is the first serious effort to understand the problems that men face and to chart the path to a country where men and boys can live longer, healthier and happier lives.
As the first speaker, I want, as best I can, to set the scene for the discussion and highlight the breadth of issues affecting men and boys across the UK, from health and education to employment, fatherhood and social wellbeing. Today we will touch on the challenges men face at every stage of life, celebrate the contributions they make to their families and communities, and home in on what we can do to shift things in the right direction.
I particularly thank the Dad Shift campaign for its support in shaping today’s debate. Its campaign for better paternity leave, backed by undeniable evidence, is grounded in lived experience. The Daft Shift is also the reason you might expect one or two dad jokes this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will go into the campaign in more detail later, but I want to kick things off with one of my favourites:
“Scientists have found that dairy cows give a better yield when farmers talk to them. It’s a case of in one ear, out the udder.”
Madam Deputy Speaker, I was tempted to put “pause for laughter” in my speech notes, but I am glad I didn’t —[Laughter.]
Jokes aside, the challenges we face begin very early in life, with boys lagging behind girls, from school readiness through to further education. This year, 45,000 fewer men under 19 started university compared with their female peers, and boys are disproportionately excluded from school. And let’s say it as it is: white working-class boys are at a particular disadvantage, and not because of a lack of talent but because of the hand they are dealt from birth.
Employment outcomes paint a similar picture, with young men making up 62% of those unemployed—that is nearly 1 million men out of work, all while our construction, teaching, healthcare and social care sectors struggle to fill vacancies. Yesterday, More in Common published a report into the disillusionment among many men, particularly those in their 40s and 50s. Some in the media might characterise this as a backlash against feminism, but what is actually behind it is men feeling that their lives are out of control.
No matter how hard they work, they cannot provide the security and opportunities they want for their families. They cannot plan for the future, so it is no wonder they feel vulnerable and let down, particularly by politics and politicians. Their priorities are unsurprisingly very similar to the general public: daily pressures, like the cost of living, insecure work, unaffordable housing and high levels of immigration, all combine into a sense that the system is rigged against them and in favour of those who are already privileged.
Loneliness and poor mental health are an inevitable consequence—particularly concerning given that middle-aged men are among the least likely to seek help either from professionals or their peers. Just as men take on more and more pressures and responsibilities, many find that their social circles shrink. Community groups like Andy’s Man Club and Stand By Me in my constituency have such a vital role to play. They work tirelessly to give men that non-judgmental space to meet others in a similar position and know that they are far from alone.
On that note, International Men’s Day should be an opportunity to smash through stigma. One taboo that I believe still persists among men is being the victim of sexual harassment and assault. Breaking the silence can mean those of us in privileged positions telling our stories, so here is mine. Around 10 years ago, I went on a night out in an unfamiliar city with a group of friends. I was very conscious not to overdo it because if I got separated from the group, I wanted to be able to find my way back to the hotel.
I remember going to a few bars and having a good time, but then it is a complete blank, which is something I have never experienced before or since. The next morning, I woke up with the worst headache I have ever had. The man I was sharing the hotel room with commented that he had had a great night but I had overdone it a bit and needed to be looked after. That did not seem to tally with my being determined to pace myself, but I thought maybe I had drunk too much, and I just wanted to get home and sleep it off.
What followed in the days after was constant text messages from this man, initially just asking whether I was okay but then repeatedly asking what I remembered and commenting that I was a “great shag”. That made me freeze because I had no recollection of getting back to the hotel, let alone anything else, and he had repeatedly told me how out of it I had been, so how could I have ever consented? It took me a few weeks to piece together my memories, the blanks, the text messages, and this man’s insistent tone. Obviously, I cut myself off from contact, but it took me a long time to admit, even to myself, that I was a victim of rape. I never felt able to report this and face the likely conclusion that, months on from that night, there was not the tangible evidence to ever bring a charge, and I will probably always carry a bit of guilt around that.
I found myself processing all of this with thoughts like “I count myself lucky that I was unconscious when it happened”, but I want to say clearly today that no victim should ever feel that they have to put themselves in a hierarchy or feel any shame. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It is the people who do this to another person who should feel shame, and I hope that we can foster an atmosphere where men have the courage to speak out about this and seek justice, even if it is a hard road.
I realise that this is a very heavy topic, so I would like to end on one that brings me and so many men a huge amount of joy: fatherhood. The vast majority of dads want to play a bigger role in raising their children than previous generations did. The traditional role of protecting and providing is still there, but more and more, dads are clear that providing also means their children benefiting from their presence as much as possible.
Right now, we have the least generous statutory paternity leave in Europe at just two weeks, and at less than half the minimum wage, with nothing at all for self-employed dads. One stat that I find shocking is that 90% of paternity leave claims are made by those with above average incomes and far more is claimed in London than the rest of the country. That is a stark class divide and certainly not what the last Labour Government envisaged when paternity leave was introduced. A poll by Movember found that 62% of new dads struggled under financial pressure and a third take no leave at all. It is no wonder that recovery times for mums with birth complications are getting longer and mental ill health among new dads is on the rise. This is the future of our country that we are talking about, and we deserve so much better than this.
Before I sit down, since I am in such good company, I will tell one more dad joke. I went into B&Q recently and asked for some nails. The assistant asked me how long I wanted them. I said, “Well, I was planning to keep them.” [Laughter.] Maybe I could have paused for laughter on that one.
Let me end on this: supporting men and boys is not a fringe issue, or an issue for men alone. Say this loud and proud: a society that helps men to be healthy, hopeful and present is a society that works better for women too. Want stronger families, better relationships and happier communities? Lifting up men and boys is part of the solution. Men who protect and provide should not be shamed; they should be celebrated. To my fellow men, I say, “If you are ever struggling with anything at all, just know that we will hear you and be there for you.” International Men’s Day is a reminder that change is possible, and it is necessary.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I will impose an immediate four-minute time limit.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
As we mark International Men’s Day, we have an opportunity to address the biggest inequality in men’s health: prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men, yet it is the only major cancer without a screening programme. Hopefully, the Secretary of State will ensure that that changes in the national cancer plan. We are approaching a pivotal moment on the path towards the UK’s first prostate cancer screening programme. We cannot afford to wait while more men miss out on lifesaving early diagnosis.
Some men face greater inequalities than others. Prostate Cancer UK reports that black men face twice the risk of prostate cancer, and men in deprived communities are 29% more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage, incurable prostate cancer. Without targeted and urgent action, those inequalities will only deepen. A national screening programme is urgently needed. It would result in earlier diagnosis, and we all know that when prostate cancer is identified early, survival outcomes are dramatically improved.
As I said, I am sure that the Secretary of State will ensure that prostate cancer will be a priority in the upcoming national cancer plan, but could he confirm that? Can he also confirm that GP guidelines will be updated so that they can start lifesaving conversations with men at risk? There must also be clear advice on a simple online risk checker, and the Government need to fund nationwide awareness programmes so that every man knows his risk and can act early.
Implementation of those four things would dramatically improve outcomes for many with prostate cancer. I am afraid there will be no dad jokes from me. My daughters constantly tell me that all my jokes are dad jokes, and that they are bad ones.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you may or may not have noticed the unusual growth appearing between my nose and top lip. Yes, it is Movember, and for the first time I have had the opportunity to prove to everyone that I can grow facial hair—if that is what you can call it. My Mo is becoming the subject of much contention, with many suggesting that this premiere of what I now affectionately call Bob should remain after 30 November, while I am gaining a growing respect for those whose sensible opinion is that Bob needs the chop—and that is exactly what will happen.
Movember is one of many great organisations focusing on men’s health, including improving men’s mental health. I am growing this Mo to highlight a plight that many of us will have been touched by: not just poor mental health but male suicide. As I have said in this place before, I have been personally impacted by male suicide, having lost a good friend a year ago last week. A year on, I know that for me and all those who were part of his life the initial shock may have gone but the sense of loss and pain still lingers, as do the endless questions of “What if?”—for no one more so than my friend’s husband. We often forget that suicide has a profound effect on those left behind, especially partners. Suicide survivors, as they are known, will often go on to develop depression or post-traumatic stress disorder and need psychiatric care. Most worryingly, people bereaved by suicide are 65% more likely to take their own life than somebody bereaved by a natural loss.
The story of my friend is sadly a story that is repeated time and again. The stats around male suicide are simply shocking. Three in every four suicides are male, and it is the leading cause of death among young men aged 20 to 34, with the highest rates of suicide among men aged 40 to 54. Many of these men have been in contact with either their GP or other primary care services prior to their death, but men account for only 33% of referrals to NHS talking therapy, which does not match with the fact that 75% of deaths by suicide are men.
What is leading to this? It is often thought that men just do not talk about their feelings, similarly to how they ignore signs of ill health, and that much of this is because of cultural norms around masculinity that cannot be broken for fear of appearing weak—but is that really the case? As I have just said, many men will reach out to primary care; an estimated 43% of men aged 40 to 54 who die by suicide saw their GP in the three months before their death. What men often do not do is talk about their feelings in environments where they are likely to get more peer support from their community. Some amazing work is being done in this space by organisations such as Movember, Men’s Shed and Andy’s Man Club.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution. On men not expressing their feelings, I had a constituent at my last surgery who told me about the domestic abuse he had suffered. As a man, he felt that he could not express that because of the idea that men do not get beaten up by women. Does my hon. Friend agree that domestic abuse is an evil and that, although it largely affects women, men can also be affected?
David Burton-Sampson
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend just said. Domestic abuse is abhorrent, and although it does mainly affect women, we cannot deny that it also affects men. We need to look into and address it.
I was delighted to see the first ever men’s health strategy launched yesterday, starting to address head on the issues that I have raised, with £3.6 million invested in suicide prevention projects for middle-aged men as well as expanding mental health teams in schools and a partnership with the Premier League’s “Together Against Suicide” initiative with the brilliant Samaritans.
Moving forward, we absolutely need to keep the focus on supporting men’s health, and especially their mental health. We want to see more men’s spaces continue to evolve to be more supportive of men’s emotional needs. I will continue to work hard through the all-party parliamentary group on male suicide to drive and promote better mental health for men. We must see suicide rates come down before we lose too many more of our sons, brothers, fathers and partners.
To finish, in the spirit of the Dad Shift request for as many dad jokes as possible, here is mine. Why did the maths book look so sad? Because it had too many problems. On that note, if you feel that you have too many problems, do not hold them in—get talking.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
I am thrilled to be here to celebrate the incredible men among us, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury). I thank him for sharing his story.
Men need to be celebrated today—those who pick up the pieces, make our lives better by being in them and provide positive role models to our children. I want to speak about the most undervalued man in my life, my husband Ritchie Fleet. In March, it will be 25 years since we met, with me at 16 with a newborn and him ready to step up into a role that he chose and which he has absolutely smashed. He makes me feel supported and loved, and I am proud to see him growing from a caring and present father to an incredible grandad. I cannot wait to see his adventures with our granddaughter as he drops his hours to take on his share of her childcare.
There is breaking news, Madam Deputy Speaker: all the toilet seats have been stolen from Scotland Yard, but police say they have got nothing to go on.
Everyone loves a dad joke, but we cannot let paternity leave be the real joke. How we see it is really important. It is an important class issue, with 90% of paternity leave taken by the 50% of top earners, and dads in my area less likely to take paternity leave than those who live in London. The men’s health strategy, which I am thrilled that we are introducing, is right to identify that flexible working and sufficient paternity leave positively impact a father’s health, relationship with their partner and involvement with their child. When we get it right, it is not just better for men but better for women and children.
I was honoured to be at the first ever International Men’s Day celebration in Downing Street last night. I could take a guest, and there were so many to choose from in my constituency, including: Kyle Barnes in Langwith, who set up a football team for his daughter; Andrew Joesbury in South Normanton, who spends so much time volunteering at the school; and Tony Mellors in Newton, who wants to ensure that our area’s history is passed on to the next generation. But the man I took was Paul Oxborough from Holmewood.
Paul’s friend Dale Caffrey was a man we lost too soon. Suicide remains the biggest killer of men under 50, and the destruction left behind is immeasurable. Paul set up Mental Health Motorbike with Dale’s wife and best friend, which is a mental health charity that provides free online and face-to-face support. In five years, the charity has grown to 100 volunteers and is holding over 400 events this year, taking mental health peer support to the biker community across the UK. I am thrilled to have that national charity established in my constituency by that incredible bloke.
As I saw Paul speaking to the Prime Minister last night about all that the charity has achieved, I thought about the suicides that could be prevented. There is so much to celebrate today, but there is also so much more to do. Let us show our boys that real courage is talking about men’s mental health. Strength comes from opening up when you need to. Let us make it normal that proper, brave men talk about how they feel.
I will finish with the words of my friend Tracey about her late husband Kurt Hayes-Bradley: one life lost is one too many; each life saved is a blessing. It is definitely time to talk.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I start with a thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for the incredible way in which he opened the debate. Securing it was important enough, but the bravery that he has shown today, as well as the leadership that he has shown on so many of the issues he spoke to in his speech, will perhaps serve men right across the country far better in the future than politics has managed to do in the past. It is a day after International Men’s Day, but I cannot think of a better model of a modern, strong man than the vision of himself that he set out today, in being so brave in sharing that deeply personal experience with us all.
As my hon. Friend finished, I want to start with a dad joke—as we know, all good jokes need some forewarning. Last week, I went to the Library—I do not know why in this place, but I wanted to find a book on paranoia. I went up to the librarian, tapped her on the shoulder and asked her where I might be able to find one. She leaned over to me and whispered, “I am afraid, sir, they’re all right behind you.” [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] That is as good a reaction as my jokes get in this place—it is great to see everyone else lowering themselves to my level for one day.
The point behind the campaign is a really important one: paternity leave in this country is a bit of a joke. When I have held events with new mums, new dads and new parents across my constituency, it has been heartbreaking to hear about the impact that the challenge of paternity leave has on them. I have seen mums with high-risk pregnancies along with dads struggling to see whether they will be able to take off enough time before the birth—let alone after—to be there to support them. New mums have told me heartbreaking stories of how they have had to go through caesarean recoveries alone after the dads had to return to work. That cannot be good enough. As progressives, the statutory paternity leave offer, which is so narrow and tight that only some of the wealthiest in society can really take it up, should not be good enough for us. We have to do far better. I really hope that we will make the most of the upcoming paternity and parental leave review to put that right.
As so many have already said, that is not the only issue failing men today. As was identified in yesterday’s landmark announcement, men’s mental health, its issues and strategies have not been forensically focused on in this place for far too long. I know about that from my own challenges, after a bad concussion left me out of work for the best part of six months. I was unable to comprehend and struggled to read at times—some Members might be wondering what has changed. While I can joke about it now, it was no laughing matter at the time.
I was lucky that I had friends who pointed out the fact that my symptoms went well beyond concussion; I was getting quite deeply depressed. They ensured that I got the right support and guidance to get back to work and feel comfortable and confident in myself again. While all I can do to thank Joe, George and Alex is put their names on the record and forever associate them with me—a dubious privilege I am not sure they will be so grateful for—I want to highlight the importance of making sure that no man should ever be in the position of having to go through such a challenge alone.
I am lucky to have great groups in my constituency such as For Men to Talk in Hitchin, Stotfold’s men’s health walking group, and the great group in Shefford, where I live, run by Steve Coxon. They are there to ensure that men have spaces where they can reach out. That is why it is so important to see investment in these groups and a wider community approach to men’s health front and centre in the strategy.
We know that we need to do far more. The fact that this strategy was the first of its kind speaks to a wider problem in our politics—that at times we shy away from being confident in speaking to the challenges that affect men particularly and specifically. As progressives, this should be our fight. We should be making sure that society is there for vulnerable lads at school and dads and mums going through vulnerable births. We should make sure that we are there for men at the darkest moments of their lives. These are big progressive causes, and we should be comfortable taking them on and being loud and proud about speaking to them.
At the end of the day, men’s issues are issues not just for men but for everyone. We all have men and women in our lives, and we should all be passionate about policies that tackle the challenges they face. We should be full-throated and proud in not shying away from them.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
It is great to contribute to this debate and follow so many powerful speakers. I commend the Government for marking International Men’s Day by launching their men’s health strategy. This initiative will not just change lives but save lives. As part of International Men’s Day, like many of my hon. Friends I have been working with the group Dad Shift, which is campaigning to improve the UK’s paternity leave offer—which quite frankly is itself a bad joke as the worst in Europe.
Speaking of bad jokes, I will follow on from some of my hon. Friends, though I have to admit to being slightly hesitant to include a dad joke in my speech, because the last time I tried a joke it went badly wrong. It was a joke about Chewbacca, but I messed it up. It was Wookie error, and one that I will not repeat. [Laughter.] I know what Members are thinking: “Stick to the day job!”
I am lucky enough to have two amazing jobs. One is being the Member of Parliament for Altrincham and Sale West, and the other is being a dad to two young boys. The latter was made so much easier by having access to paternity leave. It meant that in those early, formative and precious—and slightly less precious—moments that come with fatherhood, I could be there as a new parent for my boys and my partner Catherine. We were a team on that journey together.
However, one third of new dads do not take any leave at all when their children are born, and we have to be frank and honest about why that is. It is because they cannot afford it. Our statutory paternity leave of just two weeks at less than half the minimum wage, and with nothing for the self-employed, shows a system and a settlement that is fundamentally broken. I am delighted that this Government have the chance to fix that, through both the Employment Rights Bill, with the granting of the day one right, and the parental leave review. We must fix it for mums, who are shouldering an unequal caring burden and responsibility, and we must fix it for dads, who are having to lose out on time with their new children.
Some 90% of dads want to play a more active role in their children’s lives, but as polling from More in Common reveals, too many men believe that a life where hard work means security for their family is out of reach. What better way to tackle disillusionment than by improving paternity leave and showing that Governments not only listen but can make the lives of men across our country better? Supporting dads to be the best parents that they can be will go some way to creating the role models that younger boys need when growing up. In a world of Andrew Tates, online misogyny and grievance politics, that feels more important than ever. We should want young boys to grow up with fathers who are active in their lives, who are comfortable enough to embrace being a truly equal co-parent and who feel like hard work brings rewards, support and security for their family as part of the social contract in our country. The Government have a responsibility to help to create these conditions.
On International Men’s Day, I pay tribute to all the dads out there doing their best, to all the organisations across Altrincham and Sale West, such as Andy’s Man Club and Home-Start, and to all the organisations across our country who are helping dads to be the best they can be. I urge us all to work together on creating a society to support dads to be the best possible role models for their children.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for giving an incredibly moving introduction to this debate. International Men’s Day, which is held on 19 November but which we debate today, is a wonderful chance to celebrate all that is good about men and boys and to commit to ensuring that we as legislators do all we can to support that agenda.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) made a very emotional contribution in Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. I thank him for his moving question, which touched everyone on the Government Benches and I suspect those across the House. I also want to acknowledge the Prime Minister’s social media post, “A letter to my son.” What a moving piece that was. Whether we have sons or daughters, nephews or nieces, the emotion with which my right hon. Friend spoke was truly heart-touching.
As a participant in today’s debate, and having worked with the Dad Shift on raising awareness on paternity pay and other issues, I am obliged to deliver to the House a dad joke:
“I went shopping and someone threw a block of cheese at me. I said, ‘That’s not very mature!’”
I’ll get my coat at the end of the debate.
Things have moved on since I was a lad, but I recognise the frustrations that some men and boys feel upon emerging from education into an adult world that is not very caring. When I finished my education and started work, I struggled. Flush with the sense that hard work and dedication would see me through to success, it was alarming to discover that that was not necessarily the case. The assumption that I needed only to work hard to get on was revealed to me, in the midst of a brutal economic recession, to be a lie. It has been said by the economist Gary Stevenson that if we just tell young men that all they need to do to succeed is work hard, we should not be surprised when their reaction is not positive.
The challenges that men feel are often focused on employment, family and identity. It is the structures of the society around us, which we ourselves have created, that result in the frustrations and challenges that people feel. As the documentary maker Adam Curtis has said, we could just as easily create a world in which those frustrations and challenges, and reasons that people despair, do not exist. We have, as Members of this place and members of society, simply to decide that that is what we want to do. Will we rise to the challenge, I wonder?
Let us consider as an example social media and its potential for toxicity. I am of a vintage that means I was present not just at the birth of that media but at its conception. I cannot tell the House how optimistic everyone was for the future—optimistic to meet like-minded friends in virtual spaces and discuss ideas; to discover hitherto unexplored aspects of oneself; to revolutionise work; and perhaps, at its most pleasurable, to play games with people for fun and engagement. What a contrast with the world in which we now live, where many young people—and, arguably, many others—wish that they could just switch the internet off to get some respite.
It has been said that, at its core, the British dream extends to having a family and providing for them. We all know how difficult that is under the circumstances we are debating today. Conversation is required. What stops men and boys feeling that they can have conversations about their fears in an environment that is open and supportive, rather than a pathway to despair? We all know the reasons men and boys do not have those conversations: fear and repression, and their perception of how society regards them. It does not have to be this way.
Others may make this point too, but 90% of paternity leave, and 95% of shared parental leave, is taken by people in the top half of earners. This cannot be the world that we wanted to create. The issues affecting men and boys are serious. This International Men’s Day, let us determine to come together and resolve them.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
First, let me say an enormous thank you to my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) and for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) for talking so movingly about their own experiences. They are role models for us all.
Speaking of role models, if one saw what was on the television and on social media about men, one would think that they were just a bunch of feckless teenagers who grew up into man-children. It is really distressing. I only know really good men. I am obviously fortunate, but the men in my life and my community are fantastic. They are great role models for their children, pillars of the community, businessmen and volunteers. My community is so much richer for the men in it, and my life is so much richer for the men in it.
When I talk about men and boys, I would never want anyone to think that it was from a place of negativity, but I see so much negativity around me. It is fantastic, then, to see the work being done by my local boys’ school, which is having conversations with its year 7 group at the moment about masculinity, and about the different forms of social hierarchies among men and how that can work for them socially, or not.
It is also fantastic that the Government have announced £60 million to rebuild large chunks of that school— I welcome that, as well as the men’s health strategy.
So many fantastic community groups do mental health work and support the community in my constituency. I cannot list them all, but I give honourable mentions to Goostrey community shed; the Shed Crew in Holmes Chapel, which produces a lot of exciting things for the community; the Sandbach men walking and talking group; the Congleton Mentell circle; and the No Tier Snooker Society. None of them excludes women, but they all have an emphasis on ensuring that men can live their best lives.
Enabling men to live their best lives includes increasing paid paternity leave, so I am campaigning for that alongside the Dad Shift, Pregnant Then Screwed and other organisations. It is extremely sad that self-employed men do not receive any paid paternity leave whatsoever, and it is incumbent on us as a Government to change that as soon as possible. Women get statutory maternity allowance, and I do not see any reason why the equivalent cannot be made available to men. Of course, I must also participate in the dad jokes. What do you call cheese that isn’t yours? Nacho cheese!
And what do we call two weeks of paternity leave? Not nearly enough.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I gave my handyman a to-do list the other day, but he only finished items 1, 3, and 5. Turns out he only does odd jobs.
I know, that is a terrible joke, but as the Dad Shift and my colleagues across the Chamber are highlighting, paternity leave in this country is also a terrible joke, and it is letting our brilliant men down. We must do better.
Before I was a socialist, I was a feminist—and a precocious one at that. I was about 17 when I read a book called “Shattered: Modern Motherhood and the Illusion of Equality”. Quite apart from all its valid analysis of equality going to the wall after women have babies, the fact that most horrified me was that husbands could not stay in hospital with their wives after their baby was born. What was this medieval treatment that the writer was telling me still happened in the UK? Of course 20 years later, it still often happens.
It was at that moment that all my illusions about equality having been largely achieved were shattered. I had grown up on the girl bosses of the ’80s, such as the glorious late Diane Keaton in “Baby Boom”, but how could there be equality if it was only in the workplace and not in the home? How can we have equality in the home if men are shut out the very moment they become parents
On this International Men’s Day, my plea to the Government is that they take this once-in-a-generation chance to lock in six weeks’ paternity leave at full pay, paid by the Government. Many studies have shown that the earlier men get involved in caring for their children, the more equal the distribution of work in the home becomes—and the amount of conflict reduces, too. No man goes into a marriage or becomes a dad wanting conflict. I fundamentally believe that the key to unlocking true equality is ensuring that men have as much of an appreciation as women of what it takes to care for a family and a home.
I could spend all day reading Members a love letter to fatherhood. I have said before in this place that I would not be here if my husband had not chosen to be a brilliant father holding down the fort at home—while still running his own successful business. I see my friends’ husbands trying so hard to be the dad that they often did not have themselves. We are letting men down by not giving them the money, structures and role models to help them embrace this huge experience in life, from which men in generations past have been excluded.
Only last week, I spoke with firefighters at Fulwood fire station in my Ribble Valley constituency. They said that when the funding for a post within a shift team is cut, the flexibility of the rest of the team, most of whom have families, is the first thing that is affected. Those men—and women—want to be present parents, and we should enable them to be great public servants and great dads.
I am a huge fan of how the internet and social media can connect people, so I cannot celebrate fatherhood without giving shout-outs to some of the brilliant creators on Instagram and elsewhere who make dads feel less alone. Dean Walker—AKA Fun Dad Dean—and comedian George Lewis give dads role models for modern parenting. They give light relief and offer a reminder that being a dad is hard for everyone and that dads are doing their best. In the depth of parenting exhaustion, I know that many of us communicate by sending their videos back and forth, and I am sure they have prevented a few explosive arguments—I may or may not be speaking from personal experience.
As the incomparable Emmeline Pankhurst said,
“We have to free half of the human race, the women, so that they can help free the other half.”
I am glad to be here today, and in this Government, to do my bit to help free the other half, as they have helped to free me. I look forward to this Government taking the single biggest next step they could make towards equality, by introducing six weeks’ paternity leave at full pay, paid by the Government.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for leading this debate and for his powerful and courageous speech.
We have come a long way in 12 months. Twelve months ago, as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on men and boys’ issues, it was my privilege to lead the debate on International Men’s Day. At the time, people came up to me and said I was being whispered about and had better show my feminist credentials, so I am really grateful to those who have showed up today and for all the fabulous contributions from our female colleagues.
I feel a bit for the Secretary of State, because one of the calls over the last 12 months has been for a men’s health strategy, and most of our speeches today have focused on a new call about paternity leave. I can only say that he has been a victim of his own success, because he has listened and delivered. I was so proud yesterday evening to join him and fellow Members of Parliament in Downing Street, where the Prime Minister announced the men’s health strategy. I was joined by somebody from my constituency who runs peer support groups for men with mental health struggles. The funding for many of these groups is under threat, and the strategy makes it clear that we need that intervention, so I am really grateful for that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) just stole my dad joke, so I will cross that one off the list. I’ve got a new pen that can write under water. It writes other words, too. I hope we can store all of these dad jokes in a “dadabase” somewhere.
I would like to take a moment to address the importance of fatherhood, what it means to me and why the call for paid paternity leave is so important. Linking that to mental health, I want to say that in some of the darkest moments in my life—when, like a lot of people, I experienced depression, my self-worth was lacking and I felt that I was failing at everything I tried—it was my children, and picturing their faces and my responsibility as a dad, that pulled me through.
Some of the happiest moments in my life were in those early days, holding a newborn child. I remember vividly holding in my arms my youngest daughter, looking into her face and feeling like I had been given this precious gift from heaven. All I knew about her at that time was that she was precious. I could not predict how she would turn out to be. She is now a 12-year-old, and she is going through all the emotions and stages that girls at that age go through. When she tries my patience, I still remember that moment, and I still say to my wife, “She is precious.” We absolutely adore her.
My oldest daughter is the one whose birthday party I broke my leg at a few months ago when I was roller-skating with her around the disco to “Mr Brightside”. I remember being up in the night with her when she had colic. Those early weeks are so important, and far too often women are left alone to recover from their surgery while the fathers are missing and not having those moments to bond. A really important call coming from this debate is for fathers and their children to have that precious time together.
I met this week with the Minister for School Standards, and we talked about the need for parenting classes. There is no shame in saying that sometimes we need skills to help us develop our children’s values. I am certainly a better dad today than I was 18 years ago when my son was born, so I hope we can take that up, too.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
This debate is a chance to speak honestly about the pressures, expectations and challenges that too many men carry alone and in silence. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) exemplified all that in his speech, and I thank him for it.
Across my constituency, there are organisations large and small supporting men and dads. One of them is Dads Rock, which has become a vital source of support for fathers at every stage of parenting. When I was elected last year, one of the first people to contact me was from Dads Rock, making it clear to me that I had to support the Dad Shift campaign.
I do not just have a dad joke, but a Scottish dad joke. There are 10 cows in a field, but which one is on holiday? Anyone? It is the one with a wee calf. [Laughter.] Thank you, thank you, but back to the Dad Shift. Its WhatsApp peer support group now brings together more than 700 dads from across the country. In its most recent survey, the top request from those fathers was for stronger mental health support, particularly for new dads.
We see the power of Dads Rock in stories like that of Euan, a young dad in his 20s in Edinburgh South West. He came to Dads Rock struggling with anxiety, isolation and difficulties maintaining contact with his eight-month-old child, after a separation from her mother. He was not included on the birth certificate, meaning that he had no parental rights, and as a result he felt overwhelmed and unsure about where to turn. With one-to-one support from Greg, one of the Dads Rock workers, Euan received guidance through a confusing and emotional court process. Greg helped him to rebuild communication with his child’s mother, and eventually she agreed to add him to the birth certificate, granting him parental rights and more stable access to his daughter. Euan then joined the dads and dice group, where he built friendships and confidence. In his own words:
“Attending Dads Rock’s dads night has me bonding with other dads and having a laugh.”
That is very important in life, with or without dad jokes. That is what meaningful, compassionate support for men looks like. It changes lives and strengthens families.
Dads Rock is not the only organisation doing this vital work. I pay tribute to Dr Ian Hounsome, whom I met in my office recently. Ian recently received a well-deserved award from Napier University for his extraordinary work supporting Andy’s Man Club. Ian first walked into Andy’s Man Club in 2021 fleeing an abusive relationship and looking for a sense of community. He soon became a volunteer and he now runs the club for the Edinburgh, Lothians and Borders area, supporting men at their lowest point. The recognition that he has received is well deserved, and the impact he is having on men across the region cannot be overstated. One of the big things in my life is parkrun. One of the people who organises parkrun in Edinburgh has really benefited from Andy’s Man Club, which is a great example of the work that Ian is doing and the impact it is having.
When we support men, their mental health, their relationships and their role as fathers, we strengthen our society. Organisations like Dads Rock and Andy’s Man Club show us what is possible when community, compassion and practical support come together. On the day after International Men’s Day, let us recognise these challenges, celebrate the men in our lives and the organisations driving change, and commit to ensuring that no man feels that he has to struggle alone.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on securing this important debate and on his eloquent and brave words to open the conversation.
As he said, today is a chance to celebrate the men and boys in our lives, acknowledge the challenges that many face, and recognise the positive roles they play in our families, workplaces and communities, so let me begin with my own. I want to celebrate my dad, Terry, my brother, Lee, and my partner, Robin, who are all fantastic role models, brilliant men and hugely important to me, our family and friends. I also want to celebrate my fabulous nephews, the young dad, Luke, and Frankie who turned 10 this month, as well as my male friends and colleagues in this place. Finally, I want to take a moment to celebrate my three beautiful sons. I say to them, “As you make your way in this changing world, you make me proud every day with your openness, your kindness, your humour, and your love and respect for each other and for those around you. I love you boys.”
Every man in my life has faced challenges, be it school or workplace bullying, health conditions, disability, bereavement from illness or suicide, or loneliness. The difference is that they had each other and, crucially, they felt able to talk and to ask for help, but too many men do not. The statistics are stark: one in five men does not live to 65, more than 5,000 men die by suicide each year, nearly 1 million men are unemployed, and paternity leave is a class issue and works against the self-employed.
These numbers are not abstract. They are real lives: young men lost in education, and fathers struggling to balance work and family, including some going through break-ups and separation from their kids. They are veterans adjusting to civil life, older men being pushed out of the labour market, and men of all ages wrestling with health worries but determined not to be a burden.
It is partly because of these realities that colleagues, partners and I have established a Labour group for men and boys. Our purpose is simple: to ensure that this Government build policies and politics that better represent men and boys and, in doing so, to improve outcomes for everyone. We believe in a modern, positive vision of masculinity that strengthens rather than undermines gender equality.
Men feel that their identity has been shaken by rapid change and feel that so much of life is out of their control. They mistrust politics and politicians, and in that vacuum toxic, dominance-based narratives can gain ground, so it is important that we as a Government have their back. We need to offer hope, be inclusive and offer a story of what British manhood should be built on: pride, purpose, belonging and trust.
Supporting men and boys is not a zero-sum game. It is about listening, acting and rebuilding trust. This Labour Government are already taking action. We have abolished exploitative zero-hours contracts, raised the minimum wage and launched England’s first ever men’s health strategy. We are reforming apprenticeships, delivering pride in place investments and strengthening communities. The Government must take responsibility—
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent speech. I have heard her talk glowingly about her boys to me and to others, and she is doing them real justice in her speech. I believe she is absolutely right to welcome the men’s health strategy, which was published yesterday; it is a fantastic document and road map for us.
Does my hon. Friend agree—especially given that her boys are still growing up and in early manhood—that young men are particularly prey to the problems of gambling, particularly online gambling and rapid turnover gambling, and that it is really welcome that the men’s health strategy contains proposals to tackle the real problem of men and gambling from the grassroots upwards?
Amanda Martin
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Online safety is also crucial in protecting boys from harmful content, misogyny and gambling promotions, which he mentions.
The measures that this Government have taken are a start. We know that we need to do more to restore trust, dignity, opportunity and a sense of belonging, where too many men have been forgotten and ignored, so that men see and feel the changes in their everyday lives.
I want to highlight the work I have been doing with tradespeople through my tool theft campaign—Members may have heard of it! Tool theft disproportionately affects male workers, many of them self-employed or running small businesses. Losing tools is not an inconvenience; it can mean lost wages, contracts, reputations, and indeed lives. I launched the campaign after hearing countless stories of livelihoods being destroyed, and I thank everyone who has shared their experience. Their voices matter, and they are part of what we celebrate today.
When it comes to fatherhood, let me give a small nod to every tired dad out there, with a dad joke. Madam Deputy Speaker, what do you call a woman who sets fire to all her bills? Bernadette! Yeah, my boys will probably roll their eyes at that, but beneath the joke lies something very serious. The Dad Shift campaign is showing how many fathers want to be present in the first precious weeks but simply cannot afford it. Strengthening paternity leave is not just about fairness for dads; it is about giving the best starts, helping families to build resilience and shaping the kind of society we want to be here in Britain.
I want to leave Members with a quote from a brilliant book, “The Boy, the Mole, the Fox and the Horse”, which captures the courage I see in so many men every day:
“‘What is the bravest thing you’ve ever said?’ asked the boy.
‘Help,’ said the horse.
‘Asking for help isn’t giving up,’ said the horse. ‘It’s refusing to give up.’”
That is the bravery we celebrate today.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) not only for securing this debate, but for his incredibly courageous and powerful contribution, which is no doubt making waves across this country—I thank him so, so much for that.
Today men are finding life unaffordable in a way that their fathers did not, which is leading to anger, to despair and even to death. It is on us, and it is within our gift in this Government to ensure that every single man—indeed, every single person—in this country can find life affordable, with decent jobs everywhere. The second part of my PhD focused on the topic of why non-graduate men cannot find decent jobs. While I cannot force hon. Members to read my PhD, I can force them to listen today. Chapter 1—[Laughter.]
Men, particularly non-graduate men, have gone through a huge crisis. In the 1980s, about 10% of non-graduate men were not working; today, the figure is 25%. That is over 2 million men in total, with 1.3 million off long-term sick. That is not through any fault of their own—it is because of the way the economy has changed, both in this country and across high-income nations. Manufacturing has declined; there is no longer a factory in those men’s local town or city. They can no longer leave school, get a good job, get a good home and support a family. That has all ended, and now what we see across this country and across nations like ours is a small number of good jobs in major cities, and not enough elsewhere.
We see young men doing the right thing, getting a good education, and then finding that they can no longer afford a decent life. That leads to anger and despair, but —tragically—more than that, it leads to death. The number of middle-aged men dying from alcohol, suicide and drug overdoses has doubled in this nation over the past 30 years, the result of despair caused by deindustrialisation. The scars of Thatcherism have not left this nation or stayed with one generation alone; they have passed from father to son.
That is the country we are living in today, and stepping into the void caused by that despair, anger and frustration are those on the radical right who say, “The cause of your poverty, your penury and your difficulties is those who look different. If you just attack them with enough vigour—if you are violent enough—your life will be better.” We know where that leads; we saw where it lead a century ago, and sadly we are seeing it across our nation again today. Violence only begets violence. Anger only begets anger. In this moment, it is for us in this country and in this Chamber to realise that and step to it.
We in government have that gift within us. Good jobs will not appear magically across this country; they will not come with economic growth alone. It is for Government to help create them, both directly by building the homes we need, through home insulation and clean energy, and indirectly by working with the private sector through our industrial strategy. Beyond the economics—which are very important—is our political vision, which says that every single person in this country deserves a decent life. More than that, it says that we are stronger when we stand together. It says that when each and every one of us does well, we all do well—that we are stronger together and weaker apart. To those who say that we only need to attack others, we say that that does not live up to the best traditions of this nation, and it does not meet the moment we are in. It is on us to meet that moment.
I am so proud to be in this Chamber with all of you, and so proud of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase. It is up to all of us in this place to create a country in which every single person—including every single man—can afford to live a decent life.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) and to be in the Chamber with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), who made a truly extraordinary speech.
I want to reassure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will not be making a dad joke, not least because my father—a brilliant man—inspired in me the love of a deeply filthy joke. I suspect that such jokes are probably not parliamentary language, especially the one about the Bishop of Birmingham, so you will be relieved to hear that I am not going to tell it.
I am also proud to be speaking in this debate, and that it is taking place in this Chamber. In previous International Men’s Day debates that I have participated in, we have been relegated to Westminster Hall, so I am proud that we are here today. There are people who want to suggest that campaigners like myself, who have worked on women’s rights, do not care about men—that we do not know about men and do not understand them. I did actually put “Tell me facts about men” into ChatGPT. It told me that men have less sense than women—what it meant was less sensitive tastebuds and smell receptors. It also told me that men’s beards can house more bacteria than dog fur, although different types of bacteria; that most men own three pairs of shoes; and—my favourite one—that men are more likely than women to have an extra nipple.
I am not sure that looking to the internet to tell us about each other is the way forward, but from talking to men and boys in my constituency and across the country—and with pride in my colleagues in this place—I do know the challenges that we face in raising a generation of men and boys who can be happy and content with themselves. That is why I very much welcome the new men’s health strategy being introduced by the Health Secretary. This is not about trading off between the sexes. There is not a battle of the sexes; there is a bafflement about how we can help each other, because we are being pitted against each other in the very environment described by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough.
I take great hope that the evidence shows us that young men in this country are rejecting Andrew Tate, but they are crying out for something else—for alternatives. Samaritans tells us that 70% of men would live differently if they were free from social judgment, and I know many women for whom that would strike a chord. That is the challenge we are facing. We are putting the men and the boys in our lives under a huge amount of pressure. Nearly 40% of men say that contributing less than their partner makes them less of a man, and more than three in four Britons say that a man who stays home to look after his children is less of a man. Yet men are so unhappy; that tells us that we can and should do things in this place to change that dynamic.
Men are not a homogenous lump. Women used to get mad about being treated in that way. We have a multitude of problems and challenges, and so do men. We see the rates of suicide, but we also see the variation. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for highlighting the difference for black men when it comes to prostate cancer, and the importance of developing a strategy that does not just see men with prostate cancer, but sees those challenges. I also look at the experience of disabled men in our society, who often find that they are being denied their own sense of identity in services.
In the time left to me, I want to add my voice to those calling for us to support men to be able to build positive relationships with their children from the get-go. Frankly, we missed the boat with the Employment Rights Bill and, as a result, we have reinforced the gender stereotype that it is ladies who do babies and men who need to go out to work. We must not make that same mistake again. I pay tribute to the work of Elliott Rae, Joeli Brearley, Pregnant Then Screwed and all the campaigners now making that case. Frankly, we have got the evidence that doing at least what the Women and Equalities Committee said to do—pay at 90% for six weeks of paternity leave—would be a step forward, both for our young boys and men to have each other at that critical point in life from the get-go, and for them to be there with the women who love them. I think of the latest young man in my life—Marlowe Jay, born last week, who is just starting his fight in life—and of his parents. I want better for him, like I want for every child in my constituency.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for securing the debate and for the strength he showed in his speech. It was not a speech; it was an act of leadership.
It is also a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), because International Men’s Day is not in opposition to International Women’s Day; it is not a zero-sum game. We must be honest about the challenges facing men and boys, because if we do not address them openly, others with malign intent will exploit that space. It is disappointing that we do not have broad cross-party representation here today. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) for his speech.
Even as a highly decorated RAF pilot, I cry, and I do so publicly. I say that for two reasons. First, we must show our men and boys that vulnerability and courage are not opposites, but are expressions of strength. We must give young men permission to show that strength. Secondly, I say it because I need to continually remind my friend, the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), of my previous career.
As chair of the APPG on prostate cancer, I will focus my remarks on the most urgent men’s health challenge that we face. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men, with 63,000 diagnoses and 12,000 deaths every year. Early diagnosis, particularly among the highest risk groups, alongside more effective treatment pathways, would save thousands of lives and spare families immense suffering.
Yesterday, I visited the Imperial Centre for Translational and Experimental Medicine in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq). Researchers there are leading the world in mapping how fat and microRNA influence tumour growth and in developing far more accurate diagnostic tools. Their work is opening the door to improve tests and promising new treatments, including for advanced disease. It is testament to the excellence of UK science, and I am grateful to the researchers, to Prostate Cancer Research and in particular to Joe Clift for their partnership.
This week, the launch of the first ever men’s health strategy for England is a pivotal moment, and I am proud of the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary. Easier access to PSA testing and better communication with consultants, both at home and in community settings, will help the half a million men already living with prostate cancer. Monitoring is crucial. Many early-stage cancers do not require immediate treatment, but they must be watched carefully so that changes can be caught in time, because too many men fall through the gaps.
However, there is more that we must do, and I again raise the commissioning of abiraterone for men with high-risk but curable prostate cancer. The evidence is clear: it halves relapse rates, would save 650 lives every year and would save the NHS £200 million over five years. Yet because this is an off-label use, it is stuck in a web of unnecessary bureaucracy. I am grateful for the constructive engagement from the Minister for Health Innovation and Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), and I hope we will see progress soon.
Early-stage diagnosis among the highest-risk groups remains the decisive factor. Next week the National Screening Committee will consider targeted screening for black men, men with a family history, and men with a genetic vulnerability, who all have at least double the average risk of developing prostate cancer. By combining PSA testing with magnetic resonance imaging, we can reduce unnecessary biopsies, improve safety and catch cancers far earlier. This would cost £25 million per year, but it would deliver a net financial benefit of £54 million over five years.
Finally, to my dad David, I love you and thank you. I hardly ever tell dad jokes—but when I do, he always laughs.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on securing this debate. He is a man I deeply admire, and the bravery he has shown in retelling the story of what happened to him is extraordinary. I am proud to be his colleague, and this House is unquestionably better for him being here.
Cannock Chase holds a special place in my own heart: it is where I spent many hours with my grandad. A former police officer, he would often take me walking across the Chase. He was the first person I ever spoke to about politics as he picked me up from school and fed me every day to support my parents. He was a kind man—a proud one-nation Tory—who taught me that far more unites us than divides us and that in public life we are not enemies, but simply people with different viewpoints on how best to solve the challenges before us. That lesson has stayed with me throughout my life, and I know I am lucky to have had such a strong male role model in my formative years. I miss him every day.
Today’s debate gives us an important opportunity to reflect on the issues affecting men and boys, and on the contributions they make across our society. This is not about pitting one group against another; it is about acknowledging that if we want a fairer and healthier society, we must be honest about where help is needed. The figures on men’s health and wellbeing remain concerning. Men continue to account for the majority of suicides. They are less likely to seek support early, and too often feel compelled to deal with difficulty silently. The old idea that emotional openness undermines masculinity has lingered for far too long. It has cost lives and prevented countless men from getting the help they need.
In that context, I am proud that this Government have launched their men’s health strategy, which sets out a clear 10-year vision for improving the health and wellbeing of men and boys in England. The strategy recognises that reality, and begins the work of addressing it through earlier intervention, better support and a more honest understanding of the specific challenges that men face. I thank the Secretary of State and the ministerial team for their hard work.
I am also proud of my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) for his bravery in speaking openly about his own mental health challenges this week. Far too many men still feel that it is a weakness to demonstrate their humanity by opening up about their struggles. His honesty helps normalise these conversations, and can help save lives.
In Westminster Hall today, we have debated the role of carers—carers such as my dad, who is right now sitting next to my mom in her hospital bed. Hundreds of thousands of men like my dad support their families every day, quietly and with dedication. We can see the pressures faced by boys growing up in Britain today, who are navigating a world shaped by online influencers—some positive, but many harmful. It is men such as my hon. Friends the Members for York Outer and for Cannock Chase, and my dad and grandad, whom I admire and look up to. As a father myself, I want my son to see their examples, and not the false prophets he might see on TikTok, as the true representation of what it is to be a man. Boys need strong, positive role models and reassurance that there is more than one way to be a man.
Today is a moment to celebrate the positive contributions made by men and boys, and by the fathers, grandfathers, carers, teachers, mentors and volunteers who shape our communities—men such as Carl Dickens at Wallop boxing club, who supports young men; Pete Martin, who fights knife crime; Gethin Farnes, who supports veterans; and so many more in Redditch. Supporting men and boys strengthens society as a whole. When men feel able to seek help, relationships improve.
Today would have been the 100th birthday of my political hero, Bobby Kennedy. One of my favourite quotes of his is:
“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask, ‘Why?’ I dream of things that never were, and ask, ‘Why not?’”
I am proud that this House is united in its insistence on changing things for the better, and in supporting men and boys to live healthier, fuller and more meaningful lives.
I will finish with a “knock, knock” joke, if that is permissible. Knock, knock!
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for bringing forward this debate, but also for sharing his experience.
I am the mother of two young men, and I am very proud of the way they tackle the challenges that life has put in their way with kindness and resilience. Before the debate, I took the time to sit down with some more young men, and we talked about their experience of living as young men in the UK today. They are successful individuals, university graduates with good jobs and what, from the outside, look like steady lives, yet their outlook was shockingly bleak. They talked about their belief that, without support or systemic change, they would never own a house. They are resentful about their opportunity to build up a good pension. They talked about how the cost of living is reaching a point where even basic leisure activities, such as sport after work, are becoming unaffordable. Most worryingly of all, they talked about how younger men are being radicalised by this. They said they are increasingly seeing boys and young men being pushed into far-right and hateful echo chambers while searching for an alternative path.
It is clear that we are failing young people as a whole, and young men in particular. Buying a house is a distant dream for most young people, and even renting is, by the Government’s own assessment, unaffordable. Mental ill health services are inaccessible, and male suicide is now the biggest killer of men under 50. Young men are falling behind young women in education and earnings, which at a time when traditional expectations are shifting, is challenging their sense of identity and place in society. This is not about dismissing the struggles faced by women, many of which are the same; it is about recognising the nuance in the ways these pressures affect men differently and how many men cope with them differently.
Too often this debate swings between two extremes: those who wish to dismiss men’s concerns altogether; and those who wish to capitalise on male disillusionment to sow division and hatred. That is why we welcome the Government’s new men’s health strategy, and applaud the campaigners and organisations that fought so hard to bring it to us at this moment. It is right that the Government finally recognise the specific ways in which men are suffering—from suicide to substance abuse and prostate cancer—but we need to go further. Many of the steps are still modest, especially on suicide. I have been directly affected by the suicide of a young man, who had his full future ahead of him. As we have heard, this is the greatest killer of men under 50, but the Government have scrapped the suicide prevention grant—a £10 million lifeline—and the new measures barely replace it. With thousands of people dying by suicide every year, we have to be more ambitious. That means restoring the suicide prevention grant in full, introducing regular mental health checks at key points in life and tackling the wider determinants of health, including ending rough sleeping, which disproportionately affects men.
Beyond mental health, we must also address the deep sense of hopelessness felt by so many young men. We must acknowledge that men are now 14% less likely to attend university than women, and we need to provide respected alternative routes into good work through apprenticeships and skills programmes. We must also confront the housing crisis more quickly. Investment in housing will not only ease pressure on the market, but create long-term jobs in construction and engineering. This is deeply important because, ultimately, we can invest in mental health support, but without job prospects, a home to build a life in and a future to believe in, young men will continue to feel hopeless, and when young men feel hopeless, they will continue to look for answers from those on the extremes. So while I welcome the men’s health strategy, this is just the first step of many.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for leading this debate on International Men’s Day. He focused on wellbeing and modern masculinity. He was hugely brave and absolutely right when he said that no victim should not be able to speak out and seek justice. It was wonderful to hear his positives around the joy of fatherhood.
It is always a pleasure to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I particularly welcome this debate as the co-chair, along with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), of the all-party parliamentary group on men and boy’s issues. He spoke about the preciousness of fatherhood and I am delighted to be working with him. I thank all the men and women in this place who have stood up for the men in their constituencies. I thank those in East Grinstead and Uckfield who are taking part in Movember, raising money for charity, raising awareness of men’s health and growing some really iffy ’taches in certain areas—very praiseworthy.
The theme for 2025, as mentioned throughout the debate, is celebrating men and boys, and I think we have done that incredibly well. We need to talk about the positive value that men bring to families and communities. We have reflected that well this afternoon, but frankly—hence our all-party parliamentary group—we need to do it more often. I thank all dads, father figures and top chaps. It is vital that we talk about the positives.
My dad has long passed, but I am going to give his favourite joke a go because, as the Dad Shift rightly says, we need to highlight crucial role models and fathers. I still love it: how does the monkey cook his toast? Under the gorilla, of course. [Laughter.] There we go. How was that, Lincoln? My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) has been judging the jokes.
Mims Davies
My dad suffered from a head injury, so I was struck by the contribution of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) about that being an unseen issue, and I thank him for raising it. Headway was particularly brilliant in my father’s case.
Turning to how we talk about masculinity in a positive way, as we have heard this afternoon, role models are so important. If men and boys are only told that they are the problem and that the issues they face do not matter, we cannot be surprised when they flock to questionable social media influencers and people on the fringes of politics who tell them, in the wrong way, that they do in fact matter and have value. For us, it is important to reflect on the work of the Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys. It states that the narrative must continue to change from the problems that young men and boys cause, to the problems young men and boys have, and that we should now do something to properly help them. That would be incredibly welcome.
As the mum of two girls, I know that they want boys to feel the support and positivity that young girls rightly have. It was right for the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) to big up her young boys and the importance of protecting our youngsters from harm. Gambling and pornography we know about, but there are other sectors where young men, particularly young farmers, can feel isolated, lonely and struggling. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) rightly talked about men wanting a decent life. It is vital to look back on employment, but it is the employment opportunities now that truly matter. I completely agree on that.
The recent crucial Centre for Social Justice report “Lost Boys” identified six areas where boys and young men are falling behind in this generational crisis.
The first area was education, where boys underperform at every stage, lagging behind girls from early years to university. The second area was employment, where, as we have heard, the number of males aged 16 to 24 who are not in education, employment or training has increased since the pandemic by a staggering 40%. The third area was health; suicide is the top cause of death for men under 50, and many of us have lost family members or friends because of suicide. The fourth area was family and fatherhood: one in five boys grow up without a father—an epidemic of fatherlessness that is linked to poor outcomes. The fifth area was crime; 96% of the prison population is male. The final area was digital behaviour, with platforms amplifying misogynistic influencers and extremist content, shaping identity and attitudes for our young men.
I thank Jane Packer and the team at the British Standards Institution. I was proud to join the BSI event in Speaker’s House last night on the new suicide and workplace standard to help employers support the wellbeing of men and boys across the country. I am proud to continue to work with the Samaritans—I am wearing the badge today—which tells me it needs more volunteers to do its great work, particularly supporting and listening to men.
Now that I have the Health Secretary sitting opposite me, let me highlight that the Government have not resumed recruitment of the men’s health ambassador. Perhaps he will tell the House differently in his speech. Opposition Members who were in the previous Government would love to see that.
Yesterday, I met Richard and the amazing team at MAN v FAT, who do great work, particularly in Wales, with all communities, using football and rugby to help with being fit and healthy and focusing on body image. Again, like the Samaritans, it is a male space in which to talk.
Under the last Conservative Government, the suicide prevention grant provided £10 million for 79 organisations between 2023 and March 2025. We rightly welcome—and I think it is roundly welcomed—the dedicated men’s health strategy. However, it does appear to have less money than the £10 million under the previous Government, at £3.6 million over the next three years. I ask the Health Secretary to help boost and push the neighbourhood-based support for suicide prevention. The £3 million is very welcome, but we absolutely need to push forward on health and community-based programmes.
International Men’s Day is the opportunity for all of us to promote charities and initiatives in our constituencies, like the amazing men’s sheds that have been mentioned today. Brilliant initiatives in my constituency also include the growing East Grinstead Sea Cadets, the Scouts and many after-school clubs, which all make a big difference supporting our men and boys—they are something to do and somewhere to talk to someone. The Uckfield Youth Club—like many groups—needs more volunteers and leaders.
As MPs, today and every day, we should be encouraging men to seek help in our communities; we should check in on them to highlight the positives. I would like to do that with one of my councillors, Ed Godwin, who is passionate about involving young people in politics. At just 18 he stood to be a town councillor and serve his community, and I am proud to welcome him into politics. I also mention Councillor Gary Marsh in Mid Sussex, a district councillor for Ardingly, Balcombe and Turness Hill in my constituency, who was diagnosed with prostate cancer at the start of the year. He has used his platform to urge men not to ignore the signs, and to ensure that his constituents and ours know that there is help out there.
I thank Mark Brooks OBE for his 10 years of work with the Association for Male Health and Wellbeing to get this parliamentary debate so that we can keenly talk about men’s issues. It is vital that MPs champion causes, particularly for men, and discuss, debate and strive to help men and boys with the issues affecting them nationally and internationally. It will help all communities, and all Members in the Chamber have made great contributions to that work today. I truly think that when all parties work together we will see the changes that we need for the better—which may include an improvement in the quality of dad jokes in the Chamber.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
What a pleasure to follow the spokespeople for the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Members for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) and for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), whose contributions were very much in the spirit of what we have heard this afternoon. I can reassure both of them that the suicide prevention funding is not gone; it is devolved. This will be a challenge that we have to work through during this Parliament as we embrace devolution and set local authorities and health trusts free to spend as they choose. We will need to keep a focus to ensure that the emphasis on suicide prevention is not lost. I really welcome the challenge the hon. Members have brought and the spirit of it. I can confirm that we will be appointing a new men’s health ambassador, and I will keep the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield updated on that.
It is customary when beginning these debates to thank the Backbench Business Committee, as well as the hon. Member who opened the debate for their outstanding contribution, whether the speech was any good or not. I can honestly say, though, having been in this House for 10 years, that it is a rare moment to hear such a courageous speech as the one we heard opening this debate. We can be truly proud of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury). I hope his constituents know how diligently he fights for them every single day here. He is a conviction politician; he is prepared to speak truth to power and use his influence to get things done for his community. Just through his words today, he will have had such an impact on so many people he will never meet, but who will none the less draw strength from his courage.
I do not think anyone listening to the powerful contributions from right hon. and hon. Members today could fail to be moved by what we have heard—nor could they be anything but truly appalled by all the terrible dad jokes. I think the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) was truly the worst. I would like to get involved, Madam Deputy Speaker, but as is well known, I have absolutely no sense of humour—less sense of humour than Downing Street has for tolerating my jokes. I am not a fan of political jokes anyway, as too many end up getting elected. However, I did once hear of a Canadian politician who was popular with everyone—it’s probably not Trudeau. [Laughter.]
As I listened to the debate, two broad themes emerged. The first is how every day, many boys and men make wonderful contributions to our families, schools, communities and workplaces, and not just in jobs, roles and behaviours that are associated traditionally with masculinity and men, but in roles such as nurses, carers and primary school teachers. They have embraced a genuine commitment to equality—that no matter who someone is and where they are from, and whatever their background, sex or gender, they can grow up to be whoever they want to be.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) said so powerfully, the role of men and boys as allies, advocates, mentors and role models and their capacity for love, laughter and empathy inspire others, lift up our society, change lives and bring joy to those around them. I pay tribute particularly to two of the most important men in my life: my dad and his father, my grandad. For those who follow my family history, that is not the armed robber; it is the working-class east end Tory. I have to say that I have that in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore), with his family heritage and political leanings.
Without those two men, I would not be standing here today. They have been a rock of stability and inspiration in life. My grandad was my closest friend and moral compass; my dad has been the rock of stability I needed, particularly when things were hardest in my childhood. I am lucky that both of my parents have always been in my life, but I must say that when I talk about being brought up by a single parent, the shorthand too often used in newspapers is “single mum”. As my dad often points out, he was the one who got the terrible teenage years and had to move out of the area to get me to move out before I hit the age of 30. I am very grateful to my dad, whom I love and admire very much.
We have heard powerful contributions today. I could not help but notice that almost everyone endorsed the Dad Shift campaign for greater paternity rights and leave. This Government are legislating for day one rights, but I know that the advocacy and representation that we have heard across the House will have been heard by my colleagues in Government. There will be a consultation, and I am sure that we have not heard the last of that.
None the less, for all the positivity, the second theme we have heard about today is an altogether less positive one. It is a startling reality that being and growing up as a man in today’s society can be very tough, especially for those from working-class backgrounds such as mine. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) spoke powerfully about the economic injustice in our society, the poverty and inequality that add up to the pressures and strains, the educational disadvantage and the lack of security and opportunity that too often hold back people, and especially men and boys from backgrounds such as mine. Though I am proud to stand here today, proud of my working-class roots and proud of having beaten the odds that were stacked against me, the object of this Government—the object of the Labour party—has always been to change the odds for everyone and not just to have the exceptional few beat the odds. That is at the heart of this Government’s agenda.
I want to pay tribute to those who have brought this agenda to the mainstream. This debate is 10 years old, but I must remember and recall, back when it started, an awful lot of eye-rolling about whether it was necessary—including, I suspect, by me and others who wondered whether this was truly relevant. How wrong that sentiment was and how much of a brilliant riposte we have heard.
I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) who spoke so powerfully at Prime Minister’s questions about the “dark cloud” that hung over him following the difficult birth of his and his wife’s first child. As he said, the strength of a man is about being open about his emotions. Sometimes, as we have heard so painfully today, those struggles become so overwhelming that men feel that the only way out is to take their own lives. When that happens, it is not just an individual, personal tragedy; it is like a nuclear bomb and the fallout hits everyone around them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) spoke of so powerfully.
