House of Commons

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

Monday 24 November 2025

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

Ministerial Code

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

15:41

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

4.9 pm

Critical Minerals Strategy

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

16:49

Point of Order

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

17:36

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[1st Allocated Day]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee.

[Relevant documents: Second Report of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, The Funding and Sustainability of Local Government Finance, HC 514, and the Government response, HC 1355; Oral evidence taken before the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on 25 February and 28 January, on English Devolution, HC 600.

New Clause 43

Charges payable by undertakers executing works in maintainable highways

“Schedule (Charges payable by undertakers executing works in maintainable highways) makes provision about charges payable by undertakers executing works in maintainable highways.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would introduce the new Schedule in NS1 which (i) transfers to the mayors of mayoral strategic authorities the power to approve a local highway authority to charge undertakers who are executing works in maintainable roads and (ii) enables those charges to be made where works for road purposes are being executed.

Brought up, and read the First time.

17:38

17:45

18:01

Government amendments 116 and 118 will amend the duty relating to health improvement and health inequalities. The Government recognise the importance of environmental factors to people’s health. The conditions in which people live, the air that they breathe, the green spaces and the waterways—sometimes known as blue spaces—to which they have access are fundamental drivers of health outcomes. The general health determinants set out in clause 43 were not intended to be an exhaustive list, but we think there is an opportunity to clarify what we mean. I am grateful to members of the Bill Committee for their insightful discussion of this topic in Committee, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for raising the importance of environmental protections throughout the Bill’s passage so far.

The Bill will devolve real power to local leaders, so that they can get on and deliver for their residents. Our amendments build on our promise to go further, faster on devolution, and to ensure that the Bill works as intended, and I commend them to the House.

18:14

I am going to make some progress on the other amendments. There is a need to ensure greater responsibility at the local level and value for money for the council tax payer, and amendment 24 would insert a new limitation into schedule 3, making it clear that a

“remuneration panel may not recommend allowances”

for commissioners that exceed the salary of a director-level officer within the relevant authority. That is not an extravagant or radical proposal; it is simply common sense. Commissioners, when appointed, are brought in to provide oversight, stability and direction at a moment of challenge. They are temporary custodians, not long-term executives. Their role is to work for the mayor, not to run the organisation indefinitely. It would therefore be wholly disproportionate and, frankly, indefensible to allow commissioner allowances to exceed the remuneration of directors who work full-time within that authority and carry permanent operational responsibility.

For years, Labour-run local authorities have charged more and delivered less, and we do not want this to happen across the country when devolution is imposed on local people. That is why we have tabled new clause 2, which makes a simple and entirely reasonable proposition: if combined authorities possess the power to levy a council tax precept, they should be subject to the same referendum principles and the same constraints that apply to the vast majority of county and unitary councils. The new clause would ensure that when the Secretary of State determines categories of local authorities for the purposes of council tax excessiveness, mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities form a single, clearly defined category. That would provide clarity for Government, consistency for local leaders and, most importantly, transparency for the taxpayer.

The principle underpinning new clause 2 is straightforward: equal powers must come with equal accountability. Over recent years, combined authorities have been entrusted with significant and growing responsibilities—on transport, housing, skills, regeneration and more. Many of us support that trend, but with those responsibilities has come the power to levy a precept on local taxpayers, who are already grappling with rising bills and who have every right to expect that their money is being managed prudently and transparently. Pushing more and more on to council tax payers, as this Government have done, releases the Government from sustained funding. More and more responsibilities will be piled on to mayors, and that is not sustainable for the long-term future of our local government family.

18:30

Finally, I turn to Government amendment 149, which would grant new powers to the Greater London Authority to acquire new land by agreement for housing or regeneration purposes. It would be helpful if Ministers provided more detail about those powers and how they are intended to be used. How would they chime with the new powers relating to the Homes for London package, announced by the Department and the GLA last month? We all recognise the acute shortage of housing, especially in London. It is an issue that fills my inbox and the Minister’s inbox on an almost daily basis. We recognise that the Government and GLA must work together to ensure London boroughs deliver their share of the housing we desperately need.

However, if the Government are to proceed with the package announced last month, we must ensure that new social and affordable homes are built in the capital. That is why the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee is calling on the Government to publish an impact assessment on how changes to London’s affordable housing targets will deliver more affordable housing units. A significant proportion of those homes must be affordable for local people. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined how Government amendment 149 relates to the Homes for London package, and how the new powers are being offered by the GLA specifically.

To summarise, we all welcome the steps the Minister is taking on engagement and on ensuring that some amendments will see that transfer of power down, but it is vital that we continue to have conversations with local leaders, many of whom are seeing more pressures, with more councils applying for exceptional financial support. More councils are facing pressures in adult social care, temporary accommodation and housing. It is important that we look at more ways to help empower our councils to take those decisions closer to the communities they represent.

18:45

The Licensing Act 2003 regulations has not been updated in 20 years, and temporary event notices are one big area of that. Hackney council processes around 2,000 temporary event notices each year—a number of those repeatedly for some premises—which leaves a deficit. The council tax payer, the Government and other taxpayers are funding that deficit, which does not seem reasonable. It was right that the temporary event notice came in as a quick route for small community businesses, but the Government should look at this area. The council needs a cost-recovery model at the very least. It is not asking to make money on this, but if perpetual licences become standard, that would be a large reduction in money available.

I thank the Minister for her letters—on 20 November, and to all London MPs today—in which she outlined that she does not expect the new strategic licensing powers granted to the Mayor of London by new clause 44 to

“necessitate any reduction in the licensing fees collected by London Borough Councils, which will remain the default decision makers”.

I would be grateful if the Minister could make it clear in her summing up where the responsibility for licensing fees lies. There may be an argument for devolving that, so that it better reflects the local costs. In London, the cost of salaries and the concentration of premises can be an issue. I am sure there are cities, such as Manchester and Birmingham, that will also have additional costs because of that concentration.

New clause 44 and new schedule 2 are silent on the licensing of pavements. The proposal is that there will be an amendment to the 2003 Act, not the London Local Authorities Act 1990, but the licensing of pavements is an important area of licensing in Hackney, and it bleeds into the issue of licensed premises, because a restaurant, pub or business serving drinks may want those pavement premises presenting as a shopfront display. As new schedule 2 does not amend the 1990 Act, I hope the Minister can be explicit about the plan. It is very open-ended as proposed, which means that the Mayor of London and his team could look at pavement licensing. The provision does not seem to exclude that, so I would be grateful if the Minister could be clear about that.

It is important to reserve the powers of the London Local Authorities Act 1990. That covers the issues of licensing for shopfronts and pavements, and it is an important element of income for local councils. With the squeeze on council budgets over the last 14 years—my borough lost around 50% of its budget—money from those licences is spent doing the required job. If that were affected, it would have a big impact: a loss of nearly £500,000 to the borough, which would have to be found from somewhere else. That is the case with other inner-London boroughs, too, as I have mentioned.

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 changed the Highways Act 1980 as it relates to pavement licences, but did not affect the 1990 Act. There are two Acts dealing with this issue, and one that really affects inner-London boroughs. I hope the Minister is fully aware and understanding of the need to preserve the 1990 Act, which legal advice says has supremacy over the 2023 Act. That is because of the nature of the legislation, but I will not go into the detail of that.

In summary, I have a few questions for the Minister. Will the mayor’s strategic licensing statement include pavement and shopfront licensing, because the Bill is silent on that? Does the Minister intend that to be the case, and if not, how will it be prevented? If it is still an open question, can she be explicit about that? As the Mayor of London is potentially piloting this for the rest of the country, how long will the mayor’s pilot last and is there any likelihood of it being extended to other cities or mayoral authorities during the piloting process, or is the pilot intended to be a way of testing it before it is rolled out any further?

How will new schedule 2 be amendable—will it require primary legislation? Will there be any safeguards put in place? If the pilot were to last into a future Government, what powers would a future Government or Minister—or a future Mayor of London—have to amend it? We need to be legislating for the institutions, not the individuals. I am sure that the Minister is very on top of this, but it is not that long ago that she was in another job; even within one Government’s term we can have a change of Minister. We need to legislate for the long term, not the short term. I hope the Minister can answer those questions in her summing up.

19:00

19:15

19:29

It is important to get to the heart of what devolution is all about. No matter what some people have said during the past 10 months or so, it is not political. It is not about me or my colleagues, or the local Conservative and Reform parties, which have vocally opposed devolution for political brownie points and who often use demeaning language and spread disinformation about their neighbours, especially Stoke. It is about our children and grandchildren, not the next electoral cycle. It is not about the next five years but the next 50 years. It is about being able to plan for a sustainable and investable local public transport system. It is about properly planning for the houses that we need, where we need them and for the people who need them—the young couples, young families and older people who need more suitable options.

We can bring council housing back to parts of North Staffordshire where it has been absent for many years. It is about community right to buy, and it is about seizing growth and economic potential, and working with partners in a more collaborative and meaningful way across a bigger canvas, delivering the opportunities that our young people want and need. It is about seizing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform key public services and ensure that they remain, or become, fit for the 21st century. To all in North Staffordshire and Staffordshire county, no more with this, “No to Stoke”—it is demeaning and unfair.

19:45

Just last week, Hertfordshire councils announced their preferred option for devolution, combined authorities and strategic authorities. The majority of local councils there backed the unitary model—a county combined authority with a mayor on top. I fully support that option, because I believe that councils operate best when they are as close as possible to the people they serve, with the combined or strategic authority over the top of that. That makes sense for the people who live there. We have creative communities, and the amendments would put power in their hands and give them the final say.

As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East, the Isle of Wight must be included in the strategic authority that he mentioned, for example. If we do not have referendums on setting up combined authorities—a lot of the amendments would provide for that—we will never take people with us and move devolution forward. As we have seen, there is no guarantee that the Government will listen to local, democratically elected councils’ decisions. That is why we should put that into law and give our constituents a final say through a referendum.

I support new clause 33 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford). The impact of large-scale developments does not end at the local authority boundary. The new town proposed at Crews Hill is in the London borough of Enfield, but it is closer to the village of Goffs Oak in my Broxbourne constituency than it is to Enfield town hall. Goffs Oak residents, whose lives have already been transformed by the development, have told me that they have had enough. They have expressed huge concern about the impact that 21,000 new homes will have on local infrastructure. The new town will be next door to Chase Farm hospital, which is used by many of my constituents and is already under significant strain, and on junction 25 of the M25, which is extremely busy and prone to regular accidents, putting drivers in danger and causing gridlock on the towns of Cheshunt and Waltham Cross.