We know that that impacts men in different ways, from different backgrounds and in different sectors. During an interview on Fix Radio: The Builders Station yesterday, I was told that men in the construction industry are four times more likely to die by suicide. One of the biggest causes of stress and anxiety for tradesmen is tool theft. That is why I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), who has been like a dog with a bone on that issue, with her campaign already delivering tougher punishments for the perpetrators of tool theft. Indeed, I promised Clive Holland, the host of Fix Radio, that I would pass on this message to the House. He said:
“I would love to stand up at that Dispatch Box and speak to all the people in Parliament…and I would grab them by the lapels and say, ‘Get it through…Just get it through. It’s crucial. We all need this industry. We’d still be living in caves without the skills of our industry’.”
He is absolutely right and that is why we are lucky to have my hon. Friend championing that issue on behalf of that industry.
The Government’s response to many of the issues raised in today’s debate is the country’s first ever men’s health strategy. It covers physical and mental health, and I am most proud that it was drawn up in partnership with men themselves, experts, men’s groups, charities and campaigners. We are all aware that politicians today are about as popular as tax collectors and traffic wardens, so we need wider allies and advocates, groups such as Movember, Men’s Sheds and Everton in the Community, which I had the pleasure of visiting last week. There are also campaigners such as Stephen Manderson, better known as Professor Green, and Clarke Carlisle, the premier league footballer, who use their own experiences with suicide and mental ill health to spread awareness and prevent that from happening to others. I also pay tribute to the journalists, such as the LBC philosopher king Tom Swarbrick, for talking about modern masculinity, the importance of male friendship and keeping the ties that bind us.
There are a number of ways in which we will act. First, by expanding access to support services; secondly, by helping men to take better care of ourselves; and thirdly, by ensuring that stigma is challenged and every man feels empowered to reach out for help. This is not just a plan; it is a call to action. It is not just about changing services and laws; it is about changing hearts and minds and culture, particularly in an online world of harms and radicalisation, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine), as well as many positives, as identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis).
Half the battle for men and boys is to have the conversation in the first place, opening up the space to utter what are often the most challenging words: “I need help.” That is why our strategy meets men on their own terms and their own turf—partnering with the Premier League’s “Together Against Suicide” initiative; investing £3 million in community-based men’s health programmes; workplace pilots with EDF to support workers in male-dominated industries; support for minors; and new research to help us tackle the biggest killers of men, including rising cocaine and alcohol-related deaths, as well as taking action on gambling, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) exhorted us to. On prostate cancer, I will keep the House updated as we await the recommendations of the National Screening Committee. I heard the representations today, particularly from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey).
Our aim is to create a society where men and boys are supported to live longer, healthier and happier lives, where stigma is replaced by understanding and where every man knows that his health matters. As we heard so powerfully, including from some of this House’s most outstanding feminist campaigners, like my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), this is not an either/or. This is not a choice between men and women; it is the recognition that while women’s health inequalities have sexism and misogyny layered on top of them—something that we as men must take responsibility for tackling, too—men and boys do face challenges when it comes to our education, employment, health, wellbeing, life chances and opportunities.
As we heard so powerfully, especially from my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North, it is not as if the women out there do not care about their sons, dads or brothers—quite the opposite. Similarly, we care about our mums, sisters, daughters, nieces, friends and colleagues. There are differences between the sexes—there are differences in how we are impacted by and contribute to the society around us—but we are born equal, and we have a responsibility to stand together to make sure that we create a rising tide that lifts all ships. A healthier, happier, more equal and more just society is what this strategy will help to bring about, and it is why this debate has been so wonderfully powerful.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
As the Secretary of State mentioned brothers, it would be remiss of me not to mention my five brothers—this will give Hansard a run for its money—Basharat, Nasim, Rasalat, Nazir and Imran, and obviously my husband David. Those wonderful men in my life have enabled me to be in this Chair today. I call Josh Newbury to wind up.
Josh Newbury
I repeat my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee, and to hon. Members from across the House for supporting the application for this debate. We have had such a wide-ranging debate, reflecting the many challenges that men face and the myriad ways that men enrich the lives of women, the places in which they live and work, and our country.
We heard from Members across the House about so many fantastic organisations doing brilliant work to support men, often at the lowest points in their life. We heard about new grandads reducing their hours to step up to care for their grandchildren in their formative months and years. We heard about the health conditions that affect men, the inequalities, and the need to ensure that they get the care they need, from stepping through the GP’s door to getting the all clear. We heard about the shockingly and stubbornly high rates of mental ill health and suicide among men. The stigma is starting to fall away, but it was so encouraging to hear what hon. Members and the people in our lives are doing to reverse those statistics, one life at a time.
We heard about the joys and pressures of fatherhood, and how central it is to the lives of many men and boys. Inescapably, we also heard some of the finest dad jokes that Britain has ever seen. Seriously—we should get together and write a book. Better paternity leave would enable all dads from all walks of life to be there for their partner and children in their vital first few weeks, and the call for it has been heard loud and clear today. It has been such a privilege to be part of this debate, and I so look forward to continuing the hard work on all the issues that we have raised. The whole country, not just half of it, depends on it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered International Men’s Day, the issues affecting, and contributions made by, men and boys, and what it means to be a man in Britain today.
Injury in Service Award
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Tom Morrison to speak for around 15 minutes.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House acknowledges the extreme risks faced by police officers, firefighters, paramedics and other emergency service personnel in the line of duty; further acknowledges that many suffer catastrophic, career-ending injuries while protecting the public; regrets that these sacrifices are too often met with inadequate formal recognition; notes that existing honours are limited in scope and rarely conferred in such circumstances; believes this failure to properly acknowledge those who have sustained life-altering injuries in public service is a serious oversight; welcomes the growing cross-party consensus that urgent action is needed; and calls on the Cabinet Office to rectify this injustice by establishing a dedicated injury in service award to formally recognise and honour the extraordinary sacrifice of emergency service workers injured in the line of duty.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for its support in securing the debate. In May this year, a police sergeant’s legs were crushed when a car reversed into him repeatedly in a hit-and-run incident in Rusholme, Manchester. Greater Manchester police described it as a “stark reminder” of the risks that our frontline officers face daily as they work to keep our communities safe. The officer suffered tissue and muscle damage, but thankfully he is expected to make a full recovery. However, not every brave officer, paramedic and firefighter does recover, and not everyone can continue with the job that they chose and love. When injuries are so severe that they force someone to give up their work in public service, there is no recognition, no award and no medal.
I first found out about the “999 Injured and Forgotten” campaign when my constituent Jane Notley came to my surgery last year. Jane told me her story. She had always wanted to be a police officer, and when that happened and she joined the force, it was one of the proudest days of her life. Sadly, her career ended far too prematurely.
While on duty in Manchester in 1989, Jane attempted to stop a criminal stealing cars in the area. During the incident, her legs were crushed between two cars by the criminal, who Jane said laughed while he did it. That horrific attack left Jane completely unable to walk, and she was medically discharged from the force. The offender was never caught.
I want to make this clear: Jane Notley is one of the most inspirational and wonderful people I have ever met. After years of surgery and treatment, she can now walk, and does so with the aid of her now infamous pink walking sticks. She is now self-employed as a therapist, selflessly continuing to help others, albeit in a different position. Jane lost the job she loved but has continued to serve her community—that is the kind of person she is—but if someone met her on the street, they would have no idea of the ordeal she has been through. They would have no idea that she bravely put herself in harm’s way to protect her community and no idea of the sacrifice she made so that we could be safe.
Jane is not alone; many other ex-emergency service responders are injured every year and face the same awful loss of career. It is estimated that 800 injured ex-Greater Manchester police officers are still alive today. Please, let that sink in: that is 800 people who lost a career they loved after putting themselves in harm’s way to ensure that we, and our families and friends, were protected and safe. We all owe them a debt of gratitude.
I was honoured to meet many of those people in July, when they came to a cross-party roundtable in Parliament to describe their individual experiences. I put on record my thanks to the hon. Members for Blackpool South (Chris Webb), for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) who joined us on that day. I met some incredible people that day, including Robert Barlow, John O’Rourke, Gary Pearson, Andy Walker, Robert Hindley, Shahid Mahmood, Simon Bywater and Kerry Snuggs, who has now set up the intrepid games: a sports event for service workers who have been injured or disabled while on duty. I know that a number of them are in the Gallery watching the debate; I hope that we can all do them proud. They deserve their moment. They deserve recognition for all they put on the line and sacrificed. It is a national shame that no Government have acknowledged them and thanked them for their service. That has to change now.
While I am talking of people who deserve their moment, I have to mention Tom Curry. May I make it clear that this is Tom’s debate? Tom started the campaign and has fought tirelessly to get support across the House. He is truly a force of nature, and I can honestly say that it has been a pleasure to work with him this year to ensure that the injury in service award becomes a reality.
Tom Curry has built the campaign from the ground up. A former Sussex police officer, he was cruelly injured just weeks before reaching 22 years of service and so was denied any recognition for his work in the community. He is a former detective, which really does show as nothing gets past him—especially Governments dragging their feet. I can attest to hon. Members in the Chamber that Tom is relentless. Our phones will not stop ringing and our inboxes will never be cleared until the medal of recognition is delivered—Tom has personally promised me that.
Earlier this year, with Tom and Jane’s help I tabled an early-day motion that has since gained 111 signatures, making it one of the most supported motions in this Parliament. The signatories are from every single party, right across the political divide—the Liberal Democrats, Labour, Conservatives, Reform, the Green party and independents. This issue transcends party politics. It is a cause that we can and should all rally around, and one with a simple and obvious answer.
From freedom of information requests to 44 police forces across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, we know that there are over 16,000 injured police officers across the country, but we do not know the total number of injured servicemen and women across all emergency services, as that figure is not available. This is an injustice we have to put right. There are many who are injured and are then deprived of the long service and good conduct medals that are awarded after a sustained period of service. Until 2010, emergency responders had to have served for at least 22 years—later cut to 20 years—to get the long service and good conduct medals. The gallantry award is also insufficient, as the vast majority of attacked personnel are deprived of the opportunity of gallantry because they are sprung upon and ambushed. That means that through no fault of their own, there are tens of thousands of people out there without recognition simply because their cowardly attackers jumped them from behind.
The “999 Injured and Forgotten” campaign believes that any new award for those injured in the line of duty should be similar to the Elizabeth Emblem, in that it should be awarded to all public servants. A constituent from Cheadle who works as a prison chaplain wrote to me this week and suggested involving prison officers, as they are essential workers who get little or no public recognition. They are another stark reminder of the way our public servants put their safety on the line for us.
In 2019, a Ministry of Justice report stated that there were over 10,000 attacks on prison officers a year, with many ending in career-altering injuries and severe psychological trauma. We must make sure that all public servants are involved. The award could be offered to all living survivors, and the criteria would be threefold: a public servant, injured on duty, and medically discharged from the service due to that injury. The medal would recognise the health and career sacrifice of those who are injured on duty. The medal would mean that those who have made significant sacrifices could wear their medal proudly, and the public would be able to recognise and understand the bravery and service that they have contributed to this country.
The medal would mean that brave emergency responders such as police constable Kris Aves, who is now paralysed and confined to a wheelchair, would rightly be recognised. Kris now lives a completely different life, unable to continue the job of protecting us because he was mown down in the terror attack on Westminster bridge in 2017. This impacts us all. Many colleagues will remember PC Keith Palmer, who sadly died in that attack. He was rightly awarded posthumous awards for gallantry and the Elizabeth Emblem. His bravery saved many lives that day, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude. Kris is also owed our thanks. He received no medal or recognition for his bravery. Instead, he lost his career and the job he loved.
The medal would mean that emergency service responders who survive the most awful situations are met with respect, acknowledgement and honour. The medal would mean that Pam White’s bravery and injuries during the IRA attacks on Harrods in 1983 would be recognised. Despite her injuries and the terrifying uncertainty of the situation, Pam guided members of the public to safety. The injuries sustained were so bad that she was forced to leave the force. Those killed in the IRA bombings have now been awarded the Elizabeth Emblem, but the officers injured on that day, including Pam who lost her job—the job she aspired to from a young age—are overlooked.
All those emergency service workers will tell us that they are lucky, as they survived while some of their colleagues lost their lives in the line of duty. That is certainly true, but we cannot allow this to become an awful game of comparison. The people I have mentioned have all suffered in the most appalling ways. They suffered gunshot wounds, paralysis and other life-changing injuries—and of course post-traumatic stress disorder, with many of these brave men and women reliving their trauma day in, day out.
I say to the Government that we cannot allow these people to wait any longer. They need the recognition now. Thanks to Tom Curry’s work, the proposal for the award reached the Cabinet Office before the general election. Multiple Members have brought it to light in both ministerial correspondence and on the Floor of the House, but the same line is trotted out time and again. With Elizabeth Emblems now being awarded as of December last year, it is yet another reminder to those overlooked and injured survivors that they are forgotten and have no recognition.
Many family members of the fallen who have received the Elizabeth Emblem support the introduction of this award and agree that it is wrong that the injured are forgotten. This has been delayed for too long, so I urge the Minister to do the right and honourable thing. Get this award off the ground, because those incredible people sat in the Gallery right now should not have to wait another day longer. Politically there is no resistance. This is a worthwhile investment that would increase national pride and community cohesion, and celebrate the incredible work of our emergency services.
I thank the Minister for being here today and look forward to his remarks. I hope he will listen carefully to the debate, take heed and note with urgency that establishing an injury in service award is the right thing to do. I also thank all my colleagues who have joined this important discussion. It has been a long time coming. I hope it is worth the wait, and I hope it will transform the lives of many injured ex-emergency service workers.
Thank you to Jane, Tom and everyone watching for driving this cause all the way to the Houses of Parliament—that is no small feat. I hope we can all do you proud. This is your moment—it is your time. I look forward to continuing this campaign with all of you, and I promise that I will not stop until injured emergency service workers get the recognition they deserve.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. As the debate is oversubscribed, Back-Bench speeches are limited to four minutes.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for bringing forward the debate. It is certainly long overdue. I also thank former police officer Tom Curry, who was injured in the line of duty and whose campaign with other injured emergency service workers has brought us here today.
I want to pay tribute to a constituent of mine, Sue Mitchell, who I met today alongside her husband. In November 1984, Sue was 22 and on her sixth day working for Essex police when, while pursuing teenage burglars, she was severely rammed by their car as she and her colleague tried to block their escape. Despite having a shattered kneecap and hand injuries, Sue was able to chase and arrest one of the burglars. She was beginning to recover, but crippling back pain and losing feeling in her legs prevented her from returning to the frontline. She had to leave her flat because she could no longer climb the stairs. Nine months after the incident, she returned to light duties at Southend police station, but despite surgery on a damaged spinal disc, which was diagnosed three years later, the police retired her on medical grounds at the age of 26, less than a week after the operation.
The teenage burglars were handed 12 months’ youth custody, but Sue has had to live with what happened that day for the past 41 years—a lifetime of chronic pain and medical issues. She sustained those injuries in the service of us all, out of duty to maintain law and order, and an eagerness to right wrongs. Five days after the incident, the then chief superintendent praised her “meritorious” conduct and wrote that
“consideration will be given to more formal recognition of”
her and her colleague’s
“action at a later stage.”
That later stage never came and Sue was never recognised. We have the chance now to right that particular wrong—something so long promised should now be delivered.
As we have heard, it is estimated that 15,000 former police officers have, like Sue, been forced to retire due to an injury they suffered in our service. Today’s call to action is supported by nearly a third of Members of this House, across all parties, and by the Police Federation, the Fire Brigades Union, the Fire and Rescue Services Association, the National Fire Chiefs Council and Unison, of which I must declare I am a member.
Medal recognition for Sue and other blue-light emergency workers who have been injured in the line of duty will not change what has happened to them, but it could go some way to repaying the debt we owe them for their service and their sacrifice.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I am pleased that this debate has made its way to the Floor of the House, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing it. My late uncle Malcolm served as a police officer in Norfolk for many years, so I understand a little about the level of dedication and personal sacrifice required to serve in the police force, and I am pleased that this campaign enjoys widespread support. I join others in paying tribute to Tom Curry for leading the campaign, getting thousands of people to sign the petition and securing lots of support in the House.
Like other Members, I have been given first-hand accounts by constituents of horrific incidents that ultimately ended their careers. One of my constituents, Robert Gifford, who is watching proceedings today, has been very active in persuading me of the importance of this issue. He spent over 20 years in the British Transport police before his career was brutally cut short. As he explained to me, while serving in the counter-terrorism unit, he was witness to multiple bomb explosions in 1993. He was called out to the bomb threat at Bishopsgate. I will not go into all the details of what he told me, but the bomb, which was planted in a stolen truck, exploded and killed one person and injured 44. Later that year, he was called to Reading station, where an improvised explosive device had been discovered. When that bomb exploded, he was only 150 yards away. Then, in 1999, he was early to the scene of the Ladbroke Grove train crash—a tragedy of 31 fatalities and hundreds of injuries. Mr Gifford’s experience in service ultimately led to him having to leave it because of what he had seen. I think it fair to say that he is a very fine example of all those who serve on our behalf.
Another constituent who has contacted me served with Greater Manchester police and Norfolk police for 30 years, before his career was also tragically cut short. He was beaten and physically dumped into a trailer by three thugs when responding to a complaint of antisocial behaviour in my constituency. He has lived the rest of his life in fear, with constant anxiety attacks, and is unable to go out other than to a few safe spaces.
Those are the people we are talking about in this debate. I have referred to police officers, but as the hon. Member for Cheadle said, we are also talking about prison officers, paramedics and others who put themselves in danger on our behalf. The debate has highlighted that, although each case carries its own story of suffering, thousands of people are affected. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) referred to the 15,000 police officers forced to retire, but thousands in the other emergency services would also be affected.
It is right that the House acknowledges risks faced daily by our incredible emergency responders, who, like Mr Gifford, suffer career-ending injuries while protecting the public. In September, the Minister for Policing said that the Home Office continues to consider proposals for new awards to members of the emergency service. Having spent three years working for a Defence Secretary, I understand that there can be inertia in the system when creating new awards to recognise people’s service, but I encourage the Minister to push back against that. I am proud to support this campaign and call on the Government to establish a dedicated injury in service award to formally recognise and honour the sacrifice of emergency service workers injured in the line of duty on our behalf.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing this debate. We all know how important emergency service personnel are to us. They often put their lives on the line to protect others. I have met many police officers, firefighters and paramedics in Wokingham, and have seen their selflessness and bravery at first hand.
My constituent Ian, who I think is in the Public Gallery, has contacted me. He served in the Thames Valley police for 30 years, often putting himself in difficult and dangerous situations while protecting us, the general public. Although he has not been injured himself, he knows of too many colleagues who have been—some have had to end their service—but have not been recognised.
Only in 2024 was the Elizabeth Emblem introduced, to be given to the next-of-kin of deceased police officers, firefighters and public servants. Surely an award is equally needed to recognise those who have been severely injured and medically retired from those services. Those people, who served our communities, deserve an award. Like so many others, I urge the Government to establish an official injury in service award to honour and acknowledge the sacrifices made by those brave individuals.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
I am pleased to speak today in support of the motion and my constituent, Andrew Barr, who is in the Gallery. Andrew served in the Metropolitan police as a detective constable from 2003 to 2019, and also volunteered with a search and rescue unit while off duty. He is among the many great servicepeople we are discussing today who have had their careers cut short by severe injuries sustained while protecting the public. He now lives with complex PTSD after years of assaults, road traffic fatalities and traumatic incidents—injuries that will remain with him for life—and yet, because those very injuries cut his career short, he was denied the long service and good conduct medal. At official events, he stands as a spectator beside former colleagues as they proudly wear their medals, while he has nothing to show for his committed years of service and for the health, career and identity he lost in the line of duty.
The creation of a dedicated injury in service medal would give men and women from the emergency services like Andrew the simple but powerful and important thanks and acknowledgment they deserve. To him and to all those injured in service, I say: thank you for your service. Like colleagues who have spoken today, I urge the Government to commit to creating this award. We must show men and women who have been injured in service that they will no longer be overlooked.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I first heard of the “999 Injured and Forgotten” campaign and the enormous work Tom Curry has been doing to campaign for an award for those injured in service from constituents of mine. One of the constituents was a police officer who served for 27 years and suffered spinal injuries on two occasions. On the second occasion, he had spinal dislocation and was paralysed, but in a year’s time, he went back to work. Shortly afterwards, he had to attend a fatal air crash and then had to retire due to further injuries sustained as a result of attending that incident. People like him deserve recognition and an injury in service medal.
Another constituent who has come to me about this is my colleague and councillor, Simon Coles, the Liberal Democrat chair of the Devon and Somerset fire and rescue authority. He said:
“Gallant firefighters risk their lives daily in the service of their communities. When you’re having the worst day of your life, it is a normal day at work for our firefighters. They deserve the recognition these awards would confer on them. All our communities would approve of such recognition.”
I urge the Minister and the House to make sure that this long overdue campaign reaches a triumphal conclusion and that those who are injured in service are properly recognised with the medal that they deserve.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing this important debate, and I welcome and thank all the public servicemen and women who are in the Gallery and watching at home.
This debate coincides with the fantastic news this week that the brave train driver Samir Zitouni, injured during the Huntingdon train attack, has finally been discharged from hospital. It reminds us how often the people on our frontlines do not receive the credit or recognition they truly deserve. If that is true for a single shocking and horrifying incident that rightly captured national attention, we can only imagine the countless cases faced by our emergency personnel who risk their lives day in, day out and are so often unnamed in the reporting that follows.
Only last month, I took part in a ride-along with West Yorkshire police, where I saw at first hand the pressures involved even in what we think of as routine neighbourhood policing. Reflecting on that experience, I am struck by how our officers can within seconds find themselves face to face with frightening and unpredictable situations. We might assume these are lower-risk encounters, but the reality is that any moment can turn into danger, leaving officers not only injured but sometimes medically discharged from the career they loved because they were protecting the public.
In preparing for this debate, I learnt that since 2022 over 6,000 officers in West Yorkshire police have experienced assault-related injuries, and over 15,000 former police officers have suffered life-changing injuries in the line of duty across England. That is before we even begin to count paramedics, firefighters and so many others. The words of the campaign stayed with me: many of these people are left “injured and forgotten”—how incredibly upsetting that someone can give so much to the public yet receive so little in return. The very least we can do is recognise their sacrifice.
As we have heard, there is currently no formal honour for those who survive catastrophic, career-ending injuries in the line of duty. To me, and to many across this House, that is a glaring injustice. I welcome the growing cross-party consensus and the clear strength of feeling in this place. That is why I strongly support the introduction of an injury in service award, mirroring the recognition rightly given to those who lose their lives, but extended to those who bear lifelong scars for their service. These individuals met every duty that the public asked of them, so it is time that the state met its duty to them.
I urge the Government, the Cabinet Office and the Honours and Appointments Secretariat to act to ensure that these extraordinary sacrifices are finally recognised, formally and permanently. It would not take much from them, but it would mean the world to those who gain the recognition that they have long deserved. Our emergency services are there for us at the very worst moments of our lives. It is long past time that we showed them that this country sees, remembers and honours their courage.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for securing this excellent debate.
I want to seek the Minister’s help with the case of my Witney constituent, Bill Maddocks. Bill was an on-call firefighter at Witney for 22 years and contracted covid at work, while seconded on a whole-time contract to assist the ambulance service during the pandemic. This became long covid and, as a result, he was retired from the fire service due to ill health. During this process, he was assured by senior managers that a pension equivalent to a whole-time firefighter would be his, and he was independently medically assessed as having a tier 1 level and 100% disability, entitling him to a compensation pension equivalent to a whole-time firefighter wage.
There has been a long-standing dispute about his disablement and the apportionment. Even though it was independently assessed and agreed by Oxfordshire fire and rescue service as legally binding, the amount awarded was equivalent only to on-call pay rather than the full-time wage. As a result, the Pensions Ombudsman became involved, as well as the Fire Brigades Union. There has continued to be a Byzantine maze and the Pensions Ombudsman has walked away saying that the case lies outside its brief. Four years on, Bill remains incredibly debilitated and suffering deeply, supported wonderfully by his wife, Nikki. I would like your help in finding a way through this situation monetarily, but the man also deserves an award, exactly as we have named here today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I was going to correct the hon. Member’s use of the word “your”, but I did not want to interrupt his flow. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Police officers, firefighters, paramedics and members of other emergency services and public services face real risks every day to keep people safe. When those risks lead to life-changing injury, it can bring a sudden and permanent end to a career built on service. We need to show our support and appreciation for them, whether they be emergency service workers, our NHS heroes or others.
Recognising the amazing work that they do for us every day is the least that we can do. They put themselves in harm’s way and they prioritise our lives over their own, regardless of the circumstances, to keep us safe. They protect us, rescue us and put us back together when we are sick or injured. We need to be forever grateful for their sacrifice, dedication and commitment, and we must not take that service for granted. As we have heard, at the moment, this country does just that and we do not reward their effort as we should. People have given everything in service, and yet they feel overlooked.
I wholeheartedly commend the initiative of retired Sussex police officer Tom Curry, who has led the campaign for the recognition of police officers injured on duty. His work, alongside that of the National Association of Retired Police Officers and others, has shown the strength of feeling on this issue. I also support the Fire and Rescue Services Association in calling for a medal for emergency workers who are severely injured and then have to retire for medical reasons.
Debbie Adlam, the mother of the late PC Andrew Harper, has warned that many injured emergency workers feel brushed aside. She has spoken powerfully about colleagues of her son who suffered both mentally and physically through their bravery, yet have had no official recognition.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
There has been a lot of discussion about police officers and other emergency service workers injured in the line of work, and there has been some mention of issues such as PTSD and other mental health issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to see those as being just as important? The experiences that some of these frontline servicepeople encounter on a regular basis have long-lasting effects.
Mr Forster
My hon. Friend is completely right. Being injured in the line of duty needs to be about physical and mental health, and we have heard many examples of that so far. Debbie reminded us that what might be five minutes on the news becomes a story that affects an individual for the rest of their life.
Let me go back to Tom Curry. He left Sussex police in 1989 because of the serious injuries he received while on the job. He has talked about being only a few weeks away from receiving his long-service medal before he was injured, and now he has nothing to show. The example I have from my constituency in my area of Surrey is that of PC Geoff Newham, from Surrey police. He was named as the winner of an award from the Police Federation back in 2020. He was an outstanding police officer and a member of the Surrey roads policing unit, but he was involved in a collision during a pursuit in 2018 that left him with serious back injuries that prevented him from being able to do his previous job.
Despite that injury, Geoff’s tenacity and positive attitude saw him utilise his first-class criminal intelligence skills and experience to support colleagues, allowing them to target and disrupt a number of high-level organised crime units in Surrey, go after a number of county lines gangs and help to lock up numerous offenders. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that deserves to be rewarded.
I have been moved by stories from colleagues across the Chamber. Over several years, whether it be in 2018 or 2022, Parliament has increased sentences for criminals who have targeted our emergency services. If we are increasing their sentences, we should be able to reward and recognise emergency workers at the same time. For all those reasons and more, I support the creation of an official injury on duty award scheme, which would provide the recognition and dignity that those people deserve.
I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for bringing this debate to the House and for his work on this issue. I am sure that Jane Notley, with her distinctive pink walking sticks, would be really proud to have him as her MP.
The Home Office has said that it is considering proposals to recognise emergency service personnel injured in the line of duty. It is time for this House to make those proposals reality. I hope the Minister will confirm that today.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Emergency service workers are the bedrock of society. They are the people who run towards danger while others run away, and they are there in our hour of need and deserve our utmost respect. I pay tribute to every emergency service worker across the country for the incredible job that they do, in difficult circumstances, to serve the public and their local communities.
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate and those who have engaged with and supported this campaign. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), who secured the debate and ably set out the need for this recognition. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), who has long championed this cause.
Tom Curry, who joins us in the Gallery today, is a truly remarkable campaigner who is not prepared to take no for an answer. Tom served in Sussex police as a detective, but he was forced to retire early after suffering a life-changing injury. It is fair to say that Tom is not a quiet man, but he is a great man who brings people together and has spearheaded this campaign. I know that hon. and right hon. Members across the House will want to join me in paying tribute to him and all the former emergency service workers who join us in the Gallery today.
Tom calls it a “scandalous national disgrace” that those forced to retire through injury in the line of duty are not awarded a medal, and I agree entirely. It is time that we honoured their service. These individuals have put themselves in harm’s way to serve our communities, and their injuries have cost them their job—often, a job that they had dreamed of all their lives.
Earlier this year, alongside the hon. Member for Cheadle, we welcomed dozens of former emergency service workers to Parliament. It was an insightful and, at times, very emotional discussion. Anyone who listened to their stories, and to the real impact on those people’s lives and that of their families, could not oppose awarding this recognition. Each and every former emergency service worker there had a story—many Members will have heard about the experiences of their own constituents, but there is one story I would like to share with the House today. Elsie Galt, who also joins us in the Gallery today, is a former police officer. She was injured while serving with Merseyside police, involved in a horrific road traffic accident with a lorry. Sadly, her injuries were severe, and have left her relying on crutches to remain mobile. To join us today, Elsie has travelled from the Scottish highlands on the night train, and will make her return journey on the same train later today—that is how much this debate means to her. She wants to see recognition for other people who might have to endure what she has had to live through. Elsie’s determination is truly inspiring.
Turning to the specifics of this campaign, the ask is very simple—that those injured in the line of duty must be recognised. As it stands today, no such medal exists other than for actions of high gallantry, but for understandable reasons, very few of those medals are ever awarded. It is right that those who serve our communities and are injured in the line of duty have their service recognised. The proposal has very clear qualifications, replicating the established injury on duty pension criteria. I also understand that both the Fire Brigades Union and Unison fully support this proposal. Thanks to Tom’s determined efforts and perseverance, such a medal was already being looked at by the last Government after the then police and fire Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp)—who is now the shadow Home Secretary—ensured that the matter reached the Cabinet Office, which oversees the awarding of decorations and medals. There appears to have been little progress or news since the election, but given that the new Policing Minister is one of the 219 MPs who signed up to support this campaign, I am hopeful that we can rely on her to take it forward.
I urge the Minister to listen to the campaigners and the Back Benchers. This is a no-brainer—let us get it done. We have heard some excellent contributions from Members across the House today, and I hope the Minister understands just how important this issue is to former police officers in the Gallery and right across the country. I hope he will be able to update the House on progress today, and I also ask him to commit himself and the Policing Minister to meet Tom Curry. I think if Tom were stood at this Dispatch Box, his question would be “When, not if, will we award these heroes the recognition they deserve?” Emergency service workers do so much for us; now it is time that we do something for them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
I begin by adding my voice to what I consider to be the prevailing sentiment emerging from today’s discussion, which is that our police officers, firefighters, paramedics and other emergency service personnel are the very best of us. We owe them a massive debt of thanks for the work they do to keep us safe, and for always answering the call when we need help.
As a Home Office Minister, I am responding to this debate on behalf of the Government, but as the son of a career police officer and having worked in law enforcement myself, I have listened to today’s discussion with especially keen interest. Every day that my dad went to work, we worried, and I know that the same is true for all the families in the Gallery and the family of every officer who has served. Before this debate, I had a quick chat with my dad and asked whether he had sustained any injuries. He told me that only his ego had been injured, when he was stuck in a lift with nine other overweight officers and they had to call the fire brigade to get them out. That did make the papers—the headline was “Podgy PCs in a jam”.
On a more serious note, a lot of the points that have been raised resonate with me personally, and it is in that spirit that I express my sincere gratitude to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for securing the debate.
As was evident from the knowledge and passion with which the hon. Member spoke, this is an issue about which he feels strongly, as do other Members who contributed, to whom I am also thankful. Tom Curry sounds very much like the sort of man I would like to meet—a good bloke and obviously a fantastic campaigner.
A number of specific cases have been cited in the course of discussions, all of them deeply moving, and I will go through some of them. The hon. Member talked about a number of extremely emotional incidents that have happened in Manchester, including two incidents of leg-crushing by vehicles. The fear that must have been felt by those officers is unspeakable. Tom Curry, who I have already mentioned, is one of your constituents, I believe. He started the campaign, and I thank him for that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Minister, you were doing so well, but you are using, “You” or “your” and you should be speaking through the Chair.
Mike Tapp
My apologies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) mentioned Sue Mitchell, who in November 1984 was also subject to ramming by car. She actually managed to commit an arrest, which shows immense bravery on the ground. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) talked about Robert Gifford, who served with the British Transport police and witnessed the Ladbroke Grove train crash, which must have been harrowing in many ways. The hon. Member mentioned another constituent, who was beaten by thugs. That demonstrates the challenges our officers experience every day out there on the ground.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) spoke about Ian, who served for 30 years in Thames Valley police, and I thank him for his service. The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) talked about Andrew Barr, who served with the Met police for 16 years, as well as with search and rescue. Service is often in the blood of those who serve with the police force, and that is why they often volunteer in other ways. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) talked about air crash injuries and Councillor Coles, who rightly praises the fire brigade. As with the police, every day while we are in this place, the fire brigade officers literally run towards danger, and I thank them.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) made a really good point about high-profile cases that the press pick up on, when we all send out to the country our thanks to the police, but we must remember that the unnamed do not get that from the media. Routine policing can become dangerous at any moment. While we are safe in here, the police are out there on the streets putting their lives at risk.
The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) spoke about Bill Maddocks, a firefighter. It sounds like an extremely complex case, so I will not comment on that at this moment. If the hon. Member will write to me and the Minister for Policing and Crime, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), we can get into the detail.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) gave a considered statement, which I thank him for, and mentioned PC Geoff Newham, who was involved in a crash and was injured. After his injury, his trying to solve complex issues, such as county lines, demonstrates the dedication to service that so many in our police forces and emergency services have. I thank him very much for that.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for his considered approach. He mentioned Elsie Galt, to whom I send my thanks, who suffered from a road traffic accident.
There are clearly physical effects that can have significant or, in the most serious examples, life-changing consequences. Then there is the emotional and psychological impact, which, again, can last for years or even a lifetime. We must always remember that the impact of such incidents is felt not only by the individuals themselves, but by their loved ones, their colleagues and their families. When dedicated public servants suffer serious injuries in the course of their duties, it is of course incumbent on us as a state and a society to wrap our arms around them and ensure that they are given all the support they need.
I turn to the specific focus of the debate. I will summarise the Government’s position, but I will do so with full recognition that I am a relative latecomer to this debate, as has been set out by others in a very long-running discussion. I commit to take any outstanding questions away, including on the case that the hon. Member for Cheadle raised. The first point to make is that the Home Office is well aware of the proposal under discussion. Senior officials have spoken many times to leaders of the campaign; indeed, the previous Minister for Policing met a number of them to hear their thoughts on this important matter.
My understanding of the situation is that work continues to identify whether a medal is the best method of recognising emergency services workers who are injured as a result of their duties, and whether it is viable. I realise that the hon. Member for Cheadle and other Members in favour of his proposal would wish me to go further and make a commitment. Respectfully, and with full recognition of the importance of the issue in question, I am afraid I cannot do so today. What I can say is that when any decision is made, it will be communicated to all interested parties, including those in the Gallery today.
Iqbal Mohamed
I am sure there is a bit of disappointment at the Minister’s statement, but could he enlighten the people in the Gallery and the Chamber on the timescale for when a decision might be reached?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before Sir Julian Lewis makes his intervention and the Minister responds, I remind the House that “you” and “your” are not permitted. Let us stay focused.
Sir Julian Lewis
I have listened carefully to the whole debate, and I thoroughly support the proposal. From the Minister’s summing up, it sounds as if the decision is more in the hands of civil servants than in those of Ministers. May I gently point out to him that civil servants are never remiss when it comes to awarding themselves all sorts of decorations and recognition? Here, it is more a question that the feeling of the House has made itself heard, and it really ought to be conveyed to those people to whom this task appears to have been delegated that they ought to do what they have been told by the elected representatives of the people of this country.
Mike Tapp
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the spirit of his question. I reassure the House and those in the Gallery that the Policing Minister is a Minister who has authority. We saw that in the past week with the scrapping of police and crime commissioners—something that is well overdue. That came well and truly from the Minister, but of course she will have heard these words today.
If Members will indulge me for a second, I will set out some general points about medallic recognition that are relevant to the debate and my response. In this country, all medals are a gift from Government on behalf of the monarch. They are instituted by royal warrant and sit firmly under royal prerogative powers. The advantage of this is that we keep our medal system above the political fray, and no amount of political patronage can affect the criteria. That is why the British model for such recognition is highly respected across the globe.
My reason for mentioning that is not to offer a commentary on the merits of the proposal we are debating today, but to set the discussion in its proper context. I wholeheartedly agree with the general notion that acts of extraordinary courage, sacrifice or selflessness should be recognised and celebrated. Having worked in law enforcement and served in the military, I am behind that notion. That is why in policing, for example, we have worked closely with forces and staff associations to increase the number of officers and staff receiving formal gallantry awards.
James Wild
I referred to my time in the Ministry of Defence, and during that time we created the Op Shader medal for British service personnel who were involved in operations against Daesh in Iraq and Syria. The original proposal was that that medal should only go to the pilots in the planes conducting the strikes, but the Secretary of State and the Ministers in the Department ensured the case was made for it to go to the ground crews who got those planes in the air, so Ministers can make a difference. We have the system that the Minister has described, but Ministers are there to drive this through.
Mike Tapp
I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We are having the debate in this House today, but the point stands that the decision is not a political one.
We know that for a great many emergency service personnel, their work is more than a job. It is a vocation, which they do because they feel passionate about serving our country and helping others. For those who have to leave the job they love due to injury, that is an immensely painful experience. Every effort must be made to support them in adjusting to their new circumstances.
On the financial impact, to use the example of policing, depending on the injury and its severity, a gratuity and a pension may be payable through existing provisions. Financial awards are not a substitute for medals, but they are not nothing. They have their own meaning and impact, and I think it is important that that point is made.
However, recognition is not just about payments or medals; it is about how we treat people during and after their service. Through the police covenant, we are ensuring that officers and staff who are injured physically or psychologically receive the support they need both during service and after they leave.
To turn briefly to the Elizabeth Emblem, which was raised during the debate, I have been informed that extending it to cover those injured on duty is simply not viable. Aside from potentially disrupting the Elizabeth Emblem, for which some recipients have waited 80 years, extending it would fundamentally alter the nature of the award. It is not normal practice for medal cohorts to be expanded. Normally, a new medal would be created.
I thank all Members for their contributions and of course all those in the Gallery. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Cheadle for securing this debate and for advancing this cause with such care and enthusiasm. I hope he will understand that I am not in a position to make a commitment on the proposal he has put forward. However, I have heard what has been said across the House and will ensure that my ministerial colleagues with responsibility for this area are fully aware of it. As I said, I will have a meeting next week.
For the risks that our officers face and the sacrifices that they make, they are the epitome of public service. They are, to put it simply, all heroes. On behalf of the Government and our country, I finish by thanking them for everything that they do.
Mr Morrison
I thank all Members across the House for engaging with this debate. We have heard so many stories of heroism, so many stories that have been inspirational and so many stories of heartbreak.
I thank the Minister for being present and for his remarks. I am obviously disappointed that we have not come to a firmer conclusion. To quote Tom Curry, “Patience is a young man’s game”, and many of the people we are talking about do not have patience. They have been waiting a long time for recognition. These people feel as though they have been discarded and forgotten. We need to do more.
I say to the Minister and the Government that the gauntlet has been laid down. There is clearly cross-party support for this scheme. We have one of the most signed early-day motions and a petition has been delivered to Parliament, and we can see that public support is behind the scheme. I say to the Government that we need to act now. There are people who deserve this recognition—they deserved it yesterday. Let us not wait another day. They need it now.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House acknowledges the extreme risks faced by police officers, firefighters, paramedics and other emergency service personnel in the line of duty; further acknowledges that many suffer catastrophic, career-ending injuries while protecting the public; regrets that these sacrifices are too often met with inadequate formal recognition; notes that existing honours are limited in scope and rarely conferred in such circumstances; believes this failure to properly acknowledge those who have sustained life-altering injuries in public service is a serious oversight; welcomes the growing cross-party consensus that urgent action is needed; and calls on the Cabinet Office to rectify this injustice by establishing a dedicated injury in service award to formally recognise and honour the extraordinary sacrifice of emergency service workers injured in the line of duty.
Children with Serious Neurological Conditions
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate on the support available to children—and, crucially, their families —living with serious neurological conditions. I applied for this debate after hearing the moving testimony of my constituent, Shelina, a mother who, like so many parents in similar circumstances, never expected to find herself navigating the complex and overwhelming world that confronted her when her daughter Tafida fell seriously ill.
Following Tafida’s diagnosis, Shelina not only became an advocate for her own child, but went on to support others facing similar paths. She founded the Tafida Raqeeb Foundation, a charity dedicated to helping families understand treatment options, access specialist knowledge and feel supported at a time when many can feel at their most isolated. The foundation now supports families both here and abroad, and the insights it has gathered are invaluable in helping to shape thoughtful and compassionate reform.
Shelina’s story, sadly, is not unique. Each year, thousands of children in the UK are diagnosed with life-limiting neurological conditions.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Today, on Carers Rights Day, will my hon. Friend join me, as the parent of a child with a neurological condition, in paying tribute to all carers and charities for their work in supporting families like the family in his constituency?
James Asser
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in that. I certainly know, and I think the House knows, his expertise in this area and the knowledge he brings to the House. That is something I will touch on further in a little while.
Some conditions present at birth and others emerge unexpectedly in early childhood. What unites the families is not only the complexity of the diagnosis, but the emotional, financial and practical challenges that follow. When faced with these circumstances, support is not an optional extra; it is the difference between families coping or reaching breaking point. Today, I want to focus on areas where the Government can continue to make a tangible difference, while also reflecting on several principles identified by families and organisations working closely in this space.
The first is access to high-quality information and specialist expertise. In the early weeks and months after a child’s diagnosis, many parents simply do not know where to turn. Conditions may be so rare that even highly experienced clinicians have encountered only a few cases. Understandably, families seek second opinions, sometimes internationally, in their search for clarity and reassurance. That is why proposals for more consistent access to second opinions, including clarity on how families can request them and where they may come from, are so important. Ensuring that such opinions are available promptly and from appropriately qualified clinicians would help prevent misunderstandings and reduce distress at an already emotional time. Similarly, early involvement of mediation and clinical ethics support can help families and clinicians work through complex decisions collaboratively, rather than feeling pushed towards formal disputes. When available at the right moment, these mechanisms can preserve trust and keep conversations centred on the child’s best interests.
Families have also highlighted the importance of having clear and safe hospital transfer options. Where another suitably qualified hospital, whether in the UK or abroad, is willing to accept a child, and where the clinical risks are manageable, families understandably value the reassurance that such a transfer could be facilitated. Greater clarity on how transfer decisions are made would help families feel respected as partners in their child’s care. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined, when she replies, what further steps might be taken to strengthen these early support mechanisms and to ensure that families across the country have timely, consistent access to the specialist guidance they need.
The second area where the Government can make a difference is in emotional and practical support for families. Caring for a child with a serious neurological condition frequently requires round-the-clock care. Parents become experts in medical equipment, emergency responses, symptom patterns and complex medication schedules. This can take an enormous emotional toll. Consistent access to counselling, respite breaks, community nursing and psychological support can make an extraordinary difference. However, we know that this provision can vary. Some families receive exemplary support, while others find themselves waiting months or navigating multiple agencies before help arrives. Strengthening those forms of support so that they are reliable, accessible and sensitive to the pressures that families face would greatly reduce the emotional and financial burden that parents often shoulder.
The third area is ensuring that public services are co-ordinated, compassionate and connected. Many parents describe the system as fragmented, not through lack of dedication from professionals but because structures do not always align. Families may find themselves repeating their child’s history multiple times, facing delays in equipment provision, or juggling unco-ordinated appointments. For children with complex neurological needs, health, education and social care are deeply interconnected. A more joined-up approach can relieve pressure and help ensure children receive the right support at the right moment.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent argument for more support for children and families in this position. A family in my constituency wrote to me about their granddaughter who has Huntingdon’s disease. She is 10, and she desperately needs an education, health and care plan so that she can get to the right special educational needs and disabilities school next year. However, the family found that there are not enough educational psychologists to give referrals, and time is running out. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to prioritise support for people in that position to get them the education and support they deserve as quickly as possible?
James Asser
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is the thrust of this issue. There are multiple agencies involved, but if one is failing in an area or there is a gap, it creates huge problems. It is about being parent-sensitive and child-sensitive, looking at where the gaps are and ensuring that we have the necessary facilities, support and access available speedily where they are needed.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. May I put to him the importance of communication? He has just touched on the many cases of families going to a million and one different agencies to seek support. More often than not, when there is a need for those agencies to speak to each other and then get back to the families who are trying to support their children, those agencies are missing in action. Improved communication across the piece has never been needed more than now.
James Asser
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Communications are a key part of the point I was making about interconnectivity. Parents are required to repeat the diagnosis so many times. Agencies need to be talking to each other and sharing information to make life easier for the families and carers of children.
A joined-up approach can help relieve the pressure. Within that, it is vital that parents—and grandparents, where that is the case—are recognised as genuine partners in decisions about their child’s care. Their experience, insights and wishes should carry appropriate weight from the outset, and reflect the deep understanding they hold of their child’s day-to-day needs. In addition, families have emphasised the importance of improving access to paediatric neurorehabilitation, which is uneven across the country.
For children with long-term neurological conditions, timely access to specialist rehabilitation can significantly improve outcomes, independence and quality of life. Reducing the overall burden on families, emotionally, practically and financially, should remain a guiding principle. Strengthening the pathways for second opinions, mediation, ethics involvement, transfer options and rehabilitation would all help to support families during their most vulnerable moments.
I want to recognise the work of the Tafida Raqeeb Foundation and similar organisations. Their experience with families in the most difficult circumstances offers valuable insight, and their contributions can help inform the foundations of a more supportive framework, one that ensures parental involvement, early resolution of disputes, safe transfer options and improved rehabilitation, all centred on the welfare of the child—much as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) suggested when he spoke about involving families.
Finally, I pay tribute to the extraordinary resilience of the families: the parents who become carers overnight; the siblings who grow up with remarkable empathy; and, above all, the children themselves, who show courage that humbles us all. Their strength inspires us, but it also reminds us that our systems must match their resilience with compassion, clarity and consistency.
We do not require radical restructuring to make progress; what is needed is better co-ordination, commitment and recognition that caring for children with serious neurological conditions is a whole-family, whole-system challenge. In honour of the children we have lost, in support of those still fighting and in solidarity with every family navigating these profound challenges, I believe we can continue to do better.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) on securing this important debate and acknowledge the journey of his constituent Shelina Begum and the work she has done on behalf of her daughter, Tafida Raqeeb, with the establishment of the Tafida Raqeeb Foundation and all the work it does.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for his contribution. His tireless work raising issues around supporting and caring for children with neurological issues is well known in this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) raised the issue of access to EHCPs—which are provided through local authorities—which continues to need work, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) highlighted the need for joined-up care and services.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on a subject that touches on the lives of thousands of families across the country. There are hundreds of serious neuro- logical conditions that affect children, ranging from epilepsy and cerebral palsy to rare, genetic and degenerative disorders and acquired brain injury. I will speak on the common themes that unite people’s experiences: the need for timely diagnosis, integrated care and comprehensive support for every child and family, regardless of the specific condition they face.
Living with a serious neurological condition is a life-altering reality for children and their families. Whether congenital, acquired or progressive, these conditions often bring profound physical limitations, developmental delays and complex care needs. Families face relentless hospital visits, financial strain and the emotional toll of uncertainty, all while navigating fragmented health, education and social care systems.
The Government recognise these challenges and are committed to improving access to care, reducing inequalities and providing holistic support through health, education and social care systems. Our 10-year health plan will transform care for children with serious neurological conditions by delivering integrated, community-based services that put families at the centre and by prioritising early identification and intervention, ensuring that children receive timely diagnoses and treatment to prevent complications. Through neighbourhood health centres, multidisciplinary teams—including paediatric neurologists, therapists, mental health professionals and social workers—will provide wraparound support that meets medical, emotional and practical needs. Digital tools will empower parents to manage appointments and access records as easily as they bank online. This is about creating a system that works for families, not against them.
Through NHS England’s neurology transformation programme, we are creating pathways that wrap around families. The national bundle of care for children and young people with epilepsy sets clear standards for paediatric epilepsy care. For cerebral palsy, new commissioning frameworks ensure early intervention and co-ordinated services. Specialised paediatric neurosciences services provide access to life-changing procedures, such as epilepsy surgery and selective dorsal rhizotomy—that is a difficult word to say, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Government are committed to improving lives for those affected by rare diseases, which includes some serious neurological conditions, under the UK rare diseases framework. This includes better co-ordination of care and improving access to specialist care, treatment and drugs. We also hear that children and families impacted by these conditions can struggle to access mental health support, which is just not right. To address that, the NHS genomics education programme has published new resources on rare diseases for healthcare professionals to help them with sensitive conversations. The 10-year health plan also sets out ambitious goals to transform mental health services across the country so that everyone living with a rare disease, along with their loved ones, can get the support they truly deserve.
We know that timely access to care is critical, yet many families face delays of months. That is unacceptable. That is why we have committed to meeting the NHS constitutional standard of patients seen within 18 weeks by March 2029. For the elective reform plan and the neurology transformation programme, we are expanding diagnostic capacity, rolling out virtual consultations and opening more community diagnostic centres seven days a week. Those steps will cut waiting lists and ensure that children and families get the care they need when they need it.
We know that neurological conditions often come with emotional and behavioural challenges. That is why mental health support is being embedded into paediatric neurology pathways. Initiatives such as the national bundle of care for children and young people with epilepsy include psychological support as a core component. We are also expanding mental health support teams in schools and launching young futures hubs to provide integrated local support. This holistic approach recognises that physical and mental health are inseparable.
For many families, the move from paediatric to adult services is a key time of uncertainty. We are addressing that through structured transition planning, as set out in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance and NHS England frameworks.
Daniel Francis
Transition is a key issue for families in this area. In the last Parliament, the all-party parliamentary group on cerebral palsy issued recommendations about health pathways for adults, because for a lot of these conditions, including cerebral palsy, there are not the same health frameworks for adults as there are for children. Will the Minister take that point away and look at how we can replicate some of the pathways that are there for children in the adult sector?
Ashley Dalton
I am more than happy to do that. All too often, we have seen that the transition is a really difficult time, and as he points out, where services are perhaps not as joined up and cohesive for adults as they are for children, that is hugely jarring—a huge problem for families to navigate. We are committed to making sure that transition plans start early, involve families and ensure that continuity of care. Our goal is to make the process smooth and supportive, not stressful and fragmented.
Health is only one part of the picture. Children with serious neurological conditions often have special educational needs and disabilities, and their success depends on a joined-up approach across sectors. That is why the SEND reforms that the Government are working on are so important. We are moving towards earlier intervention, stronger inclusion in mainstream education, and better collaboration between health, education and social care. These changes will ensure that support is needs-led rather than diagnosis-driven, with clear accountability across integrated care boards and schools. By embedding mental health provision, improving workforce expertise and planning smooth transitions into adulthood care, we aim to deliver consistent, high-quality support that helps children to thrive and restores confidence in the system.
Caring for a child with a serious neurological condition can place enormous financial strain on families. The welfare system is designed to provide a crucial lifeline, ensuring that no family is crushed by the additional, often substantial, costs associated with their child’s condition. The Government provide support through a range of benefits, including disability living allowance, carer’s allowance, personal health budgets and local authority support, including respite care and equipment provision. Financial support is not just about money; it is about giving families the stability and security they need to focus on what matters most—their child’s wellbeing.
Our commitment to children with serious neurological conditions reflects the core values of our society: compassion, fairness and the belief that every child deserves the chance to reach their full potential. By improving healthcare access and providing comprehensive support systems, we are building a more inclusive and resilient future for all. We will ensure that no child or family feels abandoned, and that compassion and co-ordination define the care that they receive.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We have just checked the pronunciation of dorsal rhizotomy—hopefully I have not got it wrong either!
Question put and agreed to.
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
Unpaid Carers: Inequalities
(1 day, 3 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
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered inequalities faced by unpaid carers.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. First, I will note my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers, which is supported by Carers UK—an organisation that celebrates its 60th anniversary this year. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important debate to take place on Carers Rights Day, which was established 25 years ago to raise awareness of the rights to which carers are entitled. It does an excellent job of drawing attention to the rights that carers have, as well as helping carers to navigate those rights and be able to exercise them.
I have committed my career to securing better care and support for older and disabled people and their carers. I was privileged to serve as chair of the Archbishops’ Commission on Reimagining Care. As part of that work, I heard loud and clear how carers face unrelenting demands and can feel isolated, unsupported and undervalued. The system that carers face is complex, time consuming, rigid and confusing. Getting care and support is often a fight, and many carers are exhausted.
As an MP and together with colleagues, some of whom I am pleased to see here today and others of whom were not able to make it, I have sought to speak up for carers and have enjoyed welcoming carers into Parliament to share their stories. Just yesterday, Anna—another Anna—came down; she is a Bradford City fan and she shared some nice stories about her caring experience, which I may come to later. I have also had the pleasure of visiting Carers’ Resource, which is my local carer support organisation. I am sure that colleagues here will want to join me in thanking it and other organisations across the country that provide invaluable support to carers.
Of course, many people who work in Parliament as MPs and staff are carers, and it is great that more people are speaking up about their own experiences. Caring is personal for me, too. My grandmother suffered life-changing injuries in a road collision. My mum cared for her for nearly 30 years, never returning to her own career as a doctor. My mum did my grandma’s shopping and banking and took her to the doctor’s, to church and on days out. Thankfully, there were others who helped out; they brought meals, played Scrabble and kept her company. Thanks to the care and support that she received, my grandmother Freda lived a full and fulfilling life.
I have seen at first hand the incredible work that unpaid carers do, often unnoticed and at great cost to themselves. Carers are often invisible, unheard and unappreciated. I pay tribute to the 5.8 million carers in the UK. I hope that, through this debate, we can let the millions of unpaid family carers up and down the country know this: we recognise you and we are grateful for all you do.
This matters to us all. At some time in our lives, we will need either to provide care or to be cared for. According to Carers UK, the average person has a 50-50 chance of caring for a family member or friend by the age of 50. Indeed, almost half the UK population have provided unpaid care at some point in their lives. Yet many people do not identify as carers. They see it as part of being a parent, wife or daughter—as looking after someone or helping out a loved one.
I have met carers at every age and stage of life and from all cultures and races. They include Ruth, a parent carer whose child has special educational needs; Nussrat, who cares for her mum with dementia; Michael, who cared for his wife with Parkinson’s until she died and well into his own old age; Ann, in her 70s and caring for her adult son with learning disabilities; and Farzana, a young carer who cared for her mum throughout her time at school, but was recognised as a carer only when she got to university.
Sadly, there is often a cost to caring. Unpaid carers face inequalities in their health and finances, and often also additional barriers to work. I will briefly set out some of those inequalities and what I hope the Minister will say about how the Government will address them, because they need to.
I will take health inequalities first. Unpaid carers face significant health inequalities as a result of the mental and physical toll of providing care. They are more likely than non-carers to have experienced a long-term physical or mental health condition, disability or illness. In addition to caring often being physically and emotionally demanding, carers also find it more difficult than most people to access care for themselves. In the words of one woman who is a long-term carer for her parents:
“It was great seeing Dad improve, but it came at the expense of my own physical health and emotional stress…We always put ourselves right at the bottom when it comes to our own needs.”
All these issues are not only harmful to individual carers; they also put a strain on the NHS. What can be done?
First, it is vital that the NHS identifies carers and helps them to access healthcare for themselves as well as for their loved ones. I hope that the NHS, through the delivery of its 10-year plan, takes the opportunity to transform how it interacts with unpaid carers. Improvements could include: better data linkage with the Department for Work and Pensions to identify carers; using digital technology and remote consultations to make it easier to access healthcare from home; investing in a programme to improve carers’ mental health; and preventing carer burnout and breakdown by funding short-term breaks for carers.
Unpaid carers also face significant financial inequalities. According to Carers UK’s “State of Caring 2025” report, published today, 1.2 million unpaid carers across the UK live in poverty—400,000 in deep poverty—and four in 10 carers do not know what benefits they are entitled to. About six in 10 unpaid carers provide a staggering 50 hours or more of care per week, so they often have to give up work and rely on benefits to make ends meet. Research also suggests that the employment gap between working-age carers and non-carers was 13%. In the words of one woman who gave up her career to become a full-time carer,
“My finances are shot to pieces…and there’s no end in sight.”
We know that carer’s allowance is a very important benefit. However, it is too low—just £83.30 per week if someone provides at least 35 hours of care a week. Moreover, my understanding is that those carers in receipt of a state pension do not receive additional financial support as a carer, despite their having additional costs.
Sadly, many carers who have been juggling work and care have fallen foul of complicated benefit rules about the earnings limit, and they have built up debts due to overpayments by the DWP. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide reassurances today that the independent review into carer’s allowance overpayments, led by Liz Sayce, will be published soon, together with the Government’s response to it. I hope that the Government say in their response that they will implement swiftly and in full the recommendations of the report. I also hope that those recommendations will include writing off overpayment debts, clear, transparent and accurate information about earnings rules, and a less complicated system for claimants in the future.
I was really pleased to see that the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), delivered on the commitment he gave me during a debate on the Universal Credit Bill: that carers will be represented in the review of the personal independent payments working group. Given that PIP is a gateway benefit to carer’s allowance, carers must have a voice in shaping the proposals to reform it. It is vital that we value the contribution of unpaid carers and ensure that their own financial security is not jeopardised by their decision to care.
I will touch briefly on work, which is the third main area of inequality for carers. Unpaid carers encounter significant barriers in the workplace. It is estimated that 5 million people juggle work and care in the UK, which equates to one in seven people in every workplace. Balancing work and care can be stressful, so it is perhaps not surprising that one in six carers give up work or reduce their working hours so they can care for others.
For a former headteacher who was a carer for his wife, the support from his employer was crucial. He said that
“without the support I received from my employer, it would have meant finishing work. The immediate financial situation of losing both our incomes would have been devastating.”
Earlier, I mentioned Anna, who works for HSBC. She has talked about the difference that the support she received at work made to her when her husband had a stroke, and her and her family’s lives were turned upside down. She is now a carers champion in the workplace, supporting others in a similar situation. Her bosses at HSBC recognise that that was not just a kind thing to do; it also made business sense, as part of a strategy to retain talent and enable people to perform at their best.
It was great to see the “Keep Britain Working” review, the so-called Charlie Mayfield review, recognise the significant impact that providing unpaid care can have on employees’ health, wellbeing and ability to remain in work. I hope that the Minister can assure me that the Government will take it forward.
A statutory entitlement of five days’ unpaid care leave was secured through the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, for which I give credit to my colleague, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). Some employers already go further, such as TSB, a member of Employers for Carers, which is now a network of over 200 organisations. TSB provides its employees with up to 70 hours of paid leave each year. One in 10 employees with caring responsibilities has taken advantage of that. Employees who are carers know that they can take that time off if they need to and have the confidence to stay on in work.
Katie, one of the TSB employees who is a carer, said:
“I know of carers who don’t have policies in place at their workplaces and are faced with the additional stress of considering unpaid leave. I’m grateful that TSB supports me with flexible solutions to help me find balance between work and caring for my lovely mum.”
Not only do carers benefit from this policy, but TSB does. It says that the policy has had a positive impact on its bottom line and on retaining staff who have caring responsibilities in the workplace.
I want to turn to some of the things being done to support workers. I was pleased to speak with the Minister for Employment Rights and Consumer Protection, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), about the barriers that low-paid workers face in taking unpaid leave. I welcome the fact that the Government yesterday published the terms of reference for their review of carer’s leave. I hope that one of the practical things that comes out of that review is a new statutory right to five days of paid carer’s leave a year to support more people balancing employment and unpaid care to remain in work. In the meantime, I urge the Government to work with employers to maximise take-up of the existing right to unpaid carer’s leave and to continue to promote good practice with regard to supporting carers in employment.
The door must be kept open for the carers who leave work to care full-time to return to work. Caring responsibilities are the second leading cause of economic inactivity among the over-50s. As the Government deliver their reform in the “Get Britain Working” White Paper, they must ensure that tailored employment support for carers is available through jobcentres. Closing the carer’s employment gap will ensure that carers are better off and provide a huge boost to economic productivity.
I hope that I have made it clear that unpaid carers face inequalities in health, wealth and work, sometimes with devastating consequences. Carers need more support. I am proud of what the Government are already doing for carers: the rise in the carer’s allowance earning limit in last year’s Budget, setting up the independent review into carer’s allowance to hopefully right that past wrong, and the Employment Rights Bill, with its increased rights to flexibility and enhanced rights to sick pay. As I have just said, I welcome the announcement of the review of unpaid carer’s leave. I hope that the Minister can tell us more about the activities of the inter-ministerial group on carers, which I believe is now up and running again.
However, there is more to do. As part of the independent commission into social care, led by Louise Casey, I would like to see a more ambitious new deal for carers—one fit for the 21st century that recognises the enormous contribution that millions of people make each day by providing the unpaid care that their family and friends need. I would like to hear how the Minister will ensure that the NHS, local authorities, social care providers, employers and the benefit system will work together to deliver a bolder package of support for unpaid carers.
Let us show the millions of unpaid carers that we care about their health, financial wellbeing and ability to work. We care enough not only to say, “We see you and we thank you”, but to take action and provide meaningful support so that they can care as an act of love and not of necessity and give without suffering consequences themselves. This Carers Rights Day, I urge the Government to commit to tackling the inequalities that affect millions of carers across the UK, without whom many of us would not be able to live a full and happy life or be surrounded by love as we reach the end of our lives.
Several hon. Members rose—
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I suggest a very informal five-minute limit, so that, hopefully, everyone can get in.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing this important debate in honour of carers’ day-to-day rights, and for her work in the all-party parliamentary group on carers. I declare an interest as an honorary vice-president of Carers UK and a trustee of the board of Fife Carers Centre; both are incredible organisations. I also want to recognise other organisations that provide support in this area, include Sheffield University’s Centre for Care, the Carers Trust and Fife Young Carers, which provides support to young carers in my North East Fife constituency and beyond.
Unpaid care is part of almost all our lives, whether we recognise it or not. I am no exception. When I started campaigning for the Liberal Democrats, and then became an MP under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), who is a carer himself and a prominent activist—in fact, I almost once described him as my carer—I became truly involved with the fight for the rights of unpaid carers. As a newish Back-Bench MP, it was an incredible opportunity, and it was also quite fun and exciting to be able to get a law passed: the private Member’s Bill that became the Carer’s Leave Act 2023.
Looking back now, what I remember most is the amazing people I met during that time in North East Fife, and throughout the country—just a handful of the 5.8 million unpaid carers, impressive in their resilience, love and thoughtfulness. I was moved by what was behind that resilience and humour: the tiredness, strain and financial difficulties, as well as the constant worry of thinking about someone else.
I intend to use my time to reflect on the 2023 Act and what more needs to be done. It is disheartening that, in the two and a half years since the Act was passed, evidence suggests that things are still getting worse. Research by Carers UK, “State of Caring 2025”, which the hon. Member for Shipley referred to, shows that 49% of carers have had to cut back on essentials; in 2023, that figure was 34%, already elevated from 25% in 2022, and it was just 13% in 2021. This is not the result of bad luck or the same impact from the cost of living crisis as we all see; the rate of poverty among unpaid carers is 50% higher than in the rest of the population. This is clearly the outcome of structural inequalities that the Government need to address.
There are some other things that the Government can do immediately to ease the financial burden on unpaid carers, particularly those in receipt of carer’s allowance. I pay tribute to the long work of Baroness Pitkeathley on behalf of unpaid carers, both in the other place and beyond. On Tuesday, she asked the Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions in the House of Lords when we can expect the publication of the independent review into carer’s allowance overpayments. I would be most grateful for some further detail on that from the Minister and colleagues in the DWP, other than “by the end of the year”, given that it is only four weeks until the House rises for Christmas recess. When in that period can we expect the report to be published, and will there be time for parliamentary scrutiny of it? The overpayments scandal has affected thousands of people across the UK. The last thing that unpaid carers, and indeed the MPs representing them, want is a written statement hurriedly published in late afternoon on 18 December.
As we are still awaiting publication of the review and the Government’s response to it, I will set out some of the reforms needed to end the financial inequalities experienced by unpaid carers. The carer’s allowance earnings threshold must be pegged to the minimum wage, so that no unpaid carers in work ever find themselves earning “too much”, simply because the Government made it so. The rules on what unpaid carers can earn must be made clearer, and DWP staff must be trained better to prevent future inadvertent overpayments. Of course, the Timms review of personal independence payments must make sure not to disadvantage unpaid carers. I should acknowledge that my constituents in Scotland are now in receipt of the equivalent carer’s support payments.
Referring again to the Carer’s Leave Act, last night I attended the carers’ rights event in Parliament, where I was pleased to speak to a number of businesses that are already going above and beyond the provisions in the Act. They are doing that because they believe it makes good business sense. For them, it is about the psychological contract, improving employees’ loyalty and retaining them—staff retention is as important as recruitment.
I am pleased that the Government have published their terms of reference for the review of the Act. That has, in some respect, answered what was going to be my first question to the Minister. The bad news is that I have some other reflections on the back of yesterday’s announcement. The terms of reference published yesterday give a timeline for evidence gathering that started over a year ago, in autumn 2024. That is quite a lot of time for the Government to have been doing engagement and commissioned research before coming to Parliament or even announcing the review and what it aims to achieve. Will the Minister update us on what evidence and engagement has been secured to date?
There is a formal public consultation of 10 to 12 weeks to seek views. I know that unpaid carers, the networks that represent them and the organisations offering support will want to respond, but most of these structures are manned and run by volunteers or paid staff who are already stretched, and we know that unpaid carers have more than enough to deal with on a day-to-day basis already, and often feel guilty about the admin involved in their lives. Have the Government considered whether the 10-week consultation period will be long enough? What steps will they take to reach people and engage on the ground?
On the findings of the review, I have my suspicions, which I have raised with the Government before, that not enough businesses were made aware of the new right under the Act. I fear not enough businesses trained their managers, HR teams and employees about it, and I fear that the Government gave insufficient information to employers and businesses about their obligations. Without adequate communications, not enough unpaid carers knew to see themselves as carers or that they were entitled to the support. If it is going to be a paid leave right, if that is the direction of travel, we need to get better at those things. I want to say in words the Government will understand that I firmly believe paid carer’s leave supports the growth agenda and will help the economy.
One thing I have loved about joining the board of Fife Carers is seeing the impact on the local organisation and volunteers. The centre was shortlisted as a finalist for providing outstanding carer service at this year’s inaugural Carers UK awards. That is quite something for an organisation that started with just one part-time worker 30 years ago. The nomination recognised the value of the support the organisation provides, whether its hospital carer self-care kits or its carer support groups. I had the pleasure of attending one in Leven recently and people were not backward in coming forward to talk about the changes they want to see.
Whether someone is working and caring or caring full time, they will inevitably be exhausted. The “State of Caring 2025” report says that 74% of carers feel stressed or anxious, and 42% say their physical health has declined. We all need a break sometimes; carers need and deserve it more than most, but how are they to manage that when they have someone relying on them day in, day out? The answer is funded respite care. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), my party’s spokesperson for care and carers, will mention that, given that she has a Bill before Parliament to ensure that unpaid carers are offered respite. I support that wholeheartedly. I hope the Minister can give us an update on that, too.
I am conscious of time, so I will end my remarks there. Inequalities exist and we have a responsibility here in this place to address them.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing the debate and support the asks that she has made of the Minister. It was a pleasure to join her, carers, Ministers and colleagues last night at the “State of Caring” report launch and it is a pleasure to support Carers Rights Day today.
No one expects to become a carer. It is not something we set out in our plans for the future or our lifetime goals. It usually happens because a loved one falls ill, or, as in my family, because a child has a complex disability, identified early on in life. The burden of care usually falls on women. It is absolutely right that we acknowledge that and discuss today the huge inequalities they face.
One of my children has quadriplegic cerebral palsy. My wife and I decided to give up full-time work in 2016, the year my daughter had 110 medical and physiotherapy appointments, to job share the care components at home while we both worked part time. I accept that the majority of the burden has fallen on my wife over the years. Although we have not been in poverty, it did at that point leave a subsequent hole in our finances, with difficult decisions about the things we could no longer do. Those are the decisions that so many carers make, and they have a wider impact on the economy.
My day started, as it does the majority of days, at 6.15 this morning. I was changing a 12-year-old’s nappy before getting her dressed, fed and putting her in a wheelchair ready for the school bus to come and collect her. There is complexity at the other end of the day, too. This afternoon and tomorrow night, my wife and I will be doing rotas, as we normally do, to work out who is doing the care at the other end of the day. Real pressures are caused by the shortage and affordability of paid carers to support the many families across the country that experience what we do daily.
I strongly welcome the announcement yesterday from the Department for Business and Trade on the terms of reference for the review of employment rights for unpaid carers, and the comments made by the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), at last night’s reception. The review will allow engagement from carers, employers and trade unions to understand how the existing unpaid carer’s leave entitlement is working; to examine options for different models of paid carer’s leave; to consider the options and principles for additional interventions; and to identify options with low or no cost to business and the Exchequer, and the appropriate routes for implementation.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability for visiting my constituency back in May, when he met representatives of local charities —Carers Support Bexley, Bexley Mencap, Age UK Bexley, Citizens Advice Bexley, Irish Community Services, Bexley Voice, Bexley Deaf Centre, Inspire Community Trust and Bexley Voluntary Service Council —to discuss the support they give to carers through respite, equipment provision and, notably, access to financial guidance. I have worked with those groups for many years, both as a councillor and a carer, and I thank them for all they do to support my constituents across Barnehurst, Bexleyheath, Crayford, Northumberland Heath and Slade Green. At that roundtable, they set out how they are trying to provide financial support and introduce new innovative ways of working, which I know the Minister will have taken away and be looking at in detail.
I also thank two other local charities, Crossroads Care South East London and Evergreen Care, for their work supporting my constituents, and I pay tribute to carers across my constituency. As a parent collecting my child outside the gates of respite care, I know those parents. I am not just their MP; I have worked with them for many years. They may bring their cases to me, but they are my friends and fellow carers, and I pay tribute to them for all they do in very challenging circumstances.
Lastly, I have a few asks for the Minister. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said about the cycle of issues facing carers. We were lucky because we were working part-time in occupations that paid enough of an hourly rate to keep us going, but carers can face a cycle of poverty. They can also face health conditions as a result of being a carer. I am still lifting a 12-year-old around my house, which is still not fully accessible; she will never walk. We need to face those issues burdening carers, and the support in the 10-year-health plan will help with that.
In Parliament, we are employers too. We have a good ParliCare network for parliamentary staff, but we must always be setting an example. In Parliament, and through the ParliCare network, we as Members and employers must do all we can to demonstrate that we will support carers and that we expect others in the country to do the same.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a joy to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for championing the cause of unpaid carers so well, and congratulate her on how she has spent her time in this House. She is always making a name for herself on subjects important to her, such as carers—an issue that we all deal with every day. I also thank the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for telling us his personal story. Nothing illustrates a debate as well as a personal story, and the hon. Gentleman kindly and compassionately set the scene of what he and his wife do for their child.
This issue affects everybody in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We are all aware that, without unpaid carers, our health and care system would collapse. If we had to pay for taxi services, all- night care and daytime care for those in need, we could never afford it.
The financial contribution made by unpaid carers in Northern Ireland is estimated to be some £5.8 billion annually, which is equivalent to 80% of the Department of Health’s budget. That is an increase of 42% over the last decade. Despite that massive economic value, many carers face significant financial hardship, with one in four living in poverty, rising to more than half for those not in paid employment. They are giving their lives to look after others, and they are living in poverty. Come on—that cannot be right. Juggling income and responsibility for care, their poverty is driven by the extra cost of caring and insufficient social security payments such as carer’s allowance.
Carer’s allowance is worth only £2 per hour—there is no way that could ever be a minimum wage—based on providing a minimum of 35 hours of care.
Young Lives vs Cancer has highlighted the fact that every year in the UK more than 4,200 children and young people aged under 25 are diagnosed with cancer—that is 12 per day—and sadly 10 of them die every week, making cancer the biggest killer by disease of children and young people in the UK.
In many cases, the parents or close family members of a child or young person who has been diagnosed with cancer will be their primary care giver throughout their illness and treatment—never mind the trauma that carers feel as they deal with someone who may not come out the other side. That is the reality of life. That is physically and mentally challenging for families, and the impacts of cancer and its treatment, along with the care needs, can last many years, given the nature of the disability.
The financial impacts of having a child with cancer include the loss of earnings. The families of children and young people with cancer face significant financial pressures and inequalities, which can start during the pre-diagnosis period but continue, and are most significant, following diagnosis. Many have to take time off or give up employment because of caring responsibilities. Seven in 10 households reported a loss of income and earnings because of having to take time to care for their child, or gave up work altogether because there was no other option. The average loss is around £6,000 a year, but for three in 10 households it is £10,000 a year. To try to meet caring needs, parents call on every source of leave and time off that they possibly can, frequently combining options until they are exhausted and, ultimately, the only option is unpaid time off or leaving employment.
The Minister is a kind Minister. I do not just say that; I mean it. We are all making a plea today on behalf of the carers. Yvonne in my office deals with benefits five days a week—sometimes five-and-a-half or six days a week—and the carer issue comes up all the time. We understand it well, and when we speak about it, we are speaking from experience.
In most cases, the carers of young cancer patients are eligible for carer’s allowance only once the child receives another form of benefit. For younger cancer patients, a young person receiving a personal independence payment or a child receiving disability living allowance is a gateway to their families receiving carer’s allowance. However, this leaves carers waiting months for support. There is a time period and a qualifying period, and I am asking that we get the money out as quick as possible. We should not drag our heels on this matter. A young person with cancer is eligible for PIP and DLA after being impacted by their condition for three months; this leaves the families of children and young people with cancer having to find and pay out nearly £5,000 extra in costs before their disability benefits are awarded.
Due to the immediate nature of the costs experienced by families, children and young people with cancer and their families should be entitled to access welfare benefits immediately. If we lose the unpaid care system, our NHS will collapse, and if we do not give families more support, they cannot sustain the situation. The choice seems clear: give more support and take away some of their financial problems and worries.
Several hon. Members rose—
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. I have to impose a formal five-minute limit on speeches. We hope to start the winding-up speeches at 2.28 pm, and we want to get everyone in.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing this timely debate, and for all her work to raise awareness of unpaid carers. It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is an unstinting advocate for his constituents.
Last night, I was honoured to sponsor a reception for Carers UK, which is celebrating an incredible 60 years championing unpaid carers. Like so many carers, I did not realise I was a parent carer until someone told me I was and suggested that I get a carer’s assessment. We assume that just because we are looking after a disabled child, caring comes with the package. That assumption can lead us into dark corners. Despite the statutory obligations on local authorities in respect of parent carers, councils are not required to report on how they are meeting such duties, and support for parent carers is not included in the Ofsted inspection framework for children’s services. Many marriages or partnerships break down under the strain of caring for a disabled child or children, and mine, sadly, was one of the statistics.
University of Birmingham research found that more than 40% of parent carers of disabled children have thought about suicide because of their caring role, and one in 12 have a plan for how to take their life. For fathers of a disabled child or children, becoming a parent carer can be incredibly isolating. Men can be less likely to seek help and more likely to suffer in silence. Combined with a higher propensity to smoke, drink, gamble and use drugs, that means that the health of male carers really suffers, and that has a significant impact on families, workplaces and communities.
A contributing factor to the inequality faced by unpaid carers is that 63% who are struggling financially have not accessed any financial guidance or resources in the past year. Improving access to financial guidance and simplifying benefit information on carers’ entitlements would really help.
The inspirational founder of Dads Behaving Madly, Graham Porter, told me that he started the support group in Scarborough as a safe space for dads with disabled kids, as there was a massive gap in support for men like him. What started with just Graham and a mate has grown to 70 members across the Yorkshire coast. The dads meet to have curries or breakfast; to go surfing or cold-water swimming; to do a bit of yoga; to watch Scarborough Athletic play; and to connect, support, laugh, cry and, with all that cold water swimming, shiver together. Graham says that when they are supporting dads and male carers, including non-binary dads, they are not just helping one person but strengthening entire families and communities. One member of the group told me:
“It’s not the big sweeping gestures, it’s the small simple things that keep you going and create a real friendship within the group. I think that’s what I’d been missing most as it’s very difficult to talk to other dads about SEN or children with additional needs, when either their children don’t have them or the dads have no interest in it.”
The Labour Government have just unveiled England’s first ever men’s health strategy, which aims to tackle the crisis in men’s mental health. Will the Minister comment on whether the Government have an ambition to develop a new carer’s strategy that improves not only the financial wellbeing and security of unpaid carers but their mental health? Will he join me in thanking Dads Behaving Madly, as well as mums, grandparents, siblings and all the other 5.8 million unpaid carers behaving variously across the UK, for their amazing contribution to our families, communities and country?
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz.
The Office for National Statistics estimates that around 130,000 people in Devon provide unpaid care. That is roughly one in six Devon residents. To understand what that means in real life, I want to share the story of Emma Donovan from Sidmouth. Emma cares for both her parents: her mum who lives with Parkinson’s and dementia, and her father who is a veteran whose injuries have worsened with age. At the same time, she runs a non-profit, she works two part-time jobs, she volunteers as a Rotarian and she still tries to live a life of her own.
Through her start-up, In a Pickle Services, Emma provides hygiene and wellness packs to people experiencing homelessness, but because statutory support has fallen away, her organisation is having to restart an unpaid carers’ support group, inspired by the excellent Honiton Carers Support Group. The new group in Sidmouth will launch in January and will help unpaid carers to manage the day-to-day reality of caring. The average age of Sidmouth residents is 59, which means that it has one of the highest proportions of carers of anywhere in the country. Emma’s experience mirrors that of countless carers across Sidmouth, Seaton, Axminster and Cullompton: constant pressure, limited respite and a system that too often leaves people to cope on their own.
A recent report by Healthwatch in Devon, Plymouth and Torbay found that a third of unpaid carers provide more than 20 hours of care a week. That is sustainable only with proper support. The report highlighted poor communication, long waits for help and carers not being identified early enough. Many carers said that their mental and physical health is deteriorating because caring leaves them no time. Even when people do apply for help, carer’s allowance is paid only to those who prove that they provide at least 35 hours of care a week, and because it is an allowance and not a wage, it does not increase should the carer do more hours in a week than the minimum 35, which leaves some effectively receiving less than £2 an hour.
The Carer’s Leave Act 2023, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), was a major step forward, giving working carers up to five days of unpaid leave per year. But that is still not enough. We Liberal Democrats are calling for paid carer’s leave and guaranteed respite, so that people are not forced to choose between their jobs and those they love. Our wider package of reforms would raise carer’s allowance by £20 a week and widen eligibility, recognising that too many carers miss out.
People like Emma give so much to their families, their communities and to our country. They should not be left to struggle on their own. I thank the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing both this debate and the presence of the Minister. We look forward to hearing from him the latest on the Government’s plans to support carers.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing this important debate and colleagues for sharing their powerful personal insights. I fully acknowledge the work carried out by unpaid carers across my constituency and throughout the country more generally. Their dedication keeps families safe, our social security system afloat and our society humane. Their work—including that of children who are, unfortunately, carers too—deserves not only recognition but support from the Government.
Earlier this year, I met local unpaid carers, as well as the Derbyshire All-Age Carers Support Service and Healthwatch Derbyshire, to listen and learn about the issues that matter to unpaid carers in my Mid Derbyshire constituency. I met a woman who is caring for her mother. She told me there is a gulf between policy and reality when it comes to working carers. Carer’s leave exists, but it is not adequate for people who are already struggling financially, and too many carers do not even know that it is available. Those who do often forgo it because it does not cover their pay or because they are worried about their job security. Instead, they use annual leave or their limited number of sick days. That just is not right. This lady was the primary carer for her mother in a virtual ward during the pandemic, when she repeatedly faced security checks that treated her as an outsider rather than as a partner in care. We need systems that support this vital work rather than obstruct it.
Another woman I spoke to is an NHS worker who has been providing unpaid care for over 20 years. She told me that the NHS, an organisation with care as its very purpose, is itself inconsistent in the support it provides to staff with caring responsibilities outside their main work. I understand that as many as one in three NHS staff may be unpaid carers, yet career progression and role flexibility are not guaranteed for them. Too often they depend on the service in which they happen to work to get the allowances they need to undertake their caring responsibilities. That can be disruptive for managers but is essential for the person they care for.
Finally, I heard from another long-term carer. He has overcome many challenges, including faulty equipment, particularly catheters; an unresponsive district nurse team who did not always recognise his important role; and ambiguity about responsibilities when the dependant and the carer fall into different authority areas. He has not been able to take a holiday in 10 years, although that is a sacrifice about which he felt no regret—I found that particularly inspiring.
I came away from that meeting earlier this year in awe of the contributions that these people make day after day, often with no complaint. But they are in dire need of greater support and recognition.
I welcome the progress the Government made in increasing the carer’s allowance last April but, despite the very difficult circumstances the country finds itself in, I believe we should go further. I am also looking for the Government to lead us in clearer integration with local authorities and the wider care system. Carers would like employers to understand their work more consistently, and we can work on that across Departments. I would also like the Government to ensure more public visibility and recognition of unpaid carers, and a renewed focus on identifying unpaid carers. We need more information about the help available to them.
I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley for being a champion in this place for unpaid carers and her constituents, and for her excellent work in Parliament on this issue. I look forward to reconvening the constituents I met earlier this year, along with Healthwatch Derbyshire and the Derbyshire All-Age Carers Support Service, to report back what the Minister says today about their important work.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I warmly thank the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing this vital debate to mark Carers Rights Day, and indeed everybody else who has spoken from the heart and made such important points. We all recognise that the care system is in crisis, and that unpaid carers play an essential role in supporting people who need care.
I welcome the fact that the Casey Commission, which has been mentioned already, is working—although, I suggest, perhaps not as fast as it needs to be. I am deeply concerned by the Government’s proposal that it should not report for another few years, because resolving the care crisis is a matter of urgency and political will. I am honoured to be the Green party representative on the cross-party talks; I would like those talks to be convened more frequently and to operate much faster, but in the meantime I look forward to welcoming the Casey Commission to my constituency next month as part of its evidence-gathering process.
I am currently engaged in a wide public consultation exercise, running a survey and holding listening exercises in my constituency. My team are visiting various care settings to gather people’s input. I will share the story of one constituent who contacted me a few days ago. She moved to North Herefordshire in 2022 from more than 100 miles away to care for her mother, who was elderly and declining. She left her entire life, moved in with her mum and got a part-time job at a much lower salary than she was used to in order to support her mother, who earlier this year was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and vascular dementia.
My constituent was put in the position of going out to earn £12.21 per hour while paying £20 an hour for somebody to come and look after her mother. She put in an application in early April for carer’s allowance to support the costs of a paid carer, who enables her to keep doing her part-time job, but it was refused. She contacted the DWP in July: the Department said that a mistake might have been made and she was due a mandatory reconsideration. She chased the matter up again but, seven months after her initial request, she has still not had a response. She says that carer’s allowance is too little and takes too long, and that the criteria are far too limited—I could not agree more.
I leave the Minister with my constituent’s words:
“I don’t want to financially benefit from caring for my mum. I just don’t want to be pushed into poverty while I keep her out of hospital and out of a care home.”
She cares for her mum 24/7. When worked out by the number of hours, carer’s allowance is about 55p per hour, because it covers nighttime care as well as daytime care. Surely the least that unpaid carers deserve from us is a benefit system—a carer’s allowance system—that supports, recognises and works with them, enabling them to provide the vital care that keeps those people who need it out of hospital and care homes.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. My contribution will be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) on securing this debate to consider inequalities faced by unpaid carers. It was also my great pleasure to attend the parliamentary reception last night organised by Carers UK on the eve of Carers Rights Day—which is, of course, today. It is the 25th anniversary, and I believe this year’s theme is, “Know your rights, use your rights”.
To mark the occasion, Carers UK prepared a report highlighting the inequalities faced by the UK’s invisible army—the 5.8 million unpaid carers across our nation. I was struck by the figures in that new report revealing that one third do not know where to go for financial guidance and 41% are unsure what benefits they are entitled to as carers.
I am incredibly fortunate to have Carers of West Dunbartonshire in my constituency. It is a wonderful organisation that provides outstanding help, support and guidance to our unpaid carers—from opportunities to rest, talk and recharge their batteries to essential advice on how to break down the barriers to obtaining financial help, housing and the tailored resources they so desperately need.
However, I want specifically to congratulate Carers of West Dunbartonshire on its book launch last month, which I was privileged to attend—all proceeds go to the charity. The book, “Above and Beyond” by author Lynn Jolly, is reasonably priced, at just £10 a copy, and available in all good bookshops this Christmas. It is a collection of real-life short stories from carers who attend the West Dunbartonshire organisation. There is no better way to recognise the daily struggles of our carers, their love for the people they care for and their contribution to our society.
I thank all our West Dunbartonshire carers, as well as all the unpaid carers across our nation.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Hon. Members have been very disciplined. We now go to the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) not only for securing this important debate on Carers Rights Day, but for all her work championing carers since her election to Parliament.
I welcome yesterday’s publication of the terms of reference of the employment rights for unpaid carers review, which suggests that the Government are looking in the right direction. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) noted, the pace is not as fast as it could be—it has already been going a year—and the period of consultation may actually be too short, given the demands that carers and the people who support them face, as everybody in this Chamber understands. I hope this review will usher in paid carer’s leave, as it would make the biggest difference for those on the lowest wages, who cannot currently afford to take unpaid carer’s leave.
This year, the theme of Carers Rights Day is, “Know your rights, use your rights”. It is all about making sure, as hon. Members have noted, that the millions of unpaid carers who support loved ones through illness and disability, know that they have access to support and rights, such as carer’s assessments, carer’s leave and hospital discharge support.
In my Mid Sussex constituency and across the UK, hundreds of thousands of people are waiting for social care. Many are stranded in hospital beds simply because the support they need in the community is not there, which in turn puts immense strain on our already creaking NHS. That is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are campaigning so passionately for a social care system that values care users, supports care workers and, crucially, recognises the millions of unpaid carers who quietly keep this country going.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) set out her frustrations, which we share, with the pace of the Casey review. It is worth noting that only one cross-party meeting has happened since the Secretary of State announced that review in January, and a second meeting has not yet been convened. Can the Minister advise us when we can expect to secure a second meeting?
Wendy Chamberlain
I want to express my thanks to Baroness Casey, who, although she has been appointed to this commission, is doing other work for the Government. I would not want that to go unrecognised when we are talking about the delays.
Alison Bennett
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s excellent point. It is regrettable that there seems to be only one person that the Government like to call on to do very important work across a number of different areas.
Dr Chowns
The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) make very good points. I gently point out to the Government that it is not Baroness Casey’s job to convene cross-party talks. Political leadership is needed, and it should come from the Health Secretary himself. We do not need to wait for Baroness Casey to bring all the parties together—the Government need to do that.
Alison Bennett
I agree with the hon. Lady’s comments.
Unpaid carers, who are the focus of Carers Rights Day, do remarkable, difficult and emotionally demanding work every single day. They do it out of love, without recognition and, too often, without the support or rights that they deserve or should have access to.
As the spokesperson on care and carers for my party, this is something I say a lot, but it bears repeating: unpaid carers are the backbone of Britain’s care system. There are 5.7 million carers across the UK, and together they provide care worth an estimated £162 billion every year—almost the size of the entire NHS budget. For that to be the case, however, they make huge sacrifices. Every single day, 600 people leave their job to care for someone they love. If carers are expected to shoulder that vast responsibility, they must have rights. Those rights must be well known and easy to access, and must make a meaningful difference to carers’ lives. Today is about making sure people know and use their rights.
I am proud that my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife changed the law with her Carer’s Leave Act 2023, which secured the right to unpaid time off work for carers. That legislation was an enormous step forward for the almost 2 million employees who balance work and caring responsibilities. I am also proud that Liberal Democrat campaigning helped to secure an increase in the carer’s allowance earnings limit in last year’s Budget, easing pressure on people who want to remain in work while caring. I recently tabled the Unpaid Carers (Respite and Support) Bill, which would guarantee regular respite breaks for unpaid carers—something that is not readily accessible across the country.
There is much more to do, however, and unpaid carers face inequalities on all fronts. On gender, women become carers earlier and more frequently than men, are more likely to provide care and more likely to work in part-time and lower-paid roles. On employment, carers face barriers to remaining in paid work, with large numbers reducing their hours or leaving their jobs. On health and wellbeing, caring drives significant and preventable health inequalities, with high rates of long-term conditions, worsening physical and mental health, difficulty accessing support, and greater impacts for women and those providing the most hours.
On poverty, there are currently 1.2 million unpaid carers in poverty and 400,000 in deep poverty, who struggle financially due to low carer’s allowance, a reduced ability to work and a complex benefits system. Young carers face substantial disadvantages in terms of education and future opportunities. Those spending more than 35 hours a week caring are far less likely to gain a degree or enter employment. That is why the Liberal Democrats want unpaid carers to have real financial support, including an increase of £20 a week in the carer’s allowance to bring it to £103.30. In next week’s Budget, should the Chancellor be minded to increase the minimum wage, I sincerely hope that carer’s allowance will be pegged to that increase.
We also want a review of the requirement of 35 hours’ care per week, which too often forces carers to make impossible choices. Critically, we want a taper on the earnings limit so that, if a carer’s earnings go above the limit even by a few pence, they do not immediately lose all their carer’s allowance. That is plain common sense. It is precisely because there is no such taper that the carer’s allowance overpayment scandal has been allowed to happen, with horrendous consequences for thousands of carers.
Carers deserve better. They deserve respect, they deserve support and they deserve rights that they can rely on and easily exercise. Carers Rights Day reminds us that rights are powerful only if people know they have them and feel able to use them. Too many carers do not know what they are entitled to; too many assume that support is not for them and too many are simply too overwhelmed to navigate unnecessarily complicated systems. That is why fantastic organisations such as Carers UK and Carers Trust are vital. They look out and speak up for these extraordinary carers to whom we owe so much.
On this Carers Rights Day, I close by echoing the words of the Princess of Wales, who urged us this week to restore
“the dignity to the quiet, often invisible work of caring…as we look to build a happier, healthier society.”
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Vaz. I am pleased to respond to this important debate on behalf of the Opposition, and I thank the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing it and for her long-standing leadership on carers’ rights.
I acknowledge the contributions made by hon. Members across the House this afternoon. They have spoken very openly about their personal experiences, which helps to bring alive this debate and these issues. I am conscious that the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) talked about how much work he has to do before he even gets to work, which reflects what so many people across the country feel. As has just been said, unpaid carers are the backbone of our care system. They provide vital support to loved ones, often around the clock and with little recognition, and at great personal cost. This debate is therefore not just timely, but probably overdue.
Before entering Parliament, I spent over 15 years working mainly in palliative care, and much of that in children’s hospices—lastly at Martin House children’s hospice up in Yorkshire. I saw the extraordinary compassion, amazing resilience and sacrifice from unpaid carers every single day, whether from parents caring for their terminally ill children, many of whom had very complex needs, or relatives supporting someone at the end of their life—people managing both care and grief at the same time. I will always remember one parent saying they would consider it a good night’s sleep if they got up only eight times in the night to help their daughter, which gives an indication of how much work they do. As the hon. Member for Shipley said, so many carers end up giving up work because they have to provide that care. Sadly, so many relationships break down because of the pressures.
I now find myself having to care for my elderly father. I had to move him into my home, and I am now seeing at first hand the things people have to do. When I am here, I always worry, “Is he okay? Is there enough food and milk in the fridge?” I also watch every single move he makes. I once turned my back, for literally a minute, and he fell flat on his face. I realise that it was not my fault, but I cannot help but have those feelings of guilt.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for her amazing work on the Carer’s Leave Act. That really is important, and the cross-party support for it showed Parliament at its best. It is great that carer’s leave is now a day one right and that it can be taken flexibly, because that is what unpaid carers need. They need to be able to take that half-day, or full day, if they need it because, as we have heard, one in seven are juggling work and caring responsibilities. I thank the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who I know would like to have been here today—she gave quite a bit of support during the Act’s passage—for encouraging the previous Government.
Wendy Chamberlain
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. Passing a private Member’s Bill is obviously more straightforward with Government support, which I had, so I am grateful to him and his colleagues.
Stuart Andrew
It just shows how, when Parliament works well, it works exceptionally well.
I want to repeat some of the comments that have been made. The Government have launched a review of the potential benefits of paid carer’s leave, with the conclusions coming at the end of the year, I believe. As others have said, that is welcome, but I am sure that carers would hope that there will be clarity and no delays.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to some of the issues that have been raised in this debate, and to hearing whether the Government are genuinely open to acting on the review’s findings. A fair point has been made about the length of time that people have to contribute to that consultation, given the responsibilities that they have. We must ensure that the consultation is accessible. I was a critic of this when we were in government, but doing just online consultations means that those who are not digitally savvy can be excluded. It is important we make sure that is not happening.
As other hon. Members have said, the financial pressures on carers remain severe, with one in four unpaid carers living in poverty. The employment rate among carers is just 50%, compared with 75% across the general population, but with the right support an estimated half a million carers could return to work. That would not only strengthen their security but contribute to the economy, which is what we all want to see.
In fairness, it is not just the Government who have to act; there is a responsibility on employers, too. I saw in the hospices that some businesses took on our young adults despite their life-limiting conditions. The employers told us that what they got from those individuals was utterly amazing, and that they were really dedicated to their work.
The recent increase to the carer’s allowance earnings limit is a step in the right direction, for which I thank the Government. However, the Carers Trust has rightly called for a full review of carer’s allowance and the wider support system. I am keen to hear whether that is something the Government are considering.
I am also concerned that the level of respite support has been falling, and has dropped by 6% in local authorities in the last year alone. I am concerned about, and pay tribute to, the charities that offer so much respite support. I know, from my consultations with charities, that the rise in national insurance contributions has had an impact, and that they have had to reduce and scale back their staffing. That is a concern, and I hope we recognise the size of their contribution.
At the hospices at which I worked, it was not just about end-of-life care. Some of the most important care they provided was respite stays. Either the child came on their own so that the family might go on holiday, or the whole family came together, which gave them the opportunity to be a family again. The child who needed care was being looked after by the care team, which meant the parents could be parents again to the siblings, who often miss out in such situations.
Jonathan Davies
The shadow Minister is making a very powerful speech. He raises the issue of national insurance, and I know that change was very difficult in the last Budget, but it was to get over £20 billion into the NHS, which I hope will improve respite care. We saw huge cuts to local authorities under the last Government, and we are paying for that in different ways, including in Derbyshire. I hope we will be able to move beyond the national insurance thing and get better public services. Hopefully, we will even be able to reduce national insurance in the future, but it is right to contextualise that in the circumstances in which we find ourselves.
Stuart Andrew
This has been a really good debate so far, and I do not want to get into party politics, but the rise in national insurance contributions is having an impact on charities—it really is. The cost is about £1.4 billion. Charities have been a cornerstone of respite provision, and without them we would not have as many respite places as we need.
The other point I want to make is about the social care review. I went to those cross-party talks, and I was encouraged by the first meeting—it felt like all of us, representing our political parties, wanted the talks to succeed—but it is disappointing that we have not had another meeting since. I am concerned. Baroness Casey is an exceptional person. She has a huge amount to contribute, and she certainly left me with the impression that she is absolutely determined to find solutions to some of the issues in social care, but I am anxious that she has responsibilities for other issues, all of great enormity.
I hope the Minister can update us on when we might have another meeting. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) said, we do not have to be invited by Baroness Casey; we can be invited by the Secretary of State. I know that Baroness Casey is doing an enormous amount of work on this issue, but it is important that, politically, we try to find where we can agree. If we can introduce things earlier, that would be to the benefit of everybody in the country who needs care.
I say that because I want to be constructive in opposition. I recognise that some of these things are not easy to deliver. They are difficult issues, but they demand more than our sympathy—they demand action. I do not claim that we got everything right in government, but I am clear that carers need to know that we are all listening and are keen to respond and deliver when we can. Unpaid carers do not seek praise; they just want systems that they can rely on, policies that reflect their worth and services that offer real support.
Finally, this is not about just one Department—it is not just the Department of Health and Social Care. There are many other Departments. Having been a Minister, I know the structure of Government means that working cross-departmentally can sometimes be a challenge. Can the Minister update us on how that is going? I know it is a challenge, and I wish him well in any cross-departmental work that is happening.
Unpaid carers deserve fairness, support and action. I finish by saying to every single one of them: thank you for the amazing contribution you make every day, looking after others and being the backbone I mentioned at the beginning.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing this vital debate. I pay tribute to her for her career-long dedication to adult social care and so many of the issues we are debating today. I also pay tribute to all the powerful and moving contributions we have heard today, many about personal experience, engagement with constituents and the stories we hear every day about the pivotal role that unpaid carers play in our care system, which are truly inspiring and uplifting.
Every day, unpaid carers step up to sustain the health and wellbeing of millions of people across our country. Every day, they step up quietly and without expectation to support loved ones, neighbours and friends. I offer my heartfelt thanks, particularly on Carers Rights Day: thank you for the compassion, the commitment and the resilience you show.
As Minister for Care, it has been my priority to listen directly to unpaid carers through discussions with carers of all ages, including during Carers Week. I have heard at first hand the realities of balancing care, work, education and personal wellbeing. Those conversations have been moving, honest and often humbling. They have reinforced just how essential it is that we continue to recognise and support the people who provide so much care to so many, and who hold so much of our health and care system together.
As I said at the Carers UK “State of Caring” conference earlier this year, we have made genuine progress over the last three decades. The profile of the role of unpaid carers has undoubtedly grown, and awareness of their contribution is undoubtedly greater. Despite that, true equality of opportunity remains out of reach for far too many. My ambition is clear: that carers who want to work can do so without being penalised; that young carers can learn, develop and dream, just like their peers; and that caring must not lead to long-term damage to a person’s health, wealth or wellbeing.
The data shows the scale of the challenge: unpaid carers are 16% more likely to have multiple long-term health conditions, and providing just 10 hours of care a week can significantly reduce someone’s likelihood of being employed and increase their risk of loneliness. These pressures compound existing inequalities linked to gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic background or age. We must continue to shine a light on these disparities, listen to carers’ voices and design support that genuinely helps them to thrive.
The Government remain committed to ensuring that unpaid carers receive the right support at the right time in the right way. Under our 10-year health plan, unpaid carers will be recognised as partners in preparing personalised care and support plans. Their practical knowledge and experience will help to shape more responsive and realistic plans for the people they support.
Early identification remains key. Too many carers still go unnoticed and unsupported. We will increase the information captured across the health and care system, enabling earlier intervention and more tailored help. We will also introduce a dedicated “My Carer” section in the NHS app, which will allow carers to book appointments, access information and communicate more effectively with clinical teams. That will not only support carers but streamline interactions across the system.
Our shift towards a neighbourhood health service will increase the integration of health and care services, and it will bring multidisciplinary teams—GPs, nurses, social care professionals, pharmacists and others—closer to people’s homes. Working alongside unpaid carers, these teams will be better placed to deliver joined-up, community-centred support, focused on the health and care that people really need.
We know that caring can have a profound impact on mental health. That is why we are expanding access to talking therapies and digital tools, and piloting neighbourhood mental health centres, offering round-the-clock support for people with more severe needs.
Richard Foord
Can I ask the Minister what definition of neighbourhood he is using, and does it recognise communities such as market towns?
Stephen Kinnock
As a ballpark figure, we are looking at 50,000 residents, but we will be open to developing multi-neighbourhood infrastructure that would cover closer to something like 250,000 residents. It will depend, to some extent, on how it works in the 43 pilot sites in our neighbourhood health implementation plan. We do not want to have too many top-down diktats like the disastrous 2012 Lansley reforms; this is much more about a bottom-up, organic approach to developing a neighbourhood health service. Approximately 50,000 residents will be the starting point.
Jim Shannon
What the Minister is referring to is very positive; as always, I have a quick ask. The policy he is outlining seems very plausible and workable, so can I ask him to share those thoughts with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Health Minister, Mike Nesbitt? I think that the two Ministers are in regular contact, so it could be done through that.
Stephen Kinnock
I will be very happy to do that. We have launched the 43 sites, so I would be happy to share the documentation on how we launched them and the terms of reference. [Interruption.] I can see the representative from my private office is taking notes.
Daniel Francis
I do not expect an answer now, but can I also ask the Minister to take away a point about the complexity of some of these disabilities? Sometimes people are under several different consultants in several different hospitals, perhaps for a neurological condition, for their sight, for epilepsy and so on. I am thinking about both the complexity of the different apps, and different parts of apps, used by different NHS trusts and hospitals, and the complexity of the distances travelled —it is the carer who manages all those aspects. How can we take that away and support the carer in managing the care of the person for whom they are caring?
Stephen Kinnock
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s points; I think that neighbourhood health, as a strategy, addresses his points about both the proximity and complexity. By definition, through shifting from hospital to community, we are addressing the proximity point. The fact that neighbourhood health will be based on multidisciplinary teams creates the idea of a one-stop shop for the patient, where their complex needs are addressed in one place.
To ensure that local areas can meet their duties under the Care Act, the 2025 spending review allows for an increase of more than £4 billion in additional funding for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26, to support the sector in making improvements. The Health and Care Act 2022 strengthened expectations around identifying and involving carers and ensuring that services are shaped by carer feedback.
NHS England is helping local systems to adopt best practice through co-produced tools, case studies and events such as Carers Week and the Commitment to Carers conference. Initiatives such as GP quality markers for carers, carer passports and digital proxy access are already making a real difference and increasing the number of carers who are identified in the NHS.
Balancing paid work and caring responsibilities remains a significant challenge, and too many carers risk financial hardship as a result. That should never be the case. Supporting carers to remain in or return to work is central to our plan for a modern, inclusive labour market. Employers benefit enormously from the skills, dedication and experience that carers bring. That is why in April we increased the carer’s allowance earnings limit to £196 a week—the largest rise since its inception in the 1970s—meaning that carers can now earn up to £10,000 a year without losing the allowance.
The Carer’s Leave Act, which came into force in April 2024, gives employees one week of unpaid leave each year to help to manage planned caring commitments. We are now reviewing how the Act is working in practice, listening to carers and to employers of all sizes. That includes exploring the potential benefits and implications of introducing paid carer’s leave. To ensure transparency, and as hon. Members have noted, the Department for Business and Trade yesterday published the terms of reference for that review and we will hold a public consultation in 2026 on employment rights for people balancing work and care.
Young carers make an extraordinary contribution, often taking on responsibilities far beyond their years. Our ambition is that every young carer should receive the support that they need to succeed at school and beyond. This autumn, we published key stages 2 and 4 attainment data for young carers for the first time—an important step in understanding and addressing the educational disadvantage that they face. Reforms across education and children’s social care will strengthen identification and support. Ofsted’s new inspection framework, introduced on 10 November, explicitly references young carers in the expected standards for inclusion, safeguarding and personal development.
Local authorities must identify young carers who may need support and assess their needs when requested. We strongly support the “No Wrong Doors for Young Carers” memorandum of understanding that promotes collaboration across children’s and adults’ services, health partners and schools. I encourage all local authorities to adopt it.
NHS England is supporting the identification of young carers through GP guidance and improved data sharing. It is also leading a cross-Government project, co-produced with young carers and voluntary, community and social enterprise partners, to support identification, strengthen support pathways and join up services across education, health and local organisations. Engagement workshops have already helped to shape the next young carers summit, in early 2026.
Our 10-year plan sets out strong foundations for change, and we are now fully focused on delivery. Baroness Casey’s independent commission will shape the cross-party and national consensus around longer-term reforms, including proposals for a national care service. As noted by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), however, supporting unpaid carers requires commitment across Government. That is why I chair a ministerial working group, working closely with my counterparts at the DWP, the DBT and the Department for Education, to ensure that our policies reflect the realities of caring.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and others asked about the Government’s response to the Sayce review. I can confirm that we will publish that response this year and I am receiving regular updates from DWP colleagues on that matter. Additionally, our research arm, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, is evaluating local carer support programmes to identify what works and where improvements are needed.
As we look to the future, prevention must sit at the heart of our approach. Too many carers reach crisis point before they receive help. That not only places huge strain on families, but leads to avoidable pressure on hospitals, primary care and social services. By intervening earlier—through better identification in primary care, strengthened community networks and improved signposting —we can ensure that carers receive the right support before challenges escalate.
Anna Dixon
I thank the Minister for his response. Given what we know about carer burnout and the need for short breaks, and given the data that suggests local authority funding cuts have resulted in less support being available, will there be work between the NHS—with its increased budget—and local authorities to look at how we can get back to having more breaks for carers?
Stephen Kinnock
There is a consistent message that comes through in my conversations with carers about the importance of respite and regular breaks. We know that they are not a luxury. When carers reach exhaustion, the wellbeing of the carer and the person they support is compromised. We are working with local authorities and integrated care boards to ensure that they meet their statutory duty for carers’ breaks and that provision is transparent, fair and personalised. I absolutely take my hon. Friend’s point: that duty is clear, written down and statutory; the question is about making it happen in practice. We must monitor that closely.
Addressing the inequalities faced by unpaid carers requires a cultural shift as much as a policy one. We must build a society that values care, where caring is recognised as a shared responsibility rather than a private burden, and where employers, communities and public services all play their part. Changing culture takes time, but we have already seen encouraging progress. Businesses are increasingly recognising the value of carer-friendly workplaces. Schools are becoming more aware of the pressures faced by young carers. Health professionals are finding new ways to involve carers as genuine partners. These changes—these shifts—matter, as they represent the foundations of a more compassionate and inclusive society.
As we continue this vital work, I remain committed to ensuring that the voices of carers young and old inform every stage of policy development. It is only by listening attentively, engaging meaningfully and responding boldly that we can continue to deliver the change that carers rightly expect. I hope that today’s debate has given everyone a sense of what the Government are working on and, once again, I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have spoken.
Anna Dixon
I thank all Members who have spoken in the debate, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for sharing their moving personal stories and for all they do as parent carers. I also thank the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), who is caring for his father. It is important that we, as Members, speak up about our caring.
I thank the Minister for his response. I and other Members will continue to push him to ensure that the Government deliver for carers. I thank all carers in my constituency of Shipley for all the love and care that they give 24/7 all year round, and the 5.7 million people in the so-called invisible army that has been talked about today. Let us make sure that they do not stay invisible.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered inequalities faced by unpaid carers.
World COPD Day
(1 day, 3 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 World COPD Day.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this debate. I am always pleased to see the Minister in her place—she knows that—and we look forward to her answers to our requests on behalf of our constituents. I am also pleased to have other colleagues here, including the shadow Ministers for the Conservatives and for the Lib Dems, the hon. Members for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), and also my good friend, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton).
I am glad to be able to raise the issue of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Yesterday was World COPD Day, so I pay tribute to the wonderful work carried out by so many organisations and individuals to draw attention to the illness. We had an event here last night, which was well attended. The people in the Gallery are those who do the hard work for the all-party parliamentary group for respiratory health, which I chair. We had a great event last night with many excellent speakers.
I want to reflect on the organisations and individuals that attended last night to draw attention to the illness. Hugh McKinney is going to look at me and say, “You mentioned that lady again”, because last night one of our special guests was Shirley Ballas of “Strictly Come Dancing”. I could not dance if my life depended on it—I have two left feet—but that lady can. Last night she was not there because she is a judge on “Strictly Come Dancing”. She was there to tell the story of how she cares for and looks after her mum, who has COPD. There are two sides to the lady—the side we see on TV and the caring side. The previous debate was about unpaid carers across the United Kingdom, in all constituencies, and the work that they do. It was a pleasure to take part in that debate and to see so many there.
As chair of the APPG for respiratory health, I will cover a number of issues today around COPD. I will frame my comments around the latest initiatives and also the current policy direction. Hopefully we can try to marry those two together so that we can have a focus and a target to do better. To make that happen, of course, we need Government and ministerial support.
As always, I am indebted to Sarah Sleet and her wonderful team at Asthma and Lung UK for their outstanding help and ongoing support. Without their enormous help to me and the APPG that I chair, we just could not manage as well as we do. I also want to say a special thanks to Jonathan Fuld, the national clinical director for respiratory disease, for his expert advice and counsel. I pay tribute to the ongoing work of our expert stakeholder groups, which comprise senior clinicians, industry, professional bodies and other experts. We have Zoom meetings because that is the best way for us to come together from all over the United Kingdom and it means people do not have to travel. When we have our Zoom meetings we have fantastic contributions from all over the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and sometimes further afield.
I want to begin with a general point on the modern service frameworks. There is much to be thankful for in what the Government are doing and we want to focus on that as well, but there are also things that we want to ask for. Although the APPG warmly welcomed the initiative of the modern service frameworks, the Minister will not be surprised that we were disappointed that respiratory health was not included in the first wave. Respiratory health is an ideal candidate, I believe, as do others inside and outside the Chamber, for the next wave. What can the Minister do to include respiratory health in the next wave of the Government’s 10-year plan for health, which we very much welcome and are encouraged by?
The outcomes of COPD are widespread and have a huge impact on the NHS. I will give some statistics to show that. Sometimes, people hear statistics and are sceptical. I always think about “lies, damned lies, and statistics”, but the stats are important because they set the scene. Many times when we are looking at the objectives and targets for the NHS, we need the statistics before us, because they indicate the policies that hopefully the Government will follow.
Lung conditions, including COPD, are the largest cause of emergency hospital admissions, especially in winter, when respiratory admissions can increase by some 80%. These figures are worrying; we are in that season now, and we could see that figure. The rate of emergency admissions to hospital for COPD in England increased by 9% in 2024 compared with 2023; unfortunately, they are increasing consistently. That represents some 121,129 A&E admissions—significantly higher than in the previous year. Worryingly, the trends are upwards. I hope that the Minister, when she responds to the debate, can give us some ideas about how the Government can reverse those trends and reduce that figure.
COPD is the second most common cause of emergency admission in the United Kingdom, and 1.7 million people in the UK have been diagnosed with it. In my office, when we meet constituents, we help them with their benefits forms and try to put them on the pathway to get some help to deal with their health conditions. I have known many people over the years who, unfortunately, are no longer here today because COPD has taken their life. Others are on oxygen, just trying to survive every day. Again, that is quite worrying.
It has been estimated that there could be around 600,000 more people in the UK who are living with undiagnosed and untreated COPD. What can we do to identify those people and ensure that they understand what is happening to them, so they can get some help with the life that they will now lead? Lost productivity due to COPD is estimated to cost around £1.7 billion per year. There is a cost to every disease, but there is a real cost to this disease, and if we can diagnose and catch it earlier, perhaps we can reduce that sum.
My last point is about something quite worrying. Each year, around 30,000 people in the UK die from COPD. That is the reality experienced by some of my constituents I have met over the years, but who are no longer with us. The disease progresses so fast that people’s life expectancy is reduced. Deaths caused by respiratory diseases are more strongly linked to deprivation than deaths caused by any other major disease. People living in the poorest areas of the United Kingdom are five times more likely to die from COPD than those living in the richest areas. That is a real disparity, whereby people in deprived areas are more susceptible to COPD and their life expectancy is also reduced. I have another ask of the Minister: how can the Government address deprivation and its impact on particular areas, specifically when it comes to COPD?
Research from Asthma and Lung UK shows that someone from the poorest 10% of households is over two and a half times more likely to have COPD than someone from the most affluent 10% of households. That is a real disparity. If someone lives in an affluent area, they have 10% less chance of getting COPD than someone living in a deprived area.
We hope that the transition from hospital to community under the 10-year plan for the NHS will transform COPD outcomes in the most deprived areas. A survey by Asthma and Lung UK found that almost a quarter of people with COPD wait five years or more for a diagnosis, with one in eight of people with COPD waiting for over 10 years. Again, I have another ask of the Minister. How can we shorten the wait for a diagnosis of COPD? If we catch it earlier, we can reduce the impact on life expectancy and help with life conditions and how to reach a better level of care.
The same survey showed that only 9% of people with COPD in the UK were receiving good basic care. That is worrying. Again, as chair of the respiratory health APPG, it is one of the things that we hope to address. While the statistics are stark, the APPG also acknowledges and welcomes a huge amount of work undertaken by NHS England ahead of the winter months to relieve the pressure on the NHS. We are all here to make lives better, and not to make them worse, but sometimes we need to have a better idea of what needs to be done. The NHS can do much, but it cannot perform miracles. It can only do the best it can, so how do we help it to do so, given all the pressures it is under?
We commend the urgent and emergency care delivery plan, and Exercise Aegis, which will devolve accountability for winter readiness to the integrated care boards—probably a good idea. Under Aegis, NHS England will stress test winter preparedness by running seven regionally-led exercises. I ask the Minister for some detail on that, on what it means and how it will work—no doubt we are to hear that shortly. The initiative is welcome and a well thought-out plan, I believe—I am sure others will comment —that promises to deliver the regional outcomes that will make a huge difference. Only in the past few days have we realised that winter is coming—anyone who has not felt the cold must be wearing a strong and heavy coat—so will the Minister update us on the outcomes of the regional exercises and how they feed into the winter preparedness strategy?
We are busy in the APPG—Hugh and the team clearly do that for us—and recently we held a roundtable on the winter pressures in partnership with the Centre for Applied Respiratory Research Innovation and Impact—CARRii, to abbreviate all those words—which gave an outstanding presentation. Early next year, we will produce a short report, taking the outcomes of that meeting and the data from this year into account. We are happy to share it with the Minister, because I think it will be helpful when drawing up a better way to do things.
Key themes of the roundtable included an increase in vaccination rates—more focus on that has been because of, unfortunately, a slight reluctance to take up vaccination —and how we encourage that. At the Tuesday morning roundtable, with Lord Bethell from the other place, we had an opportunity to discuss how best to do that with those in the NHS, and with other companies and people who have a deep interest in the subject matter. Some of the ideas will be helpful for the future.
We need better infection control. COPD exacerbations are mainly driven by infections. How can we address and target that in the system? We must implement fully the five fundamentals of COPD care by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which outline what effective management of care looks like, such as vaccination, smoking cessation and pulmonary rehabilitation. Recent analysis has found that expanding access to PR services to all eligible patients could result in £142.6 million of direct NHS savings related to reduced exacerbations, as well as a reduction of 194,000 bed days, 66,000 of which would be saved over the winter period.
Those figures cannot be ignored—at the end of the day, the NHS has to work within the figures, the money, it has available. When we look at the savings and the reduction in bed days, in particular over the winter period, we must try to do better. The final fundamentals are personalising self-management planning and optimising treatment for co-morbidities. Will the Minister please assure us that the NICE fundamentals of COPD care are being implemented consistently across the country? The Minister will know, because she is very knowledgeable and responsive to these issues, that the APPG strongly supports the 10-year plan and the three shifts, which are ideally placed to transform respiratory care and outcomes. Community delivery, especially, promises a great deal for improved respiratory outcomes by placing facilities closer to home. That is a better way to do it.
We welcome the work already under way to place respiratory services in community settings and the introduction of spirometry in all CDCs and community health services. This a really positive way forward. There is, however, evidence to suggest that not all patients receive spirometry tests. If we are going to introduce spirometry, we need to ensure that all patients can receive those tests. Will the Minister make sure that these tests be undertaken on all eligible patients?
Will the Minister also please look at the waiting lists for diagnostic testing and see whether they can be prioritised to test those at the highest risk first? That is a lot of asks—I have given the Minister and the shadow Minister a copy of my speech, so hopefully the Minister had all my questions in advance. I hate to throw around 20-odd questions at her in the space of an hour and a half and expect answers right away, but hopefully we can get those answers—I know that the civil servants who are here will work very hard to ensure that happens. Although it might be too late for this winter, perhaps that provision could be in place for people for next year.
We are also looking forward to the upcoming NICE guidance on the biologic therapies for COPD, which will be a complicated process. We will keep an eye on the implementation of these drugs when they are approved. The advancements in medicine cannot be ignored; it is really good to have them, and it is encouraging that we are living that bit longer now. We can now extend and improve the lives of people with diseases that would previously have killed them fairly young.
Finally, we have been looking at the incidental findings from lung cancer health checks. According to recent data, around 100,000 people who have been assessed under the targeted lung health check programme have been diagnosed with emphysema or symptoms of no recognised disease to date. What can be done to help those 100,000 and perhaps others facing those circumstances who have not yet been diagnosed?
Lastly, there is no onward referral from the lung health checks, and I think there should be. It would be helpful to have an assurance about how that could be achieved. I know that this is a complex area—it always is—and that lung cancer health checks are carefully targeted, particularly for those in our most deprived communities, who are least likely to be well served, but this provision would seem to fit perfectly in a modern service framework for respiratory health. So, I end where I began: I hope that this will happen sooner rather than later. I have made a lot of requests, but we are fortunate to have a Minister who responds in a way that gives us all encouragement. We have a real problem with COPD, and this debate gives us the chance to highlight the issue for patients. The winter pressures are on. I am pleased to see my friend, the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist). She is the co-chair of the APPG, and she will hopefully speak next. I look forward to hearing all the contributions, including from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, and, ultimately, the Minister.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate with you as Chair, Mr Efford. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate. He and I have worked together on the respiratory health APPG for some years now, and I know how committed he is to tackling this issue.
Like in many other places across the north-east, a great number of people—more than 2,500 people, in fact—are living in my constituency with the debilitating symptoms of COPD. In some parts of my constituency, the rate is almost twice the national average, and those are just the people we know about. Almost a quarter of those with COPD wait five years or longer for a diagnosis, and there are many more living with COPD who are undiagnosed and therefore untreated.
From the discussions I have with constituents who come to my local surgeries or contact my office, it is clear just how closely this condition tracks health inequalities. Nine in 10 cases are thought to be caused by smoking, which we know is associated with socioeconomic deprivation. Meanwhile, persistent exposure to damp and mould in poor-quality housing further contributes to and exacerbates lung problems. I have received messages from constituents receiving hospital care who are frightened to return to homes that they strongly feel are not safe places for them to be in. I have heard from others who struggle to walk long distances, for whom the reliability of public transport is a serious issue. This condition cuts across many areas of daily life.