The Government and Labour-run Enfield council back the proposals and are using the close proximity to those vital public services as a reason for development to proceed quickly, but they pay absolutely no regard to the consequences of the new town for the residents living in adjacent areas such as Goffs Oak, Bury Green, Cheshunt and Waltham Cross, whose services will be put under immense pressure if the new town goes ahead. That is why new clause 33 is so important. It would address that problem by giving a statutory consultee right to Broxbourne council, so that we can provide input on the new town and the negative effects that it would have on the strategic infrastructure.

When the Secretary of State came before the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee earlier this month, I struggled to get any clear answers on whether his Department’s policy is for neighbouring local authorities to be consulted before new towns are built. If the Government will not support the new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire, I would welcome clarity on that point when the Minister winds up.

Whether for local council reorganisation or for planning, the Government should put the views of residents first, but their approach has been to shut them out. I will support the amendments to make it impossible for the Government to ignore local views. Even as Ministers vote those amendments down, I urge them to bring local people with them and ensure that they have genuine community support before they make sweeping long-term changes to the nature of local government throughout our country.

We are now creating combined authorities in lots of rural county areas. In Committee, I urged the Minister, first, to say that we need community buy-in to do that, and secondly, to provide me with good examples of where we have created such county combined authorities from a number of towns that do not interlink. I completely understand how devolution works in this country when there is a strategic centre and everyone uses the same services, which is why our amendments are so important. They would allow us to have a referendum and take all communities within a county together. In my Broxbourne constituency in the county of Hertfordshire, our towns do not necessarily all interlink. It is vital that we have a referendum on combined authorities. If we do not get the buy-in and take the whole community with us, we will not get this right and it will not be a success.

19:58

20:15

20:29

This is a very difficult speech for me to have to make. Because of our national minority status, Cornwall will not and cannot ever join a mayoral combined authority, no matter what ministerial pressure is applied, whether that is the withdrawal of economic development funding or the prevention of access to social housing funding. None of that will make us compromise our national minority status, because it is discriminatory to do so.

20:45

I met my husband, Paul, while living on the Isle of Wight, so I have huge sympathy with and support for both new clause 39 and new clause 48. In fact, the failure of that ferry service is most likely responsible for our going from a date night to a long-term relationship. I shall say no more.

The cost of the ferries across what I understand to be the most expensive stretch of water is eye-watering and really impacts on people who have to leave the island for the most basic of services. While the Sandbanks ferry in Dorset is not the only option to cross our water, the alternative route, 20 miles around Poole harbour, creates massive congestion and contributes to pollution. Yet the high charges of the ferry are forcing people to drive rather than take the short hop across the mouth of the harbour, so I absolutely welcome the two amendments on that matter.

I have spoken many times in Committee and in this Chamber about the plight of Wessex. Overlooked by the devolution priority programme, the councils that make up Wessex—Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, and Dorset, Wiltshire and Somerset—have calculated that the opportunity lost to the region of their exclusion is more than £300 million this year alone. That is £160 per resident of Wessex, which means missed business opportunities, stalled education investment and a go-slow on much-needed transport improvements. I am reliably informed that a foundation arrangement may be just around the corner for us, but there is no solid commitment on devolution round 2, so new clause 24 simply seeks the publication of a strategy and a clear timeline for future devolution.

Let me turn to hyper-local councils, particularly for the benefit of the Bill Committee members who will be missing such comments. Town and parish councils create community identity and get things done. In my area, Wareham town council is currently busy buying a vacated bank to create an amazing museum of Purbeck, including a special section on Lawrence of Arabia. In Bere Regis, the parish council operates the village bus, ensuring that villagers can get to the town at least once a week. The town and parish councils of Wimborne, Colehill, Upton, Lytchett, Corfe Mullen and Pamphill are working together to find a solution to the dangers of Julian’s bridge, and Holt parish council is supporting homes around the heath to recover and secure their homes from the recent wildfires. Yet this Bill completely ignores their importance. Amendments 50 and 53 to 56 would ensure there is an obligation to consult them prior to their area being pulled into a foundation authority, or being added to a new or existing combined authority. Ministers have suggested that this would create too much bureaucracy, but I disagree, and so do my town and parish councils. These amendments simply seek to enshrine the value of these statutory bodies in the devolution process.

Finally, a new amendment in my name, new clause 74, goes to the heart of one of the Government’s missions—a fairer Britain where everyone lives well for longer. The places where people live and work shape the decisions they are able to make. In places where unhealthy food is readily available and highly promoted, it is harder for people to make healthy choices. Many councils are working to ensure that healthy choices are easy and affordable, and the extension of free school meals and the introduction of breakfast clubs show the Government’s priority in this area. I also welcome the recent announcements on funding for play, as championed by the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and the all-party parliamentary group on play, of which I am a vice-chair, which complements a local investment by BCP council of £3.9 million.

Obesity costs the NHS and the economy £98 billion a year. Councils are supporting the health of their communities by adopting advertising policies that refuse adverts for unhealthy foods on the outdoor hoardings they own, but they are unable to use the planning system to reject applications for privately owned sites because of out-of-date regulations that restrict refusal to limited grounds of safety and amenity, such as whether a sign is illuminated. These hoardings are most often situated in the most deprived areas, where access to fresh food is not as easily available.

Jamie Oliver played a significant part in the last Labour Government through his TV show “Jamie’s School Dinners” and his Feed Me Better campaign which outlawed turkey twizzlers from our children’s lunches. With the Government showing such commitment to healthy childhoods, I hope they will agree to work with Jamie Oliver again by accepting my new clause 74, which is also championed by the Town and Country Planning Association. New clause 74 simply notes that councils should be able to control what sits on the hoardings on private land, enabling them to regulate advertising and include duties on them to use that power in relation to health inequalities. Devolution should truly empower local authorities and local communities. I hope the Government will accept this new clause, and the other amendments I have tabled, as the Bill passes through its remaining stages.

21:00

The Government have engaged with me and my neighbour, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), who of course sits on the Labour Benches. I am pleased that the Minister for Maritime, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), has met both of us separately, and now intends to meet us together.

There is an opportunity for Government here. I understand why Governments of any political colour would not want to step in and create regulation if they could avoid it, largely because they would then have to administer it; they would have an obligation through the Department for Transport, for example, to manage the regulation they created. There is a golden opportunity here to create the regulation and hand it over to devolved mayoral authorities to manage in the interests of the communities they represent; in my example, the Government have the opportunity to create regulation for the ferry operators, and to devolve that regulation and that power downwards to local authorities. Ferry operators that operate across the Solent would have to account for themselves to the Mayor for Hampshire and the Solent, while ferry operators that operated elsewhere in the United Kingdom would have to account to their locally and democratically elected mayors.

21:15

21:30

Schedule 19 requires mayoral CAs and CCAs to produce a local growth plan and allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance for said growth plans. Historically, efforts have focused investment on urban areas and left behind the potential that rural areas have to contribute to the local and national economy. My amendment would ensure rural, remote and coastal areas get significant attention within these plans. By ensuring local growth plans consider how rural, remote and coastal communities can thrive, they can spot infrastructure gaps such as lack of broadband, poor public transport and declining services.

A census-wide survey of 250 farmers highlighted that almost two thirds believe internet connectivity is critical for day-to-day farming yet nearly 10% of farms still have no internet connectivity. Some 15% of premises in Butleigh receive less than 10 megabytes per second, putting them in the lowest 10% in the country. So it is no surprise that these premises are often the most rural and digitally isolated, the same areas that are home to the majority of British farms.

We could also consider how poor public transport holds back growth. Some 57% of the working-age population in England lives in areas with low public transport access to jobs, while rural bus services in England and Wales have declined by 52% since 2008. The National Infrastructure Commission has argued that unlocking regional economic growth requires mass transit investment. Public transport in Glastonbury and Somerton is fragmented at best and simply non-existent in some areas. People who wish to travel from Wincanton or Glastonbury to Castle Cary in order to catch a train eastwards to London or Bristol, or westwards to Taunton or Plymouth, are forced to drive miles because there are few bus routes servicing towns to the train station, and where there is a bus service, they rarely integrate with the train timetable, so any potential users have very little confidence in public transport and certainly no incentive to use it.

My amendment would force local growth plans to take into consideration the deficiencies in infrastructure that can hold back economic growth in rural areas. This Government envisage mayoral strategic authorities will produce local growth plans, but given the geographical spread of some of the new rural authorities, I worry these areas could still be unfairly impacted. So I ask the Minister to explain how they believe this Bill as it stands will give rural communities the services that they should expect without even mentioning them. I urge the Minister not to miss this opportunity to realise rural economic growth and ensure due regard is taken to empower rural, remote and coastal communities to play their part.

I would also like to share my concerns on how this Bill fails to deal with the financial crisis councils face across the country. Liberal Democrats are disappointed that no sections of the Bill have been dedicated to providing safeguards to ensure responsible use of public funds and maintain public trust. Amendment 84 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) would place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that mayoral combined authorities have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to the preparation, publication and delivery of local growth plans. As the Bill stands, it offers no financial clarity to councils, yet it would allow the Secretary of State to respond to proposals from mayors of strategic authorities and to provide them with greater powers to deliver their areas of competence, including changes to law or funding.

Somerset has been dealing with a financial emergency over the past few years, in large part due to the mess left by the previous Conservative-led county council’s financial neglect. Rising costs and demand for essential services have put budgets further under severe pressure.

21:45

I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) that licensing powers should be exercised in partnership with local authorities. I want to reassure her that local authorities will remain the key licensing authorities—licensing fees, for example, will remain within the remit of local authorities and will flow to them. We understand that there are issues with the setting of fee rates. This has been fed into the work of the licensing reform taskforce, and we will reflect on it. I reiterate that the specifics of pavement licensing are not currently within the scope of the Bill. Any further changes to pavement licensing will be made in the context of the national licensing taskforce, and will go through that process. To answer my hon. Friend’s final question, we are allowing for five-year pilots to review and revoke the provisions in this Bill; if the Government do not revoke these provisions, they will be retained. They will be tested in London, but the way we are approaching devolution is that there is a clear right to request, so in time, as we learn the lessons from London, other mayors will have that right to request.

22:09

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 24 November).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

(1) When exercising their functions, a strategic authority, mayor, or local authority must contribute to—

(a) meeting the targets and carbon budgets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;

(b) meeting the targets and interim targets set under Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021;

(c) meeting the limit values set under Schedule 2 of the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010; and

(d) the delivery of the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008.