The town of Consett in my constituency is well known locally for its freezing climate. We have had lots of snow in Consett this week, while I have been down here in Parliament. Although it is great to see people enjoying the snow, I know that such weather conditions make living with a lung condition even more challenging, leading to heightened admissions to hospital, as we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford. This debate is therefore timely and is a good opportunity to remind ourselves of the importance of improving access to diagnosis, treatment and care for people living with COPD.
The Government’s 10-year health plan has established the importance of prevention and care within the community. I am pleased with the progress we have made to tackle smoking prevalence through the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, and the progress made through Awaab’s law, which requires that problems of mould and damp are responded to quicker in the social housing sector. Locally in the north-east, our ICB performs well nationally for ensuring timely referrals to pulmonary rehabilitation services.
However, much more needs to be done nationally to ensure access to rehabilitation services. I know there is much more to do to ensure that all eligible patients have access to that treatment as well as biologic drugs. Both those interventions can make a huge difference to quality of life and reduce hospital admissions. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on the potential merits of a dedicated framework to bring those efforts together with work to expand early diagnosis, and on what more we can do to ensure that we catch and treat conditions early.
I thank Asthma + Lung UK and the APPG for respiratory health for their work in ensuring that COPD remains firmly on the agenda here in Parliament. My thanks go to constituents who have shared with their experiences with me, not just lately but over a number of years. I know just how devastating this condition can be, and I hope that we continue to work together to address the impact it has on our communities and people.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my dear friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), on securing this debate and on his long advocacy for both COPD and other respiratory conditions, which I know he does with his chairman for the APPG for respiratory health hat on. We thank him for all his work, and the vice-chair of that APPG, the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), who spoke just before me.
As the hon. Members for Strangford and for Blaydon and Consett have both already said, COPD is the most challenging condition to live with. Many people go undiagnosed for far too long, believing their wheeze, cough and breathlessness is simply result of seasonal winter flu. But it does not go away; there is no cure, and when someone with COPD does catch something as common as the winter flu, it can rapidly escalate into other conditions, such as pneumonia. That is why treatment, early diagnosis and proper management are vital. However, a recent King’s College London report, carefully titled “A matter of life and breath”, revealed that COPD sufferers often feel like they live as second-class citizens in the UK—their voices go unheard. I know that the hon. Member for Strangford was involved in the launch of that report in Parliament back in May.
Respiratory illnesses are now one of the leading causes of hospital admissions in the UK, yet our healthcare system is still not optimised to support people with long-term conditions effectively. According to Asthma + Lung UK, there were 2,268,865 emergency hospital admissions for respiratory conditions in England between April 2024 and March 2025, a 23% increase compared with the year before. Worse still, in just the month of December 2024, more than 220,000 were admitted to hospital with breathing emergencies. That is not just a one-off; between April 2024 and March 2025, there were over 405,000 so-called bounce-back admissions, where people are discharged from hospital only to return to A&E within a month.
I have heard from numerous constituents of mine in Surrey Heath—not only those with COPD, but many others with chronic conditions—who frequently travel across the country for work or education. However, when they move, their medical records do not. Let us take the example of university students, who are not necessarily a high-risk population for COPD. They move between home and campus, yet they can be registered with only one GP surgery at a time. The result is delayed treatment, repeat diagnostics and even difficulty accessing the medication that they rely upon. The burden often falls hardest on those with complex conditions such as COPD, where timely diagnosis and regular specialist input can be life-saving.
I have a few key questions for the Government. First, do they agree that people with conditions such as COPD should not face the anxiety of being unable to access the right NHS specialist care, simply because they happen to live in the wrong part of the UK? Secondly, will they commit to stronger data sharing and a truly integrated, nationwide healthcare system, so that records follow the patient, not the other way around? Finally, what steps is the Minister taking to winter-proof the likes of Frimley Park hospital in my constituency, so that it can cope with additional demand and also provide support to those with diseases such as COPD that worsen in the colder months? People with COPD and other chronic illnesses deserve continuity of care, wherever they are living. Our NHS must be connected enough to deliver exactly that.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is a friend of all of us in this House, on securing this debate and raising awareness of World Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Day, which took place yesterday. I thank him for his tireless campaigning for this cause, and for his excellent opening speech, which outlined the issues faced by COPD sufferers.
As we have heard, COPD is the name given to a group of health conditions that affect the lungs and cause breathing difficulties, such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Patients with COPD may face symptoms such as shortness of breath, a chesty cough, frequent chest infections and wheezing, which get progressively worse over time and may be exacerbated during the winter months. As someone who has had asthma from childhood, I know at first hand the fear, frustration and disruption to daily life that gasping for breath can cause. It is critical that there is a plan in place to manage respiratory disease, given that we may be facing a devasting winter crisis in the NHS once more.
The most recent data published by the NHS shows that there were over 1.17 million patients recorded by GPs as having COPD in England in 2023-24. The National Institute for Care Excellence warns that the real number of sufferers may be much higher, noting that previous Government research put the number at around 3 million in the UK, 2 million of whom remain undiagnosed. Approximately one in 10 adults over the age of 40 has COPD in the UK, at a cost of £2 billion a year to the NHS.
As the main cause of COPD is smoking, it is a highly preventable condition. I welcome the Government’s introduction of legislation to enable a smoke-free generation, but we must also consider those who have already started smoking and who are finding it hard to quit, or those who can circumvent the provisions of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.
Smoking is much more common in deprived areas, as we have already heard, so COPD is also a stark indicator of social and health inequalities in this country. The Liberal Democrats want the new Government to take urgent action to support people to live healthier lives, starting by reversing in full the Conservative cuts to funding for public health, of which smoking cessation services are a critical part. I am sure all Members agree that prevention is better than cure, and helping smokers to kick the habit will not only reduce their risk of debilitating illness but will save taxpayers money in the long run. The cost of COPD is £2 billion per annum, and everyone benefits if fewer people require treatment for smoking-related illness.
Along with smoking, long-term exposure to air pollution may be a cause of COPD. The Liberal Democrats have pledged to reduce air pollution; to protect people, especially children, from breathing in harmful pollutants by passing a clean air Act based on World Health Organisation guidelines and enforced by a new air quality agency; and to improve public transport and active travel to reduce the harm caused by air pollution at home, school and work. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on those proposals, which would drastically reduce avoidable respiratory diseases.
The theme for World COPD Day this year is “Short of Breath, Think COPD”, and it aims to raise awareness of underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of COPD. As I mentioned, there could be 2 million people undiagnosed in the UK who are missing out on essential treatment and advice on how best to manage their debilitating condition. NICE recommends that COPD should be suspected in anyone aged over 35 with a risk factor for COPD and symptoms of breathlessness, chronic cough, regular phlegm production, frequent chest infections in the winter, or wheezing.
The Liberal Democrats have called for anyone with a long-term health condition, including COPD, to have a named GP, which would improve the continuity and therefore the quality of their care. People with COPD consistently report difficulties accessing services that are essential to managing their condition, including GP appointments, specialist care and pulmonary rehabilitation. They also experience poor communication between different healthcare providers and inadequate follow-up after hospital discharge.
As we have heard, COPD patients are often left in the dark with inadequate information about their condition when they are first diagnosed. Better continuity of care in the community would surely help to overcome at least some of those issues. To achieve that, we need the Government to be much more ambitious in their plans to increase GP numbers. We need them to adopt Lib Dem plans to retain and recruit 8,000 more GPs over this Parliament to deliver that improvement in care.
We are also campaigning to improve the speed of new treatments by expanding the capacity of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. We are also pressing for better social care, including for people with COPD who are struggling to manage independently. We would provide more support for family carers through initiatives such as the right to respite breaks, paid carer’s leave and an end to the cliff edge in the way that carer’s allowance is paid, so that no one is forced to pay back thousands of pounds because they worked an extra hour a week.
We would also help people who struggle to get into work because of their illness, with a new right to flexible working and the right to work from home unless there is a really good business reason why that is not possible. We would make it easier for people with long-term conditions, such as COPD and those with disabilities, to access public life, including the world of work, through a range of measures that allow better physical access and proper adjustment to the workplace.
Many people with COPD are at risk of a stay in hospital, and they are often unable to get home after that because of the crisis in social care, which is putting even more strain on the NHS. The Government established the Casey commission to find a cross-party solution to the social care problem, and I welcome that, but I have to report that despite a promising opening roundtable in September, there have been no further talks. Will the Minister update us on the progress of that work?
The winter presents an immediate problem. There are warnings of a particularly bad flu season, which is causing concern for everyone who is more vulnerable to respiratory illness, including those with COPD. My local hospital, Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic hospital, and the Shrewsbury and Telford hospital NHS trust have already introduced some mandatory mask wearing to reduce the risk of transmission of respiratory disease in the hospital. That means that an effective vaccination programme is especially important this year.
I was concerned by news that covid vaccination eligibility has been significantly reduced. This autumn and winter, vaccination is being offered only to people over 75 and those with a weakened immune system. People with chronic respiratory disease, including COPD and asthma, have been excluded despite the clear risk—I speak from too many personal 2 am nebuliser experiences—that even a mild respiratory infection poses for them. Also excluded are the main carer for an older or disabled person, those who are in receipt of carer’s allowance or who are living with someone who has a weakened immune system, and, perhaps most surprisingly, frontline health and social care workers.
All those people remain eligible for a flu vaccine, and that is good. Even though covid is now considered to be a mild disease, time off for NHS and care workers when services are at their most pressured, as well as the significant risk of transmission to vulnerable patients, is concerning. Will the Government consider a review of the decision to restrict access to covid vaccines this year? Can the Minister provide statistics on the uptake so far of flu vaccines within different groups and outline what steps she is taking to ensure high levels of uptake among NHS and care workers?
In conclusion, COPD is a debilitating condition and, as with many conditions in the UK, there is something of a postcode lottery in the quality of care patients receive. I welcome the Government’s roll-out of the NHS RightCare COPD pathway and the National Respiratory Audit programme, along with plans to improve access to pulmonary rehabilitation. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us in her closing remarks on progress with those programmes, as well as answering my questions about vaccine roll-out, support for carers and the Casey commission, access to a named GP, and full restoration of the public health grant, including for smoking cessation services.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate the day after World Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease day. He gave an excellent speech, although I think he was being characteristically modest when he mentioned his dancing ability—I am sure he is much better than he claims.
As we have heard, COPD is a group of conditions that too often goes unnoticed until it is dangerously advanced. More than 1.7 million people across the UK have a COPD diagnosis. However, NICE estimates that around 600,000 more are living with the condition undiagnosed, and indeed this afternoon we heard figures that are even higher than that.
I am fortunate to have a relatively low rate of COPD in my constituency, at about 1.46%, but that figure masks the variation within my constituency. Those differences are reflected across the country: rates are significantly higher in the north of England, and in the 10% most deprived areas the prevalence is nearly double. People living in the poorest areas are five times more likely to die from COPD than those in the wealthiest. Research from Asthma and Lung UK shows that the poorest 10% of households are more than two and a half times more likely to have COPD than someone from the most affluent 10%. As the hon. Member for Strangford rightly highlighted, this is, in every sense, a disease that tracks inequality. Where someone lives should never decide how long they live, yet for COPD far too often it does.
Before the pandemic, around 70% of people diagnosed with COPD said they faced barriers to accessing that diagnosis, and 14% were initially misdiagnosed—often told that they had a chest infection or a lingering cough. Some were simply sent away after raising concerns with their GP. However, the pandemic made a serious problem worse: Government figures demonstrate that already inadequate diagnosis rates plummeted, and they show little sign of recovering. As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, spirometry—the gold-standard diagnostic test—which has not returned to pre-pandemic levels, continues to be a problem.
The consequences of that pause are stark. There was a 51% reduction in diagnoses in 2020 compared with the year before, meaning that around 46,000 people missed out on a diagnosis in that year alone, and around 92,000 over the course of the pandemic. As the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) said, late diagnosis means more advanced disease and higher mortality, more frequent exacerbations and quicker deterioration in quality of life. Those flare-ups can cause permanent lung damage and require long hospital stays. COPD is now the second largest cause of emergency hospital admissions, rising three times faster than general admissions.
The pressure on the NHS is enormous: an estimated £3.9 billion a year, including £1.4 billion for exacerbations alone. Lost productivity costs £1.7 billion, and reduced quality of life accounts for a further £2.2 billion. When diagnosis fails, costs rise, outcomes worsen and patients suffer the price of delay.
As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) has rightly pointed out, late diagnosis is not the only driver of pressure. Asthma and Lung UK, formerly the British Lung Foundation, found that patients who received the five fundamentals of COPD care experienced fewer flare-ups and were better equipped to manage their symptoms, yet more than three quarters of respondents said that they were missing at least one part of that basic care. Those with the most recent diagnoses were the least likely to receive the full package, so the situation is getting worse, not better. Asthma and Lung UK notes that many people must effectively learn to navigate the NHS themselves to access the care that they need. That is not acceptable. These are people who are already struggling, and they should not have to fight the system as well as the disease.
Around 420,000 people in the UK may have had their working lives cut short by COPD. More than half of respondents to the Asthma and Lung UK survey said that their mental health had worsened since diagnosis, so we can and must do better. The NHS long-term plan includes commitments on respiratory disease, including for early detection and improved access to pulmonary rehabilitation. I would be grateful if the Minister updated the House on progress towards those commitments. This November, waiting lists continue to rise. We need a credible strategy to ensure that the NHS can manage the winter safely while maintaining high-quality care. We need a realistic plan to address the continuing backlog in elective and non-emergency care, and a targeted approach to address persistent gaps in respiratory services.
The national respiratory audit programme—formerly the national asthma and COPD audit programme—was launched in 2018 and is led by the Royal College of Physicians. It has been invaluable in identifying gaps and variations in care. As part of the programme, NHS England developed a best practice tariff for COPD, which is met when 60% of COPD patients admitted for an exacerbation receive specialist input after 24 hours and when all COPD patients receive a discharge bundle.
I have mentioned it before in the House, but one of my proudest career moments was working for the Getting It Right First Time programme. In 2021, our respiratory medicine report, published by Dr Martin Allen during the pandemic—it was, therefore, focused on the immediate problems—raised a number of issues. For example, pulmonary rehabilitation remains one of the most effective treatments available for COPD. Of those who complete the programme, 90% report better quality of life or improved exercise capacity. The long-term plan proposes expanding access by 2028. If achieved, that could prevent half a million exacerbations and avoid 80,000 admissions. As 2028 is not that far away, will the Minister update on progress towards those targets?
The NHS RightCare pathway provides a comprehensive framework for improving diagnosis, management and treatment. It highlights the importance of timely pulmonary rehabilitation and early intervention, so I welcome the Government’s rolling it out. Finally, tackling smoking remains fundamental. Between 2022 and 2023, there were around 400,000 hospital admissions attributable to smoking, and 16% of all respiratory admissions were smoking-related. Between 75% and 85% of COPD deaths remain linked to smoking, yet only around half of COPD inpatient services report having a dedicated tobacco dependency adviser. What are the Government going to do to improve that situation?
I call on the Minister to take urgent action, first by implementing a national strategy to raise awareness, strengthen early diagnosis and reduce risk factors such as smoking and air pollution; secondly, by ensuring that all COPD patients have timely access to treatment, pulmonary rehabilitation, and integrated health and social care support for patients and carers; and, thirdly, by committing to increasing research investment, and to introducing innovative treatments and transparent data-driven accountability to improve outcomes and reduce avoidable hospitalisations. We cannot keep treating COPD as a winter crisis when it is, in truth, a year-round emergency. The time to act is now.
The evidence is clear. Too many people remain undiagnosed, too many are diagnosed too late, too many do not receive the basic standard of care to which they are entitled and too many end up in hospital when their deterioration could have been prevented. We have the data. We have the clinical consensus. We have the pathways. We do not lack knowledge; we lack resolve. People living with COPD deserve timely, high-quality care and the support that they need to live fuller, healthier lives. It is within our gift to deliver that; let us not fail them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this timely debate, as we mark World COPD Day. As hon. Members have clearly demonstrated in this debate, tackling COPD does not lend itself to one area of activity; that point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist).
COPD is known to affect 1.5 million people in the UK but, due to uncertainties, that number, as has been stated, could well be much higher. Improvements are needed across society and the healthcare system to reduce the incidence of COPD and help people living with the condition—people like my mum, Margaret—to lead healthier, longer lives. Our 10-year plan is built around the recognition that widespread change is needed to shift from treating COPD to preventing it, to ensure that those living with COPD receive care in the areas where they live and to embrace new technology to diagnose COPD earlier. I reassure the shadow Minister that the National Institute for Health and Care Research welcomes all proposals for research, and I encourage researchers to submit proposals on COPD and similar respiratory conditions for consideration.
Before I speak about the actions we are taking through the plan and more broadly, I want to address the points about a modern service framework for respiratory disease. Frameworks for cardiovascular disease and severe mental illness and the first ever service framework for frailty and dementia will be developed first. However, there will be more—those are just the first three. The criteria for determining future frameworks will be based on where there is potential for rapid and significant improvements in quality of care and productivity. I assure hon. Members that respiratory disease will be considered alongside many other things as we bring forward more modern service frameworks in the future.
As has been said, smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of COPD. The Tobacco and Vapes Bill will be the biggest public health intervention since Labour’s indoor smoking ban in 2007. The Bill also allows us to expand current indoor smoking restrictions to outdoor public places and workplaces. In England, we are considering extending smoke-free outdoor places to outside schools, children’s playgrounds and hospitals. Prevention will always be better than cure. As part of our health mission, we will shift the health system from treatment to prevention by tackling the social determinants of health. The public health allocations, including for smoking cessation, will be announced shortly.
In terms of vaccines, the primary aim of the national covid-19 vaccination programme remains the prevention of serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths arising from covid-19. The independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has advised that population immunity to covid-19 has been significantly increasing due to a combination of naturally acquired immunity following recovery from infection and vaccine-derived immunity. The focus of the JCVI-advised programme has therefore moved towards targeted vaccination of the two groups who continue to be at higher risk of serious disease, including mortality: the oldest adults and individuals who are immunosuppressed.
In line with the JCVI advice, a covid-19 vaccination is being offered to adults aged 75 years and over, residents in care homes for older adults, and individuals aged six months and over who are immunosuppressed. I do not have to hand the data on uptake for the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), but the Government’s vaccine strategy is being rolled out and is focused on stabilising and increasing vaccine take-up. I will write to the hon. Lady with an update on the data following this debate.
In terms of housing and air quality, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill is the first step, but it is only part of the action that we are taking to improve air quality. We are working across Government with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to tackle air pollution and with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to fix housing and reduce damp and mould, both of which can exacerbate COPD, as hon. Members have said today, and make life much harder for people than it needs to be.
We are also working with the Department for Work and Pensions to support people with COPD to get back into and stay in work. In March, we announced in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper that we will establish a new guarantee of support for all disabled people and people with long-term health conditions claiming out-of-work benefits who want help to get into or return to work. That will be backed up by £1.9 billion of new funding by the end of the decade.
Unemployment is worst in the most deprived areas of the country, and those areas have the worst health inequalities. COPD disproportionately affects people in deprived areas and we intend to address that. Yesterday, we announced the publication of our men’s health strategy, which includes our commitment to addressing entrenched health inequalities in ex-mining and industrial communities, where economic transition and occupational legacies have led to persistent respiratory and cardiovascular disease burdens. As part of the strategy, we will expand the existing respiratory pathways transformation fund initiative by investing an additional £1 million this year, through the Oxfordshire health innovation network, to develop targeted, case-finding initiatives in former coalfield areas. That will help us to identify the individuals who need support to access appropriate local services. We will continue to capture learning in the men’s health strategy “one year on” report.
The hon. Member for Strangford raised coverage of spirometry and the progress made to increase coverage of this diagnosis service in the community. I also assure the shadow Minister that we are shifting care from hospitals to the community, as it is one of the key pillars of the 10-year plan, and we are building on progress so far. The number of community diagnostic centres reporting spirometry testing capacity is growing and will continue to as more sites come online. So far this year, we have seen an increase in CDC spirometry testing of 2,000 tests a month—more than in the previous year.
Preventing and diagnosing COPD are two key areas we are making improvements in, but we also want to ensure that people with COPD have healthier lives. As highlighted by the shadow Minister, pulmonary rehabilitation is a key intervention to improve the health of people with COPD and reduce pressure on NHS hospitals. As he knows, we inherited very low rates of people accessing this service, and I want briefly to set out the action we are taking to change that.
We want to ensure equitable access to these services and reduce health inequalities. To address that, NHS England has published commissioning standards for pulmonary rehabilitation, setting out the benchmarks that high-quality services should aim for, while recognising that cardiac comorbidity is highly prevalent in patients attending pulmonary rehabilitation. In addition, the nine health systems across England have been awarded funding totalling £2.61 million through the pathway transformation fund to deliver innovative projects between October 2025 and March 2026, to drive system-wide transformation in asthma and COPD care. I confirm to the hon. Member for Strangford that reporting on the outcomes of the PTF projects will follow later in 2026.
It is vital that all screening programmes are evidence-based. That is why the Government are guided by the independent scientific advice of the UK National Screening Committee. Lung cancer screening has been very positive, particularly for deprived communities, and is growing year on year. I visited a programme in the north-west recently and saw the amazing work that they were doing to identify early-stage lung disease. It is an opportunity for many more people to be recognised and treated for lung conditions who previously were not receiving support. Where emphysema is found, the screening programme refers people to their GP. GPs have established clinical pathways for supporting people with COPD.
The hon. Member for Strangford is understandably interested in biologic therapies, which have also been mentioned by other Members. Biologic therapies for COPD will be commissioned by ICBs, should NICE approve them. The high cost of biologics means that a specialist approach by ICBs is needed, but we cannot pre-empt the findings of NICE, so we will wait to see the outcome of that.
I want briefly to cover the points made on winter planning. The NHS chief executive wrote to the NHS in September following the testing of winter plans, and set out key areas for learning for providers and systems. It included the need for robust plans to maximise vaccination rates and proactively to manage rising risk to COPD patients during the winter, including the optimisation of care and remote monitoring, greater emphasis on self-management and education, and strengthening community support. The actions being taken as part of winter planning, and the other actions I have set out today on smoking cessation and pulmonary rehabilitation, directly relate to the NICE fundamentals of COPD care. I hope that the totality of that work reassures the hon. Members for Strangford and for Surrey Heath that we are committed to NICE’s fundamentals being delivered across the country.
Too many people have had their lives cut short by COPD—people such as my cousin’s husband, Steve Ormerwood, who we lost to COPD far too young. His wife, Janet, his children, Adam and Joanne, his young granddaughter, Ada, and all our family feel his loss keenly. COPD is a lifelong condition, but it can and should be prevented. This Government take our responsibility to that goal with the utmost seriousness, as the cross-Government approach to that mission demonstrates. Equally serious is the need to ensure that those living with COPD, especially from communities that have been overlooked, are supported to live healthier and longer lives.
Jim Shannon
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist). She and I have been friends for ages and ages—so far back that I maybe had hair at that time. She underlined two issues: access to public transport, and how difficult it is for people to return home from hospital. She was keen to welcome the progress on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill and on access to drugs. She is no longer a Parliamentary Private Secretary, so she can now be active on the APPG—we are very much looking forward to having her energy back.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) also set the scene very helpfully. COPD never goes away; it escalates, so how do we address it? He said that there were 200,000 admissions to hospital due to respiratory ill health in the last year. He also talked about access to data and to medical care for COPD. It is sometimes a postcode lottery in the United Kingdom, and that has to change.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) talked about chronic bronchitis and rehabilitation. She said that early diagnosis reduces the cost to the NHS. Shortness of breath means that there should be more checks for COPD. She said that anyone over 35 should get checked. That is very wise—we should all take note of that. She also referred to the Lib Dem ambition to recruit another 8,000 GPs, and she spoke about vaccination.
The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) made an excellent speech—it was a real pleasure to hear it. He referred to the inequality and deprivation across the United Kingdom, and talked about how to do spirometry tests better. The pressure on the NHS is enormous. He said that pulmonary rehabilitation treatment is a key way of responding, and we very much welcome that. He also referred to other COPD interventions, and said that this is a year-round emergency.
I am very pleased to have the Minister here to respond to our requests. Anyone listening to her speech would recognise that she is keen, eager and energetic in giving us the answers that we are looking for. I am conscious of the look that you are giving me, Mr Efford, so I will be very quick. She said that her mother has COPD, and therefore this is a personal issue for her. She is as keen as all of us to see results. She set out the case for the prevention of COPD, and said it is the next disease to be considered in the respiratory service framework—hopefully in the next phase. I am looking to her to see whether the Government can deliver on that.
Prevention is better than cure. We must work harder to introduce a vaccination programme. The hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett referred to housing and air quality. We need a pathway to work so that those with long-term illnesses can come back to work. The Minister set out lots of positive things. She referred to deprivation, which we all know about. She spoke about spirometry care from hospital to the community, pulmonary rehabilitation, which is key to reducing COPD, and lung cancer screening—all good stuff.
I want to put on the record a big thank you to all those who participated, to Hugh, Will and the team in the Public Gallery for all that they have done, to you, Mr Efford, for your patience, and to the civil servants—they are not often thanked, but let us thank them for what they do.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered World COPD Day.
Wales
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)
… I am delighted that Caerphilly is so popular today. It seems that so many people who have either only visited several times, or not visited at all and have only read about it in the press, have become experts about my constituency.
I am also pleased that the Minister has raised the plight of Ukrainians who came to Wales to seek sanctuary, running from war, because if there was one downside to the by-election, it was the talk of asylum seekers being bad people—that they are all illegal and that they do not contribute anything. Those who said such things should see the exhibition that was on at Caerphilly council and see what asylum seekers have contributed. What message does the Minister have for those Ukrainians who are still seeking asylum in Wales?
Anna McMorrin
We offer sanctuary for those who desperately need it, and we are proud of that, but we inherited contracts and a broken system from the Conservatives. Hotel use has nearly halved since the last election, and we have removed 30,000 people who have no right to be here, ensuring that those who do need to be here have the welcome and support that they need. It is not job done, but work in progress. We can compare that with the 14 years of the Tory Government.
[Official Report, 29 October 2025; Vol. 774, c. 298.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin):
Anna McMorrin
We offer sanctuary for those who desperately need it, and we are proud of that, but we inherited contracts and a broken system from the Conservatives. Hotel use has halved since its peak in the summer of 2023, and we have removed 30,000 people who have no right to be here, ensuring that those who do need to be here have the welcome and support that they need. It is not job done, but work in progress. We can compare that with the 14 years of the Tory Government.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
After wantonly scrapping the Rwanda scheme, the Labour Government are now overseeing record-breaking figures of illegal immigrants. It is reported that the scandal is now engulfing north Wales, where more than 200 illegal immigrants have tried to gain entry to the country on ferries from Dublin to Holyhead. Meanwhile, there is talk about Penally military camp in south-west Wales, which was previously condemned by the Welsh Labour Government. It appears that their policy, along with Reform’s, is from boats to barracks, as is happening in Scotland and Sussex, yet Plaid says that there is no such thing as illegal immigration. Does the Minister agree that her Government and Plaid have no idea about and no interest in how to make our borders safe?
Anna McMorrin
I fear that the Conservatives forget about the chaos that they created. We inherited a broken system after 14 years of chaos, and contracts that we have to honour, but in the past year we have halved the use of hotels. We have removed 30,000 people who have no right to be here. It is not job done, as I say, but it is a work in progress. We can compare that work in just one year with 14 years of chaos under the hon. Lady’s Government.
[Official Report, 29 October 2025; Vol. 774, c. 299.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff North:
Anna McMorrin
I fear that the Conservatives forget about the chaos that they created. We inherited a broken system after 14 years of chaos, and contracts that we have to honour, but the use of hotels has halved since its peak in the summer of 2023. We have removed 30,000 people who have no right to be here. It is not job done, as I say, but it is a work in progress. We can compare that work in just one year with 14 years of chaos under the hon. Lady’s Government.
New Director of Service Prosecutions
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Under section 364 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, the Director of Service Prosecutions is appointed by His Majesty the King. The term of the current incumbent, Jonathan Rees KC, came to an end on 31 October 2025.
I can inform the House that His Majesty has appointed Mary Cowe to succeed Mr Rees as the next independent Director of Service Prosecutions. Ms Cowe has practised from Guildhall Chambers Bristol since 2006, prosecuting and defending serious criminal allegations of violence, sexual abuse and fraud.
I should also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mr Rees, who has served as director for the last five years and worked hard with other service justice system stakeholders to improve the processes by which cases are built and brought to trial, while maintaining the necessary independence of prosecutorial decision making. His efforts have ensured that the authority has retained its position as an independent and respected prosecuting body, which has underpinned the operational effectiveness of the armed forces. As he hands over his responsibilities to Ms Cowe, I would like to express my personal gratitude for the important contribution he has made.
[HCWS1078]
Multi-year Local Government Finance Settlement and Fair Funding Review
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
Today, the Government have set out details of the first multi-year local government finance settlement in a decade, through which we will deliver the long-overdue fair funding review 2.0 reforms and deliver on our commitment to make the system fairer and more transparent.
The last decade and a half saw local government services slashed to the bone by a misguided programme of austerity. The services people see every day outside their front door were systematically undermined, and people’s lives got harder as a result. We celebrate the hard work of councillors, frontline staff and mayors, who kept vital services running during those hard years, but they did not get the backing they deserved from central Government.
Austerity expected local government to act as caretakers, providing only the most basic statutory services. Our long-term aim is a future where councillors have the freedom to innovate, rebuilding public services, renewing the public realm, and investing in their high streets, youth clubs, and libraries. The past has been written, but the future of local government is up for grabs. This is about providing visible proof that the state can still improve people’s lives and keep its promises. The journey will at times be difficult, but the end result will be a new role for councils as agents of renewal.
This Government believe in treating every area fairly. Some authorities have benefited disproportionately from the unfairness of the current system, something which the previous Government recognised when consulting on funding reform. However, they did not take action. This Government are taking the tough decisions to create a fairer, evidence-based funding system. This means that poorer local authorities that have been unable to generate as much funding through local tax will finally receive the funding they deserve. As a result, areas will be able to rebuild the public services on which our communities rely.
We recognise the challenging reality still facing local authorities, and the sky-rocketing demand for critical services that cannot be overcome by these changes alone, but these reforms are a vital part of getting the sector back on a sustainable footing and ensuring that every pound goes where it is most needed.
The Government are bringing forward a wider reset, which will radically redefine local government in England, making the system fit for the challenges that the country faces in 2025, and making sure that we have strong local leaders and councils, ready to drive economic growth, grow our towns and cities, and raise living standards for working people in every region—the Government’s No. 1 mission. That is why, as well as introducing funding reforms, we remain committed to ending the two-tier system in this Parliament; to focusing on outcomes, over micro-management; and to overhauling local audit, conduct and standards. Yesterday, I launched a series of consultations on local government reorganisation, published on gov.uk.
We also thank local government, interested organisations and members of the public who have engaged with our consultations on reforming the local government funding system over the past year.
The broken system we inherited
The austerity of the 2010s was imposed on every community, but the worst effects were felt by those in the most deprived local authorities. The places which historically had been most supported by Government were left furthest behind, breaking the link between funding and need. Dozens of fragmented funding streams, outdated funding formulas—including those that used data from the 1970s—and short-term settlements contributed to the overall issues in the funding system. As a result, many councils have been pushed to a financial cliff edge, meaning poorer services for residents.
The first steps toward a fairer approach
Undoing this damage will take time, but this Government took immediate steps in our first year to make funding fairer. We made over £69 billion available to local authorities through the 2025-26 settlement. That included a £600 million recovery grant, targeted at areas that suffered most from austerity, and that had greater need and demand for services, and less ability to raise income locally. At the spending review, we announced over £5 billion of new grant funding over the period 2026-27 to 2028-29 for local services, including £3.4 billion of new grant funding, which will be delivered through the multi-year settlement. We have been working closely with the local government sector over the past year. We have consulted twice on our proposals for reform and once on resetting the business rates system, and we now plan to put them into action.
Fairer funding through the 2026-27 multi-year settlement —undoing a decade of damage
This Government believe in treating every council and community in England fairly. We will act where the previous Government did not to target funding to deprived areas, enabling them to deliver vital services for communities up and down the country. We are:
Giving councils more certainty with the first multi-year settlement in a decade, which will allow local leaders to focus on longer-term financial planning and opportunities for ambitious regional growth plans, rather than giving them year-to-year settlements, and an opaque funding system of fragmented pots.
Providing better access to frontline services by closing the gap between local deprivation and council funding. We are using up-to-date data to paint a true picture of councils’ needs and resources—a picture that encompasses population projections, the 2025 English indices of multiple deprivation, cost of service delivery, and demand for services.
Reforming children’s social care, with over £2.4 billion over the settlement to support vulnerable families by focusing on prevention and early intervention. We are updating the children and young people’s services formula, so that it uses the latest index of deprivation affecting children. That will mean that no matter where people grow up, they get the support they need to have the best start in life.
Providing at least £2.4 billion for a new, ring-fenced, combined homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant over three years, which includes dedicated funding for councils to invest in prevention. This will move us away from over-reliance on temporary accommodation, which has led to unsustainable costs for councils in recent years.
Undoing the damage of austerity by maintaining the targeted £600 million recovery grant allocations from 2025-26 across the multi-year settlement. We are also introducing a recovery grant funding guarantee to upper-tier authorities in receipt of the grant.
Unlocking the dream of home ownership for more people by boosting incentives for councils to build new homes, as projections on future house builds will be omitted from funding allocations over the settlement, so authorities will benefit from all additional council tax raised for each new home they build.
Improving efficiency and value for taxpayer cash by cutting needless paperwork and red tape by simplifying 33 funding streams, worth almost £47 billion over three years, to provide councils with certainty and more flexibility to invest in community priorities.
Supporting councils through change by providing funding floors, and phasing in new allocations across the multi-year settlement to provide more financial protection for councils and consistency of services for local people.
The recovery we embarked on in 2025-26 is just the beginning for deprived places that suffered most from austerity. We will maintain recovery grant allocations from 2025-26 across the multi-year settlement as a targeted fund to support those worst affected by austerity. We will also provide a funding guarantee to upper-tier authorities in receipt of the grant, which will ensure that they see a more than real terms increase across the multi-year period, except for where a £35 million cap applies.
The Government will maintain core referendum principles as they were in 2025-26 over the multi-year settlement, including core council tax and adult social care precept referendum principles of 3% and 2% respectively. This acts as an additional democratic check and balance, giving taxpayers the final say on council tax increases through a local referendum. The £3.4 billion in new grant funding in the settlement, taken together with these referendum principles, results in a 2.6% real-terms average annual increase in core spending power over the spending review period.
This multi-year settlement will better align funding with deprivation and need, as part of a simplified funding landscape that is fit for the future. By 2028-29, we expect that the 10% most deprived authorities will see a significant increase in their core spending power per head, compared to the least deprived. People living in the places that suffered most from austerity will finally see their areas turned around.
We know there is more to do. There are no quick fixes, and it will take time to deliver the change this country needs. Our reforms will get money to where it is needed most, but we cannot undo a decade of damage overnight. We know some councils will ask for additional help, and we will continue to have a framework in place to support those in the most difficult positions. We made important strides in our first year and, in partnership with local government, we will rebuild a state people can rely on.
More detail on these proposals will be provided in the local government finance policy statement and fair funding review 2.0 response, to be published on gov.uk later today. Proposals for the 2026-27 settlement will be subject to the usual consultation process at the provisional local government finance settlement. This written ministerial statement covers England only. The policy statement will be deposited in the House Libraries.
[HCWS1080]
Covid-19 Inquiry Report: Modules 2, 2A, 2B and 2C
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
The chair of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry has today published the inquiry’s “Modules 2, 2A, 2B, 2C” report, which examined core UK decision-making and political governance.
The chair recognises the appalling loss of life and devastating socio-economic consequences as a result of the pandemic. I would also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the pain and suffering the pandemic caused.
However, the chair has also concluded that the Government pandemic response was repeatedly “too little, too late”, and that lessons were not learnt and mistakes repeated—exacerbating the impact of the pandemic. The chair has found that the Government fell short, with advice lacking proper economic and social modelling, the impact on vulnerable people not sufficiently considered, and the culture in the centre of Government described as “toxic”.
The chair has noted that decisions were being taken in the context of the UK being ill-prepared to deal with a pandemic. Since then, improvements have been made to the way the Government would respond to a major crisis. That said, it is clear that local government and our public services, including the NHS, are under immense pressure and in many cases have not fully recovered from the pandemic. The cost of the pandemic still weighs heavily on the public purse. This is why this Government are committed to driving growth in the economy and reforming of public services, so that when we face the next crisis, we do so from a position of national resilience.
I would like to thank Baroness Hallett and her team for their thorough work on this report. The Government will carefully consider all of the findings and recommendations of the report and respond in due course.
I have laid a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.
[HCWS1081]
Machinery of Government: Skills
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
My noble Friend the Minister of State, Minister for Skills (Baroness Smith of Malvern) has made the following written statement.
I am making this statement to update the House on the transfer of the responsibility for apprenticeships; adult further education, skills, training and careers; and Skills England, from the Department for Education to the Department for Work and Pensions, as announced on 16 September (HCWS 930).
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is now exercising responsibility for these activities, supported by Baroness Smith of Malvern, the Minister for Skills, who serves jointly across both Departments. Formal accountability to Parliament for the resources used in support of these activities will continue to be through the permanent secretary of the Department for Education until the main estimate for 2026-27 is passed, rather than in the supplementary estimate 2025-26. Following the main estimate 2026-27, accountability will be through the permanent secretary for the Department for Work and Pensions.
[HCWS1079]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, 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 resume after 10 minutes.
Medical Nuclear Radioisotopes
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to enable the domestic manufacture of medical nuclear radioisotopes.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, it is always a privilege to be allocated a slot in the ballot for Questions for Short Debate. While I am disappointed with the small number of speakers, I feel sure that had more noble Lords been aware of the challenges facing the supply of these clever little chemical elements, this debate might have generated a bit more interest. My contribution seeks to address this issue of both national and personal significance. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Royal Marsden Cancer Charity.
Radioisotopes have transformed science, medicine and industry. Their ability to emit radiation makes them both powerful and, when handled safely, invaluable to modern society. In medicine, they are the backbone of modern diagnostics, innovative therapies and clinical trials. They are vital for the early detection and treatment of cancer, heart disease and many neurological disorders. Every year, more than 700,000 NHS procedures rely on medical isotopes and yet, despite their critical importance to world-class patient care, we face an acute and growing crisis in their supply. Currently, around 60% of our medical radioisotopes are imported. For the isotopes that we use in therapeutic treatment, almost 100% comes from overseas. The UK produces radioisotopes domestically only for PET-CT scans, and even that capacity is very limited.
Recent disruptions, triggered by overseas reactor shutdowns and global manufacturing shortfalls, have already led to the delay and cancellation of critical diagnostic tests. Delays can cost lives. Molybdenum-99, a critical isotope for cancer testing, was acutely limited in late 2024, forcing health leaders to ration supplies and to prioritise only the most urgent cases. Between January and May this year, dozens of cancer patients in the Nottinghamshire and east Midlands trusts experienced delays in PET-CT scans due to radioisotope shortages.
This fragility of supply has a very human cost. The root causes are clear: our dependence on ageing foreign reactors, transport hurdles and Brexit-related trade barriers all converge to create a precarious, expensive pipeline for these life-saving elements. The majority of them are produced by an ageing global network: 64% of current production capacity, in 11 reactors, is expected to be decommissioned by 2030. Shutdowns, such as that of the Belgian BR2 reactor, are more likely to occur as global demand increases, reactors age and more research reactors come offline.
The situation is unsustainable but, luckily, neither inevitable nor unfixable. However, it requires the Government and the scientific community to explore and pursue long-term solutions—not an easy ask in times of serious budget constraints—where cross-departmental co-operation is key. I note that it is the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, responding as Minister for Health, but it could as appropriately have been a Minister from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Department for Business and Trade or indeed the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Any long-term solution must have at its core a vision for a secure, sovereign supply chain anchored in world-leading research, agile infrastructure and a skilled workforce. As well as direct benefits, research reactors have been demonstrated to create technological clusters that attract investment as industry benefits from proximity, which reduces the loss of radioactivity due to decay, and highly skilled expertise is built up in a local workforce. But the supply chain challenges for molecular radiotherapy stem from the fact that the radioactive component—the radionuclides—are short lived, so must be made continuously and cannot be stockpiled.
Where could we build a reactor where there is already a suitable nuclear site, owned by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, with a highly skilled local workforce in the relevant nuclear and medical sciences, a welcoming population well educated in the advantages of living in close proximity to a nuclear site, and an airfield almost adjacent to export the radionuclides with short half-lives—more likely to be counted in hours, not days—to the UK and beyond? Extensive research by the Snowdonia Enterprise Zone, backed by the Welsh Government, assessed long-term economic uses for the Trawsfynydd site in south Gwynedd. Given the site’s heritage, it concluded that it is most suited for nuclear development. Following detailed assessments of a number of different options, two projects were confirmed as having the greatest potential to deliver socioeconomic benefits, namely SMRs and a medical research reactor to produce radioisotopes for cancer diagnostics treatment and research.
The proposed ARTHUR—advanced radioisotope technology for health utility reactor—initiative envisages a dedicated medical reactor capable of producing a steady flow of radioisotopes for NHS use and research, and for export. The recommended reactor design for the ARTHUR project would use proven technology and is modelled on the ANSTO OPAL reactor, the world’s leading example for secure and efficient medical isotope production. The plan is supported by leading academic voices. Professor Simon Middleburgh of Bangor University’s Nuclear Futures Institute has stated that
“such a facility is not simply a Welsh inspiration—it is a UK wide imperative. Without it we remain at the mercy of foreign reactors, rising costs and global shocks”.
In 2022 the Government took a step in the right direction by announcing a £6 million medical radionuclide innovation programme. The commissioned report, issued by TÜV SÜD, warned of a supply vulnerable to technological failures, infrastructure delays and geopolitical upheaval, underscoring the conclusion that our current system is not future-proof. The recent review of molecular radiotherapy services produced by the Royal College of Radiologists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine and the British Nuclear Medicine Society made one key recommendation: that every devolved Government and every radiotherapy operational delivery network in England appoint a molecular radiotherapy champion, someone with the mandate and vision to drive the change we need. By investing in infrastructure using the existing workforce, as well as training the workforce of tomorrow, we can become self-reliant and once again lead the world in nuclear medicine innovation.
One in two UK citizens will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. Many will see their quality of life and the efficacy of their treatments enhanced as a result of nuclear medicine. Every hospital in the UK uses it to help patients on a daily basis—700,000 patients a year and counting. We must act now. Let us not wait for another global shortage, another shutdown or another delayed shipment to force us into crisis mode. Let us choose instead to build a secure, resilient, sovereign supply of medical isotopes for the UK and, of course, I hope that will be in Wales.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to take part in this short debate. All the important issues were covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, in her brilliant, comprehensive speech—but not by me, as they say, so I will repeat them.
The noble Baroness is right that it is time urgently to address this issue. The point has already been made that we increasingly need these radioisotopes as medical advances occur, particularly in molecular radiotherapy, which the noble Baroness did not mention. Molecular radiotherapy is used as internal therapy for diseased organs, as opposed to external radiation, which is what we are all familiar with.
We all know that one in two people are going to get cancer. The monitoring of cancers—for example, prostate cancers—requires a particular kind of radioisotope tracer to identify whether there are any metastases. This is now in short supply because we rely on a supply chain that comes from overseas.
Basically, there are two nuclear imaging modalities: SPECT, single-photon emission computed tomography, and PET, positron emission tomography. SPECT imaging relies primarily on reactor-produced isotopes, and we have to completely import them because we do not have a reactor. PET relies on cyclotron-produced images. While we have that facility, we do not have it extensively, so we often have to rely on overseas supply chains.
I will put it in the context of a patient. The overall problem is that they are waiting for a diagnosis, but cannot have it made because the supply chain for radioisotopes is in short supply or has been held up, and their appointment is cancelled. They wait another few weeks before that appointment is made again, during which time the patient’s cancer grows. Alternatively, they are relying on finding out how the cancer is progressing following diagnosis, particularly to see whether the cancer is responding if treatment is being given, and imaging facilities are needed, but the tracer or isotope is not available.
There is a further issue: if we have our own reactor that can be used for research, we will innovate for newer radioisotopes for both diagnosis and treatment. Our scientists are good enough; in fact, they are world leading. Furthermore, most tissues in the body are specific to certain chemical agents. For instance, iodine is used for the thyroid. If we want to diagnose or treat thyroid cancer using internal therapy, we would have a tracer with iodine to target thyroid tumours. Glucose is similarly used for brain tumours, and for identifying cancers that an MRI sometimes will not see. With a particular kind of tracer, PET-CT scans will see them, and therefore diagnosis and treatment happen earlier.
I could say this in one sentence or half an hour of speech, but the message would be the same. We urgently need UK-based radioisotope reactor facilities that produce tracers using radioisotopes, and also a cyclotron facility, so that the whole UK can then rely on our own supply. It also enables our researchers to further innovate for new tracers, and therefore end up leading the world. I say to the Minister that the time is now. Can we have the plan, please? Whether it is in Wales or not—I might have been tempted to say Scotland—the ARTHUR project has already made a good business case and worked this out. The cost is not enormous, particularly in the context of the NHS budget and the benefits that the NHS will derive. I plead for the same as the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, on securing this valuable debate. I think we should judge its value not by the number of people here but rather by the quality of the contributions. This is an important issue and, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, the noble Baroness introduced this in a very comprehensive way, which was extremely welcome.
The Government are committed to delivering critical services that depend on the reliable supply of medical radioisotopes, to which both noble Lords referred. I agree with the noble Baroness and her reflections on the positive health outcomes, also supported by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. These isotopes support positive health outcomes, both for diagnostics and for therapeutics. I was looking at the figures: in England alone, some 700,000 procedures are carried out using radioisotopes every single year. This figure is expected to increase, not least because of their value in the process.
There are three main uses for medical radioisotopes; each relies on different manufacture to get the desired result. PET-CT scans, primarily used for cancer and cardiovascular diagnostics, use isotopes from a comprehensive network of UK-based cyclotrons. SPECT scanners are mainly used to confirm the cancer stage, to identify blood clots and to assess organ functions. These scanners use isotopes manufactured abroad in reactors; the noble Lord, Lord Patel, drew our attention to this. This is also the case for radioisotopes that are used for therapeutics.
As the noble Lord pointed out when he expressed concerns about delays to treatment and the impact on patients—the point was well made—the UK does not currently manufacture medical radioisotopes in reactors. Instead, we have in place a supply chain with isotope sources from multiple countries to aid resilience. I will come on to the point that the noble Baroness made about when that supply chain is disrupted. This gives us access to a global network of expertise and high-quality medical radioisotopes.
The noble Baroness made a strong case in advocating for the Welsh project ARTHUR, a reactor specifically designed for the purpose of medical radioisotope manufacture. The Minister for Medical Technology and Innovation, Zubir Ahmed MP, recently met Liz Saville Roberts MP to discuss this matter, and I can assure the Committee that the Government are in active discussions about this project. I note the points made about the suitability of the area and the potential benefits of this project. The UK Government have not made a formal assessment of the project at this time but are supportive of any manufacturing capacity that can improve reliable access to medical radioisotopes, as has been called for. A domestic reactor would certainly be a welcome addition to the overall supply.
The noble Baroness understandably highlighted the severe shortage of a specific medical radioisotope in 2024. I agree that this was caused by a global disruption to its manufacture. The underlying issue was that several nuclear reactors used for its manufacture were undergoing critical repair work. As noble Lords can imagine, these repairs are normally planned ahead and co-ordinated to ensure that there is always enough capacity to deliver critical isotopes. However, the safe running of reactors will always determine whether they will be taken offline for repairs. In this instance, critical repair work was identified and meant that multiple reactors were closed down at the same time.
Due to a diligent response from the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England, industry and the NHS services impacted, I am glad to say that the patient impact from this severe shortage was limited. I am grateful to all those who worked to ensure this. However, it underscores the need for multiple available sources of medical radioisotopes. A Welsh reactor—or perhaps a Scottish one, although I would rather not dwell on the argument around the devolved Governments and locations—could be an important addition to this supplier base.
Also raised were the issues with the supplies for PET-CT scanners earlier this year. I can give an assurance that, when there are specific supply issues, such as the one the noble Baroness referred to that impacted north England and the Midlands, the department works with suppliers to recover supplies and services. We are aware of the difficulties and issues that both noble Lords have raised. I hope that response is of some assistance.
We are working to support services and improve outcomes for patients. The noble Baroness said that the Government should explore long-term solutions, so let me outline some of these actions. First, we are committed to a thriving life sciences sector and the development of high-skilled jobs in that sector. The Government have made up to £520 million available through the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund; that is available for any private manufacturing proposal, including for medical radioisotopes in the UK.
Medical radioisotopes support life-saving services, including for diagnostic tests; this Government are committed to supporting the improvement of these services. Therefore, we have announced £6 billion of additional capital investment over five years across new diagnostic, elective and urgent care capacity. This includes funding to increase capacity for both testing and reporting across community diagnostic centres and hospitals.
In early 2026, which is nearly upon us, the Government will publish their national cancer plan. This will set out how we will improve diagnosis, treatment and waiting times in order to improve outcomes for cancer patients and increase survival rates. UKRI, the UK’s national funding agency for science and research, also supports the overall service delivery and has recently invested £32 million for novel total-body PET-CT scanners. All these interventions will, as I say, improve the situation for patients and improve services.
In conclusion, as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have called for, this Government are committed to ensuring robust and reliable supplies of medical radioisotopes to deliver critical services. We are supporting the development of manufacturing and delivery capabilities in the UK, where this is appropriate, alongside working closely with international partners and suppliers. We are also committed to the economic and industrial development of the UK science sector. That is why we have made available investment funds that are open for applicants who are looking to expand or improve UK manufacture of medicine and medical technology products. This includes UK-based manufacture of medical radioisotopes or their adaption for diagnostic or therapeutic applications.
Lord Patel (CB)
I know that intervening on the Minister is unusual in a short debate, but we are not exactly short of time. I think the Minister said that if we had a reactor, it would be a useful addition. It would not be a useful addition; it is a necessity. She did not define any solid plans—unless I missed them—where the Government have a clear intention to establish a nuclear reactor for producing radioisotopes. There is a promise that we will have good contractual agreements with the supply chain lines that the Minister mentioned—I cannot make the Minister’s speech, but I am asking the question—but those cannot be guaranteed because there are only six reactors in the world and they are more than 50 years old. Maybe the Minister could comment on that.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand the noble Lord’s point. The point I am trying to make is that a supply chain is important. I was indeed careful in my choice of words, not least because, as I mentioned elsewhere in my speech, the Government have not made a formal assessment of, in this case, the ARTHUR project. So I am limited in how far I can go on the most obvious presentation before us today, but I understand the point made by the noble Lord.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, for raising this important matter, which is important for the whole of the Government.
Private Equity
Lord Monks
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the role of private equity in the UK economy.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to revisit one of the darker corners of the financial services sector and to see what has altered since noble Lords last debated the issue in 2022. The excellent Library brief defines private equity as “a managed fund”, aiming to secure “a controlling share” of established companies, then, after a few years, to sell the companies on at a profit. The funds typically aim to sweat the assets as one of the ways of increasing profits. By sweat I mean sales of property, reductions in staff and sometimes their pay, cutting back on investment in new products and services, sometimes reducing maintenance and using the high debt involved to reduce tax. Growing the business is a stated aim but often turns out to be a second-order objective.
In addition, fund managers secure their remuneration by aiming for a share of the profits—often around 20%—and by interest payments and dividends. These are taxed at a lower rate than the higher rate of top income tax. Compensation arrangements are complex, but PE takes full advantage of what is known in the City as the carried interest loophole and sometimes as Wall Street’s favourite tax break. The rewards at the top often contrast with the meagre rewards for the staff in PE companies.
In the union world, we became aware in the mid-2000s of hostile buyouts fuelled by PE. They were associated with job losses, depressed wage growth and union derecognition in some cases. We learned that company managers we dealt with no longer had the same authority and decision-making power. The PE fund was the boss, and the employees were often demoralised.
The British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association responded to concerns by setting up a standards-setting exercise involving Sir David Walker and later established a PE reporting group on which my noble friend Lady Drake serves. This was welcome, but concerns remain. I confess that when the banking crisis broke in 2008-09, my first thought was that highly leveraged private equity and its cousin hedge funds were major factors in it. I was wrong. The explosion was triggered on subprime mortgage markets. The question still in my mind is that private equity and its high leveraging could cause a massive problem with instability and company failure.
Things have moved on since the mid-2000s, but there are signs of a revival in PE. According to the FT just 10 days ago, there is developing in Germany in particular an impetus for major household-name companies—I will point out just one: Volkswagen—to sell off non-core divisions to PE, which would do the dirty work of asset sales including job reduction. The tax deductibility of interest payments on debt creates an incentive for PE funds and others to borrow to buy, even though the Finance Act 2017 restricted some activities in this area. One of the criticisms made of Unilever in the context of a takeover bid by Kraft was that its balance sheet was insufficiently leveraged. Unilever is over 90 years old. Will any PE-fuelled companies endure and prosper like that?
Anyone who has looked at the history of PE will have seen some of the horror stories. My noble friend Lord Sikka mentioned some of these in the debate in 2022. I just pick out one: Toys R Us was a well-known retailer in the US and the UK. It was taken over by Bain Capital and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, stellar names in the PE world. Staff and benefits were cut, and interest expenses consumed 97% of the company’s operating profits. The company was still paying interest on loans to KKR and Bain until 2016; it is small wonder that it collapsed.
Currently, I am particularly concerned about PE operations in the social care sector. According to the Guardian on 12 November:
“Private companies operating … in … three regions of England have taken more than £250m in profits in three years”
from their social care activities,
“with more than a third going to … private equity firms or companies based in tax havens”.
This is a lot of public money going astray. I think that PE should not be allowed anywhere near social care.
I could go on with other examples of poor behaviour, but it would be more interesting to hear advocates of PE listing positive examples where, as a result of the actions of PE, companies have been transformed from laggards to dynamic and sturdy firms. Do any such examples exist? Where are the successful poster boys for private equity?
I recognise that private equity is a substantial part of the UK economy. It is too big to ignore. The Governor of the Bank of England, Andew Bailey, has recently announced that the Bank is planning to run a series of tests of private equity and credit firms. This follows some problems in the United States. The governor is seeking to discover whether these are isolated examples or, as he put it, a “canary in the coalmine” indicating wider systemic problems. This is important work by the Bank.
I appreciate that the Government are desperate to boost growth and seek new investment, especially on necessary infrastructure improvements. They are always looking for new sources of capital, but is private equity contributing or is it undermining traditional ways of investing in business, such as issuing new equity?
Do the Government have any current concerns about the role of private equity? Do they see any need for further regulation for PE or, more widely, the shadow banking sector? Are there plans to remove the tax advantages of debt relative to equity? Where are we on the Government’s aims to tackle the injustices of carried interest? This is an area that needs considerable scrutiny, and I hope that this short debate can help stimulate that further scrutiny.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I will speak on the role of private equity within the modern pensions landscape and, in particular, the implications of the Government’s Mansion House reforms for the Local Government Pension Scheme and long-term investment in the United Kingdom. The reforms announced in 2024 mark an important moment. They aim to consolidate our fragmented defined contribution sector and strengthen the investment management of the Local Government Pension Scheme. Taken together, they represent an attempt to align pension outcomes with the broader goal of promoting productive investment across the country.
The challenges of the next half-century are considerable: climate transition, energy security, technological change, demographic pressures and geopolitical instability will all shape the environment in which pension assets must be managed. In that context, private capital, including private equity, has a role to play not only in delivering returns but in addressing some of the systemic issues that confront the country.
It is important to acknowledge that private equity is not a uniform asset class. When approached with discipline and proper governance, it can generate significant value. Over the past two decades, it has produced sustained double-digit returns, considerably outperforming public equity indices. For many defined contribution schemes, which seek long-term growth and diversification, such returns are both attractive and aligned with members’ interests.
Private equity also provides access to parts of the economy that public markets do not easily reach: smaller companies, specialised sectors and innovative enterprises. It enables long-term investment in businesses without the short-term pressures that arise in listed markets, and it brings with it an attractive investment approach, drawing on skills that help transform businesses and support growth. Other jurisdictions demonstrate what can be achieved at scale. Canada’s major pension funds, for example, have used their size to deepen allocations to private equity infrastructure and real estate, generating stronger returns and reducing costs. The United Kingdom should be ambitious in seeking similar outcomes.
This brings me on to the Local Government Pension Scheme. With nearly £400 billion in assets—that figure is projected to reach £1 trillion by 2040—the LGPS is uniquely positioned to contribute in order to improve member outcomes and to increase productive investment across our regions. Encouragingly, we are already seeing progress. The Greater Manchester Pension Fund has committed more than £500 million to SME investment, supporting more than 160 business and creating more than 16,000 jobs. Funds in the West Midlands, South Yorkshire, Avon, Clwyd and Devon are showing similar leadership.
Noble Lords are, I am sure, quite surprised that I should be speaking in this debate on private equity, but I absolutely pay tribute to the Private Equity Foundation. When it makes money, which is a good thing, it actually puts that money into a good cause. The charity that I ran a few years ago was a beneficiary: it invested in the work that we did with children in schools. We reduced truancy, increased academic achievement and got young people into work who would never have done so otherwise. It deserves credit for that.
There are jobs for young people in the areas that need them most. There are opportunities and hope. As of 31 December 2024, £203 million had been invested directly into the West Midlands Combined Authority area. This includes funding for housing, infrastructure, commercial property and small businesses, creating jobs, building homes and improving services. More than 22,000 jobs have been supported, with nearly 5,000 homes delivered and significant investment directed into hospitals, schools and digital infrastructure. Such examples show that institutional rigour can sit comfortably alongside place-sensitive investment strategies. They demonstrate that pension funds can achieve strong financial returns while also contributing to local economic development.
However, context matters. Many LGPS funds are currently well funded. The scheme as a whole was estimated to be 107% funded in March 2022, and early indications suggest a further strengthening by 2025. For some funds, that may reduce their immediate appetite for additional private market exposure. The Government’s proposed allocation target of 10% for private equity may, therefore, appear ambitious. Yet, if the consolidation envisaged by the Mansion House reforms proceeds, the LGPS will inevitably become a larger and more sophisticated investor in private markets.
As this occurs, the secondary market, which is all too often overlooked, will play an increasingly important role. It will provide liquidity, support portfolio rebalancing, and enable the effective recycling of capital. The UK must ensure that this market is deep, transparent and trusted. If we are to meet the challenges of the coming decades and seize the opportunities that accompany them, we must treat our pension system as a cornerstone of national economic strength.
Baroness Moyo (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as I have disclosed in the register of interests, I serve on Oxford University’s endowment investment committee, which allocates capital to private equity. There is always a risk that a debate on the role of private equity will be based on dated views of the industry, characterised by asset stripping, financial engineering and cutting jobs. However, compared with 20 years ago, today’s private equity is largely focused on creating growth through productivity gains driven by operational improvements and technological innovation.
I will make three points about private equity as it relates to the United Kingdom’s prosperity. First, private equity is an engine in the British economy. The British Private Equity & Venture Capital Association estimates that, in 2025, private equity-backed companies employ approximately 2.5 million workers—that is one in 14 of Britain’s working population. The association also estimates that these companies generate nearly £200 billion, or 7% of GDP, for the economy. More widely, when suppliers and related consumers are included, 2023 estimates put private equity’s economic impact at roughly £300 billion, or about 11% of the UK’s GDP.
Secondly, private equity plays an important role in boosting the country’s productivity. The Productivity Institute found that private equity-backed companies benefit from productivity gains that are higher than those in the wider economy. Specifically, the institute notes an increase in total factor productivity of greater than 4%, and an increase in labour productivity as large as 5%. Crucially, the report notes that these gains are unlikely to be the result of cutting jobs. This revelation about productivity alone is key; it should not be overlooked amid concerns around the UK’s persistent productivity puzzle.
Thirdly, private equity must continue to play a vital role in driving innovation. Private equity is not just helping to turn around older, established companies; it is also providing growth capital to help companies scale up, and venture capital to support start-ups. The noble Lord asked for specific examples. I give him the magnificent seven, which are currently powering 200 to 300 basis points of economic growth as we live and breathe.
More specifically, both artificial intelligence and climate efforts, which are critical for future economic success, require large-scale capital investment, which private equity can help to provide. The era of AI in particular promises to drive down costs in public goods and increase efficiency of delivery in things such as the National Health Service. The IEA estimates that the energy transition and climate initiatives are going to require $5 trillion per year globally. Essentially, these efforts need all the capital that we can get, private equity included.
Yet today, in the UK context, private equity faces challenges, including finding a route to sell companies it has invested in and nurtured. This is, in part, due to the UK’s capital markets having weakened and investor interest in IPOs and public markets falling away. Worryingly, this year the United Kingdom has fallen out of the world’s top 20 IPO markets. Additionally, private equity investors are struggling to find promising new UK companies to invest in, highlighting burdensome regulation that ultimately holds back growth and puts the UK at a distinct disadvantage in the global competition for investment capital.
Britain needs more good jobs, more innovation and greater productivity. It also needs more infrastructure and improvements in public services. All of these require vast quantities of large-scale investment. At a time when this country’s growth is slowing—it recorded growth worth just 0.1% of GDP in the last quarter and is registering a 5% unemployment rate—this backdrop is a stark reminder that we must not deter major sources of capital and job creation such as private equity.
To be balanced, there are notable criticisms—some of which have already been mentioned—from local authorities experiencing escalating costs in both child and adult care provision from the private sector, and, in some cases, private equity-owned businesses. Business and the Government must, of course, come together and co-operate to address these urgent concerns. But more generally, government action, be it through legislation or regulation, should aim to create a much more engaging environment for private equity investment opportunity.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Monks for introducing this debate on an important subject and the noble Baronesses, Lady Stedman-Scott and Lady Moyo, for their interesting contributions. They presented a powerful case in favour of private equity, but there is another side to the story. My noble friend Lord Monks explained, as I am sure my noble friend Lord Sikka will, some of the problems created by private equity. I am afraid that I am not as sanguine as the noble Baroness, Lady Moyo, that the bad old days are over. The potential is still there—it has not gone away. It is about the way that this tool is operated. You cannot deny the problems of the past. What guarantee is there that they will not return in the future?
My particular interest in private equity is in the way it has become embroiled in current debates about pension schemes. The Mansion House accord, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, seeks to commit pension schemes to invest significant amounts in private equity. In the House of Lords, we will shortly receive the Pension Schemes Bill, which explicitly refers to the need for large pension funds to be able to invest in private equity. It is a very topical issue.
The promise is attractive. We are told that it will lead to higher returns; in introducing the Mansion House accord, the Treasury specifically referred to the higher potential net returns for savers. I suspect there is a significant element of survivor bias in these figures. None the less, the higher returns are not a free lunch; they come with the downside of failure. Private equity investments are not by their nature successful; they require the hard work and knowledge of experienced investors.
We need to identify the problems with private equity in its own terms. My noble friends will point out some of the other problems that have been faced, but one is illiquidity. As pension funds are operated at the moment, any member is entitled to move their money out and take it somewhere else, or to use it to buy an annuity when they get to retirement. Illiquidity, which is inherent in private equity funds, is a problem for pension funds.
Another problem is valuation uncertainty. Pension funds are required to tell their members what the fund is worth. The funds held in private equity are calculated in a way that, at best, we could describe as opaque. Members will be given a figure as to what it is worth, but it is not the same sort of figure as in market investments, where there is a market and you know what the investment would actually raise if you sold it tomorrow. You do not know what your private equity investment will raise if you have to sell it tomorrow.
Then there is the inevitability of higher costs and fees being charged. In some way, that is the point of private equity—so that advisers can charge higher fees, which are inevitable. Finding these splendid investment opportunities, as previous speakers have identified, does not fall into people’s laps. It requires hard work and skill, which comes at a significant cost. Talking about private equity without recognising the costs involved is wrong.
Of course, there is the overall problem of really knowing what these funds are doing. There have been well-attested cases reported in the Financial Times of private equity funds selling their investments to a self-owned subsidiary. This is not uncommon; the sort of financial structures which are developed in order to hold private equities are, at best, obscure, as I said earlier. Then there is the alpha problem, with the Government as a fiduciary in pension funds; it is the trustees who should be taking the decision and not the Government.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Monks, on securing this very timely and important debate. I declare all sorts of interests. I am a founder and current senior partner of the advisory firm, Cavendish Corporate Finance—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his comments on the skill and hard work needed in that area. I personally invest in several venture capital and private equity funds, directly and indirectly, and I often negotiate against, and sometimes for, private equity as a professional M&A adviser.
When I started Cavendish in 1988, PE was a new and unknown phenomenon. A most important breakthrough happened when the Treasury agreed that carried interest should be taxed as capital not income, and there were other legislative changes in the 1980s and 1990s that enabled the industry to flourish. Noble Lords may recall the Chancellor at the time who facilitated this—it was not Lawson or Major; it was, to his credit, Gordon Brown. Those who think this is all a terrible, Thatcher-inspired “Greed is good”-era event are wrong. To be fair, there were lots of other hidden benefits at the time for the PE industry, which successive Governments allowed: an unlimited write-off of interest against profit—which is now capped—with that interest going to tax-free funds; base cost shifting, which has now stopped; very advantageous LLP structures, which the forthcoming hokey-cokey Budget may or may not stop; and offshore benefits, which have now been stopped.
However, at that time, the culmination occurred when an unfortunate PE individual boasted, at a House of Commons Select Committee, that he paid less tax than his cleaner. It was all the above, together with some very aggressive behaviour by some operators, which left PE with a very negative reputation. I recall a meeting of a PE-backed company that was behind budget, and the PE executive demanded that someone was fired as a result. They said they did not care who was fired, they just wanted to see someone fired immediately—and they were. As noble Lords will have gathered, I do not have rose-tinted spectacles when looking at PE. I have seen some bad behaviour and some enormous—I mean: enormous—fortunes made by some who really did not contribute much to our economy.
However, that being said, I make the point that, originally, PE was solving a major issue, as typified by RJR Nabisco, when the barbarians at the gate took over a company run by grossly inefficient management, who treated their corporation as a cash cow for their own private excesses. The point is that the capitalist system is the most successful ever created to enhance all our welfare, and it works on the constant need for greater efficiencies to maximise the return to shareholders for their investment. This is what really matters, not the ESG policy or the mission statement—or its purpose or self-declared interest to do good—or all the other fluffy stuff put up to deflect us. A company needs to be measured and assessed overwhelmingly by its return to shareholders on their investment—that is all. If management need to be sacked, they should be, unlike in other sectors. Of course, exploitative behaviour, modern slavery and cartel-like behaviour all have to be banned, but the overwhelming focus needs to be the efficient return to shareholders on their capital.
That matters to many of us in this Room. It matters not to those on the state pension or state benefits, which they enjoy because of state employment, but to those who, like me, have saved and invested in funds which, in turn, have been allocated to PE investments. We need them to succeed, and they are doing so at a time when public markets are sadly struggling because the Government keep failing to stimulate them—I hope the Minister will say more about that. Private capital is needed more than ever.
PE has helped some 13,000 firms in the UK and this Government, who claim to be focused on growth, have done nothing to encourage it. Indeed, they have brought on the disastrous Employment Rights Bill which every trade representative body and pretty much every private business realises will kill growth.
I turn briefly and more importantly, to venture capital, which the noble Baroness, Lady Moyo, touched on. It does an outstanding job in taking a risk that no one else will. As a result, 40% of the UK’s fastest growing 100 companies in the UK have VC money, with £14 billion in tech companies last year.
Since some of the other horror stories I mentioned earlier, the Walker guidelines, which was briefly mentioned, have been implemented successfully and seem to have changed behaviour, so let us try to ensure that PE companies play by all the rules, that investors feel welcomed in the UK and that we celebrate the sharp and necessary focus PE brings to the UK, ensuring that profitability is maximised for all our benefit.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, I have to note that capitalism focused on shareholder returns is dependent entirely on the natural world and a functioning society. There are no shareholder returns on a dead planet or in a collapsed society.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monks, for providing this opportunity to assess the enormous and wide-spread damage that private equity has done to the UK and the world, with some $13 trillion now held across 50,000 companies worldwide. Their tentacles spread, particularly for the relatively poor, into every aspect of their lives, being their landlords, their electricity and water providers, their providers of travel to work, their employers, their doctors, their debt collectors and even caring, very expensively, for their pets. It is, as has been described in virological terms, a financial pandemic.
The author Megan Greenwell in her book Bad Company focuses on the US and, as she identifies, the death of the American dream which is associated with private equity. If noble Lords have not read it, I recommend it. She tellingly contrasts venture capital, which seeks to invest money mostly in start-ups to support the development of something new, with private equity, which typically buys company outright—often mature and established companies. The private equity aim is to get money out of the company without really caring whether the company makes any money. They are parasitic.
We all know the ways in which they do this, as the noble Lord, Lord Monks outlined: selling the company’s land and buildings, which are frequently bought through high-interest loans from related companies, then charging the company rent to continue to occupy its own premises. Money not already being drained by the interest payments is pumped out in dividends. Those are the returns that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, referred to. Then we see the buyer slashing the workforce, cutting the quality of services and products and it all crashes and burns in a couple of years, as it has in so many cases. Then the private equity firm moves on to the next victim.
As evidence given recently to our own Public Accounts Committee shows, some of the most vulnerable people in our society are suffering the worst as individuals from this model. The Public Accounts Committee inquiry, launched in July 2025, was prompted by National Audit Office research showing that the cost of children’s residential care placements has risen 96% since 2019. It heard from the Children’s Homes Association, which has removed tax-haven based private equity providers from its membership and called them out, pointing out that there are now large national providers with several hundred placements earning windfall profits from the coffers of local authorities that are then shipped straight off to tax havens.
The chief executive of the Children’s Homes Association told the Public Accounts Committee that measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will not deal with this situation. He asked,
“is there political will to tackle tax haven-based private equity providers?”
I ask the Minister that question directly and non-rhetorically. Will the Government get private equity out of children’s care, out of aged care and disabled homes, where it has been doing similar damage for decades? These were issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Moyo.
My second question to the Minister is about the welfare of us all. We continue to see the enormous price paid by the young, the poor and the disabled after the financial crash of 2007-08, caused by the greed and fraud of the bankers. We are now hearing increasing warnings about the risk of it all happening again from multiple quarters: from the AI-fantasy bubble to the crypto mania, but also from the risk of collapse of the private equity model. There are only so many juicy targets from which money can be sucked, and they are drying up as our economies are hollowed out and financialised, with few sectors not already left victim. As the Bank of England’s Financial Stability Report said last year:
“Vulnerabilities from high leverage, opacity around valuations, variable risk management practices and strong interconnections with riskier credit markets mean the sector has the potential to generate losses for banks and institutional investors”.
Natacha Postel-Vinay, an assistant professor at the London School of Economics, said in commentary:
“I think a lot of people do not know exactly what is going on”.
Another question for the Minister is whether the Government can say, hand on heart, that they are confident that the regulators, and they themselves, know what is going on in terms of the financial risks being presented by private equity, particularly in light of the obscurity as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Davies?
I finish on a message of hope, because I am always looking for hope. One of the reasons I recommend Greenwell’s book is that she talks about the people who are fighting back against the damage done by private equity; the workers and communities who are fighting back. My final question to the Minister is what the Government are going to do to fight back and tackle some of the tax issues that have already been raised by other noble Lords. They are, after all, the Government. Surely, the state of the country and the economy is their ultimate responsibility.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I also thank my noble friend Lord Monks for securing this debate. Private equity’s trail of destruction includes Debenhams, Homebase, LloydsPharmacy, Maplin, Poundworld, Silentnight, Toys R Us, The Body Shop, Southern Cross Healthcare and more. High streets have become economic deserts, thousands of SMEs have been strangled and Governments just wring their hands. Private equity is part of shadow banking and remains unregulated. There are no effective rules about leverage or capital adequacy. Governments are playing with fire, as the next crash will surely come from this sector.
Tax abuse, profiteering, asset stripping and cutting staff and wages are the standard private equity tools. The controlling entity is usually in some opaque offshore tax haven: no tax is paid on dividends extracted from UK operations. Instead of share capital, private equity loads companies with secure debt; this enables it to eliminate a downside risk of shareholding as, in the event of liquidation, it is paid first. Unsecured creditors get little or nothing.
Some years ago, I was asked by the Work and Pensions Committee to look at the liquidation of Bernard Matthews, a well-known poultry company. It was deliberately gutted by private-equity owners: the directors sold the assets and jettisoned all the liabilities, including deficit on the employee pension scheme, to maximise profit. Suppliers, SMEs, employees, local communities and HMRC were harmed. Governments did absolutely nothing. Can the Minister say how many SMEs have been damaged by private equity, and will the Government investigate liquidations concocted by private equity?
The crisis at Thames Water has been deepened by private equity’s cash extraction. Northumbrian Water, Southern Water, Wessex Water and Yorkshire Water are partly or wholly owned by private equity. All have hundreds of criminal convictions and are still allowed to fleece customers. Private equity is devouring ASDA and Morrisons: staffing and wages have been cut to boost profits and investment has been neglected. Large corporations, many controlled by private equity, have 60% of the veterinary market. Vets’ fees have increased at double the rate of inflation. Vets are under pressure to meet financial targets and sell unnecessary appointments to pet owners—that is what vets have told me.
Profit margins range between 16% and 20%. Social care is mainly under the control of companies increasingly backed by private equity. They are extracting £1.5 billion a year for their investors. Private equity-backed fostering agencies provide almost one-quarter of all child fostering places in England. In 2023, the parent company of the UK’s biggest provider, the National Fostering Group, made an underlying profit of £104 million with a profit margin of 21%. That is unacceptable. Profiteering from vulnerable children is what private equity does. Despite the glossy statement, it has no notion of ethics or social responsibility. On 18 November 2024, the Government issued a press release entitled Biggest Overhaul in a Generation to Children’s Social Care. It stated:
“We will crack down on care providers making excessive profit”
and
“put a limit on the profit providers can make”.
A year later, nothing has been heard. Can the Minister tell the Committee when this legislation will be brought to Parliament?
Too many dental practices are taken over by private equity as it seeks to build local monopolies. My dentists—PortmanDentex and Rodericks—are leading players and are controlled by opaque entities from Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands. They are not there for the sunshine. The typical cost of dental treatment at these dental surgeries is three and a half times what NHS dentists charge.
Too many GP surgeries are controlled by private equity. There are pressures on them to increase profit by cutting staff and using unqualified staff. The NHS is increasingly a shell doling out contracts to private operators backed by private equity. Just five firms received thousands of cataract surgery contracts. They have a profit margin of between 32% and 43%. In 2023-24, they received £536 million from the NHS and made a profit of £169 million. It is a matter of great concern that under their 10-year plan, the Government plan to hand more of the NHS to private equity.
Finally, can the Minister explain what the Government are going to do to curb abuses by private equity?
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of South Molton Street Capital. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Monks, on securing this important debate about private equity and on his membership of the important French Légion d’honneur alongside Stephen Schwarzman, who is the founder of the largest private equity investment firm in the world: Blackstone.
Private equity and venture capital-backed businesses directly supported approximately 7% of UK GDP, 8% of employment and 9% of gross earnings in 2025; those numbers were, I think, referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Monks. The British Private Equity & Venture Capital Association reports that private capital-backed companies now generate around £200 billion annually in GDP for this country and support 2.5 million jobs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Moyo, pointed out, that is one in 14 jobs in the UK.
It is important for me to frame my remarks with a clear eye to both the benefits and the risks that come with private equity funds. Private equity remains well placed to deliver solid, diversified returns. Over the past two decades, it has outperformed listed equities by between 4% and 6% a year after fees, supported by both the value creation role of active ownership and the illiquidity premium.
For DC schemes supporting UK retirees, those advantages are particularly attractive, as my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott mentioned. Local government pension pools have already saved £380 million through consolidated private equity investment, and 17 major workplace pension providers have pledged to double their private market exposure to 10% by 2030. The UK’s traditionally cautious pension landscape is clearly opening up, with an estimated £50 billion to £75 billion in new private equity commitments expected over the next five years.
Studies have found that, on average, private equity-backed firms achieve higher productivity growth, as noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Moyo, than comparable companies and often outperform on operational metrics after investment. Long-run analysis of UK portfolio companies suggests that, on average, private equity-backed firms have achieved faster growth in productivity and greater growth in organic employment than comparable private sector benchmarks. When Nat Benjamin from the Bank of England spoke to the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee on 5 November, he commented on the role of private equity in supporting business:
“There have been research and studies on precisely that question—academic research. They tend to show that on average the performance of the businesses, of the corporates that are financed by private equity, tends to improve”.
Private equity and private credit providers create important professional services jobs and income and prosperity for our country and our tax base. It is in the national interest that the Government should work to preserve and strengthen this position because it delivers real, tangible benefits to people across the UK.
However, I appreciate that private equity is not without its risks. We have heard reference to the problems that have arisen in social care from the noble Lords, Lord Monks and Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. The debt burden can become unsustainable if the business hits a downturn and debt repayments and interest eat into cash flow. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, referenced a long list of private equity calamities in this country and the US and touched on the debacle at Thames Water, which remains a cautionary example. Successive private infrastructure investors, including Germany’s RWE and Australia’s Macquarie, left the company unmodernised and heavily leveraged while continuing to extract substantial dividends when interest rates were very low. When interest rates returned to more normal levels, Thames Water was exposed. It was clear that funding that ought to have been directed towards upgrading the Victorian sewer network, which serves 16 million people around London, was instead diverted to servicing debt.
However, it is important that we do not let these risks deter us from supporting private equity. The question is not whether these funds are wholly good or wholly bad, but how we can manage and engage with them as parliamentarians and Ministers—and, in the noble Lord’s case, as a Government—in a way that minimises risk and maximises benefits for the British public. I welcome that it seems to be in this spirit that the FCA proposes to alter and develop the regulatory regime surrounding alternative investment funds to allow more flexibility for smaller funds, saying that it believes that,
“clearer rules, better tailored to firms, could create efficiencies in how firms do business and further support economic growth and competition”.
Private equity funds have the capacity and potential greatly to benefit our economy. We need to make sure that any changes to the regulatory environment support growth and embed efficiency. We on these Benches will look at this closely as the FCA’s consultation concludes and steps are taken in this direction.
We need to appreciate that the success or failure of these funds is also determined in part by the macroeconomic environment, which the Government have a substantial hand in creating. I appreciate that the Minister cannot comment on specific measures in the Budget, but can he assure us that the Government are forming their plan with a mind to enabling private equity funds and alternative investment funds to continue to contribute to the economy? Does he also recognise that, however they are presented, tax changes can have a real effect on market actors, such as private equity funds, which play an important role in investment, employment and growth? What steps is the Treasury taking to assess and mitigate any unintended consequences so that tax policy does not inadvertently undermine the Government’s growth objectives? I look forward to hearing from the Minister on these points and his response to the other questions raised by noble Lords.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Monks for securing this debate and all noble Lords for their contributions this afternoon. It has been an energetic debate that has covered all bases in the discussion around private equity. The role of private equity is a salient issue for the UK economy, and it is important for us to recognise the role that private equity investment plays. I thank noble Lords for their constructive contributions to this thoughtful debate.
Growth is the central mission of this Government, but we recognise that government alone cannot deliver growth. That is why investment is a cornerstone of the economic strategy. The UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy set out the Government’s commitment to enable investment and growth in city regions and clusters across the country.
The growth of private markets has enhanced the types of capital available to the real economy, providing increased competition and diversification. Private equity companies provide capital from investors with a broad range of risk appetites. This has increased the availability of finance for businesses, providing long-term capital and support for business plans that enable those businesses, especially smaller or high-potential firms, to scale and innovate.
For many companies, private equity plays an essential role, from supporting firms to scale up from the venture capital stage to listing on a public market. By offering diverse sources of finance and allocating risk to where it can best be managed, private equity can reduce pressure on the banking system and support broader economic resilience. Capturing the benefits of this global growth in private markets is essential to increasing growth and investment in the UK.
The Government remain committed to ensuring that private market investment is sensible and sustainable, and we are working closely with the Bank of England and Financial Conduct Authority as we pursue reforms to support growth. Some noble Lords will have seen the Economic Secretary to the Treasury making just that point yesterday to this House’s Financial Services Regulation Committee.
As noble Lords will have heard, the Economic Secretary welcomed the work of the regulators to monitor and understand these risks and welcomed the Bank of England’s proposals for a system-wide exploratory scenario exercise focused on private markets. She noted that the Chancellor will ensure that the Financial Policy Committee continues its work on these risks through her annual remit letter to the committee.
I reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to maintaining high regulatory standards for private markets, including private equity firms. Private equity companies in the UK must comply with the necessary requirements, including the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Regulations and the Companies Act. These regulations help to ensure that fund managers and private companies act responsibly, balancing the interests of investors with those of the wider economy and society. The Government’s ongoing review of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Regulations seeks to maintain this balance, strengthening protections where necessary while ensuring that regulation remains proportionate and targeted.
The noble Lord, Lord Monks, asked where we are on the Government’s plans to appropriately tax carried interest, and other tax issues. While the Government do not comment on speculation about tax policy outside of fiscal events, I remind the noble Lord that, at the Budget in 2024, the Government announced their proposals to introduce a revised tax regime for carried interest from April 2026, which will put the tax treatment of carried interest on a fairer and more stable footing for the long term while safeguarding the strength of the UK as an asset management hub.
The reforms will increase tax on carried interest, ensuring that fund managers pay their fair share. At the same time, the effective tax rate for qualifying carried interest will be at the top end of international competitors, reflecting the Government’s commitment to fairness while maintaining the UK’s position as a leading asset management hub.
I will now try to answer all your Lordships’ questions; if I miss any, I will write to the noble Baroness or noble Lord concerned. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, mentioned the issues around pension investment reform. The Government’s reforms to pensions are designed to improve outcomes for savers and support UK economic growth. Larger consolidated pension schemes can access a broader range of investments, including private markets, which offer the potential for higher long-term returns.
The Mansion House accord is a voluntary industry-led commitment to invest in these assets, and the Government have taken forward a reserve power in the pensions Bill to act as a backstop. Of course, this does not mean we are complacent. The reserve power includes robust safeguards, including a financial detriment test, a sunset clause and a requirement to consult and publish an impact report before use.
The noble Baroness, Lady Moyo, mentioned the capital markets issues. Britain’s capital markets are deep and liquid, with more capital raised in the year to date than the next three European exchanges combined. The Government are not complacent and have taken forward an ambitious programme of reforms to reinvigorate our capital markets, including a once-in-a-generation rewrite of the listings rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, mentioned private market valuations. Alongside the Treasury, the FPC and regulators are working to improve transparency in valuation practices and understand leverage and counterparty exposures. Internationally, the Bank, the FCA and the Treasury are collaborating with the Financial Stability Board better to understand cross-border risks in private markets.
The noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Leigh, talked about reassurance on regulations. The Government are reviewing and reforming the regulatory framework underpinning the sector, recognising the key role that it plays in growth for the UK. This exercise is not about cutting back regulations at any cost but about tailoring the requirements to the UK market to boost competitiveness and encourage growth. Existing regulations help to ensure that private companies act responsibly, balancing the interests of investors with those of the wider economy, society and the environment. There are a number of requirements imposed through regulations, including the Companies Act, ensuring that private market firms act in a responsible manner.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked several questions and raised issues around, for example, social care. The noble Baroness was right to point out that private equity investment has increased in adult social care, with many services now provided by private companies. Under the Care Act 2014, local authorities must shape local care markets to meet community needs, while the Care Quality Commission oversees care standards and operates a market oversight scheme to mitigate risks from provider failures. The Government plan to build a national care service and have commissioned the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to recommend reforms, including how services should be organised and funded to ensure fair, affordable and high-quality adult social care for current and future needs.
The Government are committed to delivering children’s social care reform in addition to providing over £500 million to refurbish and expand children’s homes and foster care placements. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will improve the safeguarding of children.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, mentioned asset-stripping and other issues. Private equity can play a constructive role in supporting businesses, but it remains important that such investment is carried out with transparency and responsible ownership. Incidents of value extraction can of course occur, which can be detrimental to creditors, employees and wider stakeholders. That is why there is regulation in place to address this issue. For example, under the Companies Act, directors of all companies are required to have regard in their decision-making to the long term and to impact of the companies’ operations on the community, and they are required to report against these requirements.
We welcome the CMA’s provisional decision report on veterinary services and continue to engage with the CMA ahead of the publication of the final report, which is expected in the spring of next year. As for the water companies, the Government are fixing the water sector’s broken regulatory system. Sir Jon Cunliffe published his recommendations for water sector reform in the summer and the Government have already responded to a number of them.
Private equity is a vital sector for the economy. There is a lot of good in it and probably some other not-so-good issues with it as well, but the Government are looking at all that and remain committed to fostering a dynamic investment environment that supports sustainable growth, innovation and job creation across the UK. We will continue to monitor developments in private markets and ensure that our regulatory framework evolves to meet emerging challenges while maintaining investor confidence and public trust. I again thank all noble Lords who have taken part.
Plastic Recycling Targets
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in achieving plastic recycling targets.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, since the resources and waste strategy of 2018 and the 25-year environment plan of January 2019, plastic recycling has moved up the political and public agenda—but not as quickly as it might, despite the sterling efforts of David Attenborough. I am grateful to the Green Alliance for its briefing.
Over the intervening years, the banning of some plastic-containing products has helped. However, this is a small piece of the problem. Previous television coverage of UK plastic export strategy showed waste being sent abroad on barges to Turkey, with children playing among toxic waste. This created public outcry, but the practice is ongoing. Earlier this year, an investigation found that 200 young people had died in Turkey’s recycling industry. The EU is introducing a total ban on exporting waste to non-OECD countries up to 2029 and strict limits on plastic exports to other OECD countries. Meanwhile, the UK gaily continues to export waste plastics.
Figures from July show that plastic packaging had decreased from 2.6 million tonnes in 2012 to 2.3 million tonnes in 2024—a small reduction. Figures achieved for recycling increased from 25.2% in 2012 to 51% in 2025—a better, but misleading, figure. In April 2024, a survey conducted by Greenpeace and Everyday Plastic estimated that UK households discard approximately 1.7 billion pieces of plastic weekly, which is around 60 pieces per household. We are up to our necks in plastic. Snack packaging and fruit and vegetable packaging are the items most responsible. Some 58% of plastic packaging thrown away was being incinerated, an increase from 46% in 2022.
This is nothing to be proud of. Raising awareness with the public is crucial to future success in reducing discarded plastic in our environment. Analysis published in October 2023 by WRAP, a brilliant organisation dedicated to reducing plastic waste, noted that local authority collection rates for plastic were improving, with 6.1 million tonnes of plastic packaging collected for recycling in 2021, a 4% increase on the previous year. I stress that local authority plastic waste collection is not the same as plastic waste recycling; they are two very different things.
Figures from 2019 indicate that 16.6% of the material that sorting facilities dealt with was contaminated. This means it was unsuitable for recycling. Local authorities up and down the country have diverse ways of tackling their responsibilities towards recycling. Having come from Somerset, where there was a combined waste strategy between the county and district—now a unitary council—with separated waste collections covering all recyclable products, I am aware of what is achievable. I now live in Hampshire, where all recyclable products except glass are collected together. This leads to contamination and poor recycling rates.
Throughout the country, there is a series of large and small recycling and processing plants to deal with waste, especially plastic. These recycling plants transform waste plastic into PET for future use in the soft drinks industry. However, partly due to the inferior quality of the recycling materials available to the plants, the import of cheaper virgin plastic and rising electricity costs, 21 of these reprocessing plants have shut down over the past two years. Some of these plants might have stayed open if the recyclable plastic collected had not been contaminated.
I referred earlier to the export of plastics for other countries to deal with. The UK remains reliant on exporting its plastic recycling waste, with 47% of accredited UK recycled plastic packaging reported as being exported; Turkey was the largest destination for these exports. This loophole in the legislation allows the export of waste to be included in recycling figures. This is a smoke and mirrors exercise. Neither the Government nor local authorities have recycled their plastics if all they have done is bundle them up and send them abroad. This is outrageous. We have no way of knowing precisely what is happening to it. Is it being discarded close to waterways or coastlines, where it will damage the environment of aquatic animals and fish? Can the Minister say whether the Government have a strategy to move towards preventing the export of recyclable plastic waste? If not, why not? Exporting plastic waste for recycling when we have adequate recycling plants in the UK that could process this waste is extraordinary, to say the least.
The cost of virgin plastic needs to be comparable with or higher than that of recycled plastic. Without this, our recycling is not competitive. Cheap virgin plastic imports undercut demand. Sadly, the UK market is currently flooded with cheap imports of virgin plastic from China, Africa and the Middle East. For recycling plants to thrive, they need two things: first, a supply of high-quality used plastic to recycle; and, secondly, electricity to be affordable. The Government could do more by placing tariffs on imported cheap virgin plastic, making UK recycled plastic affordable. The plastic packaging tax, currently set at £223.69 per tonne, has increased demand for recycled plastic. However, it takes no account of the origin of the plastic and offers our domestic recyclers only weak support. It reduces the price gap between virgin and recycled plastic but does not close the gap altogether; the system needs to be geared towards the home market.
I turn briefly to the deposit return scheme for recycled plastic bottles. It was first mooted in 2017 but we are now told that it will be rolled out in 2027; that is 10 years to implement, which is unacceptable. Can the Minister reassure us that the target of 2027 for a DRS will be met? To sort the problems of plastic waste, we need a strategy to include, but not be limited to, increasing the plastic packaging tax; banning the export of plastic waste; and swift implementation of a deposit return scheme.
I look forward to a positive response from the Minister on dealing with waste and reducing plastic pollution. This is not a “nice to do”; it is absolutely essential if we are to reduce plastic pollution.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I thank her for securing this debate and setting out many important points.
As the noble Baroness said, we are up to our necks in plastic. In 2020 the previous Government banned plastic straws, stirrers, spoons and cotton buds, but that is nothing to be proud of—it is like trying to use a toothbrush to clean up the planet. It is easy to hold the previous Government at fault for the failure to progress plastic recycling, whether on the slow progress on reducing the use of plastic packaging, on optimising the design of packaging for recycling, on domestic collection, on domestic recycling provision or on the failure to regulate the Wild West of exporting materials for so-called recycling. Indeed, I do hold the previous Government responsible. I meet so many people who ask, “What happened to the bottle deposit scheme?”. Quite a few still remember the £20,000 donation from the Wine and Spirit Trade Association to the Conservative Party just before it used the internal market Act to kill Scotland’s well-advanced scheme.
While this is a long story of regulatory failure—not to mention the underfunding of the local authorities that have to deal with the mess created by giant multinational companies profiting from the use of dangerously toxic, polluting materials—there is a more fundamental problem on which I want to focus. Plastics are a material that simply do not fit within the model of a circular economy, which is of course an absolute necessity if we are to live within the boundaries of this terribly fragile, terribly poisoned, planet.
Glass can be recycled indefinitely, steel can be recycled indefinitely, aluminium can be recycled indefinitely and even paper can be recycled five to seven times. Plastic, however, can effectively only be downcycled. Even to get to that, plastics have to be sorted by colour and type, washed and shredded up. These processes burn large amounts of fossil fuel, produce waste—including large quantities of the microplastics and nanoplastics that are now polluting all our bodies—and contaminate water. Then they are most often turned into items of lesser value and quality; for example, plastic water bottles go to fleece jackets or carpet fibre. Why is that? It is because newly made plastic can have some 16,000 different chemicals added to it. Used plastic can have residues of pesticide, biocides, pharmaceuticals and other toxic chemicals, so when it is used for food purposes, it is usually mixed with virgin plastics to dilute the toxicity.
I point noble Lords to a study in the Journal of Hazardous Materials in 2022, which showed how antimony and well-known endocrine-disrupting chemicals, notably bisphenol A, migrate out of particularly recycled PET drink bottles into the products that they contain. We might want to think about how long even those downcycling possibilities will be around. As our understanding of the human and environmental health threat posed by microplastics and nanoplastics grows, who will want to wear a jacket shedding plastics into the air around their nose and mouth? Who will want to have their baby crawling over a plastic carpet, breathing in all the toxins and fibres that it is producing?
That is on the individual scale; to go back to the planetary scale, we have choked the planet with more than 10 billion tonnes of toxic plastic. About 460 million tonnes of plastic are being produced annually, and the fossil fuel merchants are aiming to treble that by 2050, as the market for their products as a fuel fast fades away. I therefore ask the Minister: what are the Government going to do, domestically and diplomatically, to stop this taking of carbon out of the very long-term storage in which nature put it and eventually, inevitably, pumping it into our already overheated air? This is something that has only been magnified by the new wheeze of so-called “advanced recycling”—sometimes called chemical recycling. There is nothing advanced about using heat or chemicals to melt down plastic to downcycle it into petrochemical products that are very likely to be burned as more dirty fossil fuel energy.
It is time to focus on the producers of this toxic material, and I would ask the Government to do so. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, spoke about educating consumers but, very often, consumers have no escape but to buy items in plastic—and that is the responsibility of the producers and retailers, not the consumers. I note a report from the Center for Climate Integrity from 2024, which lists the number of lies from plastic companies over decades, claiming that their products are recyclable and not harmful.
I finish by looking at both ends of the plastic journey. Two years ago, a train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, highlighted the damage done by just one of the many toxic materials that go into making plastics—generally in poorer communities. At the other end, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, it is going to global South countries where people are being poisoned.
When we look at the waste pyramid, recycling is a very poor solution. It is the third choice; it should be used only when reducing the use of material or reusing products has proved absolutely impossible, not when it is slightly less convenient or slightly less profitable—when it is simply not possible. That means that the vast majority of the plastic products on our retail shelves today should not be there. We should not be looking to recycle them; we should be looking to get rid of them. What are the Government going to do to get us to that crucial goal?
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville for securing this debate and for highlighting in her very powerful speech the incredibly detrimental effects of plastic in the environment. As she says, successive UK Governments have failed to grasp the plastics issue with the urgency it actually needs.
However, I will start my intervention today with encouragement to the Government, and some congratulations at least for their ongoing efforts as regards the UN global plastics treaty. The Minister will know that the UN global plastics treaty has been in negotiations since 2022, and that it would be a game-changer. It is the first ever attempt to create a dedicated, legally binding plastics treaty.
In March 2022, the UN Environment Assembly agreed to develop the legally binding global agreement on plastics, covering the full life cycle, from production to disposal. The problem is that the negotiations are ongoing. The treaty is expected to include targets on ocean plastic pollution, microplastics, product standards and the reduction of single-use plastics, but whether it is adopted depends on overcoming the major sticking points. I would be very grateful if the Minister could say where he understands the negotiations are now.
The Minister in the other place, Emma Hardy, said:
“I’m hugely disappointed that an agreement wasn’t reached, but am extremely proud of the way the UK has worked tirelessly until the end”,
of that round of negotiations,
“to seek an ambitious and effective treaty”.
My question to the Minister is: what efforts is the UK making now to ensure those negotiations are still continuing? Would he agree that it is actually the fossil fuel producers that did not want to see that treaty succeed? This is for the very reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, alluded to—as fuel is phased out for transport use, they are finding other markets for their product. Until we can overcome that, the plastics treaty, which is so crucial, is not going to move forward.
Given this opportunity today, I must mention a plastics problem closer to our shores that really requires the Government’s urgent attention and some decisions from Ministers: the problem highlighted by the recent bio-beads spill at Camber Sands. However, that is by no means is the first disaster of this nature; I recall an incident near Truro, in Cornwall, some years ago. I declare an interest as someone who uses the beaches in the south-west a great deal, as do my family, and we enjoy them.
The bio-beads in question facilitate sewage treatment. It is perhaps ironic that the very things that treat sewage have ended up polluting the sea and the beaches to such a terrible degree. Surfers Against Sewage, to whom I pay tribute for their ongoing campaigning on all sorts of issues, explained the bio-beads issue. Once released, bio-beads behaved like any other microplastic and can be ingested by fish, seabirds and shellfish. They enter the food chain, carry harmful pollutants on their surface and pose health risks to humans.
There are modern alternatives, such as activated sludge systems. I am not going to go into those now, but the fact is that those systems have not been universally adopted. I understand that there are big costs implications. For example, South West Water still has eight plants that use bio-beads. Understandably, the Government have encouraged the water companies to focus on sewage overflows, which have been polluting our rivers and seas so harmfully, but the issue of how that sewage is treated simply has not been addressed. It is about not just the capacity of the sewage system but the sort of system that it is. That needs to be given more government attention.
In April 2025, the European Parliament, the European Council and the European Commission reached agreement on a long-awaited EU regulation to prevent plastic pellet losses into the environment, because, of course, they are a major source of microplastics pollution. That would address not only bio-beads but nurdles, which are the building blocks of plastic. That is how plastic gets shipped around before it gets made into whatever it is going to be made into. There have been some horrendous spills of nurdles at sea.
The EU has passed this regulation but, post-Brexit, we in the UK will not benefit from it. My question to the Minister is: what plans do the Government have to address nurdles and bio-beads? Will they introduce some similar regulation here so that these plastics are no longer wreaking havoc in our oceans?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses who have taken part in today’s debate. It is important that we reflect on both the importance of the recycling targets and the current situation we find ourselves in. Only if we reflect on both will we be able to reach our targets sustainably.
This debate was founded on Conservative principles and initiatives—principally, recycling targets, waste reduction, and our pragmatic and conservatist goals. Practically, the Conservatives have a good track record of creating and supporting recycling initiatives. In 2018, the Government of my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead began funding the UK Plastics Pact, which was created with the aim of eliminating problematic or unnecessary single-use plastic packaging. UK Plastics Pact members now cover the entire UK plastics value chain and are part of an initiative being continued by the current Government. I congratulate them on that.
In 2020, we implemented a single-use plastic ban. The result of that is that our beaches have seen significant reductions in littering, plastic stemmed cotton buds dropped out of the UK’s top 10 most littered items, and we reached our lowest littering level in 28 years. That is tangible evidence of progress being made in achieving recycling targets. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that I would not scoff at these little things—they had a big impact. Getting rid of millions of those little plastic buds was a rather good success.
Last year, the Government set a statutory target to ensure that the total mass of residual waste does not exceed 287 kilograms per person by 2042—residual waste that contains plastic and is sent to landfill or incinerators. This was accompanied by a plastic-specific residual municipal waste target for 2027. If achieved, this would mark a 50% decrease from 2019.
In addition, we introduced the simpler recycling scheme in May last year, requiring firms to separate different types of recycling. The current Government saw the advantages of our approach and have continued and even extended the proposal to microfirms.
The previous Conservative Government were committed to reducing plastic waste within the bounds of our capabilities. We set target upon target; we matched them with regulations and produced guidance to make sure they were achievable. I am glad that the current Government have continued to build on Conservative targets and initiative. I am less glad, however, that they have not based their approach on the same Conservative principles of acting within our means. At the end of the previous Government, unemployment was below 5%. Inflation was at the target of 2%. The fact that the economy was relatively prosperous, compared with the current day, enabled us to take the pragmatic approach that the Government now attempt to copy.
Unfortunately, the Government do not have the luxury of a Conservative-run economy. Regulations such as the simpler recycling scheme work when businesses are doing well. They work when margins are wide enough for businesses to afford the extra costs that come with government intervention. They do not work when the number of payrolled employees is falling by 20,000 a month, as is currently happening, and when businesses—especially small businesses—are hammered with tax increases that they inevitably must pass on to employees or consumers to stay afloat.
I regret to say that it is therefore not the time to implement a host of new regulations that burden businesses with new costs. Extending our simpler recycling scheme is welcome in theory but should be opposed in practice. Not only will it impose an extra administrative burden on microfirms at a time when they can least afford it, but it is overly cumbersome. One misplaced bit of waste and an entire batch of recycling is ruined. That is not efficient enough for a system that aims to eliminate unnecessary plastics. In fact, the Confederation of Paper Industries says that it takes only one dirty pizza box in a whole bin to ruin a whole binload of paper recycling. We have already heard from the noble Baronesses that similarly contaminated plastic bottles can ruin a whole consignment of plastic.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, voiced concerns about the speed of implementation. She wants it to go faster. My concern is that the Government are seeking to implement things too quickly. UKHospitality and the British Soft Drinks Association have voiced their concerns about the scale and speed of implementation. They are worried it will be another anti-growth measure brought in by the Government.
It has taken Germany 30 years to slowly build up its deposit return scheme. It was only two years ago, after being at it for 28 years, that Germany introduced glass to it. The current Government are trying to do in three years what it took Germany 30 years to do. I have no criticism of the Government if they must go past their 2027 deadline, because they are trying to do too much too quickly, which will be damaging to industry.
We know that those who create growth and the conditions to implement these green initiatives are those who create jobs and enterprise. They need the right regulations around them—those that do not overburden them and allow them to comply with the plastic regulations that we all want to implement. Individual regulations seem to have merit, but simpler recycling, deposit return and EPR responsibilities, if collectively implemented at the same time, will impose too many regulations at too high a cost. Individually, they are all good things but introducing them all together could be damaging.
The UN treaty and a question about the Government’s position on it have been raised. I am afraid that we will never get a unanimous United Nations treaty on this, and it is not necessary. It will be blocked by the oil-producing countries. I understand that about 130 user countries, including us and others, are looking to reduce plastic waste. The Government should continue to ignore attempts to create a United Nations treaty signed by all and instead work with those 130 countries that want to reduce plastic waste. It is in our power to do so. This is rather like the United States complaining, “Could South America please stop sending all the drugs to the States that our people are using?”, instead of saying to Americans, “Stop using drugs and there’ll be no market for South America to send them to”. If we, the user countries of plastic, use less plastic products, then so what if Saudi Arabia and others want to pump out more oil? They will have no one to sell it to—or they will not be able to sell as much. There is certain logic in what I suggest.
Keeping within our plastic targets is a noble goal and should be adhered to as much as we can, but it must not come at the expense of business and enterprise. I am grateful that the Government intend to continue this goal, but I hope they do so prudently and carefully. I look forward to hearing what reforms and adjustments the Government intend to make to reflect the current economic landscape.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to address this important question on the progress that His Majesty’s Government have made towards achieving our plastic recycling targets. I am also grateful to all those who have contributed to the debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for bringing the debate in the first place.
The Government inherited a situation, as was reflected in the noble Baroness’s contribution, whereby the waste from household recycling rates had stagnated at around 43% to 45% since 2015. We are fully committed to reversing this trend, and building a sustainable future where resources are valued, waste is minimised, and our economy thrives. I am pleased to report significant strides forward through a comprehensive programme of reform. It is worth noting that in 2023 UK plastic recycling rates were 52.5%, which is a good 10.5% above the EU average. We should criticise, therefore, where there are grounds for criticism, but we should also praise our efforts. Collectively, we have made progress.
From January this year, the extended producer responsibility for packaging, or pEPR, came into force. This is a landmark reform, and shifts responsibility for managing packaging waste from local taxpayers to the businesses that produce and use packaging. Producers will now fund the full net cost, approximately £1.4 billion annually across the UK, creating powerful incentives to design packaging that is recyclable and reusable. To improve recycling outcomes across the UK, pEPR will bring in over a billion pounds per year in revenue. That is something that we should celebrate. From the second year of the scheme, we are introducing fee modulation to reward producers using recyclable packaging with lower fees, while charging more for hard-to-recycle packaging. This “red, amber, green” system will drive innovation in packaging design and materials selection, and will drive better behaviour as well.
We have set ambitious material-specific recycling targets through to 2030. For plastic packaging, we aim to achieve 59% recycling by 2027, rising to 65% by 2030: this is a substantial increase from the 43.8% achieved in 2018, and significantly beyond the 55% target that the EU has set for 2030: we expect to meet or exceed that this year.
On 31 March this year, Simpler Recycling came into effect for workplaces with 10 or more employees across England, ensuring consistency in what can be recycled. From 31 March next year, local authorities will collect the same core recyclable waste streams from all households, including glass, metal, plastic, paper and card, and food waste.
By standardising collections, we will reduce contamination—mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, in her contribution—as well as improve material quality, and provide the recycling industry with confidence to invest. This represents a transformative step forward. The noble Baroness talked about the export of plastic waste, and we recognise that there are a number of factors that have caused issues in the UK recycling sector. We feel that the shift to pEPR will help transform this, as I have already set out. The noble Baroness blamed contamination, but probably the cheap price of virgin plastic is a greater factor in that move away than contamination alone.
On export of plastic waste specifically—following the noble Baroness’s question—I hope that I can provide reassurance that waste exports from the UK are tightly regulated, and businesses must take all necessary steps to ensure that waste exported from the UK is managed in an environmentally sound way. The Environment Agency, as the enforcement body in England, works with our international partners to enforce compliance.
Recognising the particular challenge of flexible plastics, currently collected by fewer than 15% of English local authorities, we are requiring kerbside plastic-film collections from all households and workplaces by 31 March 2027. We have also provided financial support for the multimillion-pound FlexCollect project, which funded local authorities to roll out kerbside plastic film collection trials. This is an ambitious target, but no doubt we must meet it, if we are going to make progress on plastic recycling.
We have also worked with the Food Standards Agency to confirm that it will act as the competent authority for England, Wales and Northern Ireland—working with Food Standards Scotland—to establish an auditing programme for recycled plastic materials in contact with food, further upholding high-quality UK-recycled plastics.
In January 2025, we brought forward legislation to introduce a deposit return scheme for drinks containers in October 2027. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, asked whether the scheme is on track; it will come into fruition on that date. A new organisation called UK Deposit Management Organisation Ltd will run the scheme. Once the DRS is introduced, UK DMO will be required to collect at least 90% by year 3 of the scheme. International deposit return schemes have seen recycling rates increase to over 95%; this will transform the recycling of plastic bottles while reducing litter.
I recognise what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said about the ambition of the scheme and the length of time to make the progress we expect—I think he cited Germany. There is greater awareness of the need to recycle plastic bottles, and younger generations are more responsible on this. We are learning from the experience of Germany and others to ensure that we can meet the ambitious targets of this scheme in time—so watch this space.
These reforms are already stimulating investment. In February, the Environmental Services Association wrote to the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury outlining the certainty that pEPR has provided. As a result, its members plan to invest over £10 billion to improve recycling infrastructure over the next decade, creating over 25,000 jobs across the country. This is good news for that industry and for the economy more generally; these are homegrown, green jobs that will provide investment in communities and our environment.
The plastic packaging tax, set at £210.82 per tonne for packaging containing less than 30% recycled content, creates strong incentives for using recycled materials. At last year’s Budget, we announced support for a mass balance approach for chemically recycled plastic, recognising emerging technologies that can recycle a wider range of plastics. These measures form part of our broader vision for a circular economy. Our forthcoming plan for delivering a circular economy in England represents a fundamental reimagining of how we design, produce, use and recover materials right across the economy, including in the plastics and chemicals sector. I note the tremendous progress achieved through the UK Plastics Pact, supported by the Government and led by WRAP, which the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned. Since 2018, member organisations have increased average recycled content in packaging from 8.5% to 22% while reducing problematic single-use items by 55% by weight.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, spent some time on the subject of reuse. We are committed to transitioning to a circular economy, in which reusable packaging plays a vital part. There is already a strong incentive for reusable packaging through pEPR, as producers pay the disposal cost fees only the first time that reusable packaging is placed on the market. Each reuse cycle avoids additional charges, which creates a strong incentive for businesses to adopt reusable systems. At the end of life, reusable packaging can be offset against fees if collected and sent for recycling by the producer, which further reduces pEPR fees.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Before the noble Lord moves on, I would understand if he wanted to write to me on this, but can he indicate what progress is being made at scale on reusables?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I was going to give some examples of schemes for reusables, although I might have to write on the details of the metrics. A good example of a reusable plastic cups scheme already operating in a closed environment setting is the one launched in 2023 at Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire, operated by Re-universe. Noble Lords may be familiar with it. A customer pays a deposit of £2 per cup for takeaway drinks and, when the cups are returned to designated bins—it is a vending machine-style facility—the deposit is refunded to the customer. The scheme has saved 400,000 single-use coffee cups from disposal since it was launched in 2023. Using these cups just three times renders them carbon negative compared to single-use alternatives. It has saved Blenheim Palace £45,000 annually by eliminating the need to purchase single-use cups.
More anecdotally, when I went to visit my club—Tottenham Hotspur—a couple of weekends ago, it was using a reusable cup scheme. Drinks are given out in plastic cups which are returned and can be washed and reused. It saves money and is good for the planet.
I have run over a little, but I shall endeavour to answer a couple of outstanding questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on the global plastics treaty. Although the meeting to discuss the treaty did not result in agreement on a treaty, the UK joined more than 80 countries in making clear the weight of support for an ambitious and effective treaty. The UK was one of 100 countries to support the global target to reduce the production of primary plastic polymers to sustainable numbers. Of course, the UK will continue to work with its partners in the High Ambition Coalition and other countries to reach an ambitious agreement at the next negotiating session.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I neglected to say that I should congratulate the Defra officials—that is, the British team, under both the previous Government and this Government—on the superb job they have been doing on the UN treaty. We are regarded as one of the finest advocates for reducing plastic use, and that needs to be put on the record. We did a good job. The fact that we do not have a treaty is not the fault of any British Government or Defra officials.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that; he has pre-empted my vote of thanks to the negotiating teams. I am glad about, and welcome, his recognition of our intent, the quality of the people involved and the thought we put into the negotiation process.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, touched on the issue of Camber Sands and bio-bead spills. This was obviously an awful event. As somebody who enjoys the natural environment of the south coast’s beaches as much as anyone, I thought it terrible to see the impact of this spill. The Government have supported industry-led initiatives such as Operation Clean Sweep to promote good practice in pellet loss prevention.
I cannot speak in more detail about the different kinds of sewage processing that the noble Baroness mentioned. If I recall correctly, a record level of investment from the water companies—around £100 billion—has been secured by Ofwat for the next period. That is exactly the sort of investment, in not just pipes but processing sewage, that will lead to the transition we want to see away from bio-beads and towards sludge.
We inherited years of underinvestment in recycling infrastructure, but the foundations are now firmly in place. Through simpler recycling, extending producer responsibility for packaging, the deposit return scheme and the plastic packaging tax, we have created a comprehensive framework that will drive substantial increases in plastic recycling rates while stimulating investment, creating jobs and supporting our transition to a circular economy. We are committed to ending the throwaway society, delivering on our plan for change and ensuring that Britain leads the world in sustainable resource management.
Litter on Canal Towpaths
Lord Evans of Rainow
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact that litter on canal towpaths owned and maintained by the Canal and River Trust is having on urban communities.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this important debate on an issue that has caused concern for canal users up and down the country. Outdoor recreation is essential for people’s well-being and health. We want more people to get out and about and the tow-paths are fantastic open spaces. Sadly, this summer, many of our tow-paths looked like Birmingham during the bin strike, discouraging people from using them for outdoor recreation. We need to change.
Earlier this year, campaigners began to speak out about the appalling amount of litter on our canal tow-paths. The Cleaner Canals Campaign has been documenting this growing problem on social media. Thanks to its efforts, the media has reported on the problem, with stories appearing on BBC News and in the Sunday Times, the Islington Tribute and the Prime Minister’s own local newspaper, the Camden New Journal. The photographic evidence shows that coffee cups, pizza boxes, Deliveroo takeaway packaging and beer cans have been piling up on the tow-path all summer. This is because people living in the centre of our cities are using our canal tow-paths as recreational spaces and there are no bins.
Residents in Stockton-on-Tees, Hayes, Islington, Manchester and even the Prime Minister’s own constituency of Camden have all raised litter as a huge problem. This is clearly a national issue. I live in Macclesfield. The principal engineer for the canal in my own area, built in 1831, was Thomas Telford. The canal is a great resource for walkers, runners and boaters, located on the edge of the Peak District. Historically, it transported coal, raw cotton, silk and finished goods into Manchester and down to the Midlands along the Grand Union Canal. What has connected Macclesfield to the world is now a vital outdoor space for local people. I use it regularly for marathon training. It is an idyllic and beautiful part of the country.
Until two years ago, the Canal & River Trust, which manages a number of our navigable canal tow-paths in England and Wales, provided bins all along our tow-paths, so that canal users could dispose of their litter responsibly. This is a question of personal responsibility, but it is also incumbent on the taxpayer-funded Canal & River Trust to maintain bins so that people can do the right thing and responsibly dispose of their litter. The trust, which has just welcomed Campbell Robb as its new chairman, says that it has saved £500,000 annually by removing the bins. Additionally, it has claimed that removing the bins has not caused an increase in litter. The evidence gathered by campaigners is clear: litter is a huge problem on urban tow-paths. In urban areas, the Canal & River Trust lets business premises to cafés that operate on the tow-path. Much of the litter that we see is an externality of business activities that directly benefit the trust.
It is important to remember that the trust has a statutory responsibility to manage litter on the tow-paths, as Ministers have confirmed in previous Answers to Written Questions. The background to the trust’s decision to cut bin services is its claim that it does not have the finances to maintain the bins. It is not only cutting bin services but campaigning for additional taxpayer funding from government. However, the £500,000 that the trust says that it has saved is just 1% of the £50 million that it receives from the taxpayer. The amount that it saved from removing the bins across London and the south-east was £250,000. At the same time, the Canal & River Trust’s latest annual report revealed that pay for its executive team has increased by £300,000 since the bins were removed. The CEO’s pay is now over £200,000 a year.
This is the reality. The Canal & River Trust is cutting vital public services while increasing pay for the top team. We must not forget that this is a taxpayer-funded body that receives over £15 million a year. Many people would be shocked by those numbers. What can the Canal & River Trust do? It can bring back our bins. It can start engaging properly with the many volunteers who take time out of their day to do what the trust is legally responsible for—tackling litter. It can also reassess its priorities, putting public services and not executive pay at the top of the list.
Noble Lords may be asking what this has to do with the Government. The Canal & River Trust is not an arm of government, but it does have statutory duties and Ministers should hold it to account for its actions. Can the Minister say what conversations they have had with the new CEO of the Canal & River Trust, Campbell Robb? Has the department raised with him the issue of litter on tow-paths, and what powers does it have to monitor the trust’s performance against any statutory duties? I invite the Minister to tackle this head-on in discussions with the trust to see what can be done to bring back the bins.
In closing, I quote Elena Horcajo who, before going to work, volunteers to pick up litter on our tow-paths to make canals cleaner. In Charlotte Ivers’s excellent article in the Sunday Times, Elena said:
“I’ve spoken to absolutely everybody to find a way to fix this issue … I see the Canal & River Trust doing absolutely nothing … Your whole job is to take care of the canal, so show that you care for the canal”.
We all, especially the Canal & River Trust, have a duty to care for our canals. I hope the Minister will help campaigners like Elena to get this issue resolved.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow on his steadfast support of this important issue and for obtaining this debate today. I first became aware of the growing concern about the amount of litter on canal tow-paths when my noble friend tabled his amendment to the Private Member’s Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, earlier this year. I agreed with him then, and I share his view that the removal of the litter bins by the Canal & River Trust is hugely regrettable.
We have over 2,000 miles of navigable canals in England and Wales, many of which have tow-paths that allow people to enjoy our beautiful countryside and admire our fascinating canal infrastructure heritage. In urban areas, the tow-path is an even more vital open space as an area where people can get a breath of fresh air in heavily built-up areas. The level of concern among the campaigners who are fighting for bins to be reinstated on canal tow-paths is testament to how much people value their local canal tow-paths.
My noble friend explained the problem clearly in his speech. It really is appalling that the Canal & River Trust is not listening to the concerned campaigners across the country who want the bins put back. I simply cannot understand why the trust is refusing to do the right thing and reverse its decision on this. The fact that campaigners have managed to get the media’s attention, as they have over the past year, shows that this a genuine problem.
My noble friend has spoken about our canals being an eyesore and that piles of litter will discourage people from using our tow-paths. I will focus on the impact that litter on canal tow-paths has on the environment and wildlife. Beside every tow-path is a canal or river, and they are home to a whole host of wildlife, including coots, moorhens, ducks, cormorants and others. All these are negatively affected by litter. When people leave their food waste and plastic rubbish on the tow-path, the wildlife on our canals is bound to be at risk. Whether it is from getting entangled in plastic packaging or consuming dangerous items, litter is a threat to wildlife. The excellent House of Lords Library briefing for this debate, citing the Canal & River Trust itself, confirmed that,
“Plastic and other waste can be ingested by or entangle wildlife and contribute to habitat degradation. Accumulated litter can also reduce water quality and impact bank and reedbed conditions”.
What I cannot understand is, if the Canal & River Trust is aware of the harm that litter and plastic waste does, why has it removed the bins that enable canal users to dispose of their litter responsibly? It makes no sense. Will the Minister please take that point to the Canal & River Trust at the next meeting between Defra and the trust?
In the trust’s annual report for the year ending 31 March 2025 its chair, David Orr, highlighted the contribution of the past chief executive, who stepped down in July. He said:
“Richard’s contribution to the Canal & River Trust becoming an established and admired national charity has been phenomenal”.
In reality, it seems to me that the new chief executive, Campbell Robb, has quite a task ahead of him to restore the trust’s reputation, so damaged is it by its obstinate refusal to reverse its misguided decision to scrap the bins.
The annual report acknowledges that:
“As the nation’s largest canal charity, we benefited from just under three-quarters of a million volunteer hours, with volunteers playing an essential role in repairing and maintaining canals and helping us across nearly all aspects of its work”.
The report proudly boasts:
“In December 2024 we submitted our first Climate Adaptation Report, putting us amongst the major infrastructure providers reporting to government about managing climate risk”.
It also informs the reader:
“We commissioned the Energy Saving Trust to help develop a plan to transition our 400 work vehicles to electric power. The first 25 electrically powered vehicles will be purchased in 2025/26 when we’ll also start installing charging points”.
Does the Minister know how much the trust’s electric vehicles transition plan is going to cost? What is the average age of the vehicles being replaced?