(2) A strategic authority, mayor or local authority must not make any decision that is incompatible with the duty described in subsection (1).

(3) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish guidance describing the contribution that each strategic authority should make toward meeting the targets listed in subsection (1).

(4) Guidance under subsection (3) must include clear metrics and measurable terms for strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to meet.”—(Siân Berry.)

This new clause requires strategic authorities, mayors, and local authorities to act in accordance with the statutory Climate Change Act and Environmental Act targets, carbon budgets, Air Quality Standards Regulations, and climate adaptation programme across their functions. The Secretary of State must publish guidance for defining authorities’ contributions towards these objectives.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

Amendment proposed: 85, page 11, line 1, leave out clause 9.—(Zöe Franklin.)

This amendment would remove the Bill’s provision to grant mayors of CAs and CCAs the power to appoint commissioners to deliver policy.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Amendments made: 116, page 44, line 29, at end insert—

“(aa) environmental factors, including air quality and access to green space and bodies of water,”.

This would insert environmental factors, including air quality and access to green space and bodies of water (sometimes known as blue space) into the definition of general health determinants.

Amendment 117, page 45, line 29, at end insert—

“(aa) environmental factors, including air quality and access to green space and bodies of water,”.

This would insert environmental factors, including air quality and access to green space and bodies of water (sometimes known as blue space) into the definition of general health determinants.

Amendment 118, page 46, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) In section 309(F)(5) of GLAA 1999 (health inequalities between persons living in Greater London) after paragraph (a), insert—

‘(aa) environmental factors, including air quality and access to green space and bodies of water,’.”. —(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would insert environmental factors, including air quality and access to green space and bodies of water (sometimes known as blue space) into the definition of general health determinants.

“Introduction

1 The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 is amended in accordance with this Schedule.

Approval of local highway authorities to make charges

2 (1) In section 74A (charge determined by reference to duration of works), in subsection (2), for the words from “unless” to the end substitute “unless it has been approved for the purposes of the regulations by an order made by the appropriate person (see section 74B(2) to (5)).”

(2) In section 74B (regulations under section 74 and 74A)—

(a) for the heading substitute “Regulations under section 74 and regulations and orders under section 74B”;

(b) the existing text of the section becomes subsection (1);

(c) after that subsection insert—

“(2) The Secretary of State is the “appropriate person” in relation to an approval order which approves—

(a) a strategic highways company, or

(b) a local highway authority, unless a mayor is the appropriate person in relation to the order under any of subsections (3) to (5).

(3) The Mayor of London is the “appropriate person” in relation to an approval order which approves—

(a) Transport for London, or

(b) a local highway authority whose area is within Greater London.

(4) The mayor for the area of a mayoral combined authority is the “appropriate person” in relation to an approval order which approves a local highway authority whose area is within, or the same as, the area of the combined authority (including the combined authority).

(5) The mayor for the area of mayoral CCA is the “appropriate person” in relation to an approval order which approves a local highway authority whose area is the same as, or is within, the area of the CCA (including the CCA).

(6) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about the approval of local highway authorities by the Mayor of London and the mayors for the areas of mayoral combined and mayoral CCAs; and—

(a) local highway authorities must have regard to the guidance when seeking approval from the mayors;

(b) the mayors must have regard to the guidance when considering whether to approve local highway authorities.

(7) An approval order made by the Secretary of State is to be made by statutory instrument.

(8) If a mayor makes an approval order, the mayor must publish the order in the manner which the mayor thinks is appropriate.

The power of a mayor to make an approval order includes the power to revoke, amend or re-enact any approval order made by the mayor or a predecessor.

(9) The validity of an approval order approving a local highway authority (the “relevant authority”) which has been made by the Secretary of State (whether before or after the 2025 Act commencement) is not affected by the transfer of the power to approve the relevant authority.

(10) The Secretary of State has the power, exercisable by order made by statutory instrument, to revoke such an order or to revoke it to the extent that it relates to the relevant authority.

(11) In this section—

“approval order” means an order under section 74A(2);

“mayoral CCA” has the same meaning as in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 (see section 73 of that Act);

“mayoral combined authority” has the same meaning as in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 (see section 73 of that Act);

“transfer of the power to approve” means the power to make an order approving a local highway authority becoming exercisable by a mayor by virtue of this section, whether—

(a) on the 2025 Act commencement (in relation to the Mayor of London or a mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA existing at that commencement), or

(b) subsequently (in relation to a mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA that is established, or that becomes a mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA, after the 2025 Act commencement);

“2025 Act commencement” means the coming into force of paragraph 2 of Schedule (Charges payable by undertakers executing works in maintainable highways) to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025.”

Power to charge: extension to charge for road works

3 In the heading of Part 3, after “street works” insert “etc”.

4 In section 74A (charge determined by reference to duration of works), in subsection (1), for “requiring an undertaker executing street works in a maintainable highway to pay” substitute “requiring—

(a) an undertaker executing street works in a maintainable highway, or

(b) a person executing works for road purposes in a maintainable highway,to pay”””.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would (i) transfer to the mayors of mayoral strategic authorities the power to approve a local highway authority to charge undertakers who are executing works in maintainable roads and (ii) enable those charges to be made where works for road purposes are being executed.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

“Schedule

1 The Licensing Act 2003 is amended in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 4.

2 In section 4 (general duties of licensing authorities), after subsection (3) insert—

“(4) In carrying out its licensing functions, a London licensing authority must also have regard to the licensing policy statement published by the Mayor of London under section 8A.

(5) In this section, “London licensing authority” means each of the following licensing authorities—

(a) the council of a London borough,

(b) the Common Council of the City of London,

(c) the Sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple, or

(d) the Under-Treasurer of the Middle Temple.”

3 In section 5 (statement of licensing policy)—

(a) after subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) Before determining or revising its policy for a five year period, a London licensing authority must also consult the Mayor of London.”;

(b) in subsection (8), after the definition of “licensing statement” insert—

““London licensing authority” has the meaning given by section 4(5).”

4 After section 8 insert—

“8A Greater London strategic licensing policy

(1) The Mayor of London must in respect of each five year period—

(a) determine a policy in relation to the carrying out of relevant licensable activities in Greater London, and

(b) publish a statement of that policy before the beginning of the period.

(2) The Mayor may replace a policy under subsection (1) in respect of a period, with effect from any date during that period, by—

(a) determining a policy in relation to the carrying out of relevant licensable activities in Greater London in respect of a period of five years beginning with that date, and

(b) publishing a statement of that policy before that date.

(3) Before determining a policy under this section, the Mayor must consult—

(a) the chief officer of police for the area of each London licensing authority,

(b) each Local Health Board for an area any part of which is in the area of a London licensing authority,

(c) such persons as the Mayor considers to be representative of holders of premises licences issued by each London licensing authority,

(d) such other persons as the Mayor considers to be representative of businesses and residents in the area of each London licensing authority,

(e) the Secretary of State,

(f) each London licensing authority.

(4) During each five year period, the Mayor must keep its policy in respect of that period under review and make such revisions to the policy, at such times, as the Mayor considers appropriate.

(5) Subsection (3) applies in relation to any revision of a policy under this section as it applies in relation to the original determination of a policy.

(6) Where revisions are made, the Mayor must publish a statement of the revisions or the revised policy.

(7) In determining a policy under this section, or making revisions to such a policy, the Mayor must have regard to—

(a) the primary importance of promoting the licensing objectives, and

(b) any requirements imposed on licensing authorities when carrying out their licensing functions.

(8) In determining or revising a policy under this section, the Mayor must have regard to any cumulative impact assessments published by a London licensing authority in accordance with section 5A.

(9) A statement of a policy under this section must specify the five year period to which it relates.

(10) Regulations may make provision about the determination and revision of policies, and the preparation and publication of policy statements, under this section.

(11) The requirement to consult in subsection (3) in relation to a policy for the first five year period may be met by consultation carried out before this section comes into force.

(12) In this section, references to “relevant licensable activities” are to—

(a) the sale by retail of alcohol,

(b) the provision of regulated entertainment, and

(c) the provision of late night refreshment.

(13) In this section, “five year period” means—

(a) if paragraph (b) does not apply, the period of five years beginning 6 months after this section comes into force or with such earlier date as the Mayor may determine, and each subsequent period of five years, or

(b) if the Mayor has published a statement of policy under subsection (2), the period of five years to which the most recently published such statement relates, and each subsequent period of five years.”

5 (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations repeal the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 as inserted by paragraphs 2 to 4 of this Schedule and as amended from time to time.

(2) The power under sub-paragraph (1) expires at the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Schedule comes into force.

(3) Regulations under this paragraph may make consequential, supplementary or incidental provision under section 75(2) which amends, repeals or revokes any legislation (whenever passed or made).

(4) Regulations under this paragraph are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

6 (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the purpose of conferring on the Mayor of London the function of determining relevant licence applications in certain circumstances.

(2) In this paragraph, a "relevant licence application" is an application under the Licensing Act 2003 to grant, vary, transfer or review a premises licence in Greater London which authorises the premises to be used for one or more of the following activities-—

(a) the sale by retail of alcohol,

(b) the provision of regulated entertainment within the meaning of Schedule 1 to that Act, and

(c) the provision of late night refreshment within the meaning of Schedule 2 to that Act.

(3) Regulations under this paragraph are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This makes provision amending the Licensing Act 2003 to give the Mayor of London functions in relation to licensing.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

Amendments made: 122, page 116, line 7, leave out from “the” to “fire” in line 18 and insert

“CCA in accordance with the Fire and Rescue National Framework, and

(b) sets out for the period covered by the document in accordance with the requirements of the Framework—

(i) the CCA’s priorities and objectives, and

(ii) an assessment of all foreseeable fire and rescue related risks that could affect its community, in accordance with the discharge of the CCA’s”.

In the definition of “community risk management plan” this would substitute references to CCAs for the existing references to combined authorities.

Amendment 123, page 116, line 25, leave out from “the” to “for” in line 32 and insert

“CCA in accordance with the Fire and Rescue National Framework, and

(b) contains a statement of the way in which the CCA has had regard, in the period covered by the document, to the Framework and to any community risk management plan prepared by the CCA”.

In the definition of “fire and rescue declaration” this would substitute references to CCAs for the existing references to combined authorities.

Amendment 124, page 116, line 34, leave out from “the” to “has” in line 37 and insert

“CCA has by virtue of regulations under section 19, or

(b) functions which the CCA”.

In the definition of “fire and rescue functions” this would substitute (i) references to CCAs for the existing references to combined authorities and (ii) a reference to regulations under section 19 of LURA 2023 for the existing reference to an order under section 105A of LDEDCA 2009.

Amendment 125, page 123, line 12, leave out from “the” to “is” in line 15 and insert

“combined authority is able to perform its fire and rescue functions if an emergency occurs, and

(ii) the combined authority”.

In paragraph (d), this would substitute references to combined authorities for the existing references to CCAs.

Amendment 126, page 123, line 20, leave out from second “the” to “duty” in line 24 and insert

“combined authority in relation to its fire and rescue functions with other Category 1 responders and Category 2 responders in respect of—

(i) the performance of the combined authority’s”.

In paragraph (e), this would substitute references to combined authorities for the existing references to CCAs.

Amendment 127, page 123, line 43, leave out from “the” to “fire” in line 4 on page 124 and insert

“combined authority’s priorities and objectives, and

(ii) an assessment of all foreseeable fire and rescue related risks that could affect its community, in accordance with the combined authority’s”.

In the definition of “community risk management plan”, this would substitute references to combined authorities for the existing references to CCAs.

Amendment 128, page 124, line 11, leave out from “the” to “for” in line 18 and insert

“combined authority in accordance with the Fire and Rescue National Framework, and

(b) contains a statement of the way in which the combined authority has had regard, in the period covered by the document, to the Framework and to any community risk management plan prepared by the combined authority”.

In the definition of “fire and rescue declaration” this would substitute references to combined authorities for the existing references to CCAs.

Amendment 129, page 124, line 20, leave out from “the” to “has” in line 23 and insert

“combined authority has by virtue of an order under section 105A, or

(b) functions which the combined authority”.

In the definition of “fire and rescue functions” this would substitute (i) references to combined authorities for the existing references to CCAs and (ii) a reference to an order under section 105A of LDEDCA 2009 for the existing reference to regulations under section 19 of LURA 2023.

Amendment 130, page 126, line 21, leave out from “the” to end of line and insert

“combined authority exercisable only by the mayor on behalf of the combined authority”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

In paragraph 11(1), this would substitute references to combined authorities for the existing references to CCAs.

Amendments made: 131, page 127, line 20, after “with” insert

“paragraphs 2 to 7 of”.

This would be consequential on Amendment 134.

Amendment 132, page 128, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (3).

The Bill would currently allow non-mayoral combined authorities and CCAs to use the general power of competence only for the purpose of economic development or regeneration. This amendment would remove that limitation.

Amendment 133, page 130, leave out lines 10 to 12

This would leave out the definitions of “non-mayoral CCA” and “non-mayoral combined authority” (and is consequential on Amendment 132).

Amendment 134, page 130, line 12, at end insert—

“Consequential amendments

8 (1) In LDECA 2009—

(a) in section 113A (general power of combined authority), omit subsection (4);

(b) omit section 113D (general power of competence).

(2) In LURA 2023—

(a) in section 49 (general power of CCA), omit subsection (4);

(b) omit section 52 (general power of competence).” —(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would repeal the sections 113D of LDEDCA 2009 and 52 of LURA 2023. They enable the general power of competence to be conferred on a combined authority or CCA by SI. SIs no longer need to be made because the general power of competence is conferred on all combined authorities and CCAs for all purposes by Schedule 4 (as amended by Amendment 132).

Amendment made: 137, in schedule 5, page 140, line 22, leave out from “after” to end of line 23 and insert ““section” insert “22I,”.” —(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would change the amendment of section 91(b) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 so that it is regulations under the new section 22I which do not attract a penalty under section 91.

Amendment made: 138, page 170, line 31, at end insert—

“(aa) the Greater London Authority,”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would add the Greater London Authority to the authorities that are within the defined term “relevant authority”.

Amendments made: 139, page 172, line 19, at end insert—

“(za) for the heading substitute “Oral and written representations”;

(zb) after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) Before determining an application to which this section applies which also falls within subsection (1B), the relevant mayor must give—

(a) the applicant, and

(b) the local planning authority to whom the application was made,

an opportunity to make either oral representations at a hearing (“a representation hearing”) or written representations on the application.

(1B) The following applications fall within this subsection—

(a) an application of a description specified in regulations;

(b) an application made under section 73 or 73B;

(c) an application which is a connected application for the purposes of section 2B in relation to an application under paragraph (a) or (b).”;”.

This makes provision for any representations by an applicant or local planning authority in relation to certain applications of potential strategic importance under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to be dealt with in writing rather than by way of a hearing.

Amendment 140, page 172, line 20, for paragraph (a) substitute—

“(a) in subsection (2)—

(i) for the opening words, substitute “Before determining any other application to which this section applies, the relevant mayor must give”;

(ii) in the closing words, for “hearing (“a representation hearing”)” substitute “a representation hearing”;”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 139.

Amendment 141, page 172, line 20, at end insert—

“(aa) after subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) The relevant mayor must prepare and publish a document setting out—

(a) the persons, in addition to the applicant and the local planning authority, who may make written representations;

(b) the procedure for making written representations;

(c) the form in which, and the period within which, written representations must be made.””

This makes provision requiring the relevant mayor in relation to an application of potential strategic importance under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to prepare and publish a document setting out the procedure and timing for making written representations.

Amendment 142, page 172, line 21, at end insert—

“(ba) after subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) A document under subsection (2A) and (3) may be combined in one document.”;”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This enables the Mayor of London to publish a single document under section 2F of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relating to representation hearings and written representations.

Amendments made: 143, page 173, leave out lines 28 to 35 and insert—

“(c) omit subsection (5);”.

This removes the requirement for a Mayoral development order under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to either be approved by each local planning authority or by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 144, page 174, leave out lines 1 to 24.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This removes the power for the Secretary of State to approve a Mayoral development order under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and is consequential on Amendment 143.

Amendment proposed: 25, page 174, line 24, at end insert—

“61DCB Density requirement

(1) A strategic authority issuing a mayoral development order must prioritise applications which—

(a) will deliver greater density in urban areas,

(b) are located in areas with greater public transportation accessibility according to the indices established by subsection (2), or

(c) if located within the Greater London Authority, are located in areas with a Transport for London Public Transport Accessibility level equal or greater than Level 4.

(2) A strategic authority must create ‘public transport accessibility index’ to categorise areas within the authority based on their proximity to public transportation.

(3) A strategic authority must issue a mayoral development order for any land which has been previously developed.” —(Paul Holmes.)

This amendment would require mayoral development orders (MDOs) to prioritise planning applications in areas of high urban density and public transport accessibility, and would require MDOs to be issued for previously developed land.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Amendment 145, page 174, line 27, at end insert—

“(ii) omit “with the approval of each relevant local planning authority”;”.

This removes the requirement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for local planning authority consent to the revision or revocation of a Mayoral development order.

Amendment 146, page 174, line 31, at end insert—

“(iii) leave out from “(and” to “circumstances)”.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 145.

Amendment 147, page 176, leave out lines 1 to 9. —(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This removes further provision inserted into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by the Bill in relation to the process for the Secretary of State to approve Mayoral development orders, and is consequential on Amendments 143 and 144.

Amendments made: 148, page 184, line 14, leave out

“, or the Mayor of London,”.

This would remove the last reference to the Mayor of London from Part 1 of Schedule 15 (the other references having been removed at Committee).

Amendment 149, page 198, line 17, at end insert—

“Part 3

The Greater London Authority

Acquisition of land by agreement

[36] After section 333ZA of the GLAA 1999 insert—

“333ZAA Acquisition of land by agreement

The Authority may acquire land in Greater London by agreement for the purposes of housing or regeneration.”” —(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would give the Greater London Authority the power to acquire land by agreement for the purposes of housing or regeneration.

Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

Business without Debate

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Mental Health

That the draft Health and Care Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 21 October, be approved.

Public Procurement

That the draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 21 October, be approved.—(Mark Ferguson.)

Question agreed to.

Ordered,

That Cameron Thomas be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Manuela Perteghella be added.—(Jessica Morden, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Sale of Disposable Barbecues

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

22:48

HMP Downview: Female Prisoners

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Ferguson.)

22:50

23:00

23:19

House adjourned.

Draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) (Extension to Unconnected Multiple Employer Schemes and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025

Monday 24th November 2025 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: † Dame Siobhain McDonagh

† Argar, Edward (Melton and Syston) (Con)

† Barros-Curtis, Mr Alex (Cardiff West) (Lab)

† Bell, Torsten (Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury)

† Charalambous, Bambos (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)

Cooper, Daisy (St Albans) (LD)

† Curtis, Chris (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)

† Downie, Graeme (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)

† Francis, Daniel (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)

† Garnier, Mark (Wyre Forest) (Con)

† Hinder, Jonathan (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)

† Hume, Alison (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)

† Milne, John (Horsham) (LD)

† Owatemi, Taiwo (Lord Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury)

† Pinto-Duschinsky, David (Hendon) (Lab)

† Reed, David (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)

† Stephenson, Blake (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)

† Yemm, Steve (Mansfield) (Lab)

Ray Jerram, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

First Delegated Legislation Committee

Monday 24 November 2025

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh in the Chair]

Draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) (Extension to Unconnected Multiple Employer Schemes and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025

18:00

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) (Extension to Unconnected Multiple Employer Schemes and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025.

That should encourage enthusiasm from everyone. The primary purpose of the draft regulations is to extend the legal framework for collective money purchase schemes, commonly known as collective defined contribution schemes, to allow multiple unconnected employers to participate. Until now, CDC schemes have been restricted to single employers or connected employers.

Significant progress has been made in getting more people saving, not least under the previous Conservative Government. We now have 23 million people saving into a workplace pension, but the job is not finished. Currently, pension contributions in defined contribution schemes are going into a savings pot, not a pension, leaving them exposed to the twin challenges of adequacy and risk. The Government believe that CDC schemes have an integral role in helping us address these challenges.

The statutory instrument puts in place a number of key measures to ensure that unconnected multiple employer CDC schemes deliver for members. Part 2 of the statutory instrument amends the Pension Schemes Act 2021—we will be hearing more about that—to allow for unconnected multiple employer schemes and to broaden the range of organisations that can set up a CDC scheme. To become authorised, a scheme needs to satisfy the Pensions Regulator that it meets the authorisation criteria, which are listed in section 9(3) of the 2021 Act. Part 2 of the statutory instrument amends that Act to create additional authorisation criteria specifically for unconnected multiple employer collective money purchase schemes.