Surely, if the trust is so rich that it can afford to purchase 25 new electric vehicles just to show how good it is at managing climate risk, it must have enough money to continue to provide bins on tow-paths—otherwise it seems to me that its management has a warped sense of priorities. Besides, the trust’s accounts reveal that it derives 23% of its revenues—that is, £52.6 million—from its Defra grant, and a further quarter from its boat licensing fees, which increased by 7.3% to £55 million in the year just ended.
I think I speak for all noble Lords in this debate in saying that we want to see clean canals and clean tow-paths on their banks, with healthy wildlife. That should be a shared ambition. Can the Minister say what consideration the Government have given to this issue? Have they considered taking a more direct approach to the trust to resolve it? Now that the trust has a new chief executive, the Government have a fresh opportunity to put pressure on it to crack down on litter, as its supporters and the wider public all expect it must do. We cannot allow this to go on year after year, with litter piling up on our tow-paths, especially in the summer months. Can the Minister please commit to taking some proper action, so that we do not have to come back again next year to discuss the same problem?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I shall not repeat at length the points so eloquently made by my noble friends Lord Evans and Lord Trenchard. I will, however, make one or two slightly different points.
As my noble friend Lord Trenchard has identified, litter by canals can have three principal impacts. The first are environmental—the plastic and other waste, as referred to by my noble friend. Secondly, there are the public health and safety risks that arise from the presence of waste, particularly biological waste, dog waste in particular, and those posed by debris building up in channels and drains, which can obstruct water flow and, in turn, damage canal infrastructure, which will probably cost a good deal to correct.
Thirdly, there are the further economic costs in relation to the disposal of litter, particularly litter that has got into the waterway itself. The Canal & River Trust estimates that the costs of dredging are £100 to £200 per cubic metre, depending on certain variables. It is undoubtedly true that the trust has removed a lot of bins, and it would probably say that it is not going to fit any new ones unless the local councils or others are going to pay to collect them. The trust would probably say that that is part of the funding squeeze it says it is experiencing. Avoiding new bins has been its practice for many years, although the policy of removing them is undoubtedly new. Trust staff rarely pick litter but, as has been observed, there is a ready body of willing volunteers who are vital to the administration of the canal network who help in many ways, including through picking litter, as has been identified by my noble friends.
I know that the Canal & River Trust is seeking to rationalise its estate and in particular to sell property that is not core to the waterways, to try to plug what it perceives to be a spending gap. The property that was transferred to the trust included a number of buildings that were some distance from the network. The obvious targets have already been sold, but there are still some more to be sold in relation to the canal network that may raise further money. It must be said that some of these properties are probably better cared for in private hands, because there is not money in the trust to maintain those properties.
So far, it is certainly the case that the trust has not sold any of the family silver of the canal network. However, the trust seems to have an effective investment team that is reinvesting the money for a return, and I suggest that funding should go towards the types of maintenance that we have heard about in the debate. It would certainly be a great shame if the trust felt it was necessary to mothball parts of the network in order to sustain those parts that run through urban areas.
Canals are a vital part of our national heritage and a much-loved outdoor recreational resource. Clean water, clean banks and clean tow-paths are a legitimate and reasonable expectation. Section 89 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a statutory duty on relevant bodies to keep the land they are responsible for clear of litter and refuse. For canals in England and Wales, that duty falls primarily on the Canal & River Trust, and the Government should ensure that it is complying with those statutory obligations.
The Minister may be suffering from déjà vu because he made that very point himself in a debate on 13 June in Committee on the Environmental Targets (Public Authorities) Bill, and he was reminded in that debate of the same point having been made by his fellow Minister, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at Defra, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who also drew attention to the statutory obligation in relation to the clearing of litter. Can the Minister update us on what has gone on since 13 June in relation to communicating with the trust on actioning its statutory obligations? I suspect that the trust may say that the bins are being cut to save money, but that does not excuse its statutory obligation. Clearly, it should take steps to address this issue and ensure that the litter that we see, particularly in urban areas, is dealt with as swiftly as possible.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly in the gap. First, I should mention that I, too, make regular use of canal tow-paths: I often walk along the Grand Union Canal, either through Camden and Islington or, mainly, from Boston Manor, through Osterley and down to the Thames in Brentford. My experience may be unusual, in the sense that I do not detect a huge amount of rubbish; certainly, in London, the trust seems to be doing rather a good job. I do worry about restoring bins. I think a lot of London boroughs have found that, the more bins you set out, the more people will put rubbish in and around them and thus create a real problem. I therefore have some sympathy for the trust in its endeavours.
Like others, though, I worry about funding. My recollection is that the last Labour Government had already decided to bring the British Waterways Board into co-operative ownership, and it was then the Conservative Government that introduced the trust. But—I speak as a former Treasury official—they did endow the trust with a reasonable amount of money, and it is still open to it to earn fees through effective management of marinas and so on. So, unusually for someone speaking in the House of Lords, I do not believe that throwing more money at the issue is the solution.
I do think that volunteers, as other noble Lords have mentioned, have a critical role to play. Is there anything the Government can do to encourage volunteering? Doing voluntary work around the canals is very rewarding; they are an amazing part of our country’s heritage. So, when the Minister replies, I hope to hear of his commitment to encourage volunteering in this space.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is a debate where I think most people will have some input, because they have walked beside a waterway. We all know that, if you are going to walk beside a waterway as a leisure activity and then face piles of rubbish and, let us face it, dog excrement sitting in its lovely little plastic containers draped around the place, along with crisp packets and drink cans, that is not a pleasant experience. We have the Canal & River Trust, which is supposed to make us use the waterways, and, if they are not pleasant, you will not use them—so why is it there? Case closed.
However, is the primary duty to make sure these are navigable waterways or something we can access along the side? I hope the Minister will be able to clarify this. It seems to me that the only argument about this would be that we know we need it to keep the waterways open. Let us face it: bins are not as expensive as lock gates. They do not have the same implications for water management and flood prevention. You name it—there is a whole structure there that we have to manage properly and that the Canal & River Trust will have responsibility for, at least in part. So, to get the best out of this, we have to maintain the paths as something not only accessible but pleasant.
We then come to what the Government should do about this. They could try—I would not recommend it—to say, “Well, this just isn’t our job”. Well, it clearly is, or at least they have some influence there. What are we doing to make sure that access to this is maintained in a usable format for these purposes of recreation, so that it is safe and pleasant? Bins will be used and will occasionally overflow, and it will depend on the time of year you are out there, and on the structure and the access going around it—so there will be no “one size fits all”.
If the noble Lord has found a nice stretch of waterway, possibly we should all get the address. But I have been down once when it was a warm day, and a few people had sat down there, possibly with one of those barbecues or something—the bane of many people’s lives—and a few beer cans. “Is there a bin around here? Sod it, they can clear it up afterwards”. That happens. It will always happen. Any planning structure that does not take account of it is guaranteed to fail.
Can the Minister say what advice the Government are giving or what structure they are putting in place to try to counter this? If volunteers are needed, we know that people like volunteering for nice, big, positive tasks; an incredibly repetitious task tends to get less enthusiasm. What structure should there be for volunteers, and what will be their impact? Clearing a canal, taking out the water, is a big task. You can sit down and have a big celebration at the end. Emptying a bin every third day in the summer, when it is hot and you would rather not be there, is something that you can guarantee will not attract quite the same enthusiasm. What are we doing to make sure that this happens?
I shudder to say—many of my colleagues on my Benches would probably lynch me if I did—that local government should take charge, because it is a very stretched commodity at the moment. What is the interaction with local government to make sure that there is some support for activity taken by the Canal & River Trust? It is basically very simple: if you maintain these products, you will get something good out of it—something environmentally positive and a recreational facility. If you do not, you will have something that may become, if not totally clogged up with weeds with some water running through it, environmentally unpleasant and more difficult to maintain.
Can the Minister give us some idea of the conversations being had within government on how the various bits of government can make sure that this is addressed? If we have commercial activity beside the canal benefiting from it, what share of the heavy lifting on this mundane and irritating but persistent task are they required to do? What encouragement, and indeed use of the law, is there to make sure that they will do it? The is lots of law about collecting and not dumping litter, but it tends to be unenforced. Thus, it is ignored and the problem carries on. Do the Government have any strategies to make sure that this does not happen in the case of our canals and rivers?
I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I probably do not terribly envy this job, but the Government have a series of levers to make the various groups here take some action. It will be interesting to hear just how hard they are being pulled by the Government.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, this has been an important and enjoyable debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow on securing it. The fact that concerns have been raised in so many towns and cities across the country is demonstrative proof that there is a problem here that the Canal & River Trust must grasp. I pay tribute to my noble friend’s commitment in raising this issue. He has already tabled a significant number of Written Questions, raised this problem in Committee on the Private Member’s Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and asked Oral Questions. His tenacity is to be applauded. I also congratulate my noble friends who have spoken strongly on this issue, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on his contribution—he was also spot on in this debate. This is rather a frightening week for me. On Monday and Wednesday, on the crime Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I found ourselves in complete agreement on a number of issues, which we both found rather scary—and perhaps likely to be expelled from our parties for being in complete agreement. I am, however, also in complete agreement with what the noble Lord said today.
The Conservative Party has consistently taken a firm view on litter. In government, we launched the litter strategy for England and increased the maximum on-the-spot fines from £80 to £150 in 2018. Even before that—I think way back in 1992—I was appointed to a joint ministerial working group on litter. I do not think we achieved very much, as every Minister from every different department said, “It’s nothing to do with me; it’s their job to sort out the litter”. Nevertheless, we tried to tackle it way back in 1992.
Littering is, first and foremost, an issue of personal responsibility. It is utterly unacceptable that people feel that it is for someone else to clear up after them. Anyone who litters creates a problem that someone else has to come along and fix. It is a breach of the social contract. That is why we have tough laws, and we need punitive fines for this selfish and anti-social behaviour. That said, we all know that public bins are useful and essential. They provide ordinary people with the opportunity to do the right thing and dispose of their litter responsibly.
That is where I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court. It is rather naive for organisations to say, “If we put out bins, people will use them. They will fill them up and they might overflow”. The whole point of having litter bins is that they will be used. There is a naive belief that if we do not have bins, people will take their litter home. People will say, “Oh my God, there’s no bin, I must take it all home with me”. That simply does not happen. In most cases, they will leave it behind. I am not sure whether it was the highways department or county councils—certainly in my own patch in Cumbria—that removed litter bins from laybys on A roads in the naive belief that, if we have no litter bins, lorry drivers and others will not dump their rubbish. That is absolute nonsense; laybys are stuffed full of litter.
I am a board member of a community interest company, CleanStreets, and we work hand in glove with Keep Britain Tidy, tackling cigarette litter on pavements. Over the past three years, we have had some considerable success, getting litter down by 18%. We spend a lot on research, and that shows that, in an area where there are smokers and no bins, the pavements are covered in cigarette litter. Believe it or not, if you provide bins, most cigarette users will use them. We also discovered that people do not like those posh bins, where you stub out your cigarette then poke it through the hole, because they feel that their hands will get dirty. They love a bucket full of sand where they chuck the litter. The point I am making is that if you provide bins, people generally will use them. If you do not provide bins, you will get excess litter.
On our pavements, we pay for the public service of having litter bins, but our tow-paths are different. They are a different story, but the principle remains the same. As my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow told us, the Canal & River Trust receives more than £50 million of taxpayers’ money every year, so the public do pay for the services they receive from the trust. Does the Minister agree that taxpayers should not have those services cut, given that they are paying for them? I agree with my noble friend that many will be shocked to hear that executive pay at the Canal & River Trust is at hundreds of thousands of pounds since the bins were removed. That feels like a misalignment of priorities. Will the Minister tell the Committee his view of that statistic?
I read in a recent article in the Sunday Times that the Canal & River Trust spent £6.7 million on fundraising costs, while raising just £6.7 million in donations. It is probably the only charitable organisation with a net-zero fundraising policy. Have Ministers looked into the financial management of the Canal & River Trust?
As part of our Litter Strategy for England, we established the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group, of which the Canal & River Trust is a member. Can the Minister please confirm when the group last met and what discussions Ministers in his department have had with the Canal & River Trust in connection with its membership of the group? Does he agree that it is incongruous that an organisation that is a member of the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group has removed all the litter bins on their tow-paths? For complete transparency, I need to admit that, speaking three days ago on the Crime and Policing Bill, I condemned the terminology “fly-tipping” as too nice a term that diminishes the evil of what is currently happening with massive fly-tipping around the country.
Some of the facts we have heard over the course of this debate, from noble friends and the noble Lords, Lord Macpherson and Lord Addington, have highlighted the seriousness of the problem and the fact that the Canal & River Trust does not appear to be taking the action needed to fulfil its existing statutory duties. Again, I ask the Minister whether he feels that Ministers have sufficient powers to hold the Canal & River Trust to account for its actions. What steps can Ministers take to encourage or require the Canal & River Trust to restore bin provision on urban canal footpaths? If the Minister does not feel that Ministers have the powers necessary to ensure that bins are restored to canal tow-paths, can he commit to reviewing the status of the Canal & River Trust itself so that publicly elected officials can have some control over how the money is spent?
Outdoor space is a much-prized commodity in our ever-growing cities. We need outdoor spaces to be cared for properly so that everyone can enjoy them and rely on them, not least as excellent places to exercise and keep fit. I hope the Minister will listen carefully to everything my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow has said and all the other comments from my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about the necessity of restoring these bins and keeping our tow-paths in clean and pristine condition.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this Question for Short Debate. I am grateful to all who spoke, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, and I join the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in paying tribute to his tenacity in pursuing this subject. As the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, noted, we all took part in the debate on the Private Member’s Bill on environmental targets. His passion for keeping the canal tow-paths as clean and litter-free as possible was clear then, and I am glad to see that it is as strong now as it was in June. It feels much longer ago than that.
Litter is, unfortunately, a perennial problem across our country. As we have heard clearly today, it has an adverse impact on people’s everyday lives. It spoils our urban space, our rural spaces and the beauty of our countryside, as well as bringing serious risks to our wildlife and, indeed, to public health. Although it is an ongoing problem, the Government are not standing still when it comes to addressing the root causes of litter. As I was saying in the previous debate, we are committed to reducing waste by transitioning towards a circular economy. We have convened a Circular Economy Taskforce of experts to help develop an action plan for England. To combat behaviours driving litter, we will be bringing forward statutory enforcement guidance on both littering and fly-tipping. Or, rather, I join the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in calling it—I have forgotten what he said—
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I have forgotten what terms I used on Monday or Wednesday this week. I did not call it fly-tipping. I honestly cannot remember; I could not find it when I was searching for it. It was “criminal waste disposal”, or something like that.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am happy to join him in that sort of terminology or to call it environmental vandalism, which is a phrase I certainly used when responding to the noble Lord in that debate in the Chamber.
We are modernising the code of practice on litter and refuse in England, and refreshing best practice guidance on the powers available to local authorities, to force landowners and building owners to clear up their premises. That address in part the point from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about involving local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, has focused on the problem of litter on canal tow-paths, particularly those belonging to the Canal & River Trust. He gave examples of complaints, particularly from parts of London where littering has increased noticeably since the trust removed bins from its tow-paths in 2023. I am pleased that he cited my own local paper, the inestimable Camden New Journal. Like the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, I walk stretches of Regent’s Canal in and around Camden. While I am not trying to evade the point of the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has brought, I also find that some stretches are no worse than they used to be in terms of litter, and some stretches under the Westway, around the Paddington area, have always been bestrewn with lots of fly-tipping. It is a problem. I observe hotspots, anecdotally, but I will say no more about that.
I challenge the argument that reducing government funding for the trust is to blame for the removal of litter bins. As the noble Lord, Lord Evans, said, the Canal & River Trust is publicly funded, but it is not only publicly funded. The current annual grant provided to the trust—£52.6 million—constituted 22.6% of the trust’s total annual income of £232.6 million last year. The grant is but a contribution towards the trust’s total waterway maintenance costs of around £100 million a year. We have some agency, but not exclusive agency. I will come on to talk about this in a bit, but we are not the only funder of the organisation.
However, as we were saying, the trust is an independent charity, and the Government do not direct its management or operational decisions. Similarly, the annual grant does not stipulate how much is spent on any activity eligible for the funding, including litter management. That is a decision for the trust to make based on operational need at any point.
Having said that, there is close contact between Defra and the Canal & River Trust at all levels. To respond to the noble Lords, Lord Evans and Lord Blencathra, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, Defra officials meet the trust’s senior management formally three times a year to discuss issues around the use of the grant funding; that may well include litter management arrangements, as appropriate. There is regular contact between the CRT’s chief executive and senior Defra officials. I can also confirm that Minister Hardy is due to meet Campbell Robb, the new chief executive; I do not think that a date has been set for that meeting yet, but it is certainly in train. Moreover, I can commit here that Defra officials plan to raise the issue of litter management with the CRT at their next meeting; indeed, it has commissioned a paper from the CRT on the issue.
It is fair to point out that the trust’s decision to remove litter bins from tow-paths was not taken in a vacuum. In fact, I can tell noble Lords that the trust carried out an assessment of the likely impact of this move prior to making the decision; the results indicated that it would be broadly neutral. A key consideration was that, where the bins are in place—I cite the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, and agree with what he said—they attracted the dumping of litter or fly-tipping around them. The trust noted that, before removal, the cost of servicing the tow-path bins was some £400,000 a year. Since their removal, the cost of dealing with litter on tow-paths has more than halved; the resulting savings are being reinvested in the upkeep of the network infrastructure.
The trust is very aware of its statutory duty, under Section 89 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to keep the land for which it is responsible clear of litter and refuse. It is for the trust to work out how best to comply with that, taking account of the standards in the statutory code of practice on litter and refuse. The annual grant provided by the Government to the CRT is a contribution to support its network and infrastructure management, including via a range of eligible activities that are enumerated in the grant agreement; litter management is included in that list of activities. However, the grant agreement does not specify how funding should be allocated. I stress that that is a decision for the trust to make, based on operational need at any given point.
I contend that it is evident that the trust continues to take littering seriously, with its staff and volunteer teams—I assure the noble Lord, Lord Murray, it is both staff and volunteers—regularly engaging in clean-ups. The trust has some 5,500 volunteers across the country who carry out a range of activities, with 2,800 of them in waterside and conservation tasks that include litter picking. In respect of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on the impact of volunteers and volunteering activity in the CRT, it is worth noting that those numbers have increased by some 20% in 2024-25, as compared to 2023-24: the figure for 2023-24 was 4,566 but, in 2024-25, it is 5,473. It is an active target for the CRT to increase the number of volunteers and the range of volunteer activity in which it engages; that is part of its work as a charitable organisation.
These activities are carried out in work parties on a weekly or monthly basis. They are, as I have said, very much in line with the trust’s charitable objectives and its original policy intent: creating greater community involvement in the running and care of local canals, as part of the transfer from the old British Waterways Board to the CRT more than a decade ago. Last year, 300 trust volunteers gave more than 34,000 hours of their time in London. A litter sweep of the nine-mile Regent’s Canal takes place at least once a week; I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, that that may explain why, in our experience, it is in a good state. This is a full day’s work for four operatives and generally fills a workboat to capacity with seven-tonne bags of litter and larger items. The trust’s contractor also undertakes around 60 fly-tipping clearance tasks each month in this area alone.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and others have discussed the status of the funding of the CRT. It was taken out of public ownership by the former Prime Minister David Cameron as part of the big society experiment, and I want to stress that the Government’s funding is but a part of its total income. It is on a journey to self-sufficiency. We are limited in our time, so we cannot go into the detail of that decision, but we have to accept that that means the CRT receives money from a range of sources, so it is not simply for the Government to tell it what to do. I say to the noble Lord that government cannot take more powers without taking more control, and I am not entirely sure that that is what this Government want. I would certainly be surprised if the Benches opposite were calling for nationalisation of the CRT, but perhaps we can all be surprised.
The trust has increased its fundraising income by nearly 20% over the last two years. It generates annual income through its boat licence fees and mooring charges of around £55 million; commercial arrangements with utility and water companies generate around £45 million, and returns on its investments and property holdings amount to around £52 million.
We are running out of time, so I will conclude. Fully addressing littering and dumping rubbish involves changing people’s behaviours. Improving awareness of the impacts and consequences of littering through educating and encouraging behavioural change is something that we can all play a part in, along with local authorities and, in this case, the trust. I hope that I have provided assurances that the CRT continues to take seriously its responsibilities for tackling littering on its tow-paths, notwithstanding the removal of litter bins. The Government are also taking forward a number of initiatives to strengthen nationwide action on littering so that we can all better enjoy our surroundings, be they in the city, in the countryside or on canal tow-paths.
Water and Sewerage Companies: Statutory Consultees
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to make water and sewerage companies and undertakings statutory consultees on major new housing developments and nationally significant infrastructure projects.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my interest as an officer of the All-Party Water Group.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, water companies must by law provide new water and sewerage connections to housing through drainage and wastewater management plans. As relevant statutory undertakers in the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, they must be consulted on relevant applications for development consent. The Government’s forthcoming guidance will promote early engagement with them. The Government have paused creating new statutory consultees in the Town and Country Planning Act regime. As part of a wider review, a consultation on streamlining this system is under way, with decisions to follow.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. It begs the question how the Government plan to build major housing developments of 300,000 a year, many of them on flood plains with no sustainable drains, with the additional demands of the new data centres and mindful of the Environment Agency’s national framework for water resources, giving the acute warning of a deficit of water of 5 billion litres by 2050. Do the Government agree that we need to end the automatic right to connect, so that where water companies say there is simply no capacity, the development will not go ahead?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her constant interest in this subject through many of the pieces of legislation that she and I have debated across the Chamber. There is no automatic right to connect to a sewerage system. Section 106 of the Water Industry Act allows a sewerage undertaker to refuse a proposed connection to its public sewer system, which is otherwise a statutory right. Refusal is possible—and would be subject to an appeal to Ofwat—only when the mode of construction or condition of the sewer does not satisfy the undertaker’s reasonable standards, or where the connection would otherwise prejudice the system. I appreciate her great interest in sustainable drainage systems. As she knows, we are pursuing that for new developments with our colleagues in Defra.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, we desperately need new housing, but avoiding flooding is also essential. Internal drainage board levies make up a significant proportion of the budgets of some local authorities, which often have to cut off other services to fund the IDB levy. The IDB’s work ensures that communities are safe, so that essential housebuilding can go ahead. Pumping stations are run on electricity, the cost of which has risen exponentially since the introduction of Ofgem’s targeted charging review. The Government announced £5 million for councils this year. That is short term, so what is the Government’s long-term solution to this pressing problem?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have been greatly involved in the issues around internal drainage boards and the constant tensions in their financing over the years. Internal drainage boards are not statutory consultees, but they work proactively with local authorities, which are represented on their management boards and can comment on proposals within the statutory consultation period. Where an internal drainage board raises issues that are material to the determination of an application in question, local authorities must take these into account. We are working at pace to deliver the renewable electricity and other energy we all need, to help reduce costs for householders and businesses alike.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, the Minister, in her reply to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned Ofwat. The Independent Water Commission, which reported in July, recommended the abolition of Ofwat and the institution of a new regulator. I realise that this falls under a different department, but would the Minister be prepared to accelerate the start of the new regulatory regime? It seems to be in everyone’s interest that this should happen sooner rather than later.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We were very grateful for the work of the Independent Water Commission. As the noble Duke says, it is not my department that is working through the procedures needed to reply to the recommendations. The Government are considering the recommendations on whether water companies should be statutory consultees or subject to a requirement to notify. A water White Paper will be published before the end of this year, and I am sure that it will contain many of the issues that were the subject of those recommendations. People will be able to comment on the water White Paper in due course.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of how many pumping stations are either completely inoperable or malfunctioning?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That too is probably a question for my Defra colleagues to answer, but I will come back to the noble Baroness with a written response.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, we are seeing more erratic weather patterns and some increasingly severe floods. Is the plan for sustainable drainage systems speeding up? Will we see that in the water White Paper?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The recent issues in Monmouthshire—we are terribly sorry for the people there; they have had a dreadful time over the past few days—make us even more determined to support the delivery of high-quality sustainable drainage systems to help us manage flood risk and adapt to the effects of climate change. National planning policy therefore makes it very clear that developments of all sizes are expected to make use of sustainable drainage techniques where the development could have drainage impacts. I have seen some fantastic examples of that when visiting housing sites around the country. Not only can it be done, but in a way that enhances the environment for local residents. We are considering what further changes need to be made to planning policy.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, in looking at the system of regulation, can we consider that Ofwat’s failures are not in isolation? Many regulatory authorities in this country are showing similar failings, although sometimes in slightly different manifestations. Do we not need not only individual changes, but to look at the whole regulatory system—not just to change legislation but to change the whole culture of these bodies?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Of course our regulatory system is important in helping and supporting the management of the development of the number of new homes we want to deliver. But we have taken a step back to look at the statutory consultees within the planning system—the moratorium was announced by the Chancellor in January—so that we can take account of some of the feedback we have had that the statutory consultee system is not working as well as it should. The Statement confirmed to the House a number of steps that the Government have taken to improve those statutory consultee arrangements—and that includes some of the regulators—including limiting the scope of those consultees to apply only where advice is strictly necessary.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that water and sewerage companies and undertakings should fully engage with local plans and spatial development strategies as statutory consultees, so that these issues can be addressed up front at the strategic level rather than having to do it on a site-by-site basis? That would speed up the planning process and deliver better outcomes.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that early engagement with the local planning authority, the Environment Agency and the relevant water and sewerage companies, as appropriate, can help establish whether there will be water and wastewater issues that need to be considered. We expect water and sewerage companies to take a strategic approach to planning their water services, accounting for growth and the needs of the environment. There must also be strong collaboration between local authorities and water companies, so that local plans, water resources management plans, and drainage and wastewater plans align.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
Is it correct that the Government’s housebuilding target can be reached only if flood plains are used for building—and is that not a practice to be deprecated?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The National Planning Policy Framework is very clear that housing and most other types of development should not be permitted in functional flood plains—that is, in flood zone 3b—where water must flow or be stored during floods. Where development is necessary in such areas, it should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere, so there must be no displacement of the risk. In 2023-24, 96% of all planning decisions complied with the Environment Agency advice on flood risk. In the same year, 99% of residential development proposals also complied with that advice.
South Western Railway
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathcarron
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the performance of South Western Railway since nationalisation, and whether they have taken account of its performance in their plans to nationalise other railways.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, South Western’s performance before and after public ownership has remained below the standards passengers deserve. We inherited from both the previous Government’s management and the previous owners a very serious driver shortage, and 84 out of 90 new trains sitting in sidings, unused but being paid for from the public purse, for several years. Since May, the number of new trains in service has quadrupled and many more drivers are being recruited. It will take time to fix the poor management of the past, but the new managing director and his team will do just that.
Lord Strathcarron (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for his reply, and I agree that this has been a disaster for years. However, passenger groups report that since nationalisation, South Western has suffered a 50% increase in cancellations—it is even worse on Monday mornings and Friday afternoons—and delay minutes per hundred miles have risen by 29%. Rakes have often been halved, leaving passengers standing for whole journeys. Meanwhile, if we can understand them, we see that fares have risen faster than inflation. Would the Minister join me on a weekday morning and pay £49 to stand for one hour in a train from Winchester to Waterloo, and see for himself the results of nationalisation before it starts to affect us all?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I do not need to join the noble Lord on his service, because I am on my own, from Richmond to Vauxhall. It is true that there are some short forms—the result of both the driver shortage and the failure to put the new trains into service. Those are linked, because it is clear that the previous management did not choose to put the trains into service because they would have had to train the drivers. There are 780 drivers to be trained on those trains, and getting them into service means withdrawing 20, 30 or 40 of them from what they do normally. Meanwhile, the trains that are used are falling to pieces. Those are the old red ones, as anybody who has travelled on them will know, and they are best used in their last journey to the scrapyard in Newport, South Wales. They will be gone by December. It takes time to fix things. They were not being fixed under the previous regime, and they are now.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I acknowledge that there have been serious infrastructure issues, some natural and some legacy, but that does not take away from the poor service provided on the longer-distance services. When will passengers on South Western services be able to buy a cup of tea on board, and to reserve seats for their journeys, which is what many would consider to be a basic standard?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is referring to the London to Exeter service, which has not been very good in recent months, although the timetable will be reinstated from 29 November. That is because there was a serious problem with soil moisture deficit, as we have had the driest spring since 1836—and that was not due to public ownership. She also refers to the refreshment trolleys. She may know that I have asked the managing director to see what he can do to put back the refreshment trolleys, which were withdrawn some time under previous Governments—after Covid, I think.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is a failure not of nationalisation but of privatisation, and that we have had 13 years of wrecking the train service, like everything else? Is it not the case that we are clearing up the mess left by the previous Administration?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend, and he is right.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, a few months ago I asked the Minister about the transition payments that were previously paid when a franchise ended and a new operator came in. He was not at that point able to answer the question about SWR, so I ask him again now, as a few months have passed: have the Government paid any money to FirstGroup as a result of the transition from private to public, and have any further payments been made since the time of the transition?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Government are very reluctant to pay any money to the previous owners, bearing in mind the condition in which the service was left. That discussion is still carrying on, but I am not aware of any money so far being paid and I would not be keen to pay any in the future.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Strathcarron has opened up this debate about privatisation. I have been the first to admit that previous privatisation was on a strange footing, but I notice that on my Southeastern service on the north Kent line, we are getting that back-to-nationalisation Gallic shrug from many of the staff. On the last 20 sectors that I have used over the past three weeks, I think 15 have been delayed. I am using the Delay Repay service, which comes straight out of His Majesty’s Treasury. Whatever one thinks the turnover and the profits of these services are, they are being massively reduced because of the delays. This applies not just to services on the railway; I am also seeing stations under damage and pressure. For instance, the lift has been out of operation for two weeks at Rochester station, which causes me some inconvenience.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
There was not a question in there but, now that Southeastern is run by a managing director who is responsible for both the operations and the infrastructure, I will get Steve White to talk to the noble Lord, and he can make his complaints in person on Rochester station.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a user of South Western, but on the Portsmouth line. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, buys a senior railcard. Is not one of the problems with the Government’s policy that they now get blamed for all the problems of the railway companies that they so-called own? The service on my train has been pretty good, except for one incident which I blame the Minister for. Is he confident that South Western will continue to get the investment it needs now that it is under government control?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am confident of that. Indeed, if the noble Lord is a regular user of the Portsmouth line, he will know that the signalling has been replaced in the last three weeks, which demonstrates significant investment in what was an unreliable system. The purpose of the forthcoming Railways Bill is to create Great British Railways so that, for the first time in over 30 years, the railway is run as a holistic whole by people who understand how to run a railway for the benefit of passengers and freight. That is better than the system that I have inherited and have had to work with for many years.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, have not a lot of the problems with the conditions of the rolling stock arisen from the ludicrous decision to put out the work to the leasing companies, for which it was a massive licence to print money? Certainly, neither passengers nor the Treasury benefited from that.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Although it might be possible to agree with my noble friend, on this occasion that is not correct. The old South Western trains have been at the end of their lives for some five years. Indeed, I found when I arrived there an extraordinary plan to spend £25 million trying to resuscitate rusty trains to keep them in service because the new ones have been in the sidings for five years. That is a fault not of the rolling stock companies but of management and the previous Government.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, under the system of franchising, should a franchise fail, the Government would have the opportunity to put in an operator of last resort. Who is the operator of last resort now?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is familiar with that system; indeed, in his Government’s time, four franchises were already in public ownership as a consequence of that. By and large, they are doing better now than they were under the previous regime. You do not need an operator of last resort if you have management committed to a long-term future of the railway which satisfies passengers and freight.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Strathcarron is a passenger who has a strong voice because he sits in your Lordships’ House. Before the election, the Labour Party promised in its manifesto and its document about rail that it will create a “strong passenger voice” for all passengers. However, now that we can see the Railways Bill, we see that it is a wimpish creature—a revamped TravelWatch—which has no power at all to compel Great British Rail. Would not the Minister just like to admit now that in his vision of a single directing mind for the railways in this country there really is no room for the passenger except as supplicant, never as customer?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord should read the draft Bill more carefully. If he does, he will find that the rather antiseptically named passengers’ council—it will have a better name than that in practice—will have the right to ask for regulatory action to be taken against Great British Railways if it fails to deal with subjects that the passengers’ council has a view about. I am very happy to meet the noble Lord afterwards and point him to the specific wording of the clauses; no doubt we will debate them in due course.
Child Grooming Victims: Compensation Awards
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure compensation awards to victims of child grooming scandals are made in a timely way.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, there are three routes by which victims of child grooming may be awarded compensation. First, following a criminal conviction, a court can order compensation to be paid to the victim, but the criminal courts cannot embark on a detailed inquiry as to the extent of any injury, loss or damage. Secondly, victims can bring an action for damages for personal injury in the civil courts; the Government are abolishing the three-year limitation period so that it no longer operates as a barrier to compensation for such victims. Thirdly and finally, victims can apply to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. These awards are assessed on a case-by-case basis, and the majority are decided within 12 months.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
I thank the Minister for that very helpful reply and for our earlier meeting, but might I request a further meeting? These young ladies, who may not all have the strength of Madame Pelicot, will still be living in a highly corrupted community in terms of the activities that were perpetrated upon them earlier. Some of them may not be relevant for an award; none the less, the entire community does not seem to be honouring British law with regard to respect for women, young women and children. Would the Minister be willing to have a meeting, to discuss not the award but the wider implications which perhaps we might manage to do something to help?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to speak to the noble Baroness, and the answer is yes.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, will the Government set up a unit to start assessing the numbers of the victims of the grooming gangs, and in particular their distribution and their personal situation, and then start learning from the problems of the previous schemes, such as the Post Office Horizon and infected blood schemes, so that when the inquiry is complete, the victims do not have to wait years for their compensation?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, knows, it is a top priority for the Government to appoint the chair of the national inquiry as quickly as possible, and we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, for supporting these efforts. Once the chair is in place, the terms of reference for the inquiry will be settled, and we will take it from there.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, we discussed criminal exploitation of children last night. I know from my experience that a young woman was denied any compensation because of the way the trial was conducted. She was in the position where, when the third barrister had been appointed by the defendant, she was told that she had to go through her third cross-examination. She went out that night and did things she should not have: she got drunk, and maybe had other substances—I do not know—and ended up in the police station overnight, and then any compensation was denied her. We are in the position that because these young women are extremely vulnerable, the way we operate our court system retraumatises them in many ways. I hope that the Government, in thinking about the compensation, take these issues into account.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a number of points in that question. Many of those will be for the national inquiry to deal with, so I will simply deal very quickly with the question of convictions and their effect on compensation. It is right to say that it is a condition of applying to the criminal injuries compensation scheme that the applicant does not have unspent criminal convictions. The difficulty with waiving that for one group is that it undermines the universality of the system. We are very anxious not to create a hierarchy of victims where some are seen as more worthy of belief or compensation than others, and we will do everything we can to avoid that.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, it has been widely reported that four victims of the grooming scandal have resigned from the liaison panel of the national grooming gangs inquiry, describing a “toxic, fearful environment” and accusing the process of being manipulated away from the central issue of the grooming gangs. Will the Minister commit to publishing a proper timeline, including a fixed timescale for the appointment of a chair, and a clear start date for this important inquiry?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The Government were extremely saddened by the resignation of those victims, and they are always welcome to rejoin and re-engage with the process—we very much hope that they will. The process of appointing the chair is well under way. As I have already said, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is assisting with this. It would not be helpful to give a running commentary on what is happening, but it is important to the Government to get on with this.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned three possible avenues for compensation. I think she would accept that the largest award is likely to be if there is a civil claim, rather than the other two avenues. Can she help the House with who the potential defendants in such a claim might be? I am not asking for her legal advice but for some general guidance if this is to be a realistic remedy.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
Of course, we are speaking generically about victims of grooming, but they may fall into a number of different categories. There are the grooming gangs, about which a great deal has been heard, but there are also, for example, victims of online grooming. So I cannot really give an answer as to who the potential defendant is going to be that will actually deal with all the victims. That is a case-by-case decision to be made.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
Have the Government consulted the Independent Public Advocate about the new inquiry? As the system threatens yet again to overwhelm the voices of victims and survivors, would not her guidance and support for this group be really valuable in this instance?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I recognise, of course, her ongoing interest in the Independent Public Advocate, which is very welcome. I do not know the answer, so I shall write to her.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, on the wording of her Question, which for once does not put the word “Pakistani” in front of “child grooming scandals”? Does the Minister agree that the problem is to be laid at the door not of our Pakistani men but, very largely, of our Muslim men and that, therefore, the problem is religious, not ethnic?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am afraid I am absolutely not going to agree with that. It is going to be a matter for the new national inquiry, and I am not going to pre-empt that.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Walmsey did not necessarily ask about the terms of reference of the inquiry; she asked about the mechanisms of the payments of the compensation scheme. Have the Government learned from what has happened in the infected blood and Post Office Horizon schemes, and are they now working on the mechanisms of the compensation scheme so that fast payment will flow once the public inquiry has reached its conclusions?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The difficulty with that question is that it presupposes the existence of a compensation scheme for these victims. There is no such compensation scheme in existence. Whether or not that is something that is recommended by the national inquiry, we will wait to see. As I have already said, there are a number of different categories of victims in these cases, and not all the same conditions apply to all of them. But I take the point that if there were to be a compensation scheme, it would be important that it paid out quickly.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
Given the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, surely a very specific compensation scheme would deal with those issues. I suggest to the Minister that she looks at the scheme that we set up in Northern Ireland to deal with institutional child abuse. The way in which that scheme worked meant that it was very quickly operated and that victims were able to access it. It is something that the national inquiry could very much benefit from looking at.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness very much for that. Obviously, that is something that will be very useful to look into once the inquiry is set up.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, the perpetrators of these crimes are men from all backgrounds, but many of them are not from upstanding backgrounds in the sense that some are involved in criminal activities such as drug dealing. So what action are His Majesty’s Government wanting to take against those convicted, looking at the Proceeds of Crime Act? These people were able to groom some of these young ladies—women—and girls because they had flash cars, et cetera. How do we ensure that those monsters have all the criminal assets from their ill-gotten gains taken away from them after conviction?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
It is a very good point. Every judge at the end of a criminal trial has the ability to make a confiscation order, and these are being pursued with rigour because it is really important to ensure that criminals do not profit from that kind of illicit activity.
President Trump: Nuclear Weapons Statement
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of President Trump’s statement on 30 October regarding the testing of nuclear weapons.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, the United Kingdom has ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty and continues to press for its entry into force. We remain committed to our voluntary moratorium on nuclear test explosions, having ceased nuclear testing in 1991. The nuclear testing policy of the United States is a matter for the US Government, and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment further.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, it is easy to look on this as some sort of playground bravado by President Trump, who clearly did not understand the implications of, or what was meant by, the trials of delivery systems that Putin was conducting. With him having made his statement, President Putin wanted to show how tough he was and made his statement about doing tests again. This would be probably quite amusing if it was not so incredibly dangerous. The comprehensive test-ban treaty is one of the few treaties regarding nuclear weapons that are still in existence; many have fallen by the wayside. We are less safe than we used to be because of that. If the comprehensive test-ban treaty is broken, it opens a Pandora’s box. All of us will be far less safe. That is extremely worrying.
I know the Minister cannot say very much in response to my Question—in effect, it was nothing, but those are wonderful. However, even though something may not happen because the Department of Energy in America is unable to do a test straight away—it will take a couple of years and cost billions of dollars, so this thing may go away— and even though, as he says, it is their business, does he believe that the Government should make it very clear to the Americans how much we support keeping the test ban treaty in place and that we will be very disappointed if there is any break to that?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The UK has a long-standing and important relationship with the United States—it is important to start out and say that on a number of occasions. The comprehensive test-ban treaty, as my noble friend has said, is a really successful treaty, and we continue to push and to do all we can to ensure that it is as effective as it is with as many states as possible. We look forward to everyone who signed it ratifying it in due course.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we saw the PrepCom for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty—or NPT—conference, which is due to meet again next year. We have five signatories. In light of what we have heard from the rhetoric of Russia, and the actions that others have taken, what assessment is being made of the potential success of the NPT meeting next May? Further, linked to the recent conflict we saw between India and Pakistan, what extra efforts have been made to ensure that those countries also sign the NPT?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord has a lot of experience in these matters, and he knows that numerous conversations go on and numerous efforts are made by numerous countries, in ways we cannot often speak about in this Chamber. Whether it is India and Pakistan, or other countries, numerous debates and discussions take place to ensure that we are as safe as we possibly can be. As he knows, the parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty will meet in New York next year—I think is an important statement that it is taking place in New York. It is a really important treaty. We have the comprehensive test-ban treaty, and we have the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I think sometimes that what countries such as us should do, as well as recognising the difficulties and problems, is to continue to push the importance of those treaties and to do all we can to ensure their continued success.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that this is the latest instance of the potential use of nuclear weapons being referred to loosely by leaders of the recognised weapon states, on which President Putin gave the lead on several occasions when he spoke about it in the context of the Ukraine conflict? That is surely a lamentable change from the taboo on talking about these matters since the end of the Cold War. Does he think that we would do better to work at the non-proliferation treaty review conference next year for a reaffirmation of the view that a nuclear war must not be fought and cannot be won?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a good point. With all the questions and my comments so far, it is extremely important that we do not let rhetoric cause a problem. The question that the noble Lord has posed is important. As I have said in my answers so far, it is important that we talk about the success of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. We have not conducted a nuclear test explosion since 1991. The United States and others have conformed to that as well. People must be really careful in the use of rhetoric in whatever circumstance. Our debates and discussions on these matters are looked at and pored over. I take the noble Lord’s point very seriously. We need to be very careful in how we discuss these matters while having the right to discuss them.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
In a conflict-beset world, a credible nuclear deterrent is unarguable, but macho posturing by the leaders of the United States and Russia is an alarming development that undermines the non-proliferation treaty. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will the Government take a lead to encourage or persuade India, Pakistan and Israel to sign that treaty, reaffirm it, strengthen it and make it clear exactly what has been said? A nuclear war cannot be won and must not be fought.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We encourage all states to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It has been a huge vehicle by which we have worked together to keep the world safe. This Government accept, as previous Governments have done and as do many Governments across the world, that the nuclear deterrent is part of the security architecture of the world. Part of having a nuclear deterrent is to deter from war, deter from aggression. The restatement of the deterrent policy is consistent with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, under which the noble Lord will know that the UK is allowed to have weapons.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, following on from what the Minister has just very helpfully said, in relation to our own United Kingdom nuclear defence capability, we have seen just this week that between 400 and 500 jobs will be put at risk at the Atomic Weapons Establishment. The Government claim that the workforce needs to be reshaped so that it is fit for the future. However, in a time of growing international insecurity, can the Minister confirm that there will be no reduction in staffing for our nuclear weapons capability?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
What I can confirm is that there will be no reduction in our capability of ensuring that the nuclear deterrent is effective and that it remains so seven days a week, 365 days a year and 24 hours a day. That is the commitment that the Government make. I hear what the noble Baroness says about the AWE. That is about looking at reshaping how that important body works. The Government have committed £31 billion to the Dreadnought programme, with a £10 billion contingency. We have committed £15 billion in this Parliament to the development of a new warhead. That is a Government who are committed, as the last Government were, to spending billions of pounds on maintaining the credibility of our nuclear deterrent, which, as I said in answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is essential to the global security of the world.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I draw the attention of your Lordships’ House to my entry in the register of interests, particularly as vice-chair of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, which I am a consultant to as well. Every European NATO member has ratified the 1996 nuclear test-ban treaty. In addition to a commitment to Article VI, the commitment by the five nuclear weapon states to the CTBT was essential to the indefinite extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1995. My noble friend the Minister will be aware that former US officials who have had responsibility for their nuclear arsenal have stated publicly that new US nuclear tests are unnecessary, unwise and unwelcome. As those officials have done, have our Government assessed the impact on the NPT’s future if there are renewed explosive nuclear tests by any of the five—including the US and the UK?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As I have said, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is an essential part of the Government’s policy. We remain committed under that treaty to the aspiration to a nuclear-free world, which may seem a long way off but is our aspiration. All I can say with respect to this is to reiterate the complete commitment that the Government have to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and to the meeting next year in New York. We want that conference to be a success.
The UK remains an active participant in all the nuclear non-proliferation treaty forums, alongside the commitment to maintain for as long as is necessary our nuclear deterrent. The commitment that we have to that nuclear non-proliferation treaty is important as well. That is good UK government policy.
Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 October be approved.
Relevant document: 39th Report from the Secondary Legislation Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 18 and 19 November.
Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 October be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 19 November.
Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 October be approved.
Relevant document: 39th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 18 November.
Asylum Policy
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the Home Secretary’s Statement to the other place announced a number of reforms which are very welcome. When the Government bring forward strong measures, we will support them. The Home Secretary should be praised for accepting a simple truth—that Britain’s asylum system is far more generous than that of many other European countries.
It is a truth that, unfortunately, many Labour Back-Benchers cannot seem to grasp. The true test to these reforms will be whether the Government can face down opposition from within their own ranks and implement them.
There is another welcome truth that the Home Secretary has implicitly accepted: up to now, the Government’s measures to tackle illegal migration have failed. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which we have spent many hours debating in this House, is woefully inadequate to deal with the issue. It is a shame that it took the Government so long to realise this, but we are where we are. We will have to have another immigration and asylum Bill next year because the Government were too slow to reach the logical conclusion that their plans are not working. These new announcements are at least a tacit acceptance that that Bill did not go anywhere near far enough to seriously tackle small boat crossings.
There are a number of proposals here that are very similar to amendments I tabled during the Report stage of the border security Bill—amendments that the Government completely opposed. It is heartening to see that they have finally come round, but it might have been easier for all of us if they had compromised earlier.
For example, the Government opposed my amendment to create third-country removal centres. The Minister criticised it for wanting to rehash the Rwanda policy, but that is a complete falsehood. The Rwanda policy would have sent illegal migrants to Rwanda, where their asylum claims would be processed. The amendments I brought to the border security Bill would automatically reject that asylum claim brought by an illegal migrant and then return them to either their home country or a safe third country. Their claims would not be processed in Rwanda because they would never be allowed to make a claim in the first place.
That amendment was about having safe third countries where we can send failed asylum seekers and illegal migrants who cannot be returned to their home country. Now, in their policy statement, the Government say:
“We will continue to explore the use of ‘return hubs’ which are safe third countries that failed asylum seekers can be sent to instead of their country of origin. Negotiations with a number of countries are ongoing”.
This is precisely what we were pushing the Government to do, and I am pleased that they have announced that they will look to send failed asylum seekers to safe third countries, but this all could have been much easier if they had come to this conclusion earlier.
The Government have also announced changes to the appeals procedure. The Statement says that the Home Office will
“create a new appeals body, staffed by professional independent adjudicators”.
However, it does not mention whether this appeals body will run alongside the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) or replace it. Could the Minister please clarify this?
Would the Government run this new body alongside the judicial appeals tribunals? If so, how would they decide whose appeal is heard before which body? Or are they proposing to abolish the immigration and asylum tribunal and replace it with the Home Office review body? If so, then that was exactly what I proposed by way of Amendments 46 and 47 to the border security Bill. On Report on 5 November, 128 Labour peers voted against that. If they have changed their mind on this, it is very embarrassing to say the least; it is disappointing for them to vote against that proposal and then come up with something very similar.
The Home Secretary has claimed that she is following the lead set by Denmark, but this is only a partial truth, because Denmark requires asylum seekers to prove full-time employment for several years before they qualify for permanent residence.
The Government’s plans extend the waiting time to get indefinite leave to remain to 10 years once a person’s refugee status has been granted and if they entered legally. This would be 20 years for those who entered illegally, but this does not impose any conditions. Theoretically, a person could enter illegally, languish on benefits for 20 years and then be granted the right to indefinite leave to remain. While I am pleased to see asylum status become temporary, and for anyone whose home country becomes safe to be returned there, it is absolutely wrong that a person could enter illegally and still be allowed to remain, especially given the Government’s opening of new safe and legal routes. If we are to have legal routes for refugees, we absolutely cannot reward those who enter illegally. That would make even more of a mockery of the whole system. Why would a person bother to apply for the legal route if they know that they can board a boat and be allowed to stay here? The Government need to follow this plan to its logical conclusion and ban asylum, human rights and protection claims from any illegal migrant.
Finally, the plan to reform Article 8 is all well and good, but the Government have to know that this will not be enough. While we have the Human Rights Act in force and are party to the ECHR, we will face the same barriers to removals that we do currently. Reforming the interpretation will simply allow crafty human rights lawyers to find innovative new ways to circumvent it. Only a wholesale repeal of the Human Rights Act and withdrawal from the ECHR can finally remove the legal barriers to deportation.
The Government have started moving in the right direction. As my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition said, we will support the Government in making these changes. But I fear that they will not be enough and that the Government will end up coming back to us next year with further changes. If they simply accepted that now, and went even further with these changes, it would save us all a lot of time down the line.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests, and I am supported by the RAMP organisation. I am minded to think of the title of that great film, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”; I am afraid that these proposals have all three within them. I will go through some of those.
Starting with the positive, we support the Government’s intent to bring order in the asylum system, and we welcome the announcement of new, capped, safe and legal routes for refugees. These pathways, with security checks and controls, are the correct way to fulfil the UK’s responsibility to those in need. Confirmation that the Government will not leave the European Convention on Human Rights is welcome, as is the recognition that early legal advice should be a core part of the appeal system.
Moving on to the bad, or impractical, the argument that asylum seekers should contribute is undermined when they are denied the means to earn their way. Denmark allows asylum seekers to work after six months. Why are the Government persisting in stopping asylum seekers from working when there is no evidence that this is a pull factor? We question the assumption of the UK as a magnet, given that we receive far fewer asylum seekers per capita than our European neighbours. Home Office analysis itself found that asylum seekers have little to no understanding of welfare policies before arrival. Shared language, diaspora communities and perhaps even colonial connections are the primary drivers for asylum seekers taking irregular routes to the UK. Can the UK Government provide evidence, rather than simple assertion, on this matter?
Revoking the duty to support risks creating more destitution and pushing more asylum seekers towards illegal working and exploitation. What assessment has been made of this risk? What action are the Government taking to avoid passing the financial strain onto already struggling local authorities? The use of immoderate language is also unhelpful and risks stoking division. Why do the Government feel the need to create a whole new asylum appeals structure? Why not simply expand the existing system?
The most severe criticisms target the core protection model and its administrative fallout. Core protection requires a status review every 30 months and delays permanent settlement for 20 years, which in our view is unnecessary and cruel. This prolonged state of instability will inhibit successful integration by making it difficult for refugees to secure tenancies, employment or higher education. The Home Office is currently struggling with a backlog, yet this policy would impose what has been called bureaucratic madness, requiring a huge increase in capacity to review the status of an estimated 1.45 million people by the end of 2035, potentially costing £872 million. Do the Government accept these figures or have they alternative ones to offer?
Scrapping the refugee family reunion route pushes children and spouses into the hands of smugglers, directly contradicting the goal of safe migration. Has this risk been assessed? How will the long-term separation from family impact refugees’ ability to contribute and reduce their reliance on state support? Will the Government be detaining and deporting children who were once accepted as refugees but will subsequently not be when their home country is deemed safe?
Given that Denmark’s temporary protection scheme clearly failed to result in returns for Syrians, how do the Government justify the massive cost and profound uncertainty imposed by the UK version? What is the timescale for these changes? When will they be implemented and what method will be used to implement them?
Finally, do the Government agree with the report in the i newspaper that deportations will be retrospective? It says:
“It means that, if a refugee has not already been granted indefinite right to remain before the Home Secretary’s new legislation comes into force, they will be deported if their home country is subsequently deemed safe by the Government”.
I look forward to the Government’s response to these questions.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and I will try to answer his questions first of all. I am grateful for the welcome he gave to some of the Government’s proposals. I remind him that the reason we are undertaking these reforms is that we have inherited a very broken system: a system that has been in operation for 14 years, where the number of asylum claims has risen, where the backlog has grown and where the deportations have not existed where they are rightfully proposed to exist. We have a duty, on behalf of the British people, to take some difficult decisions to sort this out.
The noble Lord mentioned that the border security Bill, which has completed its passage bar one Commons amendment, has not been effective. Let me remind him that we have introduced a border security commander, who has negotiated deals with France, negotiated deals with Iraq, negotiated deals with the Germans and has been put on a legal footing by this Bill. We have put extra measures in place to support penalties for people smugglers, which will now, once Royal Assent is achieved, allow us to take some further deterrent actions against people smugglers to end that vile trade. We have put in place mechanisms to stop the manufacture and use of boats, to seize engines and to do other things which will take effect once Royal Assent is agreed. I do not, therefore, accept his contention first and foremost that the border security Bill, about which we have had many hours of discussion, is pointless.
I have to say to him, however, that the Government have to keep these issues under review because it is self-evidently a broken system, which is why we put in place additional people to speed up the backlog. The measures before the House today, outlined in the Statement, will be brought forward in legislation, subject to consultation. We will also look at a range of other measures we need to take to fix the system we have inherited from the noble Lord and his political party. He may not like that—I do not want to politicise that: I want his support for this—but we have had to take those steps because of where we are, and I think that is reasonable.
The support he has given for some of those steps is particularly good. He mentioned, for example, the tightened criteria. I think it is fair and proper that, if a country is deemed safe after two and a half years, the individual concerned is encouraged and supported to return to that country; or, as is in this proposal, they can apply for a different route through work or study to get permanent residence downstream. If the country is safe, however, it is perfectly reasonable to look at how we can remove that individual.
The proposals include tackling increased enforcement on illegal working. I think it is perfectly reasonable to put some pressure and heat into the system to tackle people who are being employed illegally, to look at increasing the right-to-work checks, to provide digital ID requirements—which I suspect he will oppose—to ensure there are mandatory right-to-work checks and collaboration to verify companies. I think that is reasonable. I think it is reasonable to look at return hubs: not Rwanda, not £700 million being wasted, not two people being removed voluntarily, but discussing proper return hubs for people who do not have safe countries but where their asylum claims have failed. It is perfectly reasonable to remove people whose asylum claims have failed because their asylum claims have failed. That is perfectly reasonable to do.
It is perfectly reasonable to do what we are doing in this proposal to speed up assessments and appeals. He asked about the First-tier Tribunal. We are going to put extra hours into the tribunal and we are going to ensure that we look at improving the legal system to get appeals dealt with and tribunals dealt with much more quickly. It is reasonable—and this is, again, where we will have a bit of blue and red water between us—to be committed to the European Convention on Human Rights, to be committed to legislation to uphold human rights, but actually to say that we want to look at how we can tweak that to make sure that it acts in the interest of our country, at the same time as being part of our international obligations, which is where we are. He wants to leave those conventions. I do not, and the Government do not, but we need to make sure we make them work in a better way to deal with this issue. I think it is reasonable for us to do all those things and I hope for and look forward to his support on them.
I welcome the welcome from the noble Lord, Lord German. It has been overlooked in this, but there are safe and legal routes that we want to develop, as we have done, for example, in our bespoke schemes for Ukraine and for Syria. There are bespoke routes that we can develop. There are safe and legal routes that we can look at. In this Statement, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said that we wish to look at doing that. We are committed to human rights, but we are committed to looking at these particular issues. We will encourage people to look at the work route, if necessary, for safe and legal routes, and we will ensure that a range of other issues are examined.
The noble Lord takes issue with the core protection measures that we have before us in this proposal. I think, again, that it is reasonable, given where we are, to look at how we can ensure that those people are assessed very quickly, within two and a half years, or 30 months. If the country is safe to return to, they can return. If not, let us get that asylum claim approved, or let us get that asylum claim rejected and the individual then returned. I think that is a reasonable proposal. It is reasonable that we look at family reunion, and the noble Lord asked about child deportations. I do not want to see child deportations, but what I want to see is, if people have failed their asylum claim or if they are a foreign national offender—of which we have many languishing in UK jails at the moment—we must find mechanisms to return those individuals fairly and properly to their communities if they are safe, or, if not, to look at the issue that we have talked about here of an alternative holding establishment. All of this will be consulted on.
The noble Lord asked about when and how this will be brought in. There will be legislation brought before both Houses of Parliament, at a point to be determined, and the consultation will take place. However, I ask all those noble Lords who may criticise the proposals: are they happy with the status quo? Do they think the status quo is a good place to be? I think nobody in this Chamber will say that the status quo is a good place to be. Therefore, my objective with the Home Secretary and the Home Office is to look at ways in which we can maintain our international obligations, welcome genuine refugees and asylum seekers, but also speed up a broken system to make sure it works effectively.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, who will decide whether a country is safe? The previous Government decided that Rwanda was safe, but the Supreme Court, following a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, said that it was the body with the responsibility for deciding whether a country was safe. So my question to the Minister is: who, under the Government’s proposals, is to decide whether a country is safe—the Government or the Supreme Court?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s question. I take the view that the Government will determine ultimately which are safe countries. The Government will make that judgment. We are open to challenge and discussion, but the Government will have to make a determination on that. In doing so, we will look at a range of factors. What does the United Nations think? What do the other agencies think? In the end, however, the Government ultimately will have to determine. Again, let me just say that it may not even be a blanket “safe” for a particular country. It may be safe, for example, now, for individuals post an Assad regime to return to Syria, but it may equally not be safe for some individuals to do that. There is a case-by-case basis for the individual, but, ultimately, we have to make that call.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s commitment to human rights, and I know it is a sincere one, but the Statement itself appears to express some irritation with both Article 8, respect for private and family life, and even Article 3, the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment and torture. In the light of our own justice and prison system being found in breach of Article 3 in the High Court just two days ago, can the Minister say a little more—give us a little more specificity—about the detail of the proposed renegotiation of Article 3 that the Statement refers to?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. We are seeking international reform of the application of Article 3. We will work with partners to reform the application of the ECHR’s prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment. That means we have to discuss it with our partners and get joint agreement, but it is an objective to which the Government are committed. It is one that will be tested. It will be in our consultation in due course. We will bring forward primary legislation with a definition of family life for the purposes of Article 8. That will be subject to scrutiny, but it will be within the spirit of maintaining our commitment to the European Court of Human Rights application. Those are fair and legitimate objectives, and I hope that my noble friend will support them in due course.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, the Home Secretary ended her Statement by saying that her reforms
“are designed to bring unity where others seek to divide”.
My greatest worry about them is that making refugee status only temporary, and subject to review every 30 months and deportation, will have the opposite effect. It will not bring unity, it will not encourage community or integration, and it is not very British. The Attlee Government did not try to deport the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in 1945. The attempt to send trucks round south London to generate a hostile environment and tell people to go home was called off very quickly because of the public revulsion. I remember being very warmed to see crowds in Glasgow blocking the streets to prevent the deportation of their neighbours.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, he did not answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord German, about retrospection. Can he assure us that the change from five years to 10 years or 20 years will not be applied retrospectively to those people who are here, have been allowed to stay here and came when the rule was that they could obtain citizenship after five years? It will not apply to them, I trust.
Secondly, the Statement says that
“as order and control are restored, we will open new, capped, safe and legal routes into this country”.