We have identified persons who we consider will have an important role in such schemes, and we have brought these people within the scope of the fit and proper persons test, so that they are subject to appropriate scrutiny. It is imperative that our regulations clearly establish who is responsible for a scheme’s business strategy and financial sustainability, and that it is evidenced to the regulator at authorisation. Regulation 10 therefore amends the 2021 Act to require that an unconnected multiple employer CDC scheme has a single scheme proprietor that meets specific criteria and requirements. Regulation 10 also inserts a requirement for the scheme proprietor to prepare, maintain and submit a business plan to the regulator.

The new legislative framework will permit schemes that intend to operate on a commercial basis. To mitigate the risks of schemes overpromising to gain a commercial advantage or mis-selling, we are introducing a promotion or marketing authorisation criterion. The requirement is that no person has carried out promotion or marketing of a scheme that is unclear or misleading without rectification, and that the scheme has adequate systems and processes for ensuring that promotion or marketing is clear and not misleading.

We want trustees of these schemes to focus entirely on the interests of scheme members, and to have complete autonomy to do so. A trustee also acting as a person who promotes or markets the scheme, or as the chief financial officer for the scheme, detracts from this responsibility and creates a clear conflict of interest. Regulation 5 of the statutory instrument amends the 2021 Act to make a separation of these roles an authorisation criterion.

It is the Government’s intention that running an unconnected multiple employer CDC scheme as a closed scheme should always be an option open to trustees, where it is viable to do so and to the extent that it is permitted under wider pensions legislation. Regulation 5 therefore inserts a new authorisation criterion into the 2021 Act to ensure that trustees can choose this option, if appropriate. To deter speculators, part 2 also imposes a mandatory deadline of 24 months from authorisation, by which an authorised unconnected multiple-employer CDC scheme must start being operated—it cannot sit there in abeyance.

Part 3 of the statutory instrument supplements the meaning of “connected” in section 49(2)(a) of the 2021 Act—one of the better sections. This term is relevant for determining whether a collective money purchase scheme is a single and connected employer scheme or an unconnected multiple-employer scheme, and therefore which of the two legislatives frameworks applies to it. Part 4, including schedules 1 to 6, implements the new authorisation and supervisory regime for unconnected multiple employer collective money purchase schemes under part 1 of the 2021 Act. It includes regulations on the application for authorisation, scheme design, financial sustainability, the valuation and adjustment process essential to calculating benefits, and the supervisory regime, both at set up and on an ongoing basis. The new regime will continue to place strong emphasis on regulatory oversight. The Pensions Regulator is empowered to issue risk notices, approve and enforce continuity strategies and, ultimately, withdraw authorisation where schemes fail to meet the required standards.

Part 5 of the instrument contains amendments to the Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) Regulations 2022, introduced under the last Conservative Government, to ensure that certain aspects of the single or connected employer collective money purchase schemes regime are aligned with this new regime. Part 6 and schedule 7 make consequential amendments to other relevant primary and secondary legislation.

Unconnected multiple employer CDC schemes are a welcome addition to the UK pensions landscape, as are CDC schemes more generally, as they have come forward on the basis of cross-party consensus over the past few years. When well designed and well run, which this instrument will ensure, they can help boost retirement incomes and benefit the wider economy. I comment the instrument to the Committee.

18:06

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I suspect the name of this statutory instrument is probably longer than my speech will be. I am grateful to the Minister for his words about the details of this instrument. Its intention is to bring more people who are not saving into pensions into the pension schemes. In that respect, it builds on work done by the previous Conservative Government, which I think we would all agree were 14 years of strong and stable Government [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you very much. We are 100% behind this. It continues the work of the previous Government. It has the intention that we always had—to get more people saving into pension schemes. In the broader sense, it follows the intentions of the Pension Schemes Bill, which is currently passing through Parliament, and on which we disagree with one or two things. But we are in agreement on the overall thrust of this statutory instrument, so I will not trouble the Committee any longer.

18:07

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats largely welcome all the measures in this legislation. We also agree that it will be of great benefit. I am seeking clarity on just one thing: communications. CDC schemes are harder to explain than DB guarantee or DC individual pot arrangements. Misunderstanding could lead to some negative consequences. I understand that the idea is that minimum communication standards will be in place, overseen by the Pensions Regulator. What might that consist of? Does the regulator approve a communications programme in advance or check it afterwards? Does it have minimum numbers of comms going out or timings? Could the Minister give some clarity on exactly what is proposed?

18:08

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Members for Wyre Forest and for Horsham for their consensual approach and the clarity of their support for what is a development of CDC schemes that has had good cross-party support. Communications are very important. The truth is that they are important in all pension schemes—particularly within CDC schemes because they are new, and because there is some complexity sitting behind them. That is why we take this particularly seriously.

In response to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Horsham, the regulators will be looking at the overall approach to communication. They are not signing off the individual bits at the initial authorisation. As I said in my opening remarks, the authorisation is not a “one and done”. There will be ongoing monitoring of that. Specifically on communications, for multi employer CDC schemes, the marketing in general will be to employers, not to individuals. That may help allay some concerns about how that is communicated. But even within that, we will definitely want clarity, particularly to savers, about the honesty of what the offer is—this is not a DB scheme; it is not a certain guaranteed income. It is one that is aiming for a target amount, and there can be some fluctuation around that. It is important that we are honest and straight about that, and that those of us who support these schemes are also clear about what they are and are not offering.

The pension landscape does need to change—we all agree about that. Fundamentally, we need to move from having savings pots to delivering actual pensions. CDCs are one of the ways—there are others—in which we can make progress on that. I therefore commend this instrument to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

18:10

Committee rose.

Petitions

Monday 24th November 2025 Petitions

Monday 24 November 2025

DAS now ARAG Legal Expenses Insurance

Monday 24th November 2025 Petitions

The petition of Mr Michael Osman and Mrs Katrina Osman of Woking, Surrey,

Declares that DAS now ARAG Legal Expenses Insurance Company should be investigated/reviewed due to their mishandling of our claim and that the scope of an investigation review should include but not limited to:

Their mishandling of our claim and our unfair treatment by DAS;

Their use of their associated Law Firm and Solicitors and their denial of our right to choose our own solicitor;

How they dealt with and undermined the evidence in relation to the extent of the encroachment over our property;

The instructions given to the expert surveyors and structural engineers engaged in the claims;

Their use of the Financial Ombudsman Service to dismiss our claim.

We made a claim in September 2019 with DAS Legal Expenses. Our policy allowed for an amount of £75,000 allocated per claim. Our legitimate claim was in the hands of DAS for over 5 years which caused a huge amount of work and stress and greatly affected our lives.

In 2020 DAS undermined the evidence and tried to force us to settle the claim cheaply for £4,000 which would not cover our losses or any court fees due to the extent of the damage/encroachment. We made a complaint about the handling of our claim by DAS and their associated firm of solicitors and sent the cheque back. DAS then prematurely closed our claim referring us to the FOS with full knowledge that the FOS had a huge backlog of complaints and would not be able to handle our claim as it involved too many different parties including Solicitors and Surveyors.

We obtained a Land Surveyor’s Advisory Report and Plan and a CPR at our own expense and sent this to DAS and finally after 2 years of requesting them to look at the evidence they eventually responded and advised us to get an Opinion from a Barrister again at our own cost which we did and this gave us 75% prospects of success. However again they engaged an associated Solicitor and undermined the evidence in an attempt to lose the claim eventually closing our claim again despite the amount of evidence in our favour and citing our unreasonable behalf.

DAS now ARAG Legal Expenses Insurance did not meet their obligations and at every turn attempted to lose our claim the cheapest way possible. This is unacceptable and has left us still dealing with the ongoing issues with costs still outstanding which DAS now ARAG Legal Expenses need to settle.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to ensure that DAS now ARAG Legal Expenses Insurance Company number 00103274 is investigated/reviewed and to take any necessary action which it has the power to do. If any Legal Expenses Insurance Company is found not to have met their obligation they should have their licence revoked regardless as to whether they have changed their name or not.

And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Official Report, 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 13P .]

[P003121]

Observations from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby):

The Government thanks the hon. Member for submitting the petition on behalf of their constituents regarding their legal expenses insurance claim. I am sorry to hear of the challenges Mr and Mrs Osman have faced.

The Treasury is responsible for setting the overall legal framework for financial services regulation, but it cannot intervene in individual cases. The Financial Conduct Authority is responsible for regulating and supervising the conduct of the financial services industry, and the Financial Ombudsman Service investigates individual consumers’ complaints against firms. The FCA and FOS are independent non-governmental bodies, and the independence of both is vital to their roles.

The Government are determined that insurers should treat customers fairly. Firms are required to do so under FCA rules. The FCA requires that insurers pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly. This includes handling claims fairly and promptly, providing reasonable guidance to help policyholders make a claim, and settling claims promptly once terms are agreed. Firms that are regulated by the FCA are also required to operate complaints handling procedures to deal with complaints promptly and fairly. The FCA monitors firms and has robust powers to act against firms that breach its rules.

Where complaints are not resolved through a firm’s own complaints procedures, the complainant can contact FOS. FOS is an independent body established by Parliament to provide consumers and small businesses with a cost-free and quick route to resolve disputes with financial services firms. Firms are required, under the FCA’s rules, to co-operate with FOS and to comply promptly with any decision that the FOS may make. However, this is not a substitute for operating their own complaints handling procedures, as set out above.

I note that, in this case, Mr and Mrs Osman have already been directed to FOS and expressed concerns that the FOS process allows firms to delay the handling of complaints. The rules set out in the FCA handbook on how FOS should handle complaints state that

“The Ombudsman will attempt to resolve complaints at the earliest possible stage and by whatever means appear to him to be most appropriate, including mediation or investigation”.

Its statutory purpose is to resolve complaints quickly and informally. A number of factors may affect the time it takes FOS to resolve complaints that are referred to it. These factors vary from case to case. As a result, the time taken to resolve a complaint can vary significantly, from within just a few months to over a year. As FOS can make decisions which are final and binding on the parties to a complaint, the ombudsman will give both parties the chance to make representations. The ombudsman will then provide their provisional assessment, following which the parties may ask for a review and final determination by the ombudsman.

Your constituent may also wish to seek independent legal advice on other potential avenues of redress. Please pass on my thanks to Mr and Mrs Osman for taking the time to share their concerns.

Westminster Hall

Monday 24th November 2025 Westminster Hall

Monday 24 November 2025

[Esther McVey in the Chair]

Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations

Monday 24th November 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

16:48

16:57

17:00

17:09

17:18

17:22

17:30

17:38

17:46

17:52

18:01

18:07

18:17

18:23

18:28

18:38

18:51

19:03

19:04

Sitting adjourned.

Written Correction

Monday 24th November 2025 Written Corrections

Monday 24 November 2025

Ministerial Correction

Monday 24th November 2025 Written Corrections

Cabinet Office

Monday 24th November 2025 Written Corrections

Nolan Principles

The following extract is from the Adjournment debate on the Nolan principles on 12 November 2025 secured by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan).

[Chris Ward]

… the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have both looked at this recently and published reports on how to improve whistleblowing in the civil service, but neither of them recommended creating an independent body due to the risk of duplication. The Government agree with that, but I do hope that he will work with us—I am sure that he will—during the passage of the Hillsborough law to try to ensure that it delivers the candour, justice, accountability and safety that whistleblowers need.

[Official Report, 12 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 285.]

Written correction submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward):

[Chris Ward]

… the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have both looked at this recently and published reports on how to improve whistleblowing in the civil service, but neither of them recommended creating an independent body. Doing so would risk duplication, but I do hope that he will work with us—I am sure that he will—during the passage of the Hillsborough law to try to ensure that it delivers the candour, justice, accountability and safety that whistleblowers need.

Written Statements

Monday 24th November 2025 Written Statements

Monday 24 November 2025

British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme

Monday 24th November 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

I can today announce to the House that the Government are taking the next step in delivering a flagship intervention of the industrial strategy, by launching a consultation to seek stakeholders’ views on the proposed approach and eligibility for the new British industrial competitiveness scheme.

In recent years, British industries have faced some of the highest industrial electricity prices in Europe. In the industrial strategy, the Government committed to bringing British industrial electricity costs more in line with other economies in Europe to level the playing field for British businesses for particular growth sectors.

The new scheme will reduce electricity costs for manufacturing frontier industries within the industrial strategy’s growth sectors—the IS-8—and foundational manufacturing industries that provide key inputs to the frontier industries which meet a certain threshold of electricity intensity. The scheme aims to reduce electricity costs for over 7,000 eligible businesses by up to £40 per MWh from April 2027.

Eligible businesses are to be exempt from paying the indirect costs of the renewables obligation, feed-in tariffs and the capacity market. The consultation seeks views on the proposed approach and how businesses eligible for the scheme should be selected.

By bearing down on costs across the energy system, we expect to deliver the BICS and ensure that the scheme is delivered in line with our wider priorities to deliver affordable power for businesses and households. For example, the proposals in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s recent consultations on RO/FiT indexation, if implemented, could contribute to that goal.

This is a Government who are not agnostic about the fate of British industry and British manufacturing. Given a fair business environment, our industry and our workers can out-compete any others in Europe and most across the world.

We do not believe that the industrial capability of Britain should be solely at the whim of the international market or foreign Governments. Instead, our industrial strategy is a marked departure from the hands-off approach of the past, seeing the UK Government working in close partnership with UK industry to support private sector investment and growth—just as other developed economies have done and continue to do.

This scheme is just one of these steps under our new approach to support British businesses to remain globally competitive. I encourage hon. Members contact businesses in their constituencies that stand to benefit from our British industrial competitiveness scheme and to make their views known before the consultation closes on 19 January.

[HCWS1083]

CPTPP

Monday 24th November 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)]

On 20 and 21 November, I attended the ninth meeting of the Commission of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership in Melbourne, Australia, where a number of issues were considered by CPTPP Ministers.

Please see the joint ministerial statement from CPTPP parties at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cptpp-joint-ministerial-statement-in-melbourne-21-november-2025 which outlines key outcomes including: Costa Rica accession working group, CPTPP future accessions, the launch of CPTPP-EU and CPTPP-ASEAN dialogues and the CPTPP general review.

As the trade strategy published earlier this year outlines, CPTPP is designed as a living agreement, meaning it is designed to adapt to developments in the wider global economy. It does that through regular reviews of its rules to ensure they are up to date—the CPTPP general review—and through bringing in new economies via the accessions process. More generally, CPTPP provides a platform for a diverse group of major economies to come together and discuss how to deepen and extend the reach of high-standards trade.

Costa Rica Accession Working Group

At the CPTPP Commission meeting in November 2024, CPTPP Ministers, including the UK, formally decided to begin an accession process with Costa Rica, establishing an accession working group.

As part of this, the Government launched a public engagement period that ran from 29 November 2024 until 24 January 2025 to understand business, civil society and public views and insights regarding Costa Rica’s potential membership. This is supporting the Government’s approach to negotiations.

Ministers agreed that Costa Rica’s accession negotiations are near conclusion, and the accession working group will continue discussions expeditiously and report back this December, aiming to conclude the accession process in a timely manner.

Costa Rica’s accession can bring further wins for UK businesses and exporters through further liberalisation of international markets, while also strengthening geo-political ties with key partners.

Future Accessions

The more that CPTPP expands, the greater the economic and strategic benefits to the UK. Expansion of CPTPP brings new economies into the orbit of high standards trade and enhances the opportunities available for British businesses.

To date, nine economies have applied to join CPTPP, following the UK: Costa Rica, China, Ecuador, Indonesia, Taiwan, Ukraine, Uruguay and, most recently, the Philippines and the United Arab Emirates.

CPTPP parties have identified four aspirants that are in line with the Auckland principles—namely, Uruguay, the United Arab Emirates, the Philippines and Indonesia.

Parties have decided to commence an accession process with Uruguay, and will commence with the others in 2026, if appropriate. This will not prevent the consideration and discussion of other accession requests.

To maintain the pace of CPTPP work, in addition to meeting this December, parties intend to meet again in the first half of 2026, with a view to taking further decisions as appropriate.

The expansion of CPTPP remains a priority for the UK, as outlined in the trade strategy, and we look forward beginning the accession process with Uruguay, expanding the reach of high-standards, rules-based trade.

EU and ASEAN dialogues

Earlier this year, CPTPP parties decided to work towards dialogues in 2025 with the European Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. These dialogues directly deliver on the trade strategy commitment to further strengthen the crucial relationship between major trade blocs, as well as providing a strategic platform to support an open, rules-based international trade system.

On 20 November, the inaugural dialogues took place in Melbourne, with European Commissioner for Trade Maroš Šefčovič attending in person alongside CPTPP Ministers for the EU-CPTPP dialogue. Statements outlining outcomes have been published on gov.uk.

Discussions were positive, constructive and forward looking. All participants reiterated commitments to the rules-based international system and the importance of ongoing co-operation.

The dialogues also provided an opportunity for participants to explore tangible areas for potential future joint working, including in UK priority areas of digital trade, supply chain resilience, and World Trade Organisation reform. The UK strongly supports the continuation of these collaborations at political and technical levels, delivering on the ambitions discussed in these inaugural dialogues.

CPTPP general review

The UK considers that CPTPP is already a well-functioning, high-standards agreement. None the less, we see this first CPTPP general review as a good opportunity to keep the agreement up to date in certain key areas.

As a result, the UK and CPTPP parties agreed a package of outcomes and next steps from this CPTPP general review, designed to ensure that the agreement delivers for business.

The parties will now commence negotiations from early 2026 on upgrading and enhancing the agreement in the key areas that have been identified, including on some of the UK’s industrial strategy priorities: electronic commerce and trade in services, customs administration and trade facilitation, competitiveness and business facilitation, and trade and women’s economic empowerment.

To further enhance the implementations and operations of the agreement’s high-standards provisions, we will finalise development of further initiatives identified in the general review report, including investment, state-owned enterprises, innovation, gender mainstreaming, economic coercion and market-distorting practices.

The outcomes of the Commission meeting pave the way for increased opportunities for UK businesses, supporting economic growth.

CPTPP is one of the largest free trade areas in the world, and a platform for the UK to collaborate with a diverse group of major economies to extend the reach of high-standards trade. The UK officially acceded to CPTPP almost a year ago, in December 2024, and I welcome the progress we have made with other CPTPP countries during the UK’s first year as a party.

I look forward to keeping the House updated on future CPTPP developments.

[HCWS1084]

Critical Minerals Strategy

Monday 24th November 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

Today the Government have published their new critical minerals strategy.

Growth is the No. 1 mission of this Government, and the modern industrial strategy is central to that mission. This critical minerals strategy follows on from the June publication of the industrial strategy, which confirmed critical minerals as a foundational sector for a number of growth-driving sectors, such as advanced manufacturing, clean energy industries and defence.

It sets out our long-term plan for securing critical minerals to drive economic growth and the clean energy transition, harnessing our competitive advantage in midstream processing and recycling, which builds on the UK’s distinct pockets of mineral wealth and deep mining history. The UK has Europe’s largest lithium deposit, in Cornwall, as well as one of the largest nickel refineries in Europe, which is in Clydach, Swansea. It also has one of the largest sources of tungsten globally; and the only western source of rare earth alloys used in the magnets found in wind turbines and F-35 fighter jets. Optimising domestic production and collaborating strategically with international partners will create well-paid jobs and boost UK resilience.

The strategy sets our ambition on domestic production, recycling and diversifying our sources of imports. Together they provide a clear direction that guides progress and clearly signals the UK’s ambition to realise its long-term vision for critical minerals, supporting the wider industrial strategy.

Defence is a key growth-driving sector as identified in the industrial strategy. A secure supply of critical minerals is crucial not just for economic growth, but also to national security. To ensure this, the Government will also consider establishing mechanisms to build resilience in our defence sector. This includes considering stockpiling by industry of critical mineral resources through Government procurement mechanisms—helping in this way to ensure that our supply chain is fit for the future and for our national security.

Alongside support from the National Wealth Fund and UK Export Finance, following the spending review 2025 we have up to £50 million to support critical mineral projects pioneer research and scale up innovation, which in turn will strengthen our supply chains. Further details will be announced in 2026.

The Government have engaged widely through the development of this strategy, working in partnership with industry, experts and the devolved Governments across the UK.

I am placing a copy of the strategy in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS1085]

Telegraph Media Group: Anticipated Acquisition

Monday 24th November 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

I wish to update the House on the sale of the Telegraph Media Group, following the recent withdrawal of the RedBird Capital Partners-led bid to acquire the title, and the news announced on Saturday 22 November that RedBird IMI has signed an agreement with Daily Mail and General Trust, entering into a period of exclusivity to finalise the terms of the transaction.

The Telegraph has been in limbo for a long time. Until now, I have sought to afford the parties selling the call option to own The Telegraph sufficient time to independently manage the process. The 19 months have passed since RedBird IMI announced its intention to sell. A sale has still not happened and the situation has become unsustainable. My particular concerns are that the protracted uncertainty has been detrimental to the stability of The Telegraph and its staff and to the investment appeal of the sector as a whole.