Does “as order and control are restored” imply a sequence: that we need first to see order and control restored, then we will open safe and legal routes? If it does, is that not wholly illogical? The best way of putting the traffickers out of business and ensuring that there are no deaths in the channel is to open safe and legal routes. Will the Minister also tell us how a system of capping safe and legal routes will work? How will the caps be set and how will they be made compatible with our obligations under the refugee convention?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will try to answer the three broad issues within that. The first is the reduction in time from five years to 30 months. It is not, “At the end of 30 months you are deported”; at the end of 30 months, an assessment will be made about whether the country the person has come from is safe, to go back to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Howard. I hope that we will not have long backlogs on asylum claims in the first place. That is why other measures are being sped up. Part of the problem, and the reason why people are waiting for five years and beyond, is that asylum claims are not met. From our perspective, if an asylum claim can be met and sped up then a decision can be taken to grant asylum, in which case the individual has asylum—admittedly with a longer period for final settlement—or they are removed from the country under a deportation route. The purpose is to try to put some energy into the system to get that sped up very quickly.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked about safe and legal routes, and the annual cap. The Home Secretary will examine and consult on this as part of the proposals, but it is perfectly reasonable to try to set an annual cap, in discussion with our refugee convention and other obligations, to see what the country can bear in terms of housing support and everything else so that annual cap is based on community capacity. We can then look at safe and legal routes that help support individuals to come here so they do not use the illegal routes that are universally condemned across the House. We will maintain the flexibility that we have for things such as the Ukraine scheme and the Gaza scheme. If I had been putting this before the House six years ago, we would not have been talking about a Ukraine scheme. Who knows what will happen next? We retain our international obligations to do that.
The noble Lord asked about retrospection. That will be part of the discussion and consultation. Legislation will be brought forward to address what will happen, and that will be subject to tests by both Houses of Parliament.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, I declare an interest as a participant in the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Three and a half years on, we have a delightful Ukrainian family still living in our house. In the section of the report on safe and legal routes, the options in the policy document include a route to safety for students and skilled workers. Such schemes may be a useful adjunct to sufficient open safe and legal routes, but does the Minister share my concern that, in a world where safe and legal routes are limited, we may send a message that young, healthy, skilled people are more deserving of sanctuary than others?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
No. We need to look at individuals’ asylum claims based on their merit. An individual who is not of working age or is not going to be involved in education or study can have an asylum claim. The key point in the safe and legal routes aspect is that we need to look at what that is and design a scheme. We will consult on that. The work and student visa route will be one that individuals can apply for during the course of their asylum claim. If their asylum claim is granted, that gives another route into longer-term settlement, which would be valuable if the individual wishes to do that. I retain an openness to examine individuals’ claims and positions on the basis of their individual status.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the Home Secretary’s Statement and the acceptance that the current system is unsustainable. It is interesting that perhaps a year or two ago, people proposing some of these measures would have been accused of being racist, so I welcome the Statement. The Government will have to get support from other political parties to get these measures through. Does the Minister accept that he will have to work with Reform UK, whose leader, whatever noble Lords may think about him, was one of the first people to raise the issue of the difficulties and the possibilities of migrants coming in on small boats?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will welcome support for the Government’s proposals wherever they come from, but if the noble Baroness thinks that I have anything in common with the honourable Member for Clacton and his crew, she is sadly mistaken. I come from a position of trying to ensure that we build a coterminous, cohesive society that is open and tolerant but manages its borders effectively. I do not seek to cause division, which I think the honourable Member for Clacton seeks to do. He wants us not to solve this problem; he wants it to continue. He wants the small boat routes to continue so that he can spread division. That is not on this Government’s agenda. We are here to fix this problem, not to exploit it.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I urge the Minister to think again about the sequence of events regarding safe and legal routes. Many of us believe that introducing safe and legal routes would take away the business of the traffickers. Therefore, leaving it until the end of the line seems to allow the traffickers to go on doing their business. Could we speed that up, please? Secondly, on the 20-year period when people may or may not feel secure in this country—the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has already referred to this—is the problem not that if people feel insecure in this country then local communities will feel less likely to support them, and integration will suffer? Is there something the Government can do to make people feel more secure, because 20 years is a long time when families are here and children have been born here? It is not a humane way to proceed.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I know my noble friend takes a great interest in this, and I am very happy to discuss safe and legal routes with him and my colleagues in the Home Office, because I know that he is committed to this issue and we must ensure that we explore it extremely safely. I want to see community cohesion, and longer-term integration is an issue the Government have set their stall on. That is subject to consultation. Again, I want to work with my noble friend to ensure that we deal with this in a proper and effective way. The door is open to him at any time.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, during the passage of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, the Minister made it quite clear that the Government would not in any way amend the Human Rights Act 1998 and that they were very concerned about the independence of the judiciary. Yet the Statement refers to potentially changing the approach to Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Section 2 of the Human Rights Act requires the judiciary to take jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights into account; this has been followed and built upon by judges in this country. How will the Government alter the approach to Articles 3 and 8 without amending the Human Rights Act and without impeding the independence of the judiciary?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On the question of Article 8 claims, Article 8 is a qualified right, which means that interferences with it can be justified where it is proportionate to the public interest. We will bring forward primary legislation with a definition of family life for the purposes of Article 8. On Article 3, we will work with partners to reform the application of the ECHR’s prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. Both of those are potential tweaks, which will be subject to legislation and consultation, but which we believe can be done within our international obligations. We are not the Official Opposition who wish to withdraw from those international obligations; we wish to maintain them. But I think it is fair, open and proper that we can examine legislation to tweak them.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, there is not a word of the Prime Minister’s foreword to this Statement that was not true on the day that he became Prime Minister. It is welcome that the Government have got to where they have. The Minister referred to our record; my recollection is that, every time we proposed tough things, they were opposed by the party opposite. I do not remember us ever being challenged because we were not being tough enough.
My question is this: having read through the Statement and the policy document carefully, there are a number of measures that require changes to the Immigration Rules, which is obviously secondary legislation, but there are also a number, as has just been referred to, that require amendment to primary legislation. Certainly, my sense of the Home Secretary’s demeanour is that she feels that this is a very urgent matter to deal with. Has the legislation been drafted and is it ready? When is it going to be introduced? Will it be introduced in this Session to carry over or will it have to wait until the next Session of Parliament? If the latter, it does not strike me that the Government are treating it very urgently.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I remember serving as the noble Lord’s shadow about 10 or 11 years ago, when he was the Immigration Minister and we were both Members of Parliament. I supported a number of the measures that he brought forward then, which were very difficult. We, too, will take some very difficult decisions, and I hope to take Members of both the Government’s party and opposition parties with us.
On the question of legislation, he will expect me to say this, but I am going to say it anyway: legislation will be introduced in due course. I cannot comment on legislation in the second Session yet, but legislation will be introduced in due course.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
I declare an interest, having been engaged with these matters for rather more than 20 years as the co-founder of Migration Watch, together with Professor David Coleman of Oxford University. I have read the Government’s Statement with great care. It covers a huge amount of ground, as previous questions have indicated, but it is clearly a serious attempt to deal with a matter that is a real and growing public concern. Further measures will certainly be needed, but this is at least a useful start.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support. A number of Members of the House have asked why the Government did not do this a few months ago and what the Government will do next. Life is not static. There are competing challenges at all times. We are trying to bring forward the immigration Bill and bring forward proposals here. My right honourable friend will soon be making a Statement on other aspects in the House of Commons, which I suspect I will have to repeat early next week, and there is an immigration White Paper proposal as well.
This is a journey to try to ensure that we bring order to a system that is currently failing while maintaining our international obligations, being fair to people who are escaping war, poverty and terror, and at the same time making sure that we support United Kingdom citizens in finding integration and welcome where that is required. That is an ongoing process, and I would welcome the noble Lord’s support for any measures that we bring forward.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the status quo might not be where we want, but where the Government are moving to causes me some deep concern, not least about integration and the dehumanisation of migrants and people seeking sanctuary. I want to bring to the Minister’s attention some interesting polling by HOPE not hate, which reveals that most people are not anti-migrant; they are angry that they do not have access to public services, a GP, hospitals and housing for themselves and their children. They are worried about the future and they need good schools. Does he not realise that, until we deal with these issues, people will always look for somebody else to blame, particularly the stranger in our midst?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend makes a strong case for what I believe is the Labour Government’s intention, which is to rebuild public services and public trust in government. If he looks across the board at employment measures in the Employment Rights Bill, at housing measures in our housing proposals and at public transport measures with my noble friend here, he will see that we are trying to rebuild public services that have been hollowed out and to raise aspirations for an equal, prosperous society where everybody can contribute and reach their full potential. That is what the Government are trying to do. I take his point that people will always try to find scapegoats on issues where they feel uncomfortable that they are not having a fair crack of the whip. We need to encourage that integration and look at the social issues that my noble friend mentioned.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I say to the Minister and the Home Secretary that this set of measures is to be welcomed, but I am afraid that it does not quite go far enough. I have one specific question for the Minister on the Statement. The Home Secretary said this in the other place:
“We will never return anyone to be tortured in their home country, but the definition of ‘degrading treatment’”,
in Article 3 of the ECHR,
“has expanded into the realm of the ridiculous. Today we have criminals who we seek to deport, but we discover we cannot because the prisons in their home country have cells that are deemed too small, or even mental health provision that is not as good as our own”.
She is absolutely right to say that. She goes on to say that, in order to address this problem,
“we are seeking reform at the Council of Europe, and we do so alongside international partners who have raised similar concerns”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/11/25; col. 512.]
I am afraid the reality is that that sort of international method to seek amendment to the European convention will take years and years.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is an objective that we have set, one that we are trying to achieve and one that the activities of the last few weeks have shown the Home Secretary to be very focused on delivering. We want to make sure that we can effect those changes. There is an appetite in certain parts of Europe to begin that dialogue and process. Perhaps I should say in conclusion that it is only a shame that the noble Lord did not do any of these things when he had the chance.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Scottish and Welsh legislative consent sought, Northern Ireland legislative consent granted.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to present the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill for Second Reading today. I welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and congratulate him on his forthcoming maiden speech in your Lordships’ House today. I look forward to hearing his contribution to this important debate, and to his many contributions in the months and years ahead.
If we are to be an outward, confident trading nation that is connected to the world and leading the way on innovation, we must move as fast as we can towards a greener, cleaner future for flying. Domestic transport accounted for 29% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2023. Aviation is currently the second largest contributor, and it faces unique barriers to decarbonisation. By 2040 it is set to overtake road vehicle use as transport’s largest emitter. SAF will be key to decarbonisation, a drop-in solution that can be used today in today’s aircraft with today’s infrastructure. SAF also has huge economic benefits for the wider low-carbon fuels industry, potentially supporting up to 15,000 jobs and contributing up to £5 billion to the economy by 2050.
SAF is not the only measure that we are supporting to address emissions in the aviation sector. The Government are supporting the development of more efficient and zero-emission aircraft technologies, and we have announced a further £1 billion of funding for the Aerospace Technology Institute to help to spur green aerospace innovation. The Civil Aviation Authority, supported by my department’s funding, is shaping regulations for zero-emission aircraft through its hydrogen challenge. Alongside that, we are advancing airspace modernisation to enable cleaner, quicker and quieter journeys. The Government are also establishing a UK airspace design service with the Civil Aviation Authority and the National Air Traffic Service, which are working together to launch this by the end of the year.
Turning to aviation fuel, the Government, alongside industry, are working collaboratively to ramp up the UK’s SAF industry. The UK stands at the forefront of global efforts to decarbonise aviation. When this Government came into power, we acted immediately by laying the statutory instrument for the SAF mandate, which came into force on 1 January this year. We have invested £63 million in 17 projects through the Advanced Fuels Fund, which will drive growth, support good jobs and deliver emissions reduction.
The revenue certainty mechanism introduced in the Bill is a scheme designed to support UK SAF production to drive growth and opportunity across the country. It addresses the lack of a clear and predictable market price for SAF, one of the biggest constraints on investment in UK SAF production. The RCM builds on the established precedent of contracts for difference in the renewables sector. Under the RCM, an SAF producer will enter into a private law contract with a government-owned counterparty that sets a guaranteed strike price for SAF. If SAF is sold for under that price, the counterparty will pay the difference to the producer. If SAF is sold above the price, the producer will pay the difference to the counterparty.
It is important to emphasise that no final decisions have been taken on how the strike price will be determined. The RCM contracts must set a strike price that finds a balance between securing the appropriate protection for the producer and its investors and providing value for money for the scheme and the wider sector. This is a new and emerging market. This will be the world’s first SAF RCM, and it will derisk SAF projects by addressing barriers to investment in a nascent market that is using innovative technologies. Like similar schemes in the low-carbon electricity sector, this will help to provide greater certainty of future revenue, help to attract investment in first-of-a-kind SAF plants, and support growth and opportunity across the country.
Turning to the SAF Bill, it has four key areas. First, it will enable the Secretary of State to designate a counterparty that is wholly owned by government. Secondly, the Secretary of State can direct the counterparty to enter into private law contracts with SAF producers, guaranteeing a price for the sale of eligible SAF over a period of time. The mechanism is there to support the development of a first-of-a-kind plant by increasing investor confidence. While first-of-a-kind plants are likely to be more expensive than future plants, supporting them allows future, cheaper plants to get constructed and start producing SAF. The contract allocation process will be designed to maximise competition, with all contracts to be underpinned by robust technical and commercial due diligence to ensure that successful projects represent value for money.
Thirdly, the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations imposing a levy on suppliers of aviation fuel in the UK, in order to fund the RCM. That will allow the counterparty to collect the levy to cover the costs of issuing payments under contracts that are administering the scheme. It is right that the costs of decarbonising air travel should at least be partially borne by the aviation sector rather than the taxpayer. We are levying aviation fuel suppliers because placing the levy higher up the supply chain spreads costs across the sector, and because aviation fuel suppliers will benefit from the greater volumes and lower prices for SAF that the RCM will create. The RCM will provide support only if SAF is actually being produced. If a project fails, there is no obligation on the Government to provide support. While novel technologies can have high failure rates, we can support multiple technology pathways to minimise risk and strengthen the UK’s project pipeline.
Fourthly, the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to enforce certain provisions imposing financial penalties. The Secretary of State may impose a financial penalty on a person who fails to comply with levy regulations, or with requirements under regulations made to ensure that any paid-out surplus is used to benefit fuel suppliers’ customers.
This is a comprehensive and focused Bill that lays the foundations for a thriving UK SAF industry by delivering investment certainty, cutting emissions and securing the long-term sustainability of the aviation industry. More SAF supply and lower prices are good for the aviation sector and, ultimately, for those who wish to fly. The Bill is an essential part of securing our world-class aviation sector’s future, and we want it to do that sustainably. I look forward to engaging with noble Lords on this legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate on the Second Reading of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the Aviation All-Party Parliamentary Group.
I do not intend to make a lengthy speech, but I shall touch on the essential ingredient of the Bill: the introduction of a revenue certainty mechanism to support the production of sustainable aviation fuel in the UK. We know that the Government currently impose an SAF mandate on the aviation industry whereby 2% of aviation fuel used in the UK must be SAF. That target is set to rise to 10% by 2030 and 22% by 2040—somewhat ambitious, I believe; nevertheless, that is the target.
I have met and spoken to representatives of all aspects of the industry, at their request, over the last year—airport owners, airline representatives and SAF producers, to name but a few. They all have one thing in common: a genuine desire to see the introduction of lower-carbon alternatives to conventional aviation fuel, which is very encouraging, particularly when you look at some other sectors.
Worthy of mention, perhaps, is that, on the domestic front, in 2022 the Royal Air Force and industry partners carried out the world’s first 100% SAF flight, in an RAF Voyager, an Airbus product with, I might add, wings constructed in Wales. We know that most of the SAF currently produced is HEFA-based: that is to say, made from hydro-processed esters and fatty acids—hence the acronym HEFA—that are derived from oils or fats such as cooking oil. A 2025 market report produced by companies in the sector stated that globally, 82% of current SAF capacity relies on HEFA technology, which is limited by available feedstocks. Moving forward, we look to second-generation and third-generation SAFs from solid waste and other materials.
The Climate Change Committee, the independent adviser to the UK Government on climate risk, said in its 2025 report to Parliament that SAF supply was sufficient to meet the Government’s current SAF mandate that 2% of aviation fuel must be SAF. However, it said that meeting the Government’s 10% target by 2030 was “uncertain” as production of different forms of SAF
“will need to scale up”.
The committee said that SAF producers must now start to diversify away from HEFA-based forms of SAF if the 2030 target is to be achieved.
That brings me to the main points that I wish to raise with the Government today. I believe that the Bill will be successful if it includes the necessary provisions to protect existing SAF production in the UK and maintain its competitiveness in the international market. A number of global renewables companies are in the process of developing techniques to produce low-cost, low-carbon SAF, and they have chosen to conduct business here in the UK. I know this to be true because I have met them. They see the UK as a convenient climate in which to operate. Coupled with the SAF mandate already in force, this could make the UK a leader in green aviation fuel production.
However, if the Government are serious about building a UK SAF industry and capturing the green jobs and fuel security benefits of doing so, the revenue certainty mechanism needs to be introduced at pace. Other major economies are moving ahead with their own plans to support domestic SAF production, particularly in Europe through the EU’s green deal industrial plan, which provides billions of euros in incentives. If UK policy incentives do not keep pace with these markets, this will at best delay production and at worst mean that companies move their global hub and associated production facilities overseas.
I ask the Minister: how seriously do the Government take the need to move at pace to retain companies developing SAF in the UK? Does he agree that if SAF production is to be viable for developers, they will require early access to the designated counterparty for revenue certainty mechanism negotiations ahead of the Bill’s ratification? Also, while they are keen to attract foreign investment, can the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that grants from the advanced fuels fund are directed to support British technology?
Finally, what assurances can the Minister give to the travelling public that the Government’s estimated impact on ticket prices, of between minus £1.50 and plus £1.50, is accurate? In Committee in the other place, the International Airlines Group commented that some elements have not been included in the calculation, noting that the cost
“will be nearer to £10””.—[Official Report, Commons, Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill Committee, 15/7/25; col. 17.]
I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we too look forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, and we welcome him to the House. We are generally supportive of the measures in the Bill but have some concerns about areas of government policy that lie beyond its scope, and a few questions about the details.
To put the Bill in its legitimate context, it will help reduce CO2 emissions from aviation, but it is not a magic bullet. Alone, it is not a sustainable answer to the challenges we face. Aviation is, of course, one of the hardest sectors to abate and it is expected to show continued and rapid upward growth. Aviation is critical to our economy and our way of life. It moves some 240 million international passengers and 2.4 million tonnes of freight each year, adding £14 billion in GVA to UK GDP. The industry also supports 1 million associated jobs and £4.2 billion in associated passenger duty. Aviation accounts for 7% of UK carbon emissions, but this figure is due to rise significantly, to 11% in 2030 and 16% in 2035. Unless decisive action is taken on a broad range of fronts beyond the scope of the Bill, we will not meet our targets. Net zero 2050 is not optional; it is imperative.
We on these Benches do not wish to challenge any UK family’s right to a holiday. When we debate the Bill, we need to be clear that 15% of people in this country take 70% of the flights, and we need to change that. The Climate Change Committee was clear in 2023 when it said that SAF alone is a risky strategy. My party would reform air passenger duty to target the most frequent flyers. We would ensure that we have an escalating passenger duty so that those who fly the most frequently, pay more. We also oppose overexpansion of the airports, particularly in the south-east. This Government have chosen to take a different path, and it is for them to balance this path of increased airport expansion against their climate change commitments and targets. Therefore, we welcome the Bill but note our caveats.
SAF is widely considered as the main available pathway to decarbonise aviation. It can cut lifecycle emissions by up to 70% compared with conventional jet fuel. As we have heard, it is a drop-in fuel that can be used alongside existing aircraft and infrastructure. The SAF mandate passed last year starts at 2% and rises to 10% by 2030, and then to 22% in 2040. From 2040, the obligation will remain at 22% unless there is greater certainty of supply. The SAF mandate could, it is claimed, deliver up to 6.3 megatons of carbon savings each year by 2040.
We on these Benches welcome the revenue certainty mechanism. It will serve to strengthen investor confidence and unlock significant capital investment in the production facilities that need to be based here in the UK. It will allow for long-term stability and contracts through the guaranteed strike price. As the Minister said, this mechanism has been widely used in the renewables sector, and we know that it works. It will provide certainty to these suppliers. The approach is logical. The industry stands to benefit from cheaper staff, and the cost will be spread widely throughout the industry.
We recognise the UK’s approach, the long-term mandate, the proposed revenue support and the degree of certainty it will provide to help with this transition. Indeed, the UK is seen as an example of best practice, with ambitious targets and support mechanisms. Establishing a homegrown low-carbon fuel sector will bring significant jobs and benefits to the UK industry and wider society. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of ongoing negotiations with industry, running parallel with the Bill? Further, when will the Government be able to provide details on how the strike price will be set and what mechanisms will exist for adjustments? When do the Government anticipate that the first contracts will be signed?
While we welcome the Bill, we stress that SAF is only a first step. This is about not merely blending fuels but seeking alternative, more sustainable climate-friendly options for the longer term. That needs continuous investment and innovation in the next generations of technologies, including the battery/electric and hydrogen-fuelled. The Bill sets the policy framework, but crucial details are left to subsequent negotiations.
We have several key questions regarding the Bill’s ambition, scope and technical design. The SAF mandate requires 22% of jet fuel to be sustainable by 2040. This means that 78% of fuels will still be polluting just a decade before our net-zero deadline, so how will the Government achieve this target? In addition, the European Union has a higher target of 70% by 2050. What action will the Government take to bring further alignment not just with our EU partners but internationally?
We also have concerns about SAF feedstocks and the amount of cooking oil that is imported. It is important that we have a reliable domestic supply. We also note concerns about bioethanol and the closure of plants, particularly the Vivergo plant in Hull, and the impact of the US trade deal and subsidies on US ethanol. We are concerned about the potential for future bioethanol plant closures.
What consideration have the Government given to the inclusion of intermediate cover crops, such as catch and cover, as a scalable feedstock outside the HEFA cap to expand the resource base without competing with food markets? We believe that the transition to a sustainable aviation industry must be strategically linked to our existing industrial base. What actions are the Government taking to see that existing industrial plants are brought back into use, make sure that the planning system is fit for purpose and ensure that these plants can be brought online quickly?
While the Government are committed to undertaking a comprehensive assessment of these industrial sites to see that they are brought back online, transparency is paramount given the importance of public trust and accountability. The funding levy should also not place undue financial burden on air travellers, so how will the Government review the impacts to ensure that the levy does not include further burdens on those travellers? For the sake of public accountability, are the Government amenable to ensuring that the airlines report publicly on their use of SAF and the amount of it that they supply? We broadly welcome this Bill, but the Bill alone is not a sustainable long-term solution, and we call for greater monetary transparency and openness.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis and co-chair of Legislators for Nuclear. I look forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. I support the Bill, with the caveat that costs to consumers of these measures must always be front and centre, with all the freedoms that cheap air travel has opened up to people from all backgrounds in recent decades. But I accept that there is a strategic need to invest in the long-term sustainability of aviation fuel for the UK and that we need a revenue certainty mechanism alongside the mandate.
I have three broad points. My first is around the definitions in the Bill of fuels that are eligible for the revenue certainty mechanism. Clause 16 defines “sustainable aviation fuel” as,
“aviation fuel that is renewable transport fuel”.
“Renewable transport fuel” is defined in the same clause as,
“anything that is (or is treated as) renewable transport fuel for the purposes of Chapter 5 of Part 2 of the Energy Act 2004”.
It then refers to Sections 131D and 132. I proposed the amendment to what is now the Energy Act 2023 that led to Section 131D, which treats recycled carbon fuels and nuclear-derived fuels as renewable transport fuels. That amendment was therefore a key enabler for this Bill in enabling support for second-generation and types of third-generation SAF.
However, this requires secondary legislation to take effect and treat these fuels as renewable transport fuels. This has not been completely done for the surface transport renewable transport fuel order; it has been done only for recycled carbon fuels. But it has been done for the sustainable aviation renewable transport fuel order, so we have quite a convoluted legislative route here between various Acts and secondary legislation. Can the Minister please confirm that recycled carbon fuels and nuclear-derived fuels are within the scope of the revenue certainty mechanism outlined in the Bill?
Clearly, recycled carbon fuels will be very important in the near term. Over the medium to long term, nuclear could well be a significant source of synthetic fuels due to the potential economic efficiency it brings to hydrogen production, whether that is high-temperature electrolysis, with the current pressurised water reactor plants, or, looking further ahead, the sulphur-iodine cycle in advanced high-temperature nuclear plant.
My second point is around the powers that the Government are taking in the Bill. They have clearly stated that they do not intend to offer contracts for first-generation SAF based on hydrogenated esters and fatty acids—HEFA. Should this therefore be stated in the Bill? The Government should take only the powers they need, given that this Bill is a framework for the long term. There is a case that the powers in the Bill should be limited to second-generation and third-generation sustainable aviation fuels. I do not foresee any good reason why HEFA fuels would need such support, so I believe that this could be clearly stated in the Bill.
My third point is around value for money and competition. We rightly heard a lot of discussion in the other place around costs to consumers and analysis on the £1.50 impacts on airfares. The Minister clearly stated that we need to get the right balance between investors and consumers with the prices that are negotiated, but another way of looking at this relates to the competitive structure within the Bill. Of course, the way the Bill is structured around bilateral negotiations, rather than a competitive process, is what is needed for the SAF market at this stage, noting its immaturity. An auction process, such as that which we have for offshore wind, is not perhaps appropriate at this stage.
However, this Bill needs to be fit for the longer term. Competition is the way to drive down costs for consumers in the long term, as has been demonstrated in more mature markets such as offshore wind. So, in the longer term, we need that mechanism for auctions and competitions within the Bill but, looking through it, I cannot see a mechanism for setting up such a competitive process.
Other government legislation, such as the Energy Act 2013 for CfDs for renewable energy generation, clearly states that regulations made may include provision for,
“the determination of a matter on a competitive basis”.
We also have that in the Energy Act 2023 for low-carbon hydrogen, which clearly states:
“Provision falling within subsection (2) may include provision for … the determination of a matter on a competitive basis”.
This Bill makes no provision for regulations to cover the determination of a matter on a competitive basis, or indeed for allocation frameworks. I would be grateful if the Minister could state whether, in his view, a competitive framework is covered by the Bill as written and, if not, whether it should be. The Bill should be fit for the future to avoid the need for future legislation in this area, and it should be structured to minimise costs to consumers, which in the end will be enabled through competition.
Finally, this Bill will go a long way to realising second-generation and third-generation SAF production in the UK, but the Government need urgently to address broader challenges as well, not least our high industrial electricity prices. I have spoken to a number of companies that want to set up SAF plants and related infrastructure in the UK, but they simply cannot make the numbers stack up when our electricity is four times as expensive as competitors such as the USA. This is a very energy-intensive industry. Alongside the measures in this Bill, we need to address the fundamentals to ensure that we are being fair to consumers and minimising required subsidies. I hope the Government will think about the broader framework as well and not just see this as a problem to be addressed through subsidies.
The Lord Bishop of Chester (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their warm welcome, although I confess that sustainable aviation fuel was not a subject that I imagined I would be addressing when various noble Lords have given me advice about maiden speeches. I am grateful for their wisdom, warmth and welcome, and especially that of the doorkeepers and staff of this House. It seems that I should have taken them rather more literally when they said I would be working with high-flyers, and rather less literally when they pointed out that not everything was rocket science.
I speak as one born almost two and a half thousand miles from where we sit. Indeed, the first serious journey of my life was by air, back here to the UK. I am also a father and, like the rest of this noble House, entrusted with passing on entire to the next generation this good earth. Sustainability matters: the good Lord provided us with many things, but a spare planet was not among them, at least in this age. It is this balance of pragmatisms which means that I speak largely in support of the Bill. We need to be real about air travel being vital to modern life. It builds community, enables encounter and crosses divides.
My diocese of Chester serves communities in two nations and 23 local authorities. It spans urban and rural, wealth and extreme poverty. We gaze at the universe from Jodrell Bank. We support half of the Mersey’s industrial life. We rejoice in our schools and in Chester University, and we cherish our world-renowned zoo. Indeed, we also have Warrington, which, according to the i Paper, may be Britain’s hardest-working town—who knew? All are part of the life of the diocese, from the newish migrant to the most established among the Cheshire set, from those who take penalties on the sporting field to those who serve a very different type of penalty. We are linked to the world both by Liverpool John Lennon Airport, which is in the diocese of Liverpool just across the River Mersey, and Manchester Airport, where one actually lands in the diocese of Chester but disembarks in the diocese of Manchester.
To repeat myself, the diocese of Chester touches two nations. I serve a border people, just as I did in my former see of Berwick-upon-Tweed. In Chester, we have several parishes which are all or partly in Wales. My Lords—or, as I should say, “fy Arglwyddi”—“Esgob Caer ydw i a ’dw i’n dysgu tipyn bach o Cymraeg”. I apologise for my lamentable Welsh accent. I am learning a little Welsh, partly because I carried on with Duolingo long after lockdown but, much more importantly, because communication is a vital gift for those of us who nurture and curate community. In communication, we need to learn to speak and to listen. This is almost always done in person and directly. Indeed, I argue that one of our primary vocations in this noble House is to be with and to listen, for few disciplines are more vital in the search for wisdom—the search I so often witness in your Lordships’ House. The question for me is not so much how we can be great again, but how we can be kindly present. Greatness is great, but grace is greater.
Air travel does more than build community; it enables partnership and commerce. It is a vital part of the defence of our nation, as I witnessed when offering chaplaincy to our Armed Forces. It is the backbone of much international aid provision, and it enables care for people and the planet. Chester Zoo, for example, serves ecosystems around this world. The relative ease of transport is one factor in this. My experience working in the university sector showed just how much journeys matter in the service of education.
Air travel is vital and is here to stay, but its environmental impact must be addressed. This means that net zero matters, but it is not the only sustainability consideration. Mike Berners-Lee points out, when ostensibly discussing the environmental impact of bananas, that the problem is not only emissions but where they are released. Sustainable fuel is far from carbon neutral. Although it shortens the life cycle of released carbon in the sense that it releases carbon which has only recently been captured, it also moves that carbon into the upper parts of the atmosphere, where it is most harmful.
I welcome the Bill’s creation of an economic framework in which SAF becomes a viable investment. I welcome the balancing of the use between investment by directing costs towards those who make use of the service—in effect, taxing flying to enable more sustainable flight seems very sensible. By itself, though, the Bill does not do nearly enough. The move it encourages from first- to second- and then, vitally, to third-generation SAF is essential. HyNet, in which the University of Chester is a partner, and which makes use of the geology and industrial infrastructure in the north-west, is one other expression of this kind of investment. The production of green hydrogen, which combines captured carbon with sustainably electrolysed hydrogen, really is the holy grail here—let any budding and noble theologians note that I do not use that term in a technical sense
Alongside the Bill, we must invest in rail and in environmental road transport if we are to progress to sustainability. It cannot be right that more than half my return trains from this place to my home in Chester seem to be delayed or cancelled. What are the projected timescales for substantive provision of third-generation SAF? Is consideration being given to roll out this technology beyond aviation?
The Bill helps us play our part in global well-being in every sense. The question with which I come to this House is—as I mentioned earlier—not so much how we make Britain great again, but rather how we make Britain kind again. Such kindness and responsibility are what leads to greatness in a manner which actually lasts and embraces all. In this, this Bill matters. Our infrastructure must line up with our fundamental identity and core vocation if we are to thrive. The Bill represents one structural step, but it is a step in the right direction and I support it.
Lord Raval (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill and commend the Government on bringing forward a serious and long-awaited framework to decarbonise a sector that accounts, as the Minister said, for its ever-rising share of our national emissions.
Before I turn to aviation fuel, an altogether more uplifting and sustaining subject commands our attention. It is an extraordinary privilege and an honour to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on his outstanding maiden speech. His contribution displayed the wisdom, moral seriousness, humour and quiet authority with which he will flourish in the work of this House.
If I may declare a personal interest, long before he was a Bishop, the right reverend Prelate joined a Senior Faith in Leadership programme which I directed. Across residencies with rabbis, imams, priests, business leaders, medics and public servants, I observed at first hand the depth of his character. He remained firmly rooted in his own tradition while offering genuine friendship across boundaries. In our digitally recorded conflict simulations—designed to test even the most devout—he kept his cool, listened with generosity and mediated with a humility that enabled others to shine. As I recall, he won.
I learned then that, although the right reverend Prelate had read mathematics at Cambridge, with every conventional avenue of worldly success open to him, he could not escape a deeper calling to ministry. As warden of Cranmer Hall, and vice-principal of St John’s College, Durham, he nurtured generations of leaders and equipped them to grapple with exactly the kinds of questions he raised a few moments ago—questions about community, purpose, presence and belonging.
The right reverend Prelate’s recent doctoral thesis offers a further window into his nature: a pastor-scholar attentive not to abstractions but to how real people grow, collaborate and serve. In it, he explores the call to integrate a leadership that is rooted ultimately in love—in the words of the right reverend Prelate himself,
“a combination of spiritual, emotional, rational, and pragmatic intelligence”,
reflecting a “relational understanding of humanity”. As was underscored by this and the preceding debate, we meet in a time marked by polarisation, disaffection, a growing distance from once-trusted institutions and the unsettling acceleration of trends intensified by digital habits, including, regrettably, the amplification of hatred that distorts our public square. The right reverend Prelate brings precisely the countervailing gifts this moment requires: not only the intellect, analytical clarity, logic and tech-savviness to address these forces—he is really brainy—but the pastoral breadth to speak, as he reminded us only moments ago, with the communication and genuine connection needed both for those who share his convictions and for those who feel unheard or left behind.
It is often communities whose social anchors have shifted that can be drawn towards simpler, louder narratives. The right reverend Prelate offers instead an approach that sees diversity not as a difficulty to be managed but as constituting a tapestry of human intelligences to be woven for the common good. Such leadership is not merely timely, it is essential. We look forward to, and indeed need, the right reverend Prelate’s statesmanship in this House.
I turn briefly to the Bill before us. The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, working alongside the SAF mandate, provides the clarity and confidence that industry has long sought. With first-of-a-kind plants costing between £600 million and £2 billion, and typically running at a loss in their early years, the revenue certainty mechanism is a critical enabler of the investment this industry requires. This is precisely the sort of pragmatic investment-led policy that creates jobs, strengthens supply chains and positions the United Kingdom to lead in clean aviation technology—but ambition must meet delivery.
Industry modelling suggests that announced UK SAF projects may deliver only around half the volume required under the 2030 mandate unless further policy and investment steps are taken. Meanwhile, total UK greenhouse gas emissions, including aviation and shipping, amount to approximately 414 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Aviation will not decarbonise itself, and the Bill helps ensure that the UK does not fall behind while others race ahead. I therefore strongly support its direction of travel.
My question to the Minister concerns the feedstocks that will power this transition. As has been said, many early SAF pathways rely on used cooking oils, industrial residues and, critically, black bin bag and other residual wastes. As we rightly reduce such waste and increase recycling, how does the Government’s modelling ensure a stable, sustainable and ethically sourced supply? How will Ministers balance emerging SAF demand with existing waste-to-energy plants and local authority waste reduction targets so that one green ambition does not inadvertently undermine another?
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow a very well-articulated tribute to the right reverend Prelate, to whom I also offer my congratulations on a very well-made, thoughtful and appropriate maiden speech. He will undoubtedly make a major contribution in this House, and I think all of us welcome him to this place.
I start, ironically, by referring to my entry in the register as an advisor to AtkinsRéalis as well as to Hutchison Ports. It is a particular pleasure for me to speak in this Second Reading debate. Two years ago, I was responsible for an amendment to the then Energy Bill which mandated the Government to set up a revenue support mechanism for sustainable aviation fuel in the UK. I stopped after getting 56 Conservative signatures to the amendment, which proved enough, just about, to finally jolt the Government, particularly the Treasury, into action and starting a process which has brought us to this point today. I am glad that I will be speaking alongside my noble friend Lord Harper, who followed that by playing a significant part in delivering us to the point we are at today. My noble friend is another example of why this is a genuinely bipartisan Bill. There are debates, differences and discussions about the detail, but there has been strong support across all sides for the principles that underlie the Bill today.
I was very pleased at the time that Ministers then recognised that they needed to do something and I am very pleased that Ministers in the current Government have continued the work that we started and have delivered this piece of legislation, which I strongly support, albeit with some caveats and questions which I want to push the Minister on today, in Committee and subsequently. I think there are some things that need to be tightened up and some questions that need to be answered, but the principle is absolutely right.
For me, the reason this all matters is very simple. The aviation industry is under growing pressure over its carbon footprint. Whether you are an opponent or a supporter of net zero is, to my mind, completely irrelevant to this debate. This is actually about the market pressures on the airlines themselves, particularly from a younger generation of potential customer among whom flight shaming has become more visible. The industry has to address those concerns, and we have to help it address those concerns and its impact on the environment.
It is not just about politics, it is actually about what is commercially necessary for what is one of our most important economic sectors. Of course, that is why Virgin Atlantic, Boeing and Rolls-Royce collaborated on the ground-breaking transatlantic pioneering flight using sustainable aviation fuel two years ago. We were on that flight and it was a very unique experience. It is why I know that most of the industry strongly supports this legislation. It is why the last Government brought forward plans for the SAF mandate and why this Government continued to introduce the mandate at the start of this year.
Why then do we need a revenue certainty mechanism of the kind set out in the Bill? Our airlines could just buy SAF from overseas. The initial product being used in this country will almost certainly come principally from the United States. There are two very good reasons why the Bill remains necessary. First, our aviation sector is, as I say, a key part of our economy; it is the strongest sector in Europe, it is fundamental to our regions and to the economy of so many different parts of the country. Do we really just want to import the fuel it needs for the future, or is it better to encourage serious investment here, of the kind that companies such as alfanar are planning for Teesside—a part of the country that clearly wants and needs investment?
Even in a world of free markets, sometimes I really think we need to make sure that we do some important things for ourselves. I think we can have a successful SAF sector in the UK that brings investment and creates jobs, but SAF plants require a very large amount of capital, and investors are always cautious about new markets and developing technologies. The truth is that the first SAF plants in the United States, of which there are just a handful, received investment support from the Biden Administration. The EU is poised to introduce its own revenue certainty mechanism. The Minister was right to say that ours is the first in the world, but it is not going to be the last, so for me it comes down to a straightforward choice: do we want a SAF industry in the UK or do we just have to depend on imports? I do not think we have to. My view is that we need that industry in the UK and I strongly support the Bill as a result.
There is another reason for caution about buying SAF from elsewhere: I think the UK approach is much smarter and much better. In the United States, SAF is being produced primarily from corn. In the EU, SAF will be produced, as we have heard, from what is called HEFA—basically, used cooking oil. I absolutely do not support growing fuel in fields that could be used for growing food. I have long been uneasy about the practice of growing crops for purposes other than food, but I think it is mad to use the space that the world needs to feed itself to grow aviation fuel. The UK is right also to accept for now, I think, that HEFA will be needed for the time being, but we need to understand that it is not going to be there for ever, and it is right that its future use is capped.
There are serious question marks about the availability of HEFA and there is also the suggestion that it is often not really used cooking oil at all but near-virgin oil that has been doctored to create the semblance that it has been used in a kitchen. Of course, much of it comes from the Far East, and SAF mandates are going to spread there too, so there is absolutely no certainty of supply going forward. The UK’s approach, which has been to push quickly towards SAF produced from biowaste, of which we have quite a lot here already, and then in due course from municipal waste, has to be the right one. To me, this really is the nirvana of sustainable aviation fuel: if we can turn our waste—what we put in our black bins each week—into fuel oil, removing the impact of landfill, incineration and the rest, that has to be a good thing.
I have a question for the Minister, and this is the first of the points I want to put to him. There are rumours around that the Government want to allow first-generation SAF from crops here. I really hope that is not true and I ask the Minister to set that to rest by confirming that there are no such plans. We should not be growing agricultural crops to turn into fuel. We have taken a much smarter approach in this country to delivering aviation fuel that has a positive environmental impact. We must not see that compromised in any way.
There are a number of other issues I have with the Bill that I want to put to the Minister. I want to see these issues addressed in the debates ahead, and there is at least one that I am very committed to asking the Government or this House to put in the Bill.
My first concern is about how the levy is applied on conventional aviation fuel manufacturers. I know that the Government’s initial intent was to assign the levy based on the previous year’s market share. I genuinely do not think that approach is viable. It misses out the impact of changes in the composition of the market, which could mean that a new player faces a period without charges and is able to undercut the existing market. The levelling-up process would then come way down the track, after a long period of time when there had been a real price discrepancy between the two and a competitive advantage to the newcomer.
Also, if someone disappears from the market—and we have seen two refineries close in recent times—such a delay will also cause complications for the counterparty. So, the mechanism to apply the levy has got to be immediate. I do not understand why it cannot just be done per barrel of fuel as it leaves the refinery or the terminal. I think the Minister needs to explain to all of us why that cannot happen. I appreciate that that is going to come in the secondary legislation, but we need to understand how it is going to be applied, and it has got to be done in a timely way. It cannot happen way after the event.
I was grateful to the Minister for spending some time with me and allowing his officials to spend some time with me. I know they have thought about this, but I ask him to now put some of the Government’s thinking about this on the record, so we can understand where it is going as we go through the Bill.
My second concern is there has got to be a direct link between the commencement of the levy and the opening of the first SAF plant. We do not realistically expect the first SAF plant in the UK to be operational much before 2030. So, the levy cannot start until close to 2030, otherwise we would be raising money—which passengers are paying more for—and just leaving it sitting in the bank. It is important that there has to be a clear linkage between the arrival of SAF manufacturing in the UK and the application of the levy.
On the timeframe, there is one other thing I would just ask the Minister to consider. At the moment, because there is not an awful lot of SAF capacity anywhere in the world, we must not apply the mandate on a ratchet scale up to 2030 in a way that is detached from the reality of the availability of SAF in the marketplace. I would ask him to keep monitoring the mandate as we go towards 2030 and make sure we are not actually out of kilter with the availability of SAF for the airlines to put in their planes.
The third concern I would ask the Minister to address is there has got to be no legal doubt whatever that the proceeds of the levy will be used only to support investment in the manufacturing of SAF in the UK. There has just got to be a proper safeguard against any other part of Government going, “Oh, there’s some money there. We’ll have that for something else”. It does happen; it has happened in other countries in similar areas. We need that certainty in the Bill.
I think the most important addition to the Bill—and I would ask the Minister to go away and think about this, because it must be in primary legislation, so there is no doubt in the courts going forward—would be to make it absolutely certain that the revenue support mechanism is going to be used only to support the production of SAF in the UK. There has got to be no legal doubt about this and no loopholes whatever.
The Government already know that there are loopholes out there and there are people trying to take advantage of them. The Government have already had to stop one multinational in the hydrogen marketplace from benefiting from UK financial support while planning to produce part of its product in the Middle East. It would be relatively easy for a manufacturer of SAF to import an intermediate fuel into the UK, process it at a SAF plant and claim the benefits the RCM would offer. The legislation has got to be absolutely categoric: that cannot be allowed to happen.
I would like the Bill to say very explicitly that any certified fuel that is a component of SAF has to be manufactured in the UK and that only the feedstock can be imported. Of course, there will be times when we buy biowaste from other European countries—that is perfectly reasonable. But you cannot be allowed to produce a three-quarters-finished fuel that you just adjust, turn into SAF at the end and claim that that should benefit from the revenue support mechanism. I would only countenance the feedstock as being imported, and hopefully, as we see the move towards urban municipal waste and even sewage turned into fuel, even that will not be necessary.
It is really important that we have that in the Bill, because courts do strange things. They interpret laws in different ways, sometimes in ways that those in Parliament do not expect or do not want to be the case. We have got to have absolute certainty on that in primary legislation. I mention this now to the Minister ahead of Committee to give him advance warning that I really want to explore this in detail.
I believe the Bill to be essential to the UK, benefiting from a new industry that we have ourselves mandated as essential to one of our most important and oldest sectors. It makes no sense to tell airlines to buy SAF but then ignore the opportunity to produce it here and let other Governments incentivise their own investments and industries instead.
I am very glad that both the last Government and this one accepted the intent behind that amendment two years ago, and I look forward to seeing the Bill pass into law. Our job in this House is to make sure it leaves no loopholes and then to encourage the Government to get on with the secondary legislation, so that contracts and the constructions can begin as quickly as possible.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I support the Bill. I am not often known to be supporting aviation, but this is the first time there has been a serious attempt to reduce its carbon emissions. At the same time, it can be used also to help the millions of households across Britain that actually do not have access to gas. I spoke about this in a debate on the energy Bill earlier this year and I declare an interest as the owner of a house that does not have gas, so we have to use oil.
There are 1.7 million homes in the UK, serving about 4 million people, that are off the gas grid and rely only on heating oil. They will be suffering at the present time, when it is really cold. They are mostly in rural community areas, where alternatives such as heat pumps work sometimes but not always.
It has come out of the recent debate that HVO, hydrotreated vegetable oil, is a renewable fuel that can cut emissions from home heating by up to 88% compared with kerosene, which is used at the moment. It works as a drop-in replacement—you just tip it in the tank. I do not know, because I have not tried it. The reason I bring it up again this morning is that HVO is a by-product. It is only about 30% of the output from SAF and, as SAF production goes up, we can increase the domestic supply of HVO.
Ministers have rightly said that HVO will play a vital role in our aviation decarbonisation journey, and I certainly agree with that. But it looks as if the SAF mandate will accelerate that growth from what I think is about 2% of jet fuel demand today, rising to 10% in 2030 and 22% in 2040. That is enough HVO to provide a 66% or so blend of heating oil, which will sort out the decarbonisation needs of most off-grid homes. Especially at this time of year when it is really cold, this is a benefit not only for the aviation industry but for people who live in the countryside or cannot connect to alternatives.
We need the right mechanism, as other noble Lords have spoken about. Section 159 of the Energy Act 2023 gives the Government power to create a renewable liquid heating fuel obligation, which mirrors what the Labour Government did with the transport fuel obligation last time. I was really pleased, therefore, to read an announcement from the Government on Tuesday this week about a consultation on this. The industry that provides SAF and other similar material, working with their off-grid customers, has built up a considerable bank of evidence and data to show that this policy will actually benefit both consumers and the environment. I hope now that the consultation will allow things to move forward at pace.
I was interested to read that the Irish Government recently confirmed their intention to implement a renewable heat obligation, confident that their feedstocks are available to supply their off-grid homes. That is terribly important, as the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, referred to. If there are enough feedstocks, the market will work.
This is an opportunity to deliver a win-win: cleaner skies and warmer homes. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will discuss this with his new ministerial colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead—who was introduced today and has a lot of experience—confirm the Irish Government’s conclusion and commit to implementing Section 159 swiftly following the consultation.
On that basis, I hope we can have a win-win solution for aviation and home heating.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. I was absolutely delighted to hear him remind the House that there is no spare planet. Quite honestly, the rate at which we humans are trashing our planet suggests that we actually do think we can go to Mars, or something spectacular like that, and still live a good life. However, I point out that if we destroy this very beautiful planet, or make it increasingly less beautiful and diverse, our lives will be utterly constrained as well.
I like to say something nice about the Government occasionally, if I possibly can. I noted the Minister’s statement at the start that this Bill aims for a greener, cleaner future for aviation. That is a very noble aim, but I am afraid it is impossible unless we radically rethink how we are going to deal with it.
About 25 years ago, when I was on the London Assembly, we assembly members and the mayor, then Ken Livingstone, had a presentation by Heathrow representatives. They promised—this is 25 years ago, remember—that Heathrow could become sustainable within a few years. They claimed it should be given permission to expand because it would soon be polluting less.
It took us a couple of years, but the mayor and the assembly soon realised that Heathrow had lied. It still lies about expansion and pollution. It lies about how important it is to the economy and about how much public subsidy it gets. The truth is that the aviation industry cares about profits, not the environment. You can no more have sustainable aviation than you can have a crocodile with a conscience; it just does not exist.
There is absolutely no techno fix for the pollution that aviation causes. The Royal Society worked out that to reach net zero for aviation fuel—is this what we are snappily calling “jet zero”?—we need at least half the UK’s agricultural land to grow the raw materials. That would be over two-thirds if farmers only grew rapeseed.
That means less wheat, barley and fodder for livestock. That also means higher prices for cereals and food. We already have food inflation due to floods in some areas and droughts in others. Last year, the 2025 UK harvest was the second worst on record. If the Government want farmers to grow jet fuel instead of food, prices in the shops are going to rise in order to keep the planes flying.
As we enter the era of climate crisis impacting on world food production, our country will have less farming land but will want more of it devoted to support the oxymoronic idea of sustainable aviation. In the past 25 years, the UK has lost 771,000 hectares of farmland, contributing to a 12% fall in food self-sufficiency. That decline is about to get worse with the disastrous planning Bill the Government have passed.
I love the effort going into expanding renewable energy and battery storage, but as the Climate Committee has pointed out, that does not stop aviation becoming the number one contributor to emissions in the next few decades.
This Government have lost all claim to be a green Government, with their attack on nature in Britain and their decision to expand aviation. The go-ahead for the expansion of London City Airport, Luton, Gatwick and Stansted means an extra 51 million passengers per annum. If the Government add Heathrow to that total, that is an extra 65 million passengers. If all those extra flights result in either extra emissions or extra farmland taken up growing jet fuel, that means rising fuel prices and more public subsidy.
Of course, the reality is that we will not switch two-thirds of our farming land to jet fuel. The whole Bill is greenwash, designed to provide political cover for aviation expansion and bigger profits. The real solutions are to tax private jets and the ultra-frequent flyers, to stop short-haul flights, and to make train journeys cheaper and more reliable. The solution is less flying, not this fiction of sustainable aviation.
A noble Lord mentioned “flight shaming”; I am not trying to do that. It is understandable that families want to go on holiday once a year, but as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, 70% of flights are taken by 15% of the population, which suggests that those people are grabbing their unfair share of the pollution that we can each expect to produce. Therefore, I ask the Minister: does he approve of making train journeys cheaper and more reliable, and putting a tax on private aircraft and frequent flyers?
I said to the owners of Heathrow 20 years ago—much to their annoyance, “If you want to show how environmental you are, then go ahead and fix the major problems of noise and air pollution and stop ruining the climate. Once you’ve done that, then, and only then, can we have a conversation about expansion of airports and of aviation”. I am so disappointed that this Government cannot see that. I recognise that they feel the need to explain that aviation can go on just as it has in the past, but that simply is not true.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a non-executive chair of RVL Aviation.
I too congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his excellent maiden speech. Before he started speaking, I wondered whether he was going to set out the Church of England’s policy on sustainable aviation. I was pleasantly surprised by the excellent content of his speech and look forward to his further contributions in the House. The bit I will particularly remember is his injunction to be “kindly present”, which we should all strive to do. If I ever require someone to provide a reference for me, I will think of the noble Lord, Lord Raval, who spent most of his speech, rather than talking about the Bill, saying fantastic things that the right reverend Prelate would have been too humble to have said himself. He painted a rich picture of the right reverend Prelate’s skills, and I look forward to his future contributions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will not be surprised to learn that I disagreed with almost every word of her speech. On flying, she referred to the ability of people to go on holiday. We had a very interesting test case during the pandemic, when, in effect, we told people—albeit not for this reason—that they could not fly. Listening to constituents then as a Member of Parliament made clear to me the breadth of reasons why people value aviation. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester touched on some of them, including aviation bringing people together and enabling people to see friends and family around the world. It is not just about holidays; it is about bringing people together.
I also do not share the noble Baroness’s distaste for frequent flyers. Most of the people who do frequent flying are those involved in business, in global investment and in growing both the British and the global economy, which is essential to generate the wealth that we will need to green the economy and to make it more sustainable. We will get public acceptance for a lot of this only if we also make people better off, so it is incredibly important that we support flying and enable more people to fly. I want people who currently do not have the opportunity to fly, both in the United Kingdom and globally, to have the chance to do so.
Where I do agree with the noble Baroness is that we absolutely need to do that sustainably. It will be done by the use of technology. Before I move on to the subject of the Bill, it is worth me saying that a range of technologies are available. When I was Secretary of State, I was surprised by the unanimity across the aviation industry—airlines, airports and the aerospace sector involved in developing technology and manufacturing planes—on the importance of sustainability and decarbonisation. We never had any arguments with the industry or had to push it in this direction; it was already there and moving at pace. I found that incredibly encouraging.
Innovative companies based in the United Kingdom, such as ZeroAvia, are working on the technology around hydrogen fuel cells, which will be available in the future. I will discuss SAF in a moment, but there are also companies working on electric planes. There is also the important work that the Government are doing on airspace modernisation, which we kicked off when I was Secretary of State; that will also make a contribution. To get to net-zero aviation, we will also need to use—for the bit you cannot abate with plane technology—carbon capture and storage, and I know that a great deal of work is going on in that space, too.
I was very pleased to see the Government carry on our Jet Zero Council, which they now call the Jet Zero Taskforce—the renaming is a minor detail. That brings together industry, government, academia and, importantly, representatives from the Climate Change Committee, who provide helpful advice. They therefore learn about where the technology has got to, to inform the advice that the Climate Change Committee then provides to the Government. That is very welcome.
On sustainable aviation fuel, my noble friend Lord Grayling referred to the VS100 flight that Virgin Atlantic put on; it was funded by Virgin Atlantic but also supported by a contribution from the taxpayer because of a competition run by my predecessor. That flight took place in November 2023 and captured enormous public interest and attention. It was one of the rare occasions that I was able to do the morning broadcast round standing in front of a plane at Heathrow Airport—a great backdrop. It also had a good response from broadcasters, who found the whole thing very interesting and who did great explainers for the public on some of this technology; they wished us well with the endeavour, which is not something that broadcasters usually did to Ministers doing the morning broadcast round. It captured attention not just in Britain but around the world. When I went, shortly afterwards, to the climate change conference, COP 28, I was able to speak about that flight, which was a very good example of Britain leading the way in this area and demonstrating the value of technology.
We then started developing and consulting on the SAF mandate, which, in effect, provides the demand side of the equation for sustainable aviation fuel. I am very pleased again that, with the present Government, there has been enormous continuity in policy in this area.
On the supply side, the Minister referred to the excellent work being done by the Aerospace Technology Institute, which I also support. As has been mentioned, including by my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, the capital cost of the domestic production of sustainable aviation fuel has been supported from the advanced fuels fund. I think the third round of that took place recently; the first round happened when we were in government. I would be interested if, in his winding-up speech, the Minister could provide us with an update on where the development of those plants has got to and when we might see more. My noble friend Lord Grayling suggested one timeframe for that, as did my noble friend Lord Davies. If the Minister gives us an update on progress in this area, it would be helpful if he also sets out something that my noble friend Lord Grayling also touched on, which is the value that the Government place on domestic production of sustainable aviation fuel.
There is a national resilience case for that, because again we saw during the pandemic that countries, regardless of the contractual obligations that businesses had, very much protected their domestic supply of this sort of fuel. We can quickly find that our reliance on getting this from overseas rapidly dries up. Having some domestic resilience is very important, and I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the Government’s view.
The specific purpose of the Bill is the revenue certainty mechanism. My noble friend Lord Grayling touched on this, and I clearly remember what I might term his rebel amendment to force the pace. It was good that he provoked that debate. I must confess that, when I was Secretary of State, I took quite a bit of persuading about the need for the revenue certainty mechanism. I will say a few words about that, because it will be helpful in posing some questions to the Minister, both here and when we are in Committee.
When the industry and my noble friend were lobbying for this, I was clear that I wanted to understand what the market failure was that we were trying to fix with the revenue support mechanism. We have ended up with a clear enunciation of it in the Explanatory Notes for the Bill. In his opening remarks, the Minister touched on this and talked about how the need to develop first-of-a-kind technology, which is not currently in existence, requires a significant amount of capital and is very high risk.
The caveat is that, when I had some round-table discussions with some of the investors, both here and in the United States, they understandably quite liked the idea of some guaranteed demand through a mandate. They also quite liked the idea of guaranteed pricing through a revenue certainty mechanism. I gently pointed out to them that they have to take some risk in this process in order to justify the return. The trick here is not to remove all risk, but to get the risk to the level of comparable investment projects, so that we make sure that we get appropriate levels of investment. But we must guard against what has happened in some of the rest of the energy sector, with very long-run contracts guaranteeing returns to investors that are higher than are strictly necessary, with the costs being paid by the consumer.
It is important that, when the detailed work is done, we get the balance right between securing the investment in domestic SAF production, minimising the cost to the consumer and getting the length of the contractual terms right. I do not pretend that that is easy, but it will be important to do it. In Committee, I think we will be discussing how to design the levy obligations on the fuel suppliers. My noble friend Lord Grayling touched on some of the detailed questions, such as how the levy interacts with the UK’s emissions trading scheme, the CORSIA scheme that has been set up internationally and the EU scheme, particularly as the free allocations for aviation under the emissions trading scheme expire.
Some argue that payments under the emissions trading scheme should be used to fund sustainable aviation fuel plants, rather than creating yet another obligation. I would be interested if the Minister set out how he and the Government see those schemes interacting with each other to ensure that consumers do not pay more than once.
My final point, which was also touched on by my noble friend Lord Grayling, is about the composition of sustainable aviation fuel and the international dimension to this. It is quite right—I agree in principle with what my noble friend Lord Grayling said—that we should not be using land that could be used for food crops to produce SAF. But there is one thing that we need to be realistic about, which maybe we should not have to but we do.
There is a big lobby in the US, which my noble friend touched on, that wants to use corn ethanol for SAF. Normally, I would be very much against that. The only argument in favour of it is whether it may be necessary to engage the United States Administration, who are not enormously well disposed towards sustainability and net zero, about what international agreements we may need to have with them, because it is really important in this area to keep the United States Administration broadly aligned. Given that aviation is by definition an international industry, it will be quite difficult to decarbonise the industry if the United States is heading in a different direction. Therefore, I would be interested to know what discussions the British Government are having with the United States Government about trying to keep them in this space and what sorts of discussions are going on with fuel providers. The only argument for using food crops for this would be that if by doing so we could keep the United States in this space.
However, in summary, I strongly support aviation and strongly support making it more sustainable. That will be done not by stopping people flying but by using technology—all the technology. Sustainable aviation fuel is the technology solution that is going to be available first—it is available now. The Virgin flight that I referred to demonstrated that you can have a 100% sustainable aviation fuel flight that works. It is a drop-in fuel with existing technology, and the revenue certainty mechanism that is enabled by the Bill, if the design of it is correct—we will test some of that in Committee—will help get that domestic production up and running. With those caveats, I support the Bill and look forward to further debate in Committee with the Minister and, I suspect, a number of the noble Lords who are here today.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on his entertaining and informed speech. He should moonlight and take a second job on the Climate Change Committee.
It is a great pleasure for me to follow my noble friend Lord Harper, who rightly stressed that we should continue to lead the way in developing new technologies. Perhaps the Government could pay more attention to the absurdly high level of electricity costs in this country and the high levels of taxation.
I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill today. I have been a frequent flier for most of my working life and still travel regularly overseas, especially to the Far East. So I declare my interest as set out in the register, especially in connection with advising Japanese companies and British companies with regard to their Japanese business.