Under the terms of the order made in January 2024, transfer of the ownership of the Telegraph Media Group is only permitted with the prior written consent of the Secretary of State. RedBird IMI and DMGT have said they will use their exclusivity period to prepare the necessary request for securing that consent, which they say they expect to happen quickly. Given how much time has already elapsed in this case and the need for the period of uncertainty to be ended, I expect the submission of that request to take no longer than three weeks. My intention is to build a constructive path toward a timely sale, without further delay, that is in the public interest. In this context I will review any new acquisition of the Telegraph, guided by the following principles in the exercise of my powers:

Upholding the public interest: the media public interest considerations set out in the Enterprise Act 2002 must be properly investigated and appropriately upheld under any new ownership of the Telegraph Media Group.

Exclusion of foreign state funding: any future owner of the Telegraph Media Group, and their controlling entities, must be completely free from any prohibited foreign state influence.

Protecting The Telegraph: until the future ownership of the Telegraph Media Group is resolved and any regulatory scrutiny is completed, the editorial independence of The Telegraph business must be suitably protected.

I reserve my right to intervene under my powers and duties as set out in the Enterprise Act 2002.

I will continue to monitor developments very closely and will update Parliament on this matter as appropriate at the earliest opportunity.

[HCWS1090]

Iraq Fatality Investigations: Report

Monday 24th November 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)]

I wish to inform the House of publication of the latest report of the Iraq fatalities inspector, Dame Anne Rafferty, which I have laid before the House of Commons Library today. I am grateful to Dame Anne and her team for the rigour and commitment they have shown in this work.

This report represents the culmination of a lengthy legal process in the aftermath of operations in Iraq during Operation Telic—2003-09. As part of this, the UK High Court ^[1] determined that publicly accountable investigations into the deaths of individuals were required to meet the UK’s obligations under article 2 of the European convention on human rights. The Iraq Fatality Investigations were established in 2014 to conduct “quasi-inquests", with the involvement of the families of the deceased. This was one of a number of measures, including the creation of special investigative functions—the Iraq Historic Allegations Team and subsequently the Service Police Legacy Investigation—which reviewed around 3,500 allegations of misconduct by UK forces in Iraq. Many of these were deemed to be unfounded or malicious, with proven malpractice by one of the prominent lawyers involved in bringing these claims.

This work has inevitably been complex and time-consuming. The sad death of the first inspector, Sir George Newman, in 2016, and his successor, Baroness Hallett’s, appointment to chair the covid 19 Inquiry in April 2021, have further delayed completion of the work.

This final report by Dame Anne covers the deaths of three Iraqi civilians in the custody of UK forces, dating back to 2003. Mr Radhi Nama and Mr Mousa Ali died on 8 and 13 May respectively, while in the custody of UK forces at Camp Stephen in Basra, southern Iraq. The report also covers a further investigation into the circumstances of the death of Mr Ahmed Jabbar Kareem Ali, who Sir George Newman had previously found was left to drown in a waterway by UK forces.

The report makes for sobering reading. In the case of Mr Mousa Ali, the inspector finds that he was forced to carry out strenuous circuit-type exercises as well as holding a “stress position” in temperatures of over 30°C, and that these exercises were causally significant to his death. The report allocates blame to two soldiers—neither of them still serving—directly involved in this mistreatment, but found no evidence of the involvement of others or of a cover-up at Camp Stephen. The report further considers whether there was evidence of a concerted policy of “wetting” of detainees, following the death of Mr Ahmed Ali. Dame Anne concludes that “there was no concerted policy of wetting by troops in 1st Battalion the Black Watch” and that senior commanders did not condone any such practice. Nevertheless, the report highlights multiple examples of “wetting” and differences of opinions among witnesses as to the level of senior officers’ knowledge. Finally, the report notes that stress positions were deployed in the case of Mr Radhi Nama, who was forced to spend some time squatting with his hands on his head, though this was not a causal factor in his death. The report criticises the way in which information relating to Radhi Nama’s death was relayed to his family, though Dame Anne notes that policy and procedure have since been improved such that this would be unlikely to happen again.

In total, five members of the armed forces were referred to the Director of Service Prosecutions for offences connected to the deaths of Mr Radhi Nama and Mr Mousa Ali, including unlawful killing, threats to kill, commission of an outrage upon personal dignity and failure to exercise command responsibility. However, in all five cases, prosecutors considered that the evidential sufficiency test had not been met and no prosecutions were brought.

While no prosecutions followed these investigations, we cannot underestimate what these episodes have meant for the standing of our armed forces. The misconduct of a small number of service personnel has detracted from the reputation of the thousands who served bravely and loyally through some of the most challenging operational circumstances we have encountered since the end of the second world war. It has generated a protracted and expensive legal process. While we know that many of the allegations directed at the armed forces were fraudulent and malicious, we must also recognise the damage that this process has inflicted and resolve never to allow a repeat. The reforms we are pursuing aim to do that.

I am reassured that Dame Anne found that the changes since implemented to policy and doctrine on handling of detainees, if fully implemented, would reduce the risk of a repeat of these events. Joint Doctrine Publication 1-10, “Captured Persons”, updated in 2020, sets out clear guidance for the detention of personnel, setting out the circumstances and arrangements for handling military and civilian detainees. It makes provision for vulnerable persons including women and children, incorporates clear direction on the questioning of detainees, and emphasises the importance of command responsibility.

However, we cannot be complacent. Doctrine is effective only in so far as it is understood by personnel at all levels, and implemented in practice. With this in mind, the Army is carrying out a root-and-branch review of operational law training. This review, which I expect to report in the very near future, will make recommendations to the Chief of the General Staff to improve understanding of and training in the legal framework governing operations, to ensure legally compliant behaviours from the most junior, to the most senior, rank.

I also note and agree with Dame Anne’s concern regarding the “crucial importance of ensuring that soldiers are aware of their obligations to report violations of law by their British Forces colleagues and that they feel protected when making such reports.” We have already announced a review, to be led by the Minister for Veterans and Personnel, into whistleblowing in Defence. The review will produce initial findings by the end of this year and a final report and recommendations by spring 2026.

The “Raising Our Standards” initiative introduced in 2024 aims to accelerate, expand and maximise behavioural improvements taking place across the whole of Defence. ROS aims to improve culture and tackle all unacceptable behaviours. Initial work is focused on initiatives under five pillars—data and analytics, tackling unacceptable behaviours, behaviour change through communications, leadership and careers, and education and training. ROS is an opportunity to make lasting improvements for the people of Defence and for all those whom they deal with in a professional and operational context.

This report completes our investigative duties stemming from allegations relating to Iraq, in line with the mandate from the High Court. In addition to considering this report, the MOD has separately reviewed the final caseload of service police investigations relating to Iraq. We have concluded that all reasonable and proportionate lines of inquiry have been pursued, that these cases reveal no additional systemic concerns and that we have discharged our obligations under articles 2 and 3 of ECHR. As such, we have concluded that there is no requirement for further referrals to the IFI.

Finally, we should all reflect upon the personal tragedies which these deaths represent, and the impacts on the families and communities involved. I would like to offer my deepest regret and condolences, not just for the deaths themselves but for the lengthy process which has led to this conclusion more than two decades later.

Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2025-11-24/HCWS1089

^[1] R(Ali Zaki Mousa and others) v Secretary of State for Defence (No. 2) [2013] EWHC 1412 (Admin)

[HCWS1089]

Cass Review Implementation

Monday 24th November 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)]

I am today updating the House on the Government’s efforts to provide better outcomes for children and young people with gender incongruence, in line with the recommendations of the Cass review.

Children’s healthcare must always be led by evidence, and medicines prescribed to young people should be proven to be safe and effective.

The Cass review was clear that there is not enough evidence about the long-term effects of using puberty-suppressing hormones to treat gender incongruence to know whether they are safe or beneficial. It is a scandal that medicine was given to vulnerable young children without proof that it was safe or effective, and outside the rigorous safeguards of a clinical trial.

The review recommended that a clinical trial be commissioned within a full programme of research, which is being taken forward. This is the safest and most effective way of building an evidence base and charting a course through this challenging issue, where there are understandable concerns around safety, efficacy and consent. The Commission on Human Medicines —a statutory, expert body made up of clinicians and academics that provides independent advice to Ministers on the safety, efficacy and quality of medicines—considered information on the proposed trial and made recommendations, which have been adopted

On Saturday, following the receipt of full ethical approvals from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Health Research Authority, King’s College London launched two new studies funded by NHS England to provide better evidence for how the NHS can support and treat young people with gender incongruence.

This includes the pathways trial—a carefully designed, randomised controlled clinical trial of puberty suppressing hormones for gender incongruence. This trial will involve young people being treated in NHS children and young people’s gender services with a formal diagnosis of gender incongruence. It will measure the impacts of these hormones on their cognitive, physical, social and emotional wellbeing. For their own wellbeing, there are strict eligibility criteria in place, including clinical review and parental consent. Young people will undergo comprehensive physical and mental health checks before and during the study, and will continue to receive psychosocial and other non-medical care while participating. If a young person meets the eligibility criteria, they will then be offered the opportunity to participate in the trial. The study team are now working to open sites for recruitment.

The trial has received comprehensive scientific, ethical and regulatory approval from the MHRA and from the Health Research Authority, including review by an independent research ethics committee. It follows the initiation of the observational pathways horizon study, and has been approved alongside the pathways connect study. The health and wellbeing of the children involved will always be our primary consideration.

NHS England has significantly increased both capacity and investment since April last year, with the opening of three new children and young people’s gender services in London, the north-west and the south-west. I am pleased to say a fourth service will open in the new year, with the ambition of service provision in every region of England by 2026-27.

Last year, NHS England reformed the referral pathway in these services. A referral can only be made by an NHS-commissioned, secondary care level paediatric service or a children and young people’s mental health service. This will ensure that healthcare professionals with the relevant expertise conduct the assessment and help to determine any co-existing mental health or other health needs of these children and their onward care.

I am determined to improve the quality of, and access to, care for all trans people. The full implementation of the Cass review will deliver material improvements in the wellbeing, safety and dignity of trans people of all ages. I will continue to work to help trans people to live freely, equally, and with the dignity that everyone in our country deserves.

[HCWS1088]

NHS Prescription Charges

Monday 24th November 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)]

The Prime Minister has announced that NHS prescription charges in England will be frozen for a second successive year.

This builds on wider Government action as part of the plan for change to tackle the cost of living pressures and will save patients around £12 million in 2026-27.

The single charge for prescriptions in England will remain at £9.90. The cost of prescription prepayment certificates will also remain the same, with three-month PPCs staying at £32.05, 12-month PPCs at £114.50, and the hormone replacement therapy PPC staying at £19.80.

The charges freeze will also apply to NHS wigs and fabric supports. These prices will remain at current levels:

Surgical brassiere—£32.50

Abdominal or spinal support—£49.05

Stock modacrylic wig—£80.15

Partial human hair wig—£212.35

Full bespoke human hair wig—£310.55

Around 89% of prescription items in England are already dispensed free of charge to children, the over-60s, pregnant women, and those with certain medical conditions. This freeze will not impact current exemptions. All working-age adults who would normally pay for their prescriptions, which is estimated to be around 40% of the population, could benefit from the freeze.

In addition to the freeze on charges, the NHS low-income scheme continues to offer help to those on low incomes who otherwise need to pay for prescriptions, while prescriptions are free for eligible people in certain groups such as pensioners, students aged under 19 in qualifying full-time education, and those who receive certain qualifying state benefits or live in care homes.

[HCWS1091]

Palliative Care and End-of-life Care

Monday 24th November 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

I am delighted to announce to the House today that the Government are developing a palliative care and end-of-life care modern service framework for England, with a planned publication date of spring 2026. This will be aligned with the ambitions set out in the recently published 10-year health plan, which prioritises shifting care out of hospitals and into community settings to ensure personalised, compassionate support for individuals of all ages and their families.

This Government recognise that there are increasing numbers of people living with multiple complex conditions, that we have an increasing ageing population, and that there are tens of thousands of children and young people with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions.

We acknowledge the significant challenges currently facing the sector, including:

Delays in early identification of individuals approaching the end of life;

Inconsistencies in commissioning practices across integrated care boards;

Workforce challenges in both universal and specialist services;

Gaps in 24-7 palliative care provision; and

Limited uptake and integration of personalised care and support planning, including advance care planning.

In recognition of these challenges, we are prioritising this cohort, as referenced in NHS England’s medium-term planning framework, which commits to an immediate focus on reducing unnecessary non-elective admissions and bed days from high-priority cohorts, including those at the end of life.

A palliative care and end-of-life care modern service framework will drive improvements and enable ICBs to address these challenges through the delivery of high-quality, high-value, personalised and equitable care.

Consequently, the modern service framework will put in place a clear and effective mechanism to deliver a fundamental improvement to the care provided. This will enable adoption of evidence-based interventions that are proven to make a difference to patients and their families. Examples include earlier identification of need, care delivered closer to home by integrated generalist and specialist teams and strengthened out-of-hours community health support, including dedicated telephone advice.

We have already begun to engage with sector stakeholders on how to improve access, quality and sustainability in palliative care and end-of-life care and will continue to engage with them to shape and deliver this vision. We want a society where every person receives high-quality, compassionate care from diagnosis through to the end of life, and we recognise that access to high-quality, personalised palliative care and end-of-life care can make all the difference to patients and their loved ones.

[HCWS1087]

National Day for Victims and Survivors of Terrorism

Monday 24th November 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

The impact of terrorism is deep and enduring, changing the lives of victims and their loved ones in a moment. Families and communities have suffered immeasurable loss, grief, and physical and emotional harm from terrorist acts. It is crucial that they receive the national recognition they deserve.

Last month we were reminded all too starkly of the devastating impact of terrorism when the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation synagogue in Manchester was abhorrently attacked. Two people were tragically killed, and three others were injured. Today, and always, we stand with the survivors, their loved ones and all those affected by terrorism everywhere.

On 19 March this year, the Government launched a public consultation on the proposal to introduce a national day for victims and survivors of terrorism. This followed a review into the current support provision, which identified the importance of national recognition and acknowledgment of the lived experiences of those affected by terrorism. In my previous written statement to the House, I set out the Government commitment to improving support and recognition for those impacted by terrorism.

Today I am publishing the findings of the consultation, which received 351 responses. I would like to personally thank every single person who took the time to respond—your voice has been heard, and your contribution will make a difference. The consultation demonstrated overwhelming support for the introduction of a national day, with 91% of respondents in favour and 84% strongly supporting the proposal. Respondents highlighted that they would like to use the national day to remember and recognise those impacted by terrorism, help encourage victims and survivors to access support, educate the public and amplify victims’ and survivors’ stories.

The most popular date for the national day was 21 August, with 35% of respondents supporting, aligning with the UN International Day of Remembrance and Tribute to the Victims of Terrorism. While there was no single preferred name, “National Day of Remembrance” and “National Day of Recognition” were the most selected options. Respondents also supported commemorating the day through an annual event held in rotating locations across the UK, and the creation of a dedicated symbol to represent the day.

Although support was strong, some respondents raised concerns, including the potential for triggering trauma, and the safety of victims and the public at events. These concerns will be carefully considered as we develop plans for the national day, to ensure that it is inclusive, respectful and sensitive to the needs of victims and survivors.

As a result of these findings, today I am announcing the introduction of a UK national day for victims and survivors of terrorism on 21 August. An annual commemorative event will be held in a different location each year to reflect the widespread impact of terrorism across the UK, and a dedicated symbol will be developed in consultation with victims and survivors.

The first national day will take place in 2026, and will be observed by an intimate commemoration, supported by engagement with victims and survivors throughout the year to allow them to shape the format of this initial event and future years. This reflects our understanding that victims and survivors not only wish to, but must, play a central role in shaping how the day is commemorated.

We will continue to engage with victims and survivors to finalise the name of the national day and to shape the commemorative activities. These measures form part of the Government’s broader commitment to ensuring that victims and survivors are appropriately recognised, remembered and supported.

Finally, I would like to pay tribute to the victims and survivors whose tireless campaigning has brought us to this pivotal moment. Their strength and determination have driven this progress. They have my sincere thanks, along with all those who contributed to the consultation.

A copy of the consultation response will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will also be published on gov.uk.

[HCWS1082]

Harnessing AI to Deliver Growth

Monday 24th November 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)]

This Government are announcing thousands more jobs and billions of pounds of inward investment, in a huge vote of confidence in the UK.

We are committed to making the UK a world-leading destination for developing and deploying AI as part of our No. 1 mission to grow the UK economy. Our ambition is to harness the power of AI to deliver for British people: creating great jobs and growth right across the country, improving our public services, giving people skills and putting money in people’s pockets. We are announcing a major package of new reforms and investment, putting AI at heart of the Government’s mission to drive growth, create jobs and spread prosperity across the country. These plans will ensure that new international investment boosts jobs and growth, giving British businesses the opportunity to scale and compete internationally. International companies are also hosting new bases in the UK and British companies are increasing investment—with £24.25 billion in private investment committed in this last month alone—a huge vote of confidence in the UK.

The Government are joining forces with companies like Vantage Data Centres and Microsoft, to create another new AI growth zone in south Wales—delivering more than 5,000 new jobs over the next decade, and £10 billion of planned inward investment, including in industrial heartlands such as the former Ford Bridgend engine plant. These zones will help transform local economies and ensure that no community is left behind, with £5 million of UK Government support committed to give local people the skills required for new, high-quality jobs and ensure that our children and young people have the best possible future. This is the second AI growth zone announced in Wales in as many weeks, with the UK and Welsh Governments working together for national economic renewal and driving UK growth. This has the potential to be truly transformative for communities across south Wales, meaning an area that led the industrial revolution will now be leading the technological revolution.

Alongside this, we are ensuring that British businesses and researchers stay at the forefront of the AI revolution, backing firms and scientists with the right tools to succeed and to seize the opportunity for British workers and growth.

The Government will act as a “first customer” for promising UK AI start-ups building high-quality AI hardware products but who currently struggle to get off the ground without investment. The new “advance market commitment”, subject to due diligence, is backed up by up to £100 million of Government support to buy their products for public supercomputers once they reach a high performance benchmark. This gives UK start-ups the opportunity to secure a competitive edge and win customers in a multibillion-dollar global market. AI growth zone data centres will house billions of pounds of hardware. Our goal is to see British chips deployed alongside established vendors.

Alongside this, venture capitalist James Wise will chair the sovereign AI unit, backed by almost £500 million in investment to help build and scale AI capabilities on British shores. The unit will bring together Government, industry and investors to become the go-to fund for high-potential start-ups and scale-ups in the UK.

New AI ambassadors will help maximise the benefits of AI for Britain. Monzo co-founder and Y Combinator general partner Tom Blomfield will champion British start-ups to scale up and attract talent and investment. Nobel prize-winning British MIT economist and former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund Simon Johnson will act as a standard bearer with public services and businesses to help them take up this brilliant technology to boost productivity. And Google DeepMind VP of research Raia Hadsell will champion the UK’s place at the forefront of AI innovation and security.

The Government will also offer more free compute to British researchers and British start-ups by expanding access to the AI research resource, a network of super-computers, so that researchers can train new AI models and deliver scientific breakthroughs. We are launching a process to spend up to £250 million on compute.

We are also publishing the new AI for science strategy to make sure that AI supercharges scientific discovery such as disease cure and prevention, backed by up to £137 million in Government support. This will support British researchers and start-ups to drive new innovations and discoveries, making sure the UK remains at the forefront of scientific discovery. Its first mission will be focused on harnessing AI to speed up the research of new drugs and treatments, giving patients a new lease of life and fresh hope that their conditions can be better managed.

Together, these announcements demonstrate a Government determined to harness the technologies of the future to deliver for our people here in the UK—supporting regional and national economic growth, great new jobs, and opportunity for communities across the UK.

[HCWS1086]

House of Lords

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

14:30

NHS: Wheelchair Services

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

14:36

Asked by

Brain Tumours: Causes and Treatment

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

14:47

Asked by

Non-Crime Hate Incidents

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

14:58

Asked by

Fair Funding Review

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:09

Asked by

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:19

Moved by

Ukraine: Forcible Removal of Children

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Commons Urgent Question

15:20

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Commons Amendments

15:32

Moved by

15:45

16:00

16:15

Moved by

Moved by

Tabled by

Moved by

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Commons Reason

16:28

Moved by

16:45

17:12

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Commons Reasons and Amendments

17:12

Moved by

17:30

17:45

Moved by

Moved by

Moved by

Moved by

Moved by

18:00

Moved by

18:15

18:30

Moved by

18:45

19:00

19:15

19:27

Moved by

Moved by

ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Statement

19:30

19:47