My noble friend Lord Grayling knows a great deal about this subject and made a compelling speech. The rapid adoption of SAF is still broadly supported by the Conservative Party, but I believe the sands have been shifting on the whole question of how quickly and at what cost businesses and individuals should be compelled to adopt a net-zero and clean energy agenda. In particular, if the larger carbon dioxide emitters, such as China and developing countries in Africa and Asia, are not imposing similar constraints on market forces in their countries, logic suggests that we should not do so either.
It seems to me that the effect of the Bill is to distort the market for sustainable aviation fuel. I suspect that the cost of this distortion will be borne ultimately by consumers. The Bill is about the creation of a revenue certainty contract, which will, in effect, insulate the quango which will be created as the counterparty from market risk. I am very sceptical about the Government’s claim that the net cost per passenger of implementing the revenue certainty mechanism will be between minus £1.50 and plus £1.50 per passenger. How can this be possible if the cost of the SAF itself is going to be more like £10 per passenger? In any event, ticket prices have soared beyond our wildest expectations over the last few years, so whether the cost of the RCM amounts to one cup of coffee or 100 cups of coffee is not really relevant.
I am not certain that forcing an increase from 2% to 22% of the SAF component of aviation fuels over the next 15 years is likely to save the planet. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will interfere with airlines’ freedom to refuel their aircraft in other jurisdictions at will, including those that either have not imposed any mandate for inclusion of SAF or have imposed a less onerous one? I am not sure that the performance in miles per gallon of cars using E10 fuels is not slightly inferior to that of cars using E5 fuel, and I ask the Minister to tell the House what evidence there is that fuel economy and, crucially, safety are not at all impacted by the quite steep and burdensome mandate imposed on an already challenged aviation sector.
My noble friend Lord Davies of Gower in his interesting speech encouraged me to be more positive about SAF and to recognise its benefits and its importance. But he did point out that the Government’s mandate will be difficult to achieve without diverging from HEFA-based SAFs, and there is doubt about whether second- or third-generation SAFs will work well. There are more than 160 ships powered by small nuclear reactors, and the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, rightly drew attention to nuclear power as a potential source of power for aircraft. In particular, he pointed out that high-temperature gas-cooled reactors enable the production of hydrogen at scale, and hydrogen technologies are already capable of powering aircraft. Airbus plans to have commercial hydrogen aircraft in service by 2035. Unfortunately, the Government’s hydrogen strategy does not recognise the role of nuclear in producing hydrogen at all. I ask the Minister why this is the case. Our Japanese friends are disappointed that we are moving so slowly with their project to develop high-temperature gas-cooled reactor technology with the National Nuclear Laboratory and believe that Poland may be a better partner than we are likely to be.
Can the Minister tell the House about the counterparty? He is going to have a great number of powers to direct it. How many people will it employ, and what does he expect will be its annual cost of operation? The Bill is designed to enforce a piece of industrial policy. Is the Minister certain that the counterparty will be well placed to manufacture SAFs competitively in this country, given our very high energy costs? Surely, if either the taxpayer or the consumer is going to have to pay for the cost of the counterparty and its activities, it follows that the legislation should require the Government to monitor costs and that the counterparty should be required to prioritise British technologies. Can the Minister tell the House why the Government declined to accept a perfectly reasonable and sensible amendment to require transparency over the effect of any revenue certainty contract on ticket prices, on both a one-year view and a five-year view?
I note that Jonathon Counsell of IAG, in his evidence to the Public Bill Committee in another place, raised the question as to whether the Government’s estimate of plus £1.50 to minus £1.50 really included all elements of the counterparty’s costs. If the Government did not like the amendment moved by my right honourable friend Richard Holden, could the Minister not undertake to bring forward the Government’s own amendment to achieve the same purpose? It is beyond doubt that the public and the consumer are entitled to know that the costs of this new foray into industrial policy will be strictly monitored.
How will the Minister ensure that the counterparty will ensure that any contract leading to the establishment of a new factory will prioritise the use of British technologies? We would certainly welcome the Minister telling the House how we can ensure that new factories will prioritise the use of British technologies. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s winding-up speech and to working with other noble Lords to improve the Bill, which is absolutely necessary.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, the carbon content of fossil fuels has been accumulating over eons by the removal of carbon dioxide from the earth’s atmosphere via biological processes of photosynthesis, depending on chlorophyll and powered by sunlight. Such processes are highly efficient in their use of energy but they are far too weak and gradual to remove from the atmosphere the quantities of carbon dioxide that have been emitted by burning fossil fuels.
Capturing this carbon dioxide requires artificial processes that are far less efficient than the biological processes and far more consumptive of energy. Only by expending a large amount of energy that could be supplied by nuclear fission, and possibly in the long run by nuclear fusion, can there be any hope of cleansing the atmosphere of its excess carbon dioxide. According to a recent analysis, about 3% of carbon emissions are due to aviation. This figure is rising. We have heard that it is about 7% of UK emissions. Jet aircraft consume high-octane kerosene, which is refined from petroleum. Each flight powered by hydrocarbons adds to the burden of atmospheric carbon dioxide. If global heating due to carbon dioxide is to be addressed, something must be done to staunch the carbon emissions of aviation.
The problem is that there is no viable means of powering long-haul aviation other than kerosene, which has an unequalled energy density. Moreover, the technology of jet turbines, which has developed over the past 80 years, is not easily replaceable. Electric batteries or hydrogen fuel cells can be used in short-haul aviation, but their weight penalty precludes their use in long-haul aviation. Hydrogen, which has been used to power space rockets, has been proposed as an alternative for aviation fuel. Hydrogen has a very high energy content per mass, which is significantly greater than that of gasoline, but it has a low energy density per volume, meaning that it requires a large space to store it, even when compressed or liquefied. Liquid hydrogen has an energy content of about 5.6 megajoules per litre, whereas gasoline has about 32 megajoules per litre—almost six times as much. To use hydrogen to power aircraft would require a technology radically different from the current aviation technology, which would take a long time to develop. Its efficiency in transporting passengers would be severely limited by the storage requirements of the fuel.
If we are to sustain the present aviation technology, we need to develop sustainable aviation fuels, or SAFs. The ultimate requirement for such fuels is that they should emit to the atmosphere no greater quantities of carbon dioxide than are removed from the atmosphere for the purpose of creating their carbon feedstock. At present, so-called sustainable aviation fuel, which forms a very small proportion of the total supply of fuel for aviation, depends on a carbon feedstock that originates in biomass. Such aviation fuel cannot be relied on to reduce significantly the net emissions of carbon dioxide. They can have a beneficial effect only if the net supply of biomass can be increased to cover their use.
There are three cases to consider. First, the carbon feedstock might be grown for the purpose without displacing any other processes, but this is unlikely to happen. Secondly, the feedstock might be freely available, such as materials that would otherwise be consigned to landfill. Finally, and at worst, the production of the feedstock could displace other activities, such as the growth of foodstuffs.
Only in the first case, where there might be a net increase in photosynthesis, could there be a subtraction from atmospheric carbon dioxide. In the other cases, the emission of carbon dioxide from burning the fuel would be more rapid than if it had resulted from the natural decay of the feedstock, which might gradually add carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere.
It should be observed that wood, unless it is burned, will lock away carbon for many human generations. Therefore, forestry products should not be used as a carbon feedstock for synthetic fuels. Sustainable aviation fuel will deserve its name only if its carbon content can be removed directly from the atmosphere via the so-called technology of direct air capture.
This Bill has the ambition of stimulating the production of sustainable aviation fuels. It proposes to do so via minor financial interventions modelled on those that intend to encourage investment in renewable means of generating electricity.
The Bill itemises three levels, or generations, of SAF production. The first-generation SAFs are made from hydrogenated esters and fatty acids derived from oils or fats, such as used cooking oil. The second-generation SAFs are to be made from waste sources, including so-called municipal solid waste. The third-generation SAFs, also known as power-to-liquid aviation fuel, are to be made by combining hydrogen produced by electrolysis and carbon monoxide, which can be produced from captured carbon dioxide.
Regarding the first generation of SAFs, hydrogenated esters and fatty acids—commonly described as chip fat, because that is their major source—are already pre-empted to produce biodiesel. There is a good deal of mystery and doubt surrounding the second generation of SAFs. Their primary feedstock, which is described as municipal solid waste, is poorly defined, and different processes will be needed to cope with different categories of waste. A website of the British company Johnson Matthey, which is proposing to build plants in the US and Germany to produce second-generation SAFs, mentions a variety of sources for the carbon feedstock, including agricultural residues, forestry biomass, captured carbon dioxide, and the ill-defined municipal solid waste.
At the heart of the second generation of SAFs is the venerable Fischer-Tropsch process, which was invented in Germany in 1925 and used extensively in Germany during the war to create synthetic fuels using coal as the predominant carbon feedstock. The process generates hydrocarbons from syngas, which is a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The syngas will be the product of a gasification plant, which must be specific to the nature of the primary feedstock. If this process were to take its carbon dioxide from captured industrial emissions then it would emit carbon to the atmosphere that might otherwise be sequestered in the ground. The conclusion of this critique is that the only sure way of reducing aviation emissions would be to capture the carbon directly from the atmosphere. In that case, the Fischer-Tropsch process would continue to be used to synthesise the fuel.
The Bill appears to envisage a gradual transition between the three generations of SAF production, and it imagines that this can be achieved by financial incentives that could be structured by the Government. There would be no other government intervention and the Government would bear no costs. The costs would be covered by levies on the aviation industry and maybe by the suppliers of hydrocarbon fuels.
This is a weak proposal for addressing a crisis. The Bill has been inherited from the Conservatives, and it bears the marks of their social and economic philosophies. One might have expected a more interventionist approach from a Labour Government. One is reminded of how an early post-war Labour Government sought to revolutionise the supply of power to industrial and domestic users by creating a completely new industry: the nuclear industry. A similar endeavour would be required to create a sustainable aviation fuel industry, but there is little indication that this will be forthcoming.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I speak today in strong support of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, a measure that is not only timely but essential if the UK is to maintain our leadership in clean aviation, deepen our energy security and strengthen our competitiveness in a rapidly changing global landscape. I welcome the Minister’s opening speech, in which he confirmed the Government’s desire to encourage the many different technologies being developed to produce SAF, and I am grateful for the letter we received yesterday, following the all-Peers session on the Bill last week.
May I also take this opportunity to apologise to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, and to the other five noble Lords whose contributions I missed, owing to having to lead my own debate in the Moses Room in Grand Committee? I look forward to reading their contributions in Hansard. I declare my interest as the unpaid chair of the advisory board of Eq.Flight, a government-backed project seeking to harness the power of nuclear energy to deliver SAF at scale. Its power-to-liquids technology is known as third generation.
Aviation remains one of the most challenging sectors to decarbonise. Even as new technologies and aircraft efficiencies develop, the industry will continue to rely on liquid fuels for many years to come. Sustainable aviation fuel provides the most scalable way to cut emissions, but this transition will not happen without clear long-term signals; industry needs confidence, stability and a durable policy framework—exactly what this Bill is designed to provide. A critical part of this transition is long-term certainty. Projects of this scale cannot proceed on short-term signals alone; they require the revenue certainty mechanisms that give investor confidence over the lifespan of the asset. Without stable, predictable support, the capital simply will not flow, the UK will miss the opportunity to build these industries here at home, and UK aviation will support jobs abroad instead of on UK soil. A clear RCM framework is therefore vital if we are to attract investment and give industry the confidence to build. It is what allows companies to commit, communities to benefit, and supply chains to grow with confidence.
We must also recognise the distinction between what can be delivered now and what must be delivered over the long term. In the near term, bio-based feedstocks are essential; they are proven, available and capable of delivering real emissions reductions today. However, bio-based feedstocks are ultimately finite; they cannot meet the total future demand of global aviation. The long-term solution is power-to-liquids—synthetic aviation fuels produced using clean energy and made from nothing more than air and water. These fuels offer potential deep decarbonisation of tailpipe emissions and can mitigate other greenhouse effects such as contrails. To achieve this, they require large quantities of firm low-carbon power, which is where the UK has a unique strategic advantage.
In the decades ahead, advanced nuclear technologies will be critical to producing the clean electricity, the hydrogen and the high-temperature heat needed for sustainable aviation fuel at scale. The UK’s positive and forward-leaning nuclear policy means we are exceptionally well placed to become a world leader in nuclear-enabled sustainable aviation fuel; but for this to happen, we must give nuclear investors the long-term certainty they require. Advanced reactors by their very nature demand longer revenue certainty mechanisms if they are to deliver affordable, sovereign clean energy for the industries of the future. The Government must ensure that consistency between technologies is maintained, but the absence of a defined carbon intensity for nuclear-derived SAF in the SAF mandate creates some uncertainty and therefore additional risk for investors. This barrier to the use of nuclear energy for SAF production risks the UK missing out on investment and the jobs that would inevitably follow investment in nuclear-derived SAF projects.
Globally, the potential for sustainable aviation fuel is now widely understood, and competition to become a world leader is intensifying. Countries and regions are moving quickly to secure the investment, the skills and the supply chains that will anchor these new industries for decades. The European Union’s ReFuelEU initiative provides strong market signals and long-term clarity for SAF deployment across Europe. If the UK is to keep pace—and indeed to lead—we must provide the same level of long-term certainty. A clear RCM framework is therefore vital if we are to attract investment and give industry the confidence to build.
Domestically, sustainable aviation fuel production can underpin a new generation of green industrial hubs, creating skilled jobs and strengthening economic resilience across all corners of our country. The aviation sector may be the final consumer, but the industrial benefits will be broad and enduring. The transition to sustainable flight will not be achieved with a single measure, but this Bill is a cornerstone, providing the certainty required to unlock investment, encourage innovation and build the infrastructure that will power aviation for decades to come. If we get this right, we will not only decarbonise one of our hardest-to-abate sectors: we will secure thousands of future-facing jobs and reaffirm the UK’s position as a world leader in clean aviation.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on his excellent maiden speech and his commitment to sustainability and rail, which is music to many of our ears in this House. I look forward to working with him in the months and years to come.
As we have heard today, the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill aims to encourage investment in sustainable aviation fuel in the UK by creating a mechanism to guarantee a certain level of revenue. The Bill provides for a guaranteed strike price, guaranteeing price for a producer selling SAF over a defined period. The GSP will be funded via a levy on the aviation industry, specifically through a variable levy on all aviation fuel suppliers over a set period. This legislation should help the industry meet its requirements under the SAF mandate, introduced in January this year, which specifies that at least 10% of all jet fuel used in flights taking off from the UK from 2030 must be made with sustainable fuel, rising to 22% by 2040. This is clearly an area where the UK is trying to lead the way in decarbonising the aviation sector.
However, it should be noted that aviation, with all its benefits in connecting people and businesses, was responsible for almost 30 million tonnes of CO2 in 2022, equivalent to about 7% of the UK’s total emissions. As I understand it, even as emissions from other sectors decline, aviation’s share is projected to rise to 16% by 2035. This is not compatible with our net-zero targets. Sustainable aviation fuel is not a silver bullet, but it is a step forward to help us in the challenging environment that other noble Lords have described.
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome these steps to decarbonise our aviation industry, including investment in sustainable aviation fuels. However, we see SAF as just the first step; we want it to offer a real low-carbon alternative. We believe that the Government should set out how they will go beyond securing investment in SAF and ensure that, longer term, this measure complements rather than detracts from investment in zero-carbon flight technology. We want to see greater innovation, research and development to make the UK the world leader in zero-carbon flight. SAF should be a springboard for that objective rather than a final destination, helping the UK transition to truly climate-friendly options such as battery-electric platforms and hydrogen-fuelled models as these technologies develop. There is a lack of clarity about what level of zero-carbon flight the Government are aiming for, if any, so perhaps the Minister can advise.
It is hard to square an objective of net-zero aviation by 2050 without measures alongside SAF to cut emissions and make climate-friendly flight a reality, and it is hard to look at the decarbonisation of fuel use in aviation while this Government seem intent on expanding airports such as Gatwick and Heathrow, to name just two, leading to many more flights.
There are a number of areas that we will be probing further in Committee. There are some concerns about the levy and the need to ensure that there are no loopholes, that progress is monitored and published and that we are aligned with our European and global neighbours or even ahead of them. Looking at international examples, the EU’s ReFuelEU aviation regulation requires a minimum blend of 2% SAF in 2025, rising to 70% by 2050; it focuses far more on both fuel suppliers and airlines; and, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, it is considering its own revenue support mechanism. Singapore and Thailand’s mandates started a 1% blend in 2026. Japan and South Korea are considering mandates starting some way off, in 2027 and 2030. In China, there is a SAF mandate at 2% that increases to 15% by 2030. Elsewhere, India and Brazil are considering SAF mandates. In the US, while there is no mandate, there is government support, as we have heard, to boost production, in the form of tax credits and other incentives. While there is no consensus on the route map for sustainable aviation fuel and how to support its growth, in developing this mechanism, what international examples have the Government considered to help shape their approach and the Bill before us today?
The levy on fuel producers is not necessarily the wrong approach, but key details are missing and could have unintended consequences if regulations are poorly designed. Leaving the mechanism to be determined later provides useful flexibility for a new and emerging industry. However, assurances are needed on how the mechanism will be designed. One issue that has been raised by industry and by other noble Lords today is that the levy is based on historical market share, which could cause problems. It is not clear if new market entrants might avoid paying the levy if they have no prior market share. Perhaps the Minister can clarify.
Another important issue I have picked up from talking to producers such as Neste is that, although industry in general supports the creation of a revenue certainty mechanism as a means to strengthen investor confidence and unlock the significant investments required for SAF production, there is concern that a level playing field would be guaranteed internationally. There is a strong feeling that revenues of the levy should not be used to support production of SAF that is subsequently exported. This should be about developing and supporting our own UK industry and needs. The levy should be focused on ensuring SAF supply at an affordable price within the UK. Since the UK and EU SAF mandates, I understand that we have seen an increase in the cost of SAF. This mechanism should help with the supply of SAF within the UK and help to ensure a stable price.
I have also been talking to operators that use SAF, for example DHL. In 2024, DHL used 73,000 tonnes of SAF in its own fleet, which is 3.5% of their total fuel share. This is in addition to investing in its fleet to decarbonise and in its ground-handling equipment to move to fully electric. We need to ensure that all operators are looking to decarbonise their whole operations and are not just relying on SAF to tick the green box, in effect.
A final issue that has come up in discussions and been raised by many noble Lords today, including my noble friend Lord Russell, is a concern that the levy will filter down and potentially cost passengers and airlines significantly. Can the Minister explain what assessment the Government have carried out and assure the House that passengers will not be significantly penalised? The combination of a long-term mandate and the proposed revenue support mechanism clearly offers a high degree of regulatory certainty, which is crucial for attracting the significant capital investment needed for SAF production in the UK. I hope the Minister can reassure us on the important points raised today and as we move forward to Committee.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, what is one to say? The easy part is to start by joining other noble Lords in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on his entertaining and interesting maiden speech, and to welcome him and the many contributions he will no doubt make to your Lordships’ House in the future.
When the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, even without the support of the Green Party, all agree in supporting a measure, who can withstand them? Some might call it groupthink; others might see in it the spirit that defeated fascism in Europe. But here we are. We have huge support for this Bill from all quarters of the House, but I am afraid that it is the job of the Official Opposition to express a degree of scepticism.
Our debate has ranged very widely indeed, whereas the Bill has a very narrow focus. Many have spoken of it as if it were a net-zero measure. I dispute that. The net-zero measure was the SAF mandate that was put in place, as the Minister said, before Christmas last year, in November, which mandated airlines to use a certain quantity of SAF in their fuel, increasing every year over a period and set out in a statutory instrument. That was certainly a net-zero measure.
However, few noble Lords were open in saying that the Bill is not a net-zero measure as such but an industrial policy measure; in fact, it was really only my noble friend Lord Grayling who was explicit about that. He was explicit also in saying that he supported that industrial policy, which says that not only do we have to require SAF to be used by airlines in this country but we have to be the producer of that SAF. He gave reasons: he said, “Why would you want to use foreign producers? Why would you want to import your SAF?” But there are answers to that.
I am told that there is no future in being an old-fashioned Thatcherite and believing in markets, and that people like me are terribly out of date. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, made clear that SAF mandates are not confined to Britain and the European Union; there are countries all over the world with SAF mandates. She mentioned Thailand and Singapore, and I am sure there are many others as well. SAF is a global business. There is an argument that you might be able to import your SAF more cheaply and have a more efficient market if you were not insisting on producing it all yourself. None the less, the Conservative Party when in power and the Labour Party today have decided on that as a matter of industrial policy.
So what can possibly go wrong, even though it is hard to see what comparative advantage the United Kingdom has as a producer of SAF? The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, pointed to one element that seemed pretty damning of our comparative advantage—our very high electricity costs by international standards. He pointed out that this the production of SAF is an electricity-hungry process, but that none the less has to be ignored and overridden.
The Government have decided to be a leader in this uncertain field, and it is uncertain. I think we have agreed that there are three stages of SAF. There is HEFA, which the Government do not want to subsidise, as I understand it, even though, as again the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, pointed out, the Bill appears to be drafted so that they could. We need to examine that more closely in Committee. Assuming that the Government do not want to subsidise HEFA, that leaves us with non-HEFA SAF, but the processes for producing non-HEFA SAF are highly uncertain and some of them are first of a kind. We do not even know that they are going to work, but we are putting in place a revenue certainty mechanism so that investors can find out, for practically no risk, whether they are. This is going to be of advantage to the national economy.
Beyond that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said, there is a power-to-liquid option, but the Government do not appear to believe that it is worth investing in that at the moment, even though it is being pursued in the United States with the support of tax credits and, as I understand it, with a large plant in Texas.
Anyway, having decided that this is our industrial policy, we have to find a way of subsidising it. The Treasury has discovered this wonderful thing, the contract for difference, which is a form of subsidy that means that they do not have to shell out any money, because the cost of the subsidy is passed on to the consumer. Contracts for difference have given us the very high electricity costs to which the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, referred earlier, which are apparently crippling the process on which we are embarking. So we are to have not a subsidy but a contract for difference, and we are to set up a counterparty that will be able to work that out. It is going to have the skills to negotiate with the hard-faced lawyers sent by the investors to get, as my noble friend Lord Harper said, absolutely that price which offers an appropriate level of reward for the very low level of risk the investors are taking, but not a penny more. Our negotiators will be able to manage that and land it to perfection, and they will have the resources to do that. And so we go on.
Noble Lords have raised a whole series of questions, which I suspect will form the basis of our discussion in Committee. I will add a few myself. Can the Minister clarify whether the Government have made an assessment of the compatibility of the revenue certainty mechanism with the non-discrimination requirements of the WTO’s Article III.4 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, particularly in relation to the differential treatment between qualifying SAF and imported non-qualifying non-fossil aviation fuels such as HEFA? Also, will he indicate—I assure him that I do not necessarily expect him to answer these questions at the Dispatch Box, though it would be very impressive if he did—whether the Government have assessed whether the RCM would constitute a subsidy for the purposes of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and whether any risk of countermeasures or formal dispute settlement from other WTO members has been identified?
I am sure there are further questions, which I can bring up in Committee, but for the moment, there we are. We stand solidly behind the Bill, but we see a large number of holes in it. We are far from convinced that it will do the job that the Government have said it will set out to do. Whether it can be done at a price of £1.50 per ticket seems to be something else that is worthy of exploration—as is what that figure actually means. Since the mandate increases every year, at what point does the £1.50 come in? Surely, the cost per ticket would rise over the course of time as the mandate requirement rises. We will explore both how it was calculated and what it means but, for the moment, we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to what has been a lively and well-informed debate.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have engaged in today’s lively debate on the Bill. I have listened with much interest to the excellent points raised across your Lordships’ House, and I will now attempt to answer some of the questions. Of course, we can explore many of the issues in greater detail in Committee. In the meantime, I will follow up as soon as I can on some of the issues that I cannot answer now, but I am grateful for such wide, general cross-party support for this important measure.
First, I should compliment the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on his maiden speech. He said that sustainability matters; I am so glad that he did, and that he said it in English, because he might have been able to say it in Welsh and I would not have been able to respond. The Government and I are grateful for his support of a vital sustainability measure for air transport, which is essential for the nation’s wealth and defence. The only other thing I should say to the right reverend Prelate at this point is that I am sorry about his train service. I will speak to him separately about the trains to Chester.
As I said, I am grateful for the support of many noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, was supportive. The points that he and many others made and the questions he asked were all about making early progress. The Government are pursuing the Bill now, as we did with the SAF mandate, in order to get on and do this, because getting on and doing this is absolutely what we seek achieve. The noble Lord referred to the net effect of this on the price of airfares, as a number of other noble Lords have done. Our best estimate is plus or minus £1.50—we are confident on that—but I am happy to explore that further in Committee. We do not believe it is plus or minus £10. We believe that we have, at least for the moment, explored the cost that would fall on air passengers.
A number of points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, were about progress, and this Bill is evidence of the Government making progress. Like other noble Lords, he referred to the point of the first tranche and subsequent tranches. We of course need to move beyond HEFA feedstuffs, which is the point of the further tranches of the revenue support mechanism. The noble Earl also referred to the sustainability of UK plant, which is why the Government have put £63 million into the advanced fuel fund: for the very purpose of ensuring that there are plants in this country which can produce sustainable aviation fuel and that the plants themselves are sustainable.
The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, referred to competition in due course. The Bill includes the opportunity for the Secretary of State in due course to run tenders or auctions as a means of developing this market.
The noble Lord, Lord Raval, talked about waste and foodstuffs. We will, as we go through this Bill, have regard to its overall effect on the provision of sustainable aviation fuel.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for his detailed and compelling speech on this subject and for his great interest. He talked about not allowing crops to be made into SAF. We have committed to publishing a call for evidence by the end of this year on the use of crops in the SAF mandate. The aim is to improve the evidence base on crop-based SAF production, following suggestions from some stakeholders that certain types of crops could be used to increase SAF supply without compromising our approach to sustainability. But we will get information provided through that call for evidence, and we will consider what we find out.
The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, referred particularly to the use of data and how the market price is determined. The counterparty will be responsible for determining the market and should do so by using data that suppliers submit to the SAF mandate reporting system. Our live consultation seeks views on whether the assessment period should use volume data from an earlier period, or—since he suggested that is not sensible—uses forecast volume data. We will have more discussion about that in due course, I am sure. He also made a very strong point about the support being used only for production in the United Kingdom. We intend to support only eligible SAF plants in the UK; I am sure we will discuss that further. It is a strong point and I will consider it as we get to Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about cleaner skies and warmer homes. I am aware of the consultation on alternative heating solutions, and we are working with our colleagues in DESNZ to move those forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, does not agree with this at all. We have discussed the points she was making about aviation before. This is a move towards net zero. We are trying to make aviation more sustainable, as it is not going to stop overnight and is important for the economy of the country. The mandate will save some net additional 54 million tonnes of CO2. On the noble Baroness’s other point about frequent flyers, last year the Government altered air passenger duty which does have an effect on more frequent flyers.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harper. He made some substantial points. The noble Lord referred to a flight that used 100% sustainable aviation fuel; I believe he was a passenger on it. If I may, I will try to respond in detail to the points that the noble Lord made before Committee stage.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is perhaps not so supportive, though in the end I think he said he was. But what we are doing is important. We should be trying to move into a market that self-evidently can be a success for British industry, if we approach it properly. Government intervention, as justified by a number of noble Lords this afternoon, is the only way to do it. The noble Viscount is very sceptical of the effect on pricing for passengers; again, I have no doubt that we will discuss this in Committee and afterwards. Of course, he wants safety not to be compromised; none of us does. It is only right to point out that another noble Lord on his Benches was on a flight wholly powered by sustainable aviation fuel and I doubt whether the noble Lord would put himself at risk: I hope he would not. We are absolutely committed to safety. We are also committed to the fuel economy, which he mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, referred to nuclear and hydrogen power. The Government have clearly not set their mind against any solution. The significant funding put towards investing in technical solutions and the way in which the SAF process is being developed encourages other solutions and will encourage British industry to look particularly towards these solutions in the longer term. We will, of course, prioritise UK technology. This is the point and it is a good thing to do.
My noble friend Lord Hanworth is also probably not supportive—not because he does not agree with the general principle but because he somehow thinks, despite all we are doing to be at the forefront of global action, including the £63 million we are putting into the advanced fuels fund, that somehow this is not enough and that there should be some red-blooded approach. I contend that this is a pretty red-blooded approach from the Government. Significant sums of public money have been put into it, and we believe that it is the right thing to do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, referred to the nuclear option. SAF produced using nuclear energy is and will be eligible for the SAF mandate. We have provided funding to support the development of this technology through the grant funding programme of the advanced fuels fund. We are clearly on a journey and I note the noble Baroness’s proposition that it will need longer-term support. Although the Bill is limited to a term of 10 years, the support term is not so limited. I hope the noble Baroness will note that this is one of the reasons why.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, made some strong points. As I have said, we are on a journey. In Committee, we can discuss the consistency of the trajectory of that journey with the EU and other countries that have set themselves different targets. Of course, it is not the only measure: zero-emission flying is and could not be just about SAF. To that end, we have talked about airspace modernisation, which is something the noble Baroness knows about. We have looked at funding of up to £2.3 billion over 10 years to extend the Aerospace Technology Institute which was announced in the modern industrial strategy in June to look at low-emission and zero-emission aircraft. We are looking at reducing aviation emissions through schemes such as the UK Emissions Trading Scheme on carbon pricing. We are also seeking to address the non-CO2 impacts of aviation. The noble Baroness is correct, of course, in looking at everything to do with carbon reduction in flying, not just aircraft fuel and technology but the operations surrounding aircraft. She mentioned the activities in that respect of DHL, which is a major user of aircraft.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for whom I have huge respect, appears to see a conspiracy between all the parties here to do something which he does not seem to support, which is to have an industrial policy that gives British industry the chance to develop something new in the world and to develop jobs and processes which will lead to a bigger economy. He is not in the same place as some of his colleagues on his own Benches on that and I think that he is wrong, because this is not only an industrial policy but a step towards net zero. He mentioned power-to-liquid, and we have invested in that in the advanced fuels fund. He asked a couple of very detailed questions about the World Trade Organization, and I would be delighted to write to him with the answers, supposing that I was unable to provide answers from the Dispatch Box just now.
Once again, I thank all noble Lords who participated in the debate today and I welcome the support of the many who spoke in favour of the Bill’s measures. The Bill will kick-start the UK SAF industry, attracting investment and creating jobs. By addressing the market and investment uncertainty in SAF production, it will enable the UK to lead the way to greener aviation. I beg to move.
Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025
Lord Leong
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 October be approved.
Relevant document: 39th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I note the regret amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and will respond to the points raised. However, I will first outline the context of this instrument, which was laid before the House on 13 October 2025. This instrument relates to radio equipment, which encompasses a broad range of products, including smartphones, laptops, fitness tracking devices and other connected or small devices. Under the Windsor Framework, the Radio Equipment Directive 2014/53/EU continues to apply in Northern Ireland, ensuring dual access to both the UK internal market and the EU single market. In 2021, the European Commission adopted Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30, which supplements the Radio Equipment Directive and introduces additional essential requirements for certain categories of radio equipment.
The additional essential requirements applied to internet-connected radio equipment, including consumer connectable electronics and smart devices. Such equipment must be constructed in a way that protects networks, safeguards users’ personal data and privacy, and prevents fraud. Furthermore, radio equipment, whether internet-connected or not, that is covered by the EU toys directive and is intended for childcare or is wearable on the body must also be constructed so that it protects user data and privacy.
Baroness Hoey
At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations are being made to give effect to legislation made by the European Commission, without public consultation and without taking account of the needs of small businesses in Northern Ireland.”
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Leong, to his position. He is about the third noble Lord we have had answering SIs, so we are gradually getting round all of them. It is of course very nice to see the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, who is very involved with and supportive of Northern Ireland, and she is very much respected there.
The noble Lord has set out in detail why this is happening, with a lot of words and explanation, but the reality is that it is happening because the United Kingdom Government signed up to the Windsor Framework protocol, which is now ensuring in legislation after legislation that Northern Ireland is treated differently. To comply with the EU law, we are therefore now required to update the EU law as defined in our 2017 regulations to take account of the new directive.
The regulations before us today seek to comply with this European Union diktat by applying a new regulation, Regulation 6A, into the United Kingdom regulations with respect to how they apply to Northern Ireland only. The legislative change does not apply to the rest of the United Kingdom; it does not apply to Great Britain.
I see there is an absence of the Liberal Democrats here today. That is because the Liberal Democrats tend to think that such regulations should be hidden away in the committee room and fail to understand that when it is an affirmative regulation, we have the right to bring it here to the Chamber. We do that because these regulations provide us with an object lesson of all that is wrong with the Windsor Framework protocol and the Irish Sea border that it creates.
To really understand the problems with these regulations and others like them, it is important to assess them from the vantage point not just of their immediate physical impact—which I will mention—but of their wider impact in Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom. The Irish Sea border arose from a decision of Parliament, but unlike the decisions in relation to devolution and joining the European Union, the resulting arrangements were not operated consistently with its ethos as a representative body. From the outset, their very point of conception, they have been fundamentally alien to the political tradition we have in the United Kingdom, because they involve transferring lawmaking powers for a part of the UK to a Government beyond the UK—to legislative arrangements that do not represent the United Kingdom.
This deeply affects the part of the United Kingdom in question, because as participants in a political nation, a political body politic that is nurtured, upheld and sustained by representative principles, this does not just take from us the ability to make some of our own laws but necessarily disinherits us from a key aspect of our identity.
In this context, the Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations, along with all other imposed legislation, are deeply problematic. It is worth reminding the House that while the Northern Ireland protocol was addressed through primary legislation, since February 2023 every piece of legislation that has been introduced and given effect to the Windsor Framework—without any say from people in Northern Ireland—has been by means of statutory instrument.
Someone engaging with this subject for the first time—perhaps a noble Lord today—might come to one debate and see that it highlights the imposition of EU law in one narrow area. However, that is very narrow; we have to regard the cumulative effect of all the different statutory instruments that have been brought in, and will be brought in, in the past and coming months. That is why, along with other noble friends from Northern Ireland, we will continue to bring these debates to the House. The House needs to understand that this is not just about one law—radio equipment—this is about the whole way we are now being governed in Northern Ireland.
That said, the draft Explanatory Memorandum makes the position very clear, and the Minister has gone through the far-reaching effects of the radio equipment regulations. Everyone needs to read paragraphs 5 and 6, which state:
“The essential requirement not to harm the network or its functioning applies to any internet-connected radio equipment … consumer electronics and smart devices … the protection of user/subscriber personal data and privacy also applies to the following radio equipment, where that equipment is capable of processing personal data, traffic data or location data: Internet-connected radio equipment; and Radio equipment, whether internet-connected or not, that is: (i) designed or intended exclusively for childcare; (ii) covered by the EU Toys Directive; or (iii) designed or intended, to be worn on, strapped to, or hung from the body or clothing”.
The final bit of the explanation states:
“The essential requirement to ensure protection from fraud also applies to internet-connected radio equipment, if that equipment enables the user to transfer money, monetary value or virtual currency”.
It is very wide-ranging.
Turning to those who will be impacted by the legislation, the draft Explanatory Memorandum is very clear that the effects on business are far-reaching. It states:
“This instrument will impact on manufacturers of specific types of radio equipment that are placed on the Northern Ireland marketplace, authorised representatives carrying out manufacturers’ tasks on their behalf, importers who place these products on the Northern Ireland marketplace, and distributors who make these products available on the Northern Ireland marketplace”.
It actually states:
“There is no, or no significant, impact on charities or voluntary bodies”,
but the impact on small businesses is also very clear. It states:
“The legislation does impact small or micro businesses … The legal requirements do not differentiate between businesses in terms of their size. Therefore, we are unable to take any mitigating actions to minimise the regulatory burdens on small or micro businesses”.
The officials who drafted this draft Explanatory Memorandum pass over those points very quickly, without acknowledging and confronting the obvious implications of what has been said. This legislation relates only to Northern Ireland and has an impact on small businesses and micro-businesses, yet Northern Ireland is the part of the United Kingdom where the economy is more dependent on such businesses than any other. In that sense, if we were told to apply this to one part of the UK, Northern Ireland would be the last place to start because of the unusual size of its small business sector. Can the Minister say what the Government will do practically to help those small businesses that are already drowning in an Irish Sea border of endless paperwork and bureaucracy?
The Minister will recall—the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, will certainly recall—the Federation of Small Businesses research, which, critically, was conducted before the introduction of the Irish Sea parcels border in May, the used farm machinery border in June and the huge increase in labelling requirements on 1 July, not to mention the impending arrival of the pet medicines Irish Sea border, which is due in January 2026, together with the application, from 1 January, of the much more demanding Import Control System 2.
The report demonstrated that 33% of GB suppliers had already withdrawn since the arrival of the Irish Sea border. I ask the Minister: how much more pain would the Government like to devise for small businesses in Northern Ireland? This imposition of EU legislation on Northern Ireland effectively declared that while the people of England, Wales and Scotland are worthy of the right to stand for election to make all the laws, or to elect a fellow citizen to represent them for this purpose, the people of Northern Ireland are only worthy of the right to stand for election to make some of the laws to which they are subject.
These changes do not have just a narrow functional effect, so that some of our laws are made by others; they actually erode and undermine our place in the nation of the United Kingdom. I do not think that noble Lords will fully appreciate that, until they themselves, perhaps as fellow citizens, find that that has been taken from them. In coming to terms with this, we must also understand that the purpose of all these imposed laws is to create an all-Ireland single market for goods. The political importance is hard to overstate, because the prerequisite of achieving statehood is described internationally as securing economic nationality.
One disturbing consequence of all this is that once people have been subject to the laws of another country or another institution, they not only lose the right to stand for election to make the laws to which they are subject, or to elect someone for this purpose; they also lose the right to be consulted about the law.
The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The Government has not undertaken a formal public consultation as this instrument’s provisions are confined to the implementation of provisions as required by the terms of the Windsor Framework, ensuring that Northern Ireland has in place EU derived essential product safety requirements.”
In other words, the legislation has to be imposed because the EU has told us to impose it, and we signed up to that, so we do not need to bother with the consultation because there would be no point.
The other striking feature about these regulations is that the Explanatory Memorandum and supplementary paperwork are distinctive in not volunteering that the Government will definitely align GB with the new Northern Ireland legislation, opening the door to regulatory divergence. Paragraph 9.1 says: “Many UK businesses also supply the EU market (as well as the UK market) and have already taken steps to come into compliance with the Radio Equipment Directive. We therefore do not anticipate significant impacts on the supply of products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland”—anyone in Northern Ireland will tell you that they have heard that before—“and the UK’s Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act sets a framework for the cyber security of internet connected products in the UK and works alongside radio equipment directive provisions in Northern Ireland.”
As has been said, the Government intend to review the operation of the PSTI in the coming years, including through an interim post-implementation review in 2026, and will continue to monitor the functioning of the internal market. That is very complacent, and we could be left with legal divergence for a very long time. Why are the Government not more energetically seeking to avoid legislative divergence? If most companies in GB will comply automatically anyway, why accommodate needless legislative divergence?
Finally, I want to pick up the point that the Explanatory Notes suggest that these regulations are a good thing because they are part of the delivery of the wonderful dual market access. We need to be absolutely clear that dual market access is a myth. We have not secured a single piece of inward investment to access this special status, because it does not exist. Businesses are not stupid. If there was a special advantage, they would have come in from across the world.
Of course, you will find companies that would rather have the border in the Irish Sea because their business is based on trading with the Republic of Ireland and not with GB, and which say that they benefit from the current arrangements. However, if you drill down into that, it is not because they get dual market access but because at the end of the day, although the Windsor Framework fetters access to GB production inputs, it provides completely unfettered access to the Republic—that is, single market access to an all-Ireland economy—which is what they actually want. The problem is that most Northern Ireland businesses are based on needing unfettered access to GB, which is denied them by both the red and green lanes. It is therefore a very clear net negative for the Northern Ireland economy as a whole rather than a net positive. I do wish that Ministers would stop saying, every time the Windsor Framework is mentioned, that this is why it is so great.
I want to end by reading out two emails that I got sent yesterday from Northern Ireland relating to the veterinary effect which will come in in January. The first is to a lady who has pets and gets her veterinary medicine from GB:
“Thank you for your query regarding veterinary medication to Northern Ireland. Since Brexit, we have been operating under a grace period that has allowed us to continue medications to Northern Ireland. However, this grace period will come to an end on 31st December 2025. From 1st January it will no longer be possible for suppliers based here on the UK mainland to ship any class of medication, including prescription medications, to Northern Ireland”.
Another email reads:
“Good afternoon and thank you for your email. We will be stopping the last delivery to Northern Ireland on December 19th. This is due to a change in the Windsor Framework, which means medicines now need a Northern Ireland licence or EU licence to be sold there and cannot be imported free”.
This is happening over and again, and it means that many pet owners who cannot afford insurance and who go on to the internet to get the same veterinary medicine more cheaply from Great Britain are not now going to be able to get it.
We are seeing, over and again, ridiculous things that are happening because of the Windsor Framework/protocol. I cannot understand how any sensible person, including ex-Government Ministers from the previous Government, cannot realise that this is not in the long-term interests of Northern Ireland. Therefore, I beg to move this regret amendment with very great pleasure but with sadness that we are having still to come back to this House over and again on this issue.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the Minister for outlining in detail the impact and effect of the statutory instrument before us today and for clearly setting out the reasons behind it as well. I am also extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her regret amendment, which ensures that there is time in this House for your Lordships to consider this latest piece of legislation, which has been consulted upon in Europe, drafted in Europe, devised in Europe and planned in Europe for the benefit of the European Union states, and which has been implemented in part of the United Kingdom without any input into any of that process by any Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, any Member of Parliament or any Member of your Lordships’ House. It is quite a staggering situation in modern Britain, in a modern G7 country, for part of its own country to be subjected to this kind of colonial legislative process. It is quite remarkable when you think about it.
This latest regulation deals with a very important area, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, outlined, covers a wide range of equipment in Northern Ireland and will have a lot of impacts, particularly on small and medium-sized businesses.
This is the latest in a long line of statutory instruments affecting a very wide range of subjects, all listed in Annex 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol. Last week, I raised the issue of dental amalgam, because that is now under EU law and jurisdiction. Next week, we will be debating in Grant Committee the issue of cars coming into Northern Ireland, whereby now the biggest-selling car in Northern Ireland cannot be shipped from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, even though we sell, from Britain into the Irish Republic, only a handful of cars every year. But this is why consumers and motorists in Northern Ireland are going to have to pay more and come to Britain to buy their cars. This is the modern United Kingdom.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, reminded your Lordships, we have a problem with veterinary medicines, which is going to come in on 1 January 2026. We have an issue to do with the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which again is going to come in on 1 January 2026 in Northern Ireland. We have an issue to do with the Sentencing Bill, which your Lordships considered the other day at Second Reading, in which plans to deport people who come here may not be applicable, with part of the United Kingdom providing a back door and a loophole for all sorts of nefarious activity. We have court challenges in Northern Ireland to immigration policy and to legacy problems, all based on the fact that they do not comply with and conform to European law through the Windsor Framework. Not only are they ruled to be contrary, they actually strike down legislation passed by this House—in part of the United Kingdom.
It is a sad state of affairs, a lamentable state of affairs, a state of affairs that cannot endure in the long run. Sooner or later, even those who today are prepared to accept anything the European Union passes because it is the European Union, even those who care about democracy but these matters do not matter as much to them, even nationalists in the Northern Ireland Assembly, those who are not unionists, will say: “Hold on a moment, surely we should be making and devising and formulating the laws for the people we represent”. They may not wish to be part of the United Kingdom, but they do not want to have laws imposed upon them by a group of countries which make these laws in their own interests. They do not consult with anyone in Northern Ireland—nationalist, unionist or anyone. So I make a plea on behalf of everybody in Northern Ireland. Citizens and elected representatives of all shades should be saying: “Hold on a minute, we would like to actually make these laws for ourselves”. But here we are, once again, looking at a piece of legislation which applies European law because it is in Annex 2 of the protocol.
I am not going to go through all the issues that the previous speakers have raised. The point about consultation is an extremely important one. The Explanatory Memorandum implies, more or less, that because there is no room for amendment, the legislation must be imposed in Northern Ireland because the EU has decided this and passed this. There is no room for getting rid of it. Therefore, what is the point of consultation? That is, in essence, what the consultation part of the Explanatory Memorandum says on the regulatory divergence point.
As in so many cases, we are now told that while the rest of the United Kingdom may come into line with EU regulations and therefore mitigate the frictions between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, often that is vague, often it is not 100%, and often it is very delayed. What happens in the meantime? I would be grateful if the Minister could outline in more detail the implications of regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland—between the immediate implementation of this statutory instrument and the current position in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The impact on small and medium-sized businesses has been mentioned. I note too that paragraph 9.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“There is an impact on the public sector because the enforcing authorities … are the Northern Ireland district councils”.
I hear from council members all the time about the straitened fiscal position they find themselves in. They are being lumbered continually with more and more investigatory, regulatory, enforcement and monitoring obligations and responsibilities as a result of European regulation. It is made much more difficult because they are now in a unique position of having to police this without any back-up or support elsewhere in the United Kingdom, because it does not apply elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what resources will be given to district councils in this and other cases where they face greater regulatory monitoring and enforcement obligations as a result of the Windsor Framework.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I declare two interests. I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which considered this statutory instrument, and a member of the Government’s Veterinary Medicine Working Group. This is important because those interests are relevant to the general debate on the Windsor Framework. I welcome my noble friend the Minister to this debate and to the ongoing issue of the Windsor Framework.
I acknowledge the regret amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, but that does not mean that I agree with it. I am a firm supporter of the Windsor Framework. I believe we should seek to get back into the European Union because that is the best way to represent our interests. We should be working towards dual market access—not decrying dual market access but actively supporting businesses that are seeking to achieve the benefits of dual market access, not only for their businesses but for the wider community in Northern Ireland.
I remind noble Lords that the root cause of the problem is Brexit. Various events over the past 17 years have undermined the UK economy. We had the economic crash in 2008, which impacted many global economies. We had Brexit in 2016. We had Covid-19 and all the payments for that. Then we had the money to invest in defence for Ukraine and in defence of democracy, and to build up resilience against other powers, such as Russia.
In this instance, Brexit ushered in the Northern Ireland protocol and then the Windsor Framework to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland. I personally do not have a problem with that, as we argued back in 2016 that special arrangements were required on the island of Ireland, where two jurisdictions and two systems would apply. Hence, we have the UK internal market and EU single market. I make a plea that politicians of whatever hue should be encouraging people and businesses to avail themselves of dual market access, and it is wrong to decry them. I remind those who argued for the hardest form of Brexit, either in this House or in the other place, that in some ways we are paying for the consequences of that.
It was remarked on that our committee did not receive any submissions or comments relating to the Windsor Framework for this statutory instrument. That was a surprise, because we have received voluminous comments for other statutory instruments related to the framework. Also, the Government have undertaken stakeholder engagement with a cross-representation of stakeholders, including industry, trade associations and other government departments with an interest. Like my noble friend the Minister said, it will be subject to further review as part of the radio equipment directive provisions in Northern Ireland. I hope that that will prove productive.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
At the commencement of her address to the Chamber, the noble Baroness said that she was a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I noticed that its 39th report said, at paragraph 35, that the Department for Business and Trade
“therefore does not anticipate ‘any significant impacts’ on the supply of relevant products from Great Britain to NI”.
If the reality turns out to be that there is a significant impact, could the noble Baroness, who supports the Windsor Framework, tell us how it could be rectified?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I sincerely hope that there are no particular difficulties, but if there are any hiccups in the situation, I hope that, as part of that, the challenges and the operational difficulties that have presented themselves over the last number of months can be ironed out, and that we have a listening Government who will do everything within their power, working with the EU, to ensure that that is the case.
I will move on to what else I want to say. Undoubtedly, we need to resolve the challenges, the delays, and businesses’ lack of knowledge around the Windsor Framework. Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Minister to outline when we will receive the responses to the following reports, which highlighted those operational difficulties and challenges, and the lack of knowledge for businesses operating within the Windsor Framework. Those reports are: the independent monitoring report, published two weeks ago; my noble friend Lord Murphy’s independent review, published in September; and the report of our Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, of which I, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, are members. We discussed those issues yesterday. When will the Government respond to those three reports, which all highlighted the need for a resolution to the operational difficulties? If operational difficulties and challenges exist for businesses, they should be resolved. To go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, I imagine that is probably what he is referring to, rather than an outright rejection of the Windsor Framework.
Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has said, we also need answers on CBAM, and we need clarification. What will this mean for people’s electricity supply, taking on board that we have a single electricity market on the island of Ireland? We need to know what framework will be operational from 1 January 2026. What discussions have taken place with the EU regarding those interim arrangements for Northern Ireland? I have spoken with representatives from Manufacturing NI, and they have told me that they have had no discussions with the Government since November 2024. I say gently to my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench that this needs to be resolved quickly. I urge him to work with his ministerial colleagues in the department responsible to resolve these issues and to provide clarity and clarification for businesses and all those involved in manufacturing.
Finally, reference has been made to veterinary medicines and the ongoing difficulties and challenges there. We need a resolution to those issues, which are largely of a market and regulatory nature, and we need to know how many authorisations will be available and how many—because of pack size—will not. We need clear, professional guidance to be issued urgently and communicated to veterinarians and farmers in Northern Ireland. I understand that the BVA and NOAH would be willing to help with this, but we need that briefing in relation to the veterinary medicines directive to go directly to veterinarians, the BVA and farmers. We also need an industry-level co-ordination group to be established to share confidential, category-level supply risk signals, because much of this information, as I know from the Veterinary Medicines Working Group, is confidential and commercial in confidence. It should also be able to agree clinical fallback pathways for when authorised products are unavailable and be able to use the two systems that, thankfully, the Government have brought forward, and co-ordinate communication to vets, SQPs—or suitably qualified persons—and probably agricultural merchants, practices and producers.
I urge the Minister to obtain clarity on those various areas as they relate to the operational challenges and difficulties faced by those who have to work under the auspices of the Windsor Framework. For clarity, I support the Windsor Framework; I would like to see a route back to the European Union, because I believe in full democratic accountability. That can be achieved only through that mechanism and not by decrying the Windsor Framework, because that simply, in many ways, is a denial of democracy, when people argued for the hardest possible Brexit.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I have been provoked to respond to what the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has said. I had some difficulty in following her, but that might be more my fault than hers—I think it is not, but that is by the way. She went on at some length about the dual membership. Let me very clear to your Lordships’ House today: there are no tangible benefits from dual membership. What we are getting is unfettered access to the Republic of Ireland—our smallest market—in return for fettered access to our greatest market; namely, GB. I hope that your Lordships’ House, particularly the Minister, will keep that in mind. I am sure he is listening, and I know that the noble Baroness beside him always listens to what we are saying—she might not always agree, but she certainly always listens, and we commend her for that.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, this instrument, as the Minister has outlined, amends the Radio Equipment Regulations 2017 to ensure that additional essential requirements covering cyber security, data protection and fraud prevention apply to certain categories of radio equipment marketed in Northern Ireland. The objectives of these requirements are sensible. In an era of ultra-connected devices such as smartphones, watches, fitness trackers and more, the need to protect personal data, prevent fraud and safeguard network integrity is clearly paramount. Consumers rightly expect that the technology that, in many cases, they entirely rely on does not expose them to unnecessary risk. However, this instrument raises broader constitutional and practical questions, as has been pointed out by many noble Lords.
First, it is another example of legislation applying in Northern Ireland that originates, unfortunately, not from the Palace of Westminster, not from the Northern Ireland Assembly, but from Brussels. Whatever view noble Lords might have of the Windsor Framework, it is undeniable that these rules are imposed under obligations that leave little room for domestic discretion. That is the reality, which is a concern for many, including in your Lordships’ House.
Secondly, while the Department for Business and Trade assures us that the impact on businesses will be minimal, given that many firms already comply in order to access EU markets, we must be allowed to scrutinise that claim. For smaller manufacturers and distributors, particularly those focused on the UK market, compliance costs and administrative burdens may not be negligible. As was so well put by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, my noble friend Lord Dobbs and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, have the Government undertaken a full assessment of the cost to SMEs? What support will be available to businesses in Northern Ireland to navigate these requirements?
While we do not oppose measures that enhance consumer protection and cybersecurity, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition regret that this instrument exemplifies the democratic deficit inherent in the current arrangements. We urge the Government to provide greater transparency on the cumulative impact of these regulations and to ensure, above all, that Northern Ireland businesses are not disadvantaged and can remain competitive, thrive and flourish.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for the warm welcome to this statutory instrument. In fact, when I was asked to take this SI, I thought it would be happening in Grand Committee and we would probably look at it for half an hour and then complete it, but obviously we have wider issues to consider today. I am grateful for the support given from across the House to these regulations. I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of this instrument and all their excellent questions and contributions. I will respond to as many of the questions posed as possible and, if I run out of time, I will obviously write to noble Lords accordingly.
I shall first address the issue of the Windsor Framework. Look, is the Windsor Framework perfect? Of course it is not; nothing is perfect, other than being in a single market and customs union—we are not there and that boat has sailed—but it is definitely better than the Northern Ireland protocol. What is important here is that the Windsor Framework has delivered substantial improvements to the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol. It has removed routine checks for the overwhelming majority of goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, ensured that supermarket shelves are stocked normally, secured long-term continuity of medicine supplies and restored the free flow of parcels for households and businesses.
At the same time, the Government have always been clear that the Windsor Framework is not the end of the journey but a significant step forward. There remain areas where further work with the EU is required, particularly around the practical implementation of the red and green lane arrangements and certain aspects of agrifood certification. We continue to engage constructively through the Joint Committee to reduce burdens where possible, provide clarity to businesses and ensure that the framework operates in a way that fully supports Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s internal market.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, about consultation and engagement for business, my officials regularly and continuously engage and consult with businesses, and they have found that many businesses are already coming into compliance. They have also issued guidance to support industry. These engagements include UK retail and trade associations representing, for example, the manufacturers of small and large domestic appliances. They reported that there were no particular problems from this instrument relating to its impending GB-to-NI trade that they were aware of from discussions with their member companies. They also welcome the Government’s guidance and confirmation that products can continue to be placed on the GB market as long as they comply with the requirements of the PSTI Act, where relevant.
In addition, the Government share the EU’s desire to ensure that manufacturers are considering measures to improve the cybersecurity of relevant devices. We are also looking at further options for securing digital devices, as evidenced by our recent call for views on enterprise-connected devices, and will take into account arrangements in Northern Ireland, including impacts on SMEs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, mentioned dual access, and said it was a myth and that companies were not investing. I disagree. Just last month, the parcel delivery company Evri announced the opening of a new £1.3 million EU gateway depot in Mallusk, creating something like 650 jobs, which Evri itself said would enable it to avail itself of dual market access.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked about new cars, a subject that I think was in today’s papers. The Government are engaging closely with manufacturers to better understand what is needed to sell vehicles on the market in Northern Ireland, and we expect to make a further announcement on the next steps.
The noble Lord also asked whether this would create divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. We consider that the additional legislative requirements that this SI puts in place in Northern Ireland will have limited impact in practice. My officials have engaged in discussions with a range of industry stakeholders, such as the AMDEA, which is the UK trade association for domestic appliances, the British Retail Consortium and government departments. These discussions have not identified any significant impacts or concerns for this instrument. Many businesses across the UK have already adapted to the new requirements. We therefore do not anticipate significant impacts on the supply of products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I exhort my noble friend the Minister to implore his colleagues to provide speedy, expeditious responses to those reports, because they are vital in addressing the operational issues and challenges of the Windsor Framework.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. I am sure that, as a former Minister, she will know that we will try our best to get that done swiftly. Further to her question on the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism, CBAM, we have always been clear that we will apply the UK’s CBAM across the UK, including in Northern Ireland, and that the EU’s CBAM does not apply to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee yesterday wrote to the Government on this issue and we will respond in the usual way.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, also asked about veterinary measures. The vast majority of veterinary medicine will remain available in Northern Ireland from 1 January. The Government continue to engage extensively with industry and have announced two new schemes to support supply to Northern Ireland.
I come now to the question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, on impact assessments. An impact assessment has not been prepared for this instrument, as measures resulting from the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 are out of scope for assessment. However, my officials have engaged in discussions with a range of industry stakeholders and government departments on Commission delegated regulation (EU) 2022/30 and have not identified any significant impacts or concerns for this instrument. We therefore expect limited impacts, if any, on the supply of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
As I have set out, this instrument ensures effective implementation in Northern Ireland of Commission delegated regulation (EU) 2022/30, which applies additional essential requirements for manufacturers of certain radio equipment and enables them to be enforced. As a former businessperson, I am constantly encouraging my colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade to engage regularly with micro and small businesses. The Government are committed to engaging and supporting all businesses, not only in Great Britain but across Northern Ireland.
Many businesses have already prepared to comply with these new essential requirements, which came into force on 1 August this year, in order to continue to supply the EU. My officials have not identified significant impacts on this instrument in discussions with industry stakeholders, including trade associations. This is because many businesses have already adapted to these new requirements. We therefore expect the impact on the flow of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to be very limited.
This instrument ensures our compliance with international law in relation to Northern Ireland’s continuing dual access. I am therefore pleased to commend this statutory instrument to the House.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response to this rather wide-ranging debate. We tend to have them on statutory instruments, because there seems to be no other way of raising and having debates in this place on the overall issue of the Windsor Framework and how it is affecting Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland officials in the Northern Ireland Office must have it very easy because, with all these SIs, they simply exchange the word “radio” for “motor car” or “dental” and then produce the rest of the speech more or less the same—we hear more or less the same response every time. I appreciate that the Minister is carrying out his party policy.
I was very disappointed, as I said, that there was no one here from the Liberal Democrats, because normally what they say is, of course, that it is all about Brexit: “If we hadn’t had Brexit, you wouldn’t have a Windsor Framework protocol”. But I am sure that Liberal Democrat noble Lords will be pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, seems to have taken up that mantle. Indeed, the Minister himself said that the best thing would be to rejoin the customs union and the single market. Has the Labour Party policy changed, or was that just a throwaway line?
Clearly, there was absolutely no need to have the Windsor Framework protocol because the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union; they did not have on their ballot paper, “Northern Ireland to be left under 300 areas of law”—absolutely outrageous. The Minister did not raise—and none of the Ministers who respond ever raise—that kind of constitutional issue. It is all about the EU saying that we must comply.
There was much agreement between the rest of the noble Lords who spoke about the Government dressing everything up as, “Oh, but you’ve got dual access”. Dual access is a joke. It has not produced a single job; that has been confirmed by Invest Northern Ireland. We might have dual access, but the raw materials and so on need to come in from Great Britain and through an international customs border.
This particular SI will affect small businesses. We have had no real response to what might be given in mitigation to help them and no response to a number of the other questions. But I would say one positive thing: I welcome the more critical response of the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, to the SI. Perhaps that is just a bit of movement within the opposition party towards accepting that what was signed up to in the Windsor Framework protocol is not in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole, never mind the people of Northern Ireland. What we have ended up with is the Minister basically saying, “We didn’t write this law and we can’t change it, so you’re just going to have to put up with it”. Noble Lords will be relieved to know that I withdraw the amendment